HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, June 5, 1972

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19617

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, June 5, 1972 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Edward G. Latch,

D.D., offered the following prayer: I am the light of the world; he that fol

loweth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.--John 8: 12. "0 thou who dost the vision send

And giveth each his task, And with the task sufficient strength:

Show us Thy will, we ask; Give us a conscience bold and good;

Give us a purpose true, That it may be our highest joy,

Our Father's work to do." This day and every day. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The SPEAKER. The Chair has exam

ined the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.

Without objection, the Journal stands approved.

There was no objection.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate by Mr. Ar

rington, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title:

H.R. 13188. An act to authorize appropriations for the procurement Of vessels and aircraft and construction of shore and offshore establishments, and to authorize the average annual active duty personnel strength for the Coast Guard.

The message also announced that the Senate disagrees to the amendments of the House to the bill CS. 635) entitled "An &.et to amend the Mining and Minerals Polley Act of 1970," requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. JACKSON, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. Moss, Mr. ALLOTT, and Mr. JORDAN of Idaho to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

CONSENT CALENDAR The SPEAKER. This is Consent

Calendar Day. The Clerk will call the first bill on the Consent Calendar.

CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION PROPERTY IN CANANDAIGUA, N.Y., TO SONNENBERG GARDENS, A NONPROFIT, EDUCATIONAL CORPORATION The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 13780)

to authorize the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to convey certain property in Canandaigua, N.Y., to Sonnenberg Gardens, a nonprofit, educational corporation.

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill as follows:

H.R. 13780 Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs ls authorized to convey by quitclaim deed, without monetary consideration, to Sonnenberg Gardens, a charitable, nonprofit, educational corporation, chartered under the education law of the State of New York, for the purpose of restoring and maintalnlng the Sonnenberg Estate in accordance with the terms of the corporate charter, all the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to that tract of land constituting a portion of the grounds of the Veterans' Administration Hospital in Car.andaigua, New York, including the improvements thereon, containing forty-five acres, more or less. The exact legal description of the real property to be conveyed pursuant to this Act shall be determined by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, and if a survey is required in order to make such determination, Sonnenberg Gardens shall bear the expense thereof.

SEC. 2. Any deed of conveyance made pursuant to this Act shall-

(a) provide that the land conveyed shall be used solely for the stated purpose by Sonnenberg Gardens, and in a manner that will not, in the judgment of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, or his designate, interfere with the care and treatment of patients in the Veterans' Administration Hospital, Canandaigua, New York;

(b) contain such additional terms, conditions, reservations, easements, and restrictions as may be determined by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to be necessary to protect the interest of the United States;

( c) provide that if Sonnenberg Gardens, or its successors in interest, violate any provision of the deed of conveyance or alienate or attempt to alienate all or any part of the parcel so conveyed, title thereto shall revert to the United States; and that a determination by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs of any such violation or alienation or attempted alienation shall be final and conclusive; and

(d) provide that in the event of such reversion, improvements shall vest in the United States without payment or compensation therefor.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank and extend to all of my colleagues today my sincere appreciation for their cooperation in passing H.R. 13780, a bill which conveys certain Veterans' Administration property in Canandaigua, N.Y., to Sonnenberg Gardens, Inc., a nonprofit, educational corporation.

The property contains the gardens and mansion of Sonnenberg. The land was originally owned by Mrs. Frederick Ferris Thompson, who commissioned Em est W. Bowdich to design and supervise construction of the Sonnenberg Gardens. From 1865 to 1923, when Mrs. Thompson died, many distinguished people visited Sonnenberg. Each commemorated his visit by the planting of a rare tree. Many of these, now grown to maturity, remain today.

The Thompson heirs sold the estate to the U.S. Government in 1930, and a Veterans' Administration hospital was erected on the site. The present total acreage at the VA hospital facility is now 208.

In 1966, the worth of the remaining

estate was recognized. The difficulty and expense to the hospital and its staff to continue adequate maintenance of the gardens and mansion of Sonnenberg, coupled with the harsh upstate New York winters and vandalism, have resulted in the physical depreciation of Sonnenberg. This led to the proposal of turning over the mansion, gardens, and grounds surrounding them to an interested civic organization for restoration and public use.

The Canandaigua Lively Arts Council, Inc., accepted this commission following initial investigation by the chamber of commerce. Thereafter, responsibility was given to Sonnenberg Gardens, Inc., a nonprofit, tax-exempt, educational corporation, chartered by the New York State Board of Regents for the following purposes:

First. To receive, hold, restore, and improve the gardens, grounds, and the mansion of the estate known as Sonnenberg.

Second. To display and exhibit for both study and enjoyment numerous types and styles of gardens, landscape architecture, and structural architecture.

Third. To provide a place for the display of paintings, sculpture, and artworks in general.

Fourth. To provide a place for the performance of musical concerts, operas, and dance ballet recitals, art exhibits, and other performing and fine arts in general.

Sonnenberg Gardens, Inc., is charged with the responsibility of developing a plan for restoration of the mansion and gardens and the institution of a program of cultural pursuit which will enrich all who visit them. An infinite variety of cultural programs could be conducted within the mansion, gardens, and the estate. Cost estimates for the project of restoration and maintenance range in the area of half a million dollars for the restoration, and annual expenditures of approximately $200,000 for operational expenses.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I extend my gratitude and that of the people of Canandaigua to my colleagues for passing this measure today.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF CERTAIN LANDS OF THE SOOI'HERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE The Clerk called the bill CH.R. 5332)

to authorize the sale of certain lands of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a similar Senate bill, S. 1140, be 'Considered in lieu of the House bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

19618 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 5, 1972 S.1140

An act to authorize the sale of certain lands of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and for other purposes Be tt enacted by the Senate ancl House of

Bepresentattves of the United, States of America in Congress assembled, That, subject to the provisions of the Southern Ute Indian tribal constitution and the ordinances and resolutions adopted thereunder, any lands that are held by the United States 1n trust for the Southern Ute Indian Tribe or that are subject to a restriction against alienation or taxation imposed by the United States, and that are not needed for Indian use, may be sold by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and such sale shall terminate the Federal trust or restrictions against alienation or taxation of the lands, except that the trust or restricted status of said lands may be retained, upon approval of the Secretary of the Interior, in any sale to a member of the tribe.

SEC. 2. All funds derived from the sale of lands pursuant to this Act shall be used only for the purchase of real property within the boundaries of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. Title to any lands purchased with such funds and title to any lands reacquired by the tribe by foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the Southern Ute Indian Tribe.

SEC. 3. Any tribal lands that may be sold pursuant to section 1 of this Act may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, be encumbered by a mortgage or deed of trust, and shall be subject to foreclosure or sale pursuant to the terms of such mortgage or deed of trust in accordance with the laws of the State in which the land ls located. The United States shall be an indispensable party to any such proceeding with the right of removal of the proceeding to the United States district court for the district in which the land ls located, following the procedure 1n section 1446, title 28 of the United States Code, and the United States shall have the right to appeal from any order of remand in the proceeding.

(Mr. ASPINALL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.)

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, S. 1140 authorizes the Southern Ute Tribe to sell any land that is held by the United States in trust for the tribe or land that is subject to a restriction against alienation or taxation imposed by the United States, and that is not needed for Indian use. Funds derived from the sale of tribal land must be used for the purchase of other land within the reservation. The tribe will also have the authority, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to encumber by mortgage or deed of trust any land that may be sold pursuant to section 1 of the bill, in order to raise money with which to purchase other land needed by the tribe.

This authority is needed by the Southern Ute Tribe of Indians in order to consolidate trust or restricted lands on their reservation into more usable and profitable units. The tribe has adequate authority to acquire land and to exchange tribal land, but it lacks authority to sell tribal lands. The Southern Ute Tribe owns approximately 302,000 acres of land in trust, approximately 38,000 of which are isolated tracts that are not bordered on at least two sides by other tribally owned or Indian allotted land. The location of these tracts throughout the reservation area presents problems in

use, access, development, and management. They are for the most part unfenced, lack a sufficient water supply, contain no commercial timber, have inadequate forage, and are of insufficient size to constitute an economic unit. Location, terrain, accessibility, soils, and moisture supply make the cost of optimum development too high when compared with the return the owners may expect to receive after development.

The tribe has heretofore designated three primary areas for concentrated development e:ff orts. In the past, the tribe has been hampered in its attempts to acquire key tracts of land because of its limited financial resources. The enactment of this legislation will provide an opportunity to improve the land base of the Indians and be of considerable economic benefit to the tribe. It may be able to dispose of undesirable isolated parcels and thus obtain funds to purchase land that has an immediate foreseeable value to the tribe.

The Senate bill was ordered to be read a. third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

A similar House bill <H.R. 5332) was laid on the table.

PERTAINING TO THE INHERITANCE OF ENROLLED MEMBERS OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 5721)

pertaining to the inheritance of enrolled members of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.



of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. (a) A person who ls not an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon with one-fourth degree or more blood of such tribes shall not be entitled to receive by devise or inheritance any interest in trust or restricted lands within the Warm Springs Reservation or within the area ceded by the treaty of June 25, 1855 (12 Stat. Treaties, 37), if, while the decedent's estate is pending before the Examiner of Inheritance, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon pay to the Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of such person, the fair market value of such interest as determined by the Secretary of the Interior after appraisal. The interest for which payment ls made shall be held by the Secretary in trust for the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.

(b) On request of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon the Examiner of Inheritance shall keep an estate pending for not less than two years from the date of decedent's death.

(c) When a person who is prohibited by subsection (a) from acquiring any interest by devise or inheritance 1s a surviving spouse of the decedent, a life estate in one-half of the interest acquired by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon shall, on the request of such spouse, be reserved for that spouse and the value of such life estate so reserved shall be reflected in the Secretary's appraisal under subsection (a) .

SEC. 2. The provisions of section 1 of this Act shall apply to all estates pending before the Examiner of Inheritance on the date of this Act, and to all future estates, but shall not apply to any estate heretofore closed.

With the following committee amendment:

On page 1, lines 5 and 6, strike out "with one-fourth degree or more blood of such tribes".

The committee amendment was agreed to.

(Mr. HALEY asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.)

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5721 limits the right to receive by devise or inheritance any interest in trust or restricted property on the Warm Springs Reservation to persons who are enrolled members of the Confederated Tribes with one-fourth degree or more blood of such tribes. The limitation will not apply, however, unless the person who is precluded from inheriting is paid by the tribes the fair market value of the interest in the lands.

This bill is an exact parallel of the statute enacted by the 9 lst Congress for the Yakima Reservation-act of December 31, 197-0; 84 Stat. 1874. The purpose in both cases is to keep as much of the reservation as possible in the ownership of tribal members, and to preclude the transfer of reservation lands by devise or descent to nonmembers of the tribe. As a matter of ~airness, however, if an heir or devisee is precluded from taking an interest in reservation land he must be paid for its fair market value. If he is not paid he may inherit. In other words, the nonmember is entitled either to the land or its value in money, and the choice rests with the tribe.

The enactment of the bill is also needed to correct an inequity created by the Yakima statute. Many members of the Yakima and Warm Springs Tribes are intermarried and have property on both reservations. A Yakima member may inherit land on the Warm Springs Reservation, but a Warm Springs members may not inherit land on the Yakima Reservation. The bill will make the same rule of law apply to both groups.

COMMITI'EE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAmS,

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.O., June 1, 1972.

Hon. AL ULLMAN, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.c.

DEAR COLLEAG'UE: Attached ls a copy Of your bill, H.R. 5721, together with the report of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. This blll ls scheduled for consideration on the Consent Calendar on Monday, Jun·e 5, 1972.

The Committee would like for you to be on the Floor when the Calendar ls called so that you can help answer any detailed inquiries that might arise concerning this bill.

:rt is advised that you contact the Members of the Objectors Committee before the session when the bill will be considered.

Sincerely yours, WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman.



AMENDING THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISPOSITION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS NOW ON DEPOSIT TO THE CREDIT OF THE CHEYENNE-ARAPAHO TRIBES OF OKLAHOMA," APPROVED OCTOBER 31, 1967 (81 STAT. 337) The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 6575)

to amend the act entitled "An act to provide for the disPosition of judgment funds now on deposit to the credit of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma," approved October 31, 1967 (81 Stat. 337).

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object.

This is a bill to provide for the disposition of judgment funds. But might I ask if we may expect all of these type bills for the disposition of judgments to be amended now by separate legislation lowering the age for such adjudged distributions to age 18, as this one does?

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HALL. I am glad to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HALEY. Of course, I might say to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Missouri, it depends what the tribe itself wants in many instances.

Mr. HALL. I see, this varies, depending on the decision of the council from tribe to tribe and there will not be a blanket bill, which I would prefer, rather than handling them all on an individual basis and bringing in a mass of repetitive legislation, even under the Consent Calendar.

Mr. HALEY. Of course, I would be glad to try to bring as many of these bills here and more or less put them all together. But then they do vary from tribe to tribe on the distribution of funds and so forth so it is impossible to put in an omnibus bill to take care of all of them.

Mr. HALL. I understand, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for his reply. I respect his wisdom and will incidentally say the work that has been done on settling these claims and :finally bringing to a close the cessation of all of these :findings by the courts for the various tribes, will always be a feather in the headdress of the gentleman from Florida, and members of the committee, and we appreciate it.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?


H.R. 6575 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsections (a), (b) ( and (c) of section 3 of the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the disposition of judgment funds now on deposit to the credit of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma", approved October 31, 1967 (81 Stat. 337), are amended to read as follows:

"(a) A share payable to an enrollee not less than eighteen years of age shall be paid directly in one payment to such enrollee, except as provided in subsections (b) and ( c) of this section;

"(b) A share payable to an enrollee dying after the date of this Act shall be distributed

CXVIII--1237-Part 15

to his heirs or legatees upon the filing of proof of death and inheritance satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior, or his authorized representative, whose findings and determinations upon such proof shall be final and conclusive: Provided, That if a share of such deceased enrollee, or a portion thereof, ls payable to an heir or legatee under eighteen years of age or to an heir or legatee under legal disability other than because of age, the same shall be paid and held in trust pursuant to subsection (c) o! this section;

" ( c) A share or proportional share payable to an enrollee or person under eighteen years of age or to an enrollee or person under legal dlsablUty other than because of age shall be paid and held in trust for such enrollee or person pursuant to a trust agreement to be made and entered into by and between the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, as grantor, and a national banking association located in the State of Oklahoma, as Trustee, which trust agreement shall be authorized and approved by the tribal governing body and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.


Page 2, line 23, between the period and the quotation marks insert:

"The Secretary of the Interior ls authorized to approve amendments to trust agreements entered into pursuant to the Act of October 31, 1967 (81 Stat. 337), to permit the distribution of assets to, and the termination of trusts for, minor beneficiaries, not under other legal disablUty, who have attained or who shall hereafter attain the age of eighteen years."



Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6575 amends a 1967 statute which authorized the distribution and use of a judgment against the United States that was recovered in the Indian Claims Commission by the Cheyenne-Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma. The amendment changes the age of majority for the purpose of distributing the judgment from 21 to 18.

The 1967 statute provided that the share of a tribal member who is 21 years of age or older will be paid directly to him, and that a share payable to a member who is under 21 will be held in a private trust until the member reaches 21. The proposed reduction in the age limitation from 21to18 is in accord with the national trend with respect to voting responsibility.


DISPOSITION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS OF YAVAPAI APACHE TRIBE

The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 8694) to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Yavapai Apache Tribe in Indian Claims Commission docket Nos. 22-E and 22-F, and for other purposes.


H.R. 8694 Be it enacted. by the Senate and House of

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

funds appropriated by the Act of July 22, 1969 (83 Stat. 49, 62) , to pay a judgment to the Yavapai Indians in Indian Claims Commission dockets numbered 22-E and 22-F, together with any interest thereon, after payment of attorney fees and litigat ion expenses and costs of carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall be distributed as provided herein.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interior prepare a roll of all persons who were born on or prior to and living on the date of this Act and are (a) enrolled or entitled to be enrolled as members of the Yavapai Apache Indian Community of the Camp Verde Reservation, or the Fort McDowell Mohave Apache Community, or the Yavapai Prescott Community; or (b) are residing on the date of this Act with the Payson Indian Band at Payson, Arizona, and can establish Yavapai lineal descent to the satisfaction of the Secretarv. Applications for enrollment must be file.d with the Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, in the manner and within the time limits prescribed by the Secretary for that purpose. The Secretary's determination on all applications for enrollment shall be final.

SEC. 3. Subsequent to the establishment of the roll as provided in section 2 of this Act, the funds shall be apportioned among the cited groups on the basis of the number of enrollees in each group bearing to the total number enrolled. The funds so apportioned shall be redeposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the respective groups and may be advanced, expended, invested, or reinvested in any manner authorized by the governing bodies and approved by the Secretary. All funds so accruing to the Payson Band shall be utilized pursuant to a plan agreed upon between the governing body thereof or by the members thereof at a meeting called in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Title to land purchased with funds apportioned to the Payson Band may be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the Payson Band.

SEC. 4. None of the funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this Act shall be subject to Federal or State income taxes; and only those persons enrolled under the provisions of section 2 of this Act shall be permitted to share in any per capita distribution of the funds apportioned to the cited groups. Sums payable to enrollees or heirs or legatees who are less than twenty one years of age or who are under a legal dlsablUty shall be paid in accordance with such procedures, including the establishment of trusts, as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the best interests of such persons.

SEC. 5. The Secretary is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act, including the establishment of deadlines.


Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"That the funds appropriated by the Act of July 22, 1969 (83 Stat. 49, 62), to pay a judgment to the Yavapai Indians in Indian Claims Commission dockets numbered 22-E and 22-F, together with any interest thereon, after payment of attorney fees and litigation expenses and the costs of carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall be distributed as provided herein.

"SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interior shall set aside for the benefit of the Payson Indian Band, at Payson, Arizona, 3.5 per centum of the net judgment funds described in section 1 of this Act, which shall be disposed of pursuant to section 4 hereof.

"SEC. 3. For the purposes of apportioning the funds, the Yavapai Apache Indian community of the Camp Verde Reservation,

19620 1CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972

the Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache community, and the Yavapai-Prescott community shall prepare rolls of all persons who were born on or prior to and living on the date of this Act, and who are enrolled or entitled to be enrolled in accordance with the respective tribal constitutions or articles of association, as the case may be, in effect on April 1, 1972. The Secretary of the Interior shall verify and approve the rolls.

"SEC. 4. Upon completion and approval of the rolls as provided in section 8 Of this Act, the balance of the funds not set aside pursuant to section 2 hereof shall be apportioned among the cited groups in section 8 on the basis of the number of enrollees in each group. The funds so apportioned shall be redeposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the respective groups and may be advanced, expended, invested, or reinvested in any manner authorized by the governing bodies and approved by the Secretary. All funds so accruing to the Payson Band pursuant to section 2 hereof shall be utilized pursuant to a plan agreed upon between the governing body elected by the Payson Indian community or by the members thereof at a meeting called in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

"SEC. 5. None of the funds distributed per capita. under the provisions of this Act shall be subject to Federal or State income taxes. Sums payable to enrollees or heirs or legatees who are less than eighteen years of age or who are under a legal disa.bllity shall be paid in accordance with such procedures, including the establishment of trusts, a.s the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the best interests of such persons.

"SEC. 6. The Secretary is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act."


<Mr. HALEY asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.)

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8694 authorizes the distribution and use of a claims judgment recovered by the Yavapai Apache Tribe. The money has been appropriated, but it may not be used without further authorization from Congress.

The net amount available as of September 1, 1971, was $5,090,885. The money is currently invested in interest bearing accounts.

The Yavapai Indians are divided into four separate groups. Legislation ts needed to divide the claims judgment between the four groups, and to authorize the use of the money.

The four groups have agreed that the Payson Indian Community, which has no formal organization and which ts not recognized by the United States as a separate reservation, will receive 3.5 percent of the net judgment, and that the remainder will be divided among the Fort McDowell Reservation, the Camp Verde Reservation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Reservation, according to the relative numbers of members enrolled or entitled to be enrolled at each place.

After the money is divided, the bill per-mits it to be used for any purpose requested by the respective groups and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Plans for the use of the money are as follows:

Camp Verde: 23 percent for a per capita and family plan program; 35.2 percent for economic and resources development; 35.2 percent for a tribal trust

and investment program; and 6.6 percent for community development.

Fort McDowell: 30 percent for a per capita and family plan program; 15 percent for a tribal resources development program; 20 percent for a community development program; and 35 percent in a tribal trust and investment program.

Yavapai-Prescott: 50 percent in a 10-year irrevocable trust for investment; 15.625 percent in a resources development fund; 18.125 percent in a community development fund; and 16.250 percent for family and individual planning.


DISPOSITION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS OF THE HAVASUPAI TRIBE OF INDIANS

The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 9032) to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Havasupai Tribe of Indians in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 91, and for other purposes.



of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the funds appropriated by the Act of December 26, 1969 (83 Stat. 447), to pay a judgment to the Havasupai Tribe in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 91, together with interest thereon, after payment of attorney fees and litigation expenses, may be advanced, expended, invested, or reinvested for any purpose that is authorized by the tribal governing body and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 2. None of the funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this Act shall be subject to Federal or State income taxes.

SEC. 8. Sums payable to adult living enrollees or to adult heirs or legatees of deceased enrollees shall be paid directly to such persons. Sums payable to enrollees or their heirs or legatees who a.re less than eighteen years of age or who are under legal disability shall be pa.id in accordance with such procedures, including the establishment of trusts, as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the best interests of such persons.

SEC. 4. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to effect the provisions of this Act.


Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9032 authorizes the distribution and use of a claims judgment recovered by the Havasupai Tribe. The money has been appropriated, but it may not be used without further authorization from Congress.

The net amount available as of August 4, 1971, was $1,228,705. The money is currently invested in interest bearing accounts.

The Havasupai Tribe has adopted a plan for the use of the money which in summary is as follows:

Twenty-five percent for a standard of living betterment program for individuals in the form of per capita payments of about $700.

Thirty-nine percent for economic de-

velopment programs, including improvement and expansion of the tourism and recreation enterprise, development of a tribal livestock loan program, and de\'elopment and ownership of a public water system for the reservation.

Thirty-six percent is to be reserved for utilization in an irrevocable tribal trust and investment fund program, the interest from which would be used for education and financing tribal government services.

The bill permits the judgment to be used in accordance with this plan, and any modification that may be approved by the Secretary of the Interior.


DIVISION AND DISPOSITION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS OF THE ASSINIBOINE TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK AND FORT BELKNAP RESERVATIONS, MONT.

The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 10394) to provide for the division and for the diSposition of the funds appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap Reservations, Mont.


H.R.10894 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the funds appropriated by the Act of January 8, 1971 (Public Law 91 665), to pay a judgment to the Assinlboine Tribes of the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap Reservations, Montana, in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 279-A, together with interest thereon, after payment of attorney fees and litigation expenses, shall be divided by the Secretary of the Interior on the basis of 50 per centum to the Assintboine Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation and 50 per centum to the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Belknap Reservation.

SEC. 2. One hundred per centum of the share of the Assinlboine Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation, after deduction of costs of roll preparation and estimated costs of distribution, sha.11 be distributed per ca.pita. to ea.ch person born on or prior to, and living on, the date of this Act who 1s a citizen of the United States and duly enrolled as a member of the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation, on rolls prepared according to the membership ordinance of the Tribe, subject to approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 8. Sums payable to enrollees or their heirs or legatees who a.re less than eighteen years of age or who are under legal dlga.billty shall be paid in accordance with such provisions, including the establishment of trusts. as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the best interests of such persons.

SEC. 4. The funds distributed under the provisions of this Act shall not be subject to Federal or State income taxes, or to any loan from the tribe, and shall not be considered in determining ellgibllity for publlc assistance.

SEc. 5. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations a.s may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.


June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19621 Page 1, beginning on line 3, strike out all

after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"That the funds appropriated by the Act of January 8, 1971 (84 Stat. 1981), to pay a judgment to the Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap Reservations, Montana, in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 279-A, together with interest thereon, after payment of attorney fees and litigation expenses, shall be divided by the Secretary of the Interior on the basis of 50 per centum to the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation and 50 per centum to the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Belknap Reservation.

"SEc. 2. The share of the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation, after deducting $50,000 to be used as provided in section 3 of this Act, and after deducting the estimated costs of distribution and all other appropriate expenses, shall be distributed per capita to each person born on or before, and living on, the date of this Act who is a citizen of the United States, is duly enrolled on the approved roll of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, and is of Assiniboine lineal descent: Provided, That persons in the following categories shall not be eligible to receive a per capita payment: (a) persons who possess a greater degree of Fort Peck Sioux blood than Fort Peck Assiniboine blood, (b) persons who possess equal degrees of Fort Peck Assiniboine and Fort Peck Sioux blood and who elect to be enrolled as Sioux, and ( c) persons who participated, or were eligible to participate, in the distribution of funds under the provisions of the Act of June 19, 1970 (84 Stat. 313), for the disposition of the judgment of the Sioux Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation in docket numbered 279-A.

"SEC. 3. Upon agreement by the Fort Peck Assiniboine Tribe and the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe on the amount each agrees to contribute from the award to each tribe in Indian Claims Commission Docket No. 279-A, the a.greed contribution of the Fort Peck Assiniboine Tribe shall be withdrawn from the $50,000, and interest thereon, withheld from per capita distribution pursuant to section 2 of this Act, and shall be credited to the joint account for expenditure pursuant to the Act of June 29, 1954 (68 Stat. 329): Provided, That upon request of the Fort Peck Assiniboine Tribe the Secretary of the Interior in his discretion may distribute all or part of the aforesaid $50,000 and interest thereon per capita to each person eligible under section 2 of this Act.

"SEC. 4. The share of the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Belknap Reservation, after deducting $100,000 to be used as provided in section 5, and after deducting the estimated costs of distribution and all other appropriate expenses, shall be distributed per capita. to each person born on or before, and living on, the date of this Act who is a citizen of the United States, is duly enrolled on the approved roll of the organized Fort Belknap Community, and is of Assiniboine lineal descent: Provided, That persons in the following categories shall not be eligible to receive a per capita payment: (a) persons who possess a greater degree of Gros Ventre blood than Assiniboine blood, (b) persons who possess equal degree of Fort Belknap Assiniboine and Fort Peck Gros Ventre blood and who elect to be enrolled as Gros Ventre, and (c) persons who participated, or were ellgible to participate, 1n the distribution of funds under the Act of March 18, 1972 (PL. 92-254), for the disposition of the judgment of the Blackfeet Tribe and the Gros Ventre Tribe in Indian Claims Com.m.lsslon docket numbered 279-A.

"SEC. 5. The $100,000 withheld from distribution under section 4, and interest thereon, may be used for any purpose authorized by the Assiniboine Treaty Committee of the Fort Belknap Tribe and approved by the

Secretary of the Interior, including contributions to Reservation community projects and further per capita distribution.

"SEC. 6. The per capita shares shall be determined on the basis of the number of persons eligible for per capitas and the number of persons rejected for per capitas who have taken a timely appeal. The shares of those persons whose appeals are denied shall revert to the Tribe from whose share the per capita would have been paid, to be expended for any purpose designated by such tribe and approved by the Secretary.

"SEC. 7. None of the funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this Act shall be subject to Federal or State income '"axes. Sums payable to persons under eighteen years of age or under legal disability shall be paid in accordance with such procedures, including the establishment of trusts, as the Secretary determines will protect the best interests of such persons.

"SEC. 8. The Secretary is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to effect the provisions of this Act, including the establishment of deadlines."


<Mr. HALEY asked and was given per-mission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.)

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 10394 authorizes the distribution and use of a claims judgment recovered by the Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Peck and the Fort Belknap Reservations. The money has been appropriated, but it may not be used without further authorization from Congress.

The net amount available as of January 4, 1972, was $2,880,317. The money is currently invested in interest-bearing accounts.

The Assiniboine Indians are located on two reservations. They share the Fort Peck Reservation with the Sioux, and they share the Fort Belknap Reservation with the Gros Ventre. Legislation is needed to divide the judgment between the two groups, and to authorize the use of the money.

The two groups have agreed that the judgment should be divided between them equally.

After the money is divided, the Assiniboine Tribe at Fort Peck will reserve $50,000 to be available to match a similar sum reserved from an earlier judgment in favor of the Sioux Tribe, to be used for reservation purposes. The Assiniboine Tribe at Fort Belknap will reserve $100,000 which may be used separately for tribal purposes or for reservation programs in conjunction with a sum reserved from an earlier judgment in favor of the Gros Ventre Indians. The remainder will be distributed per capita to all members of the respective Fort Peck and Fort Belknap communities who are of Assiniboine descent, excluding persons who have more Sioux or Gros Ventre blood than Assiniboine blood, and excluding persons who share or are entitled to share in the prior Sioux and Gros Ventre judgments.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a s1milar Senate bill <S. 3230), to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay a judgment in

favor of the Assiniboine Tribes of Indians in Indian Claims Commission docket No. 279-A, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the Senate bill, as fol

lows: s. 3230

An act to provide for the disposition of funda appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Assiniboine Tribes of Indians in Indian Claims Commission docket num• bered 279-A, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the funds appropriated by the Act of January 8, 1971 (84 Stat. 1981), to pay a judgment to the Assin1boine Tribes in Indian Claims Oommission docket numbered 279-A, and the interest thereon, after payment of attor• ney fees and litigation expenses shall be divided equally between the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation, Montana, and the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Belknap Reservation, Montana.

SEc. 2. The share of the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation, after deducting $50,000 to be used for programs as provided in section 5 of this Act, and after deducting the estimated costs of distribution and all other appropriate expenses, shall be distributed per ca.pita to each person born on or before and living on the date of this Act who is a citizen of the United States and duly enrolled on the approved roll of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, and duly enrolled as a member of the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation on a roll prepared and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Persons in the following categories shall not be enrolled as members of the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation: (a) persons who possess a greater degree of Fort Peck Sioux blood than Fort Peck Assini .. boine blood, provided that a person, other .. wise eligible, who posseses equal degrees of Fort Peck Assiniboine and Fort Peck Sioux blood, may, at his option, within a reasonable time after notice, elect to be enrolled as an Assiniboine; and (b) persons who partici· pated, or were eligible to part icipate, in the distribution of funds under the provisions of the Act of June 19, 1970 (84 Stat. 313), for the disposition of the judgment of the Sioux Tribe of the Fort Peck Reservation in docket numbered 279-A.

SEC. 3. The share of the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Belknap Reservation, after deducting $100,000 to be used for programs as provided in section 5 of this Act, and after deducting the estimated costs of distribution and all other appropriate expenses, shall be distributed per capita to each person born on or before, and living on, the date of this Act who is a citizen of the United States, is duly enrolled on the approved roll of the organized Fort Belknap Community, and is of Assiniboine lineal descent: Provided, That persons in the following categories shall not be eligible to receive a per ca.pita payments: (a) persons who possess a greater degree of of Gros Ventre blood than Assiniboine blood, (b) persons who possess equal degrees of Fort Belknap Assiniboine and Fort Belknap Gros Ventre blood and who elect to be enrolled a.s Gros Ventre, and (c) persons who participated, or were eligible to participate, in the distribution of funds under the Act of March 18, 1972 (Public Law 92-254), for the disposition of the judgment of the Blackfeet Tribe and the Gros Ventre Tribe in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 279-A.

19622 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 SEC. 4. The per capita shares authorized in

sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall be determined on the basis of the number of persons eligible for per capitas and the number of persons rejected for per capitas who have taken a timely appeal. The shares of those persons whose appeals a.re denied shall revert to the tribe from whose share the per capita would have been paid, to be expended for any purpose designated by such tribe and approved by the Secretary.

SEC. 5. The funds set aside for program purposes for the Assiniboine Tribes in sections 2 and 3 o'.f this Act may be utilized for any purposes authorized by the respective Assiniboine treaty committees and approved by the Secretary of the Interior and by Congress through enactment of appropriate legislation.

SEc. 6. None of the funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this Act shall be subject to Federal or State income taxes, and shall not be considered as income or resources when determining the extent of eligibility for assistance under the Social Security Act, and programs of the Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The provision of this section regarding ellgib111ty for assistance under the Social Security Act is enacted in recognition of the unique circumstances applicable to the tribes involved, and shall not be regarded as a precedent or as a general policy for application to other tribes.

SEC. 7. Sums payable to persons under eighteen years o'! age or under legal dlsab111ty shall be paid in accordance with such procedures, including the establishment of trusts, as the Secretary determines will protect the best interests of such persons.

SEc. 8. The Secretary of the Interior ts authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ASPINALL

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ASPINALL:

Strike out all after the enacting clause of S. 3230 and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 10394, as passed.

The amendment was agreed to. The Senate bill was ordered to be read

a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended so as to read: "To provide for the division and for the disposition of the funds appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap Reservations, Montana."

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

A similar House bill <H.R. 10394) was laid on the table.

INHERITANCE OF INTERESTS IN RESTRICTED OR TRUST LAND WITHIN THE NEZ PERCE INDIAN RESERVATION The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 10436)

to provide with respect to the inheritance of interests in restricted or trust land within the Nez Perce Indian Reservation, and for other purposes.



Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a person who is not an enrolled member of the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho with one-fourth

degree or more blood of such Tribe shall not be entitled to receive by devise or inheritance any interest in trust or restricted land within the Nez Perce Indian Reservation or within the area ceded by the Treaty of June 11, 1855 ( 12 Stat. 957) , if, while the decedent's estate is pending before the Examiner of Inheritance, the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho pays to the Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of such person, the fair market value of such interest as determined by the Secretary of the Interior after appraisal. The interest for which such payment is made shall be held by the Secretary in trust for the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho.

SEc. 2. On request of the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho the Examiner of Inheritance shall keep an estate pending for not less than two years from the date of decedent's death.

SEC. 3. When a person who ls prohibited by section 1 from acquiring any interest by devise or inheritance is a surviving spouse of the decedent, a life estate 1n one-half of the interest acquired by the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho shall, on the request of such spouse, be reserved for that spouse and the value of such life estate so reserved shall be reflected in the Secretary's appraisal under section 1.

SEc. 4. The provisions of this Act shall apply to all estates pending before the Examiner of Inheritance on the date of this Act and to all future estates, but shall not apply to any estate heretofore closed.


Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 10436 limits the right to receive by devise or inheritance any interest in trust or restricted property on the Nez Perce Res· ervation to persons who are enrolled members of the tribe with one-fourth degree or more blood of the tribe. The limitation will not apply, however, unless the person who is precluded from inheriting is paid by the tribe the fair market value of the interest in the land.

This bill is an exact parallel of the statute enacted by the 91st Congress for the Yakima Reservation-act of December 31, 1970; 84 Stat.1874. The purpose in both cases is to keep as much of the reservation as possible in the ownership of tribal members, and to preclude the transfer of reservation lands by devise or descent to nonmembers of the tribe. As a matter of fairness, however, if an heir or devisee is precluded from taking an interest in reservation land he must be paid for its fair market value. If he is not paid he may inherit. In other words, the nonmember is entitled either to the land or its value in money, and the choice rests with the tribe.

The enactment of the bill is also needed to correct an inequity created by the Yakima statute. Many members of the Yakima and Nez Perce Tribes are inter-married and have property on both reservations. A Yakima member may inherit land on the Nez Perce Reservation, but n Nez Perce member may not inherit land on the Yakima Reservation. The bill will make the same rule of law apply to both groups.


DISPOSITION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS OF THE PUEBLO DE ACOMA

The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 10858) to provide for the disposition of funds

appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Pueblo de Acoma in Indian Claims Commission docket No. 266, and for other purposes.



of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the funds on deposjt in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Pueblo de Acoma that were appropriated by the Act of January 8, 1971 (84 Stat. 1981), to pay a judgment by the Indian Claims Commission in docket numbered 266, and interest thereon, after payment of attorney fees and litigation expenses, may be advanced, expended, invested, or reinvested for any purpose that ts authorized by the tribal governing body and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

SEc. 2. None of the funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this Act shall be subject to Federal or State income taxes.

SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Interior ls authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act.


Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 10858 authorizes the distribution and use of a claims judgment recovered by the Acoma Pueblo. The money has been appropriated, but it may not be used without further authorization from Congress.

The net amount available as of May 4, 1972, was $5,954,682. The money is currently invested in interest bearing accounts.

The tribe has adopted a plan for the use of the money, which contemplates that the entire amount will be invested, and only the interest will be used for, first, aid to education, second, tribal administration, third, tribal law enforcement, fourth, youth services, fifth, land acquisition, sixth, economic development, seventh, matching funds for various Federal grant programs, eighth, preservation of historic shrines, ninth, emergency aid to the elderly, and tenth, long-range planning.

The bill permits the judgment to be used in accordance with this plan, and any modification that may be approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a. motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

DISPOSITION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS OF THE DELAWARE TRIBE OF INDIANS AND THE ABSENTEE DELAWARE TRIBE OF WESTERN OKLAHOMA, AND OTHERS The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 14267)

to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay a judgment in favor of the Dela ware Tribe of Indians in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 298, and the Absentee Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma, and others, in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 72, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bills as follows:


Representatives of the United States of Amer-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19623 ica in Congress assembled, That the funds appropriated by the Act of December 26, 1969 (83 Stat. 447, 453), to pay a judgment in favor of the petitioners, the Delaware Tribe of Indians in docket 298, and the Absentee Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma, and others, in docket 72, together with any interest thereon, after payment of attorney fees, litigation expenses, and such expenses as may be necessary in effecting the provision of this Act, shall be distributed as provided herein.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a roll of all persons who meet the following requirements:

(a) they were born on or prior to and were living on the date of this Act; and

(b) they are citizens of the United States; and

( c) ( 1) their name or the name of a lineal ancestor appears on the Delaware Indian per capita payroll approved by the Secretary on April 20, 1906, or

(2) their name or the name of a lineal ancestor is on or is eligible to be on the constructed base census roll as of 1940 of the Absentee Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma, approved by the Secretary.

SEC. 3. All applications for enrollment must be filed either with the Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Muskogee, Oklahoma, or with the Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anadarko, Oklahoma, on or before the last day of the fourth full month following the date of this Act, and no application shall be accepted thereafter. The Secretary of the Interior shall give a rejection notice within sixty days after receipt of an application if the applicant is ineligible for enrollment. An appeal from a rejected application must be filed with the Area Director not later than thirty days from receipt of the notice of rejection. The Secretary shall make a final determination on each appeal not later than sixty days from the date it is filed. Each application and each appeal filed with the Area Director shall be reviewed by a committee composed of representatives of the two Oklahoma Delaware groups prior to submission of the application or appeal to the Secretary, and the committee shall advise the Area Director in writing of its judgment regarding the eligibility of the applicant.

SEC. 4.(a) The Secretary of the Interior shall apportion to the Absentee Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma, as presently constituted, so much of the judgment fund and accrued interest as the ratio of the persons enrolled pursuant to subsection 2(c) (2) bears to the total number of persons enrolled pursuant to section 2. The funds so apportioned to the Absentee Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma shall be placed to the credit of the tribe in the United States Treasury and shall be used in the following manner: 99 per centum of such funds shall be distributed in equal shares to each person enrolled pursuant to subsection 2(c) (2). and 1 per centum shall remain to the credit of the tribe in the United States Treasury, and may be advanced, expended, invested, or reinvested !-or any purpose that is authorized by the tribal governing body and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

(b) The funds not apportioned to the Absentee Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma shall be placed to the credit of the Delaware Tribe of Indians in the United States Treasury and shall be used in the following manner: 90 per centum of such funds shall be distributed in equal shares to each person enrolled pursuant to subsection 2(c) (1), and 10 per centum shall remain to the credit of the tribe in the United States Treasury and may be advanced, expended, invested, or reinvested for any purpose that is authorized by the tribal governing body: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior shall not approve the use of the funds remaining to the credit of the tribe until the tribe has organized a legal entity which in the judgment of the Secretary adequately protects the interests of its members.

SEC. o. Sums payable to living enrollees are eighteen or older or to heirs or legatees of deceased enrollees age eighteen or older shall be paid directly to such persons. Sums payable to enrollees or their heirs or legatees who are under age eighteen or who are under legal disability other than minority shall be paid in accordance with such procedures, including the establishment of trusts, as the Secretary of the Interior determines appropriate to protect the best interests of such persons.

SEC. 6. None of the funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this Act shall be subject to Federal or State income taxes.

SEC. 7. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act.


Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 14267 authorizes the distribution and use of a claims judgment recovered by the Delaware Tribe. The money has been appropriated, but it may not be used without further authorization from Congress.

The net amount available as of June 24, 1971, was $8,633,379. The money is currently invested in interest bearing accounts.

The Delaware Indians are divided into two groups: the Delaware Tribe, and the Absentee Delaware Tribe of western Oklahoma. Legislation is needed to divide the judgment between the two groups, and to authorize the use of the money.

The two groups have agreed that the judgment should be divided between them on the basis of their relative numbers as shown on, first. a 1906 per capita payment roll for the Delaware Indians, and second, a constructed base census roll as of 1940 for the Absentee Delaware Tribe, after both rolls have been brought up to date by adding the names of lineal descendants and by deleting the names of deceased persons.

After the money is divided, the bill provides that the Absentee Delaware Tribe will retain 1 percent for tribal purposes, and that the Delaware Tribe will retain 10 percent for tribal purposes, and that the balance will be distributed per capita to persons on the updated rolls.


INTERSTATE OIL COMPACT EXTENSION

The Clerk called the Senate Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 72) consenting to an extension and renewal of the interstate compact to conserve oil and gas.

There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate Joint Resolution as follows:

S.J. RES 72 Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep

resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the consent of Congress is hereby given to an extension and renewal for a period of three years from September l, 1971, to September 1, 1974, o! the interstate compact to conserve oil and gas, as amended, which was signed in its initial form in the city of Dallas, Texas, the 16th day of February 1935, by the representatives of Oklahoma, Texa.s, California, and New Mexico, and at the same time and place was signed by the representatives, as a recom-

mendation for approval to the Governors and legislatures of the States of Arkansas, Colorado, illinois, Kansas, and Michigan, and which, prior to August 27, 1935, was presented to and approved by the legislatures and Governors of the states of New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Colorado, and Texas, and which so approved by the six States last above named was deposited in the Department of State of the United States, and thereafter waa consented to by the Congress in Public Resolution Numbered 64, Seventy-fourth Congress, approved August 27, 1935, for a period of two years, and thereafter was extended by the representatives of the compacting States and consented to by the Congress for successive periods, without interruption, the last extension being for the period from September 1, 1969, to September 1, 1971, consented to by Congress by Public Law Numbered 91-158, Ninety-first Congress, approved December 24, 1969. The agreement to amend, extend, and renew said compact effective september 1, 1971, duly executed by representatives of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, illinols, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montan.a, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming has been deposited in the Department of State of the United States and reads as follows: "AN AGREEMENT TO AMEND, EXTEND,

AND RENEW THE INTERSTATE COMPACT TO CONSERVE OIL AND GAS "WHEREAS, on the 16th day of February

1935, in the City of Dallas, Texas, there was executed 'An Interstate Compact to Conserve 011 and Gas' which was thereafter formally ratified and approved by the States of Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Illinois, Colorado and Kansas, the original of which is now on deposit with the Department of State of the United States;

"WHEREAS, effective as of September 1, 1971, the several compacting states deem it advisable to amend said compact so as to provide that upon the giving of Congressional consent thereto in its amended form, said Compact will remain in effect until Congress withdraws such consent;

"WHEREAS, the original of said Compact as so amended will, upou execution thereof, be deposited promptly with the Department of State of the United States, a tr1e copy of which follows: "'AN INTERSTATE COMPACT TO CON

SERVE OIL AND GAS .. 'ARTICLE I

" 'This agreement may become effective within any compacting state at any time as prescribed by that state, and shall become effective within those states ratifying it whenever any three of the States of Texas, Oklahoma., California, Kansas and New Mexico have ratified and Congress has given its consent. Any oil-producing state may become a party hereto as hereinafter provided.

.. 'ARTICLE II " 'The purpose of this compact is to con

serve oil and gas by the prevention of physical waste thereof from any cause.

... ARTICLE III "'Each state bound hereby agrees that

within a reasonable time it will enact laws. or if the laws have been enacted, then it agrees to continue the same in force, to accomplish within reasonable limits the prevention of:

"'(a) The operation of any oil well with an inefficient gas-oil ratio.

" ' ( b) The drowning with water of any stratum capable of producing oil or gas, or both oil and gas, in paying quantities.

"'(c) The avoidable escape into the open

19624 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 air or the wasteful burning of gas from a natural gas well.

"'(d) The creation of unnecessary fire hazards.

"'(e) The drilling, equipping, locating, or operating of a well or wells so as to bring about physical waste of oil or gas or loss in the ultimate recovery thereof.

" '(f) The inefficient, excessive or improper use of the reservoir energy in producing any well.

"'The enumeration of the foregoing subject s shall not limit the scope of the authority of any state.

.. 'ARTICLE IV " 'Each state bound hereby agrees that tt

will, wit hin a. reasonable time, enact statutes, or if such statutes have been enacted then that it will continue the same in force, providing in effect that oil produced in violation of its valid oil and/or gas conservation statutes or any valid rule, order or regulation promulgated thereunder, shall be denied access to commerce; and providing for stringent penalties for the waste of either oil or gas.

"'ARTICLE V " 'It is not the purpose of this compact to

authorize the states joining herein to limit the production of oil or gas for the purpose of stabilizing or fixing the price thereof, or create or perpetuate monopoly, or to promote regimentation, but is limited to the purpose of conserving oil and gas and preventing the avoidable waste thereof within reasonable limitations.

.. 'ARTICLE VI " 'Each state joining herein shall appoint

one representative to a commission hereby constituted and designated as THE INTERSTATE OIL COMPACT COMMISSION, the duty of which said Commission shall be to make inquiry and ascertain from time to time such methods, practices, circumstances, and conditions as may be disclosed for bringing about conservation and the prevention of physical waste of oil and gas, and at such intervals as said Commission deems beneficial it shall report its :findings and recommendations to the several states for adoption or rejection.

"'The Commission shall have power to recommend the coordination of the exercise of the police powers of the several states within their several jurisdictions to promote the maximum ultimate recovery from the petroleum reserves of said states, and to recommend measures for the maximum ultimate recovery of oil and gas. Said Commission shall organize and adopt suitable rules and regulations for the conduct of its business.

" 'No action shall be taken by the Commission except: (1) By the affirmative votes of the majority of the whole number of the compacting states represented at any meeting, and (2) by a concurring vote of a majority in interest of the compacting states at said meeting, such interest to be determined as follows: Such vote of each state shall be in the decimal proportion fixed by the ratio of its dally average production during the preceding calendar half-year to the daily average production of the compacting states during said period.

... ARTICLE VII "•No state by joining herein shall become

financially obligated to any other state, nor shall the breach of the terms hereof by any state subject such state to :financial responsibillty to the other states joining tiherein.

... ARTICLE VIII

" 'This compact shall continue in effect until Congress withdraws its consent. But any state joining herein may, upon sixty (60) days' notice, withdraw herefrom.

"'The representatives of the signatory states have signed this agreement in a single original which shall be deposited in the

archives of the Department of State of the United States, and a duly certl:fled copy shall be forwarded to the governor of each of the signatory states.

" 'This compact shall become effective when ratl:fled and approved as provided in Article I. Any oil-producing state may become a party thereto by affixing its signature to a counterpart to be similarly deposited, certl:fled, and ratl:fled.

" 'Done in the City of Dallas, Texas, this sixteenth day of February, 1935.'

"WHEREAS, the said 'Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas' in its initial form has heretofore been duly renewed and extended with the consent of the Congress to September l, 1971; and

"WHEREAS, it ls desired to a.mend said 'Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas' effective September 1, 1971, and to renew and extend said compact as so amended:

"NOW, THEREFORE, THIS WRITING WITNESSETH:

"It is hereby agreed that effective September 1, 1971, the Compact entitled 'An Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas' executed within the City of Dallas, Texas, on the 16th day of February, 1935, and now on deposit with the Department of State of the United States, be and the same is hereby amended by a.mending the first paragraph of Article VIII thereof to read as follows:

" 'This compact shall continue in effect until Congress withdraws its consent. But any state joining herein may, upon sixty (60) days' notice, withdraw herefrom.' and that said compact as so amended be, and the same is hereby renewed and ext ended. This agreement shall become effect ive when executed, ratified, and approved as provided in Article I of said compact as so amended.

"The signatory States have executed this agreement in a single original which shall be deposited in the archives of the Department of State of the United States and a duly certified copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Governor of each of the signatory States. Any oil-producing State may become a party hereto by executing a counterpart of this agreement to be similarly deposited, certl:fled, and ratified.

"Executed by the several undersigned States, at their several State capitols, through their proper officials on the dates as shown, as duly authorized by statutes and resolutions, subject to the limitations and quall:flca.tions of the acts of the respective State Legislatures.

"THE STATE OF ALABAMA

By ----------------------------• Governor I>ated: ---------------------------------Attest: ----------------------------------

Secretary of State (SEAL>

"THE STATE OF ALASKA

By ----------------------------· Governor Dated: ---------------------------------Attest: ----------------------------------

Secretary of State (SEAL)

"THE STATE OF ARIZONA By ----------------------------• Governor Dated: ---------------------------------Attest: ----------------------------------Secretary of State CSEAL>

"THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

By ----------------------------• Governor Dated: ---------------------------------Attest: ----------------------------------Secretary of State CSEAL>

''THE STATE OF COLORADO By ----------------------------· Governor Dated: ------------------ ---------------Attest: ----------------------------------

Secretary of State <SEAL> "THE STATE OF FLORIDA

By ----------------------------· Governor Dated: ---------------------------------Attest: ----------------------------------Secretary of State (SEAL)

"THE STATE OF Il..LINOIS

By ----------------------------• Governor Dated: ---------------------------------Attest: ----------------------------------Secretary of State (SEAL>

''THE STATE OF INDIANA

By ----------------------------• Governor I>ated: ---------------------------------Attest: ----------------------------------Secretary of State (SEAL)

''THE STATE OF KANSAS

By ----------------------------· Governor Dated: ---------------------------------Attest: ----------------------------------Secretary of State CSEAL)

''THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

By ----------------------------• Governor I>a.ted: ---------------------------------Attest: ----------------------------------Secretary of State csEAL>

"THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

By -----------------------------· Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------Secretary of State (BEAL)

"THE STATE OF MARYLAND

By -----------------------------• Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------Secretary of State (BEAL)

"THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

By -----------------------------· Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------


"THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI



"THE STATE OF MONTANA



"THE STATE OF NEBRASKA



"THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

By -----------------------------• Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------


''THE STATE OF NEW YORK

By -----------------------------· Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------Secretary of State (sEAL) "THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA



"THE STATE OF OHIO

By -----------------------------• Governor I>ated.: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------Secretary of State (BEAL)

''THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

By -----------------------------• Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------Secretary of State (SEAL)

"THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL-VANIA

By -----------------------------• Governor I>a.ted: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------Secretary of Sta.tie CSEAL>

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19625 "THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

By -----------------------------• Governor Dated: -----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------

Secretary of State <SEAL>

"THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

By -----------------------------• Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------


"THE STATE OF TEXAS By -----------------------------• Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------

Secretary of State (SEAL>

' 'THE STATE OF UTAH By -----------------------------• Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------


"THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA By -----------------------------• Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------


"THE STATE OF WYOMING By -----------------------------• Governor Dated: ----------------------------------Attest: -----------------------------------

Secretary of State <SEAL)

SEC. 2. (a) The Attorney General of the United States shall make a report to Congress not later than two years after the date of enactment of this Act as to whether the activities of the States under the provisions of such compact have been consistent with the purposes as set out in Article V of such compact.

(b) Section 2 of Public Law 185, Eightyfourth Congress (69 Stat. 391) ls hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal the provisions of the first section of this joint resolution is hereby expressly reserved.

With the following committee amendments:

Page 11, line 4, insert before "States" the following: "Interstate 011 Compact Commission and the"

Page 11, line 6, insert before the period following:••, and have been limited to activities related directly to the immediate purpose of such compact as set out in Article II of such compact".

The committee amendments were agreed to.

The Senate joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

The SPEAKER. This concludes the call of the Consent Calendar.

CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE VIOLATED IN CALIFORNIA BY ANGE-LA DA VIS VERDICT -<Mr. RARICK asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, the revolution to destroy the people's confidence in our institutions has scored another victory.

A mockery has been made of justice in our country. Judge Harold J. Hailey, an assistant district attorney, and several jurors were taken prisoner in their own courtroom, the judge murdered, and the prosecutor paralyzed from gunshot

wounds--yet justice has not been satisfied.

Symbolically, the civil rights of all the people of California were violated. Acquittal by the jury on State charges does not preclude trial on Federal charges under the civil rights statutes.

Precedent exists in prosecutions of earlier civil rights cases. I urge the Attorney General of the United States to act in the interest of preserving justice under law rather than surrender to so-called justice at the end of a gun barrel.

AUTHORIZING SPEAKER TO DECLARE A RECESS ON THURSDAY, JUNE 15 Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Thursday, June 15, 1972, for the Speaker to declare a recess for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting the President of the United Mexican States.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?


JUSTICE IN AMERICA? (Mr. WAGGONNER asked and was

given permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a sad day for America and a banner day for international communism. Angela Davis, the black, self-avowed Communist, was acquitted of charges of murder, kidnaping, and criminal conspiracy, and set free to continue her personal war on this co\llltry. Once again the leftwing version of justice has been served in the courts of our land.

This same type of justice has been witnessed before in the United States; where those bent on the destruction of our form of government and our free society have been rewarded for a job well done. In this instance, Angela Davis' "good job" resulted in the death of a California judge and three other persons, and the crippling for life of another.

According to the local newspaper's account of yesterday's acquittal, the jurors, after returning the acquittal verdict, attended a celebration party for Miss Davis. Are we to presume that the jury acted in a fair and impartial manner and that justice was meted out fair and impartially? For my own part, I tend to think not.

Meanwhile, a member of our Armed Forces, who has dutifully served his country and who has fought the Communist enemies of the free world, Lt. William J. Calley, continues to be confined to quarters at Fort Benning, having already been found guilty on a rather dubious charge of killing Viet;. namese civilians while on a combat mission. He is awaiting the outcome of his appeal.

There are those in our society who for varying reasons continue to praise

any and all who viciously attack America, and Angela Davis falls into that category, while they heap only scorn and derision on anyone who attempts to defend and protect our country from our enemies.

America cannot continue to remain free with this kind of distorted onesided justice.

TRANSPO 72 A SUCCESS (Mr. GRAY asked and was given per

mission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, Transpo 72 at Dulles International Airport is now history. As a fixed wing and helicopter pilot and former airport operator, I consider the 9-day affair to be a tremendous success and well worth what it cost the taxpayers, the exhibitors, and the more than 1,250,000 persons who visited this international airshow.

It is indeed unfortunate that the airshow portion of Transpo suffered three fatalities. I am sure I speak for every Member of the House when I say our sympathies go out to the members of the families of these brave men. However, these were highly professional flyers who were performing almost daily somewhere in this country, and their unfortunate accidents could have occurred anywhere and cannot be blamed on Transpo. Two of the deaths can be attributed to equipment failure.

Secretary Volpe, General Manager Bird, Jim Evans, the publicity manager and all the staff at Transpo 72 are to be highly commended.

I hope we can start planning now for an even bigger and better Transpo in 1974, to follow the Paris Air Show in 1973.

TRIBUTE TO LATE TED PEARSON, TOP POLITICAL WRITER FOR BffiMINGHAM NEWS

<Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.>

Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, during these days when frequent criticism is being leveled at the press, there was a newsman in Alabama who stood out like a giant among his contemporaries. The mere byline, Ted Pearson, carried great credibility.

It is with great sadness that I report Pearson's death June 2.

For almost all his life Ted Pearson served the people of the State by keeping them informed through the medium of print journalism. He began as a copy boy for the Mobile Press Register and later became the top political writer for the Birmingham News.

I can say without reservation that Ted Pearson both personally and professionally was among the finest people I have known. His honesty and integrity were above reproach and his constant pursuit of truth and objectivity in his writing was a comfort to his readers and an inspiration to his fellow writers.

19626 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972

Ted Pearson was a leader in his field. He wlll be sadly missed by all people of Alabama.

MAJ. JOE HOWARD'S LIFE AN INSPIRATION TO ALL

(Mr. COUGHLIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. COUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, the death of Air Force Thunderbird, Maj. Joe Howard, at Transpo 72 1s a tremendous tragedy.

Joe Howard symbolized the gallantry of the men and women in our Armed Forces. He was the best of our young men-a dashing leader.

A veteran of 2,500 hours of jet flying, Joe Howard had flown 322 missions in Southeast Asia, 69 of them over North Vietnam. He wore the Silver Star, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with 18 Oak Leaf clusters, the Purple Heart, an Air Force commendation medal, the Vietnamese Service Medal, four Bronze Stars and the Vietnamese Campaign Medal.

All of us join in mourning this fine young American and extend our condolences to his widow, his family, and friends.

Yet, Joe Howard's death cannot delay the things for which he lived and :flew.

He :flew for the strength of the United States.

He :flew because he believed in Transpo 72 and the American industry.

He :flew because he knew our Nation could. compete and we can sell our technology.

When Joe Howard, :flying in formation, crashed, his companions in their F-4 Phantoms flashed over the site as if to signify that things will keep on going.

The show went on. This Nation, of course, goes on.

All goes on because of gallant people who serve their country.

May we all think for a minute of Joe Howard, of North Carolina.

May his life inspire us for the United States of America.

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1736, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AMENDMENTS OF 1972 Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, I call up the

conference report on the the <S. 1736) to amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, to provide for financing the acquisition, construction, alteration, maintenance, operation. and protection of public buildings, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, does the gentleman propose to take adequate time to explain the conference report?

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GRAY. Yes; I shall be delighted to explain the conference report.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the statement of the managers.

The Clerk read the statement. Mr. ORA Y (during the reading). Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the statement be considered as read. I shall be glad to explain it.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection. <For conference report and statement,

see proceedings of the House of May 30, 1972.)

CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I make the

point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol

lowing Members failed to answer to their names:

Abbitt Abernethy Abourezk Abzug Andrews,

N.Dak. Ashbrook Badlllo Baring Barrett Belcher Bell Bingham Blanton Blatnik Boland Burton Caffery Camp Cederberg Celler Chappell Chisholm Clancy Clark Cla. wson, Del Clay Collins, Ill. Conte Conyers Curlin Daniels, N .J. Danielson Davis, Ga. Davis, S.C. Davis, Wis. Dellums Dennis Dent Diggs Dow Dowdy Dul ski

[Roll No. 184) Dwyer Edmondson Esch Eshleman Fraser Frelinghuysen Galifianakls Gallagher Gibbons Green, Oreg. Griffln Grover Gubser Gude Hagan Halpern Hanna Hawkins Hebert Helstoski Holifield Jones, Tenn. Kee Kyros Landgrebe Leggett Lloyd Long, La. Lujan McClory Mccloskey McDonald,

Mich. McKinney McMillan Macdonald,

Mass. Madden Mayne Miller, Calif. Mink Moorhead Moss

Murphy, N.Y. NiX O'Konskl O'Neill Passman Pepper Pettis Podell Pryor, Ark. Railsback Rangel Reid Rhodes Robinson, Va. Rodino Rooney, N.Y. Rousselot Roybal Runnels St Germain Scheuer Schmitz Shipley Shoup Smith,N.Y. Springer Staggers Steele Stokes Stratton Stubblefield Stuckey Tieman Van Deerlln VanderJagt Veysey Waldie Whalley Whitten Widna.11 Wilson, Bob Wilson,

CharlesH.

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 307 Members have answered to their names, a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.

AMENDMENT OF TITLE OF S. 3230 The SPEAKER. Without objection, the

title of S. 3230, which was considered, amended, read a third time and passed earlier this afternoon, following the passage of H.R. 10394 on the Consent Cal-

endar, will be amended to conform to that of the House bill.


CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1736, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AMENDMENTS OF 1972 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from

IDinois (Mr. GRAY) is recognized. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, the confer

ence report before us today is almost identical with the House-passed bill known as the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972.

The House-passed bill was approved by a vote of 331 to 40, and in conference with the other body almost all of the House language was agreed to.

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the conference report authorizes private financing for a 3-year period only for the construction of an 8-year backlog of 63 muchneeded Federal buildings in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The legislation also authorizes the establishment of a revolving fund in which will be deposited rents collected from all Federal agencies using space in Government-owned buildings. These rents will be used to pay the payments on the purchase contracts for the new buildings to be constructed.

We believe this will save the taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

The conference report also contains the House language concerning the Kennedy Center and the Congressional Hotel.

I might say to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Iowa, it includes his amendment he offered and which was adopted on the :floor concerning fair market value prices.

Mr. Speaker, the House bill was a good bill. The conference report is the same. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAY. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, I find one very definite change in the conference report from the House bill, that is the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee to review and approve proposed purchase contracts for public buildings. Would the gentleman explain why the language was changed, which took away the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee in this respect?

Mr. GRAY. Yes; I will be delighted to explain.

First of all, let me state to my distinguished friend, the ranking minority member on the House Committee on Appropriations, that the Appropriations Committee will have to approve all the funds collected in rents that will go into this revolving fund to pay the purchase contracts, so the Appropriations Committee will still have control. What was deleted in conference was the proviso stating that before a contract could be entered into, that line item or individual contract should have been submitted back to the Appropriations Committee.

We had adopted this provision in the House and then we received a letter from the Acting Attorney General, Hon. Rich-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 19627 ard Kleindienst, pointing out it was his opinion that the President would veto the legislation with that precise language, because he said it usurps the prerogative of the administration by making them come back to Congress before they award a contract. As I said, it was our position in the House that we wanted the Committee on Appropriations to have full and complete control, not on one occasion, but in this instance on two occasions. However, we were faced with the letter from the Acting Attorney General citing precedents from President Roosevelt up to and including the present incumbent in the White House, President Nixon, and stating after the Committee on Appropriations has approved the funds on this revolving fund, they felt the administration should have the authority to award the contract.

So we had no alternative but to agree to substitute language, which merely says that before they can enter into a contract down at the General Services Administration they must submit to the Appropriations Committee a list of the intended contracts, and then the committee has 30 days before GSA can go out and award such a contract.

I realize it is not as much control as the gentleman from Ohio would want.

Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. GRAY. I am glad to yield further. Mr. BOW. Section (h) on page 6 of the

conference report is the one the gentleman is now referring to?

Mr. GRAY. The gentleman is correct. Mr. BOW. I must say they might as

well have left that out, because it says: No space shall be provided pursuant to this

section until after the expiration of 30 days from the date upon which the Administrator of General Services notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives of his determination that the best iillterests of the Federal Government will be served by providing such space by entering into a purchase contract therefor.

Assuming that they do send up a 30-day notice to the Appropriations Committee, and the Appropriations Committee would like to say "no", there is nothing in this language that gives the Appropriations Committee any authority except to read a 30-day notice and then forget about it.

This is the point I raise. I believe there is just nothing to it. It is meaningless so far as any control is concerned.

Under the other provision, which refers to the appropriations in the revolving fund, how are funds brought into the revolving fund?

Mr. GRAY. Under existing law the Appropriations Committee has been appropriating approximately $100 million to $115 million a year for all public buildings construction throughout the country. Any residue left over from existing appropriations now will go automatically, when this legislation is signed into law, into the revolving fund. That residue from previous appropriations plus the amount of rents collected from all Federal agencies will make up the total revolving fund, and the House Committee on Appropriations will have complete control on an annual basis over the revolving fund.

Does that answer the gentleman's question?

Mr. BOW. It answers the question, but I still believe, so far as the other provision is concerned, it has stripped the Appropriations Committee of some of its authority.

The gentleman ref erred to a letter from the Justice Department. I have read that letter carefully. There is nothing in the letter that says the President would veto the bill.

I believe the gentleman will agree his statement that the letter said the President would veto is not completely correct; it might be implied, but it certainly is not in the language of the letter.

Mr. GRAY. I believe what the letter said was the fact that Presidents from Mr. Roosevelt up to and including Mr. Nixon have vetoed legislation precisely for the same reasons and the same language that was embodied in the House bill. Then we were told on the telephone that with all these precedents facing us they felt sure the President would veto the bill. That was the reason the Attorney General wrote the letter.

I would say to my distinguished friend from Ohio, I, too, subscribe to the House language. In fact, the gentleman will recall that we o:fiered it and accepted it on the House floor.

After receiving the letter from the Attorney General pointing out all these precedents, we had no alternative but to agree to the substitute langauge in conference if we wanted a bill.

Mr. BOW. May I say to the gentleman, I hope that under this bill he is bringing in now the backlog of Federal buildings will be cut down. I believe there are some 60 now ready to go. I would hope that even the Appropriations Committee will continue to finance some of these buildings for direct Federal construction for the many Members who have been waiting for a long time to get Federal buildings built. I would hope the gentleman would join with some of the rest of us in insisting on that.

Under the present system, as I see it, under this language in paragraph (h) , we have no assurance, certainly, that these buildings will be built.

They are on both sides of the aisle, and this is not partisan in any way. It seems to me that the Members here have been waiting for a long time for these Federal buildings to be constructed, and they should be in a position to have some control over the funds so that the buildings will be built that are most urgently needed by the people of the United States.

Mr. GRAY. I agree with my friend implicitly. Let me again reiterate what I said just a few moments ago; namely. that this legislation is only for a short, 3-year period, as it takes up the backlog. The fact is that the gentleman's committee after that short period of 3 years will continue to fund with direct Federal appropriations all future public build-ing construction.

Mr. BOW. I thank the gentleman. I onl:-; wish I would be here to overlook the situation. As the gentleman knows, this is my last session. and I will not be

here next session, but I hope that the gentleman will see to it that these buildings are actually constructed. It is a great satisfaction to be a Member of this House.

Mr. GRAY. I sincerely want to say the gentleman's service will be missed around here very much, because he is always very active and helpful in managing the taxpayers• business.

I now yield to my distinguished friend, the ranking member of the full Committee on Public Works, Mr. HARSHA, of Ohio.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use.

Mr. Speaker, I support the report and the statement made by the gentleman from Illinois. I think that this conference report does represent about 95 percent of the House version of this bill. Insofar as the colloquy that took place concerning what we had in the House version relating to the Appropriations Committee amendment and what came out of the conference, practically speaking, I think there is quite an adequate safeguard in what the Committee on Appropriations can do in controlling the implementation of this measure. All of the money that goes into the revolving fund must be appropriated before it is expended. Therefore, the Committee on Appropriations will have control from that standpoint. It seems to me beyond question that if the General Services Administration sends up a prospectus and gives the Committee on Appropriations 30 days' notice, if an objection is lodged by the Committee on Appropriations to the funding or construction of that building, then the General Services Administration would be very short-sighted if it went ahead in the face of that objection or opposition to the building, to construct it, knowing full well that the Committee on Appropriations had the ultimate control of its annual appropriation. So I think, as a practical matter while there may be some question about the legality of such control, there is adequate control vested in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, insofar as the bill as a whole is concerned, I urge my colleagues to support the recommendations of the conference committee. This was a complicated measure. The Public Buildings Act Amendments of 1972 will e:fiect a wholesale revamping of the Government construction and improvement program. To eliminate the backlog of 63 badly needed but unfunded buildings, a purchase contract procedure of 3 years' duration was authorized. To finance the Government building program thereafte~· on a :fiscally sound and efficient basis, a revolving fund would be established. Government agencies occupying space in public buildings would pay rent equivalents at commercial rates for the space they occupy.

As you know, the other body acted first on this measure. Thereafter, your Committee on Public Works considered and reported it to the House with several key changes. These were incorporated in the House approved measure.

As has already been stated, the essential features of the House approach were retained in conference. Indeed, I think


it fair to say that the bill follows the House approach most of the time.

Two constructive changes were made however, by the conference which I believe merit your consideration and support. The first relates to the language of an amendment to the House bill which sought to liberalize the construction of any buildings utilizing the purchase contract device beyond the 63 backlog structures. In conference, the House receded from this amendment. As the matter stands, any additional buildings to be constructed must go through the regular prospectus process. This means that to initiate such buildings, GSA must submit a prospectus describing their essential features to the Committee on Public Works of both Houses for their approval.

The second key accommodation that emerged from the conference relates to the appropriations amendment which has already been discussed.

A final comment relative to this bill is in order. Section 10 of the House bill provides for a transfer of the non-performing arts functions of the JFK Center of the performing arts tu the National Park Service. These include all maintenance, security. information, interpretation, janitorial and other similar services. This section was retained in the conference.

The joint explanatory statement of the comci.ttee of conference, with regard to section 10 of the bill, states that the interpretation of the National Park Service and the Kennedy Center appear to differ as to what is meant by "information" and "interpretation," that the section does not confer exclusive responsibility on the National Park Service for providing information and interpretatio:.1 services at the Center, and that in no way gives authority to the National Park Service over the Friends of the Kennedy Center or places the friends under the direction of the Park Service.

To clarify that statement it shoulJ be pointed out that the Kennedy Center trustees and the Park Service have already come to agreement on the role of the Park Service in interpretive and informational functions at the Center, and on the role of the Friends of the Kennedy Center.

As to the words "information" and "interpretation," the vice chairma-'1 of the board of trustees, in a May 23, 1972, letter to Senators RANDOLPH and COOPER, stated:

Principally, the words refer to the work of guiding and informing the thousands of visitors who come through the Center each day. The National Park Service has long performed such a role in other national memorials and in the park and monument system, and it ls appropriate that the Service have overall responsibllity for it 1n the Center.

The Acting Director of the National Park Service, in a letter of the same date <May 23, 1972), stated:

The National Park Service considers its authority and responsibilities under section 10 to provide the public with an interpretive program of high standards similar in quality and integrity to the informational and interpretive programs for other memorials in the Washington area such as the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial and Jefferson

Memorial. It wlll provide under its control guides and other visitor services.

In other words, the trustees and the Park Service agree that the information and interpretation function will be exercised by the Park Service in the same way that agency now operates the other memorials in the Washington area.

As to the role of the Friends of the Kennedy Center, the vice chairman of the board of trustees stated in his earlier mentioned letter:

This kind of volunteer work is now being performed by the Friends, to the great benefit of the Center and the publlc. My understanding is that the Park Service ls actively encouraging such voluntary efforts throughout its system, and believes it should be done at the Center.

Thus, concerning information and interpretation the trustees are of the opinion that "it is appropriate that the Service have overall responsibility for it in the Center," but that the work of the Friends of the Kennedy Center should continue. The Park Service agrees. It states in its letter that--

we would not envision the present interpretive and informational services now conducted by the Friends of the Kennedy Center to continue as an independent activity should the Service assume responsibility for this function. It would be the hope of the National Park Service, however, that the Friends of the Kennedy Center could work with the National Park Service in continuing to furnish information and in interpreting the functional or memorial aspects of the Kennedy Center, provided that high standards a.re maintained.

It is apparent from the foregoing that the two agencies are in agreement that, first, the National Park Service will have overall responsibility for informational and interpretive functions at the Center, exclusive of the performing arts functions, of course, and second, the Friends of the Kennedy Center will be encouraged to continue to provide their services, subject to the high standards set by the Park Service in the exercise of its management responsibility for the nonperforming arts functions at the Center.

Accordingly, the statement of the conferees, that section 10 in no way gives the National Park Service authority over the Friends of the Kennedy Center, must be interpreted as applicable only to the performing arts functions, since the authority of the National Park Service over the nonperforming arts functions is clear.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to adopt the conference report.

Mr. BOW. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. HARSHA. Yes, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BOW. I should like to ask the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Illinois whether there is anything in this bill that would prevent direct financing of public buildings by the General Services Administration.

Mr. HARSHA. No, sir. As far as I am concerned the answer would be "no".

Mr. GRAY. I concur with Lhe statement made by the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BOW. If funds were provided for direct financing the gentleman feels it could be done in that manner under the provisions of this bill?

Mr. GRAY. The gentleman is correct. Mr. BOW. I thank both of the gentle

men. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield 3 minutes to me? Mr. HARSHA. I yield 3 minutes to the

gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the

gentleman from Ohio for yielding to me to propound a few questions to the gentleman from Illinois <Mr. GRAY).

Before doing so, may I observe that this conference report may well be substantially the House bill, but that does not make it any more palatable to some of us who are opposed to the financing provisions for the so-called Kennedy Cultural Center.

When was it, if the gentleman will revive my memory, that he told the House that we were through making appropriations of tax dollars to the Cultural Center.

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, will be gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from lliinois.

Mr. GRAY. I made that statement on the floor when we authorized the Kennedy Center. There is not one dime in this bill for the performing arts functions of the Center. What is contained in this bill, as the gentleman well knows, is $1.5 million to pay for the costs already incurred for maintenance and security, which is an obligation to keep up this monument in similar fashion as we maintain the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, and many other places of national interest.

And, also, in the bill, as the gentleman knows, we have tried to attack this maintenance and security problem as a permanent basis by giving to the National Park Service the responsibility for security and maintenance so we will not have to come back year after year for this item.

Mr. GROSS. What is the difference between nonperforming and performing arts? There must be a building for performing arts unless the performances are in a tent or something of that kind.

Mr. GRAY. Essentially, the performing arts functions start at 8 p.m. and the nonperforming art functions are carried on in the daylight hours when about 12,000 to 15,000 people a day, many of which are schoolchildren, are given the opportunity to go through and see the John F. Kennedy Center.

The air conditioning, the guards, the guides, and the other services and other functions of the nonperforming arts costs money not related to the performing arts. So we delineate the two functions down there. The performing arts are going on at 8 o'clock and the daylight hours will be for the nonperforming arts for the general public who just want to come to see the monument and not a play or other performance that is taking place.

Mr. GROSS. And, so, the park service, under this open-ended appropriationand I would be interested to know why it

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19629 is open ended for the purpose of the legislation--

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired.

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. GROSS. So, the park service will vacate the premises at 8 p.m. each and every day is that correct?

Mr. GRAY. No; the park service will have the full authority for policing, security, and maintenance. The cost for special services after the performing arts functions start at 8 p.m. will be charged to the performing arts. It is estimated that it will cost about $586,000 to secure and maintain the building in the evening and approximately $2 million a year for the rest of the cost of the nonperforming arts functions. This promise is contained in the letter addressed to us by Mr. Hartzog, Director of the National Park Service.

Mr. GROSS. What does the gentleman estimate the total will be to the taxpayers in financing the park service from_ now on in perpetuity?

Mr. GRAY. The total cost will be about $2 million per year. However, about $5,000 per week is being collected by the so-called Friends of the Kennedy Center through the sale of various items with reference to the center. The money from that will go to help pay for guides and other costs and will be subtracted from the total.

Mr. GROSS. What is the meaning of "interpretation" as used here? Apparently it is to be an obligation or responsibility of the park service?

Mr. GRAY. If the gentleman will yield further, on the last page of the report we state that an agreement will be signed by the National Park Service and the socalled Friends of the Kennedy Center for these services.

Mr. GROSS. Well, what is "interpretation?" What is the meaning of interpretation in this context?

Mr. GRAY. Interpretation would be an umbrella over the guide service to explain the- building and tell a little bit of the history about the building, similarly to our guide service operations here at the Capitol.

Mr. GROSS. Does "interpretation" mean providing funds for day and night nursery care for children of those who go to see the performing and nonperforming arts?

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. GROSS. I yield. Mr. GRAY. Only for the purpose of

disseminating information of interest to school groups and the public visiting the Center will be included, nothing else, no private services whatsoever.

Mr. GROSS. So that the taxpayers, once having been assured that this cultural center would not cost them a dime, are now going to be called upon for $2 or $3 million a year, and that is probably minimal, for the upkeep of the cultural center from now on into perpetuity. This after having seen $57 million of their money dumped into the thing. Is that correct?

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman .from Iowa has again expired.

Mr. GRAY, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GROSS. Of course I yield to the

gentleman. Mr. GRAY. I would say to my friend,

the gentleman from Iowa, that there is not one red cent in this bill for further construction at the Kennedy Center. We are treating this national monument to a former deceased President in identically the same fashion as we treat all other national monuments to all of our other former Presidents, and this includes, of course, President Lincoln, President Washington, President Je:fferson, and the other national monuments in the Capital City for which we have an annual, recurring appropriation to maintain those national monuments. And I am sure that the gentleman from Iowa would not want to see anybody do anything to prevent the security and upkeep of a monument to any of our former Presidents.

Mr. GROSS. Then this will be the only monument so treated?

Mr. GRAY. Absolutely not, all of the other monuments, in fact--

Mr. GROSS. I am talking about this particular former President-this will be the only national monument that will be so treated, the only edifice bearing his name that will be so treated. As for the rest of them, it will be up to their friends, or whatever they are, to take care of them; is that correct?

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. GROSS. I yield further to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GRAY. The gentleman is correct, this is the only authorized national monument to former President Kennedy constructed in the Nation where we have any obligation for its upkeep.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has again expired.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Speaker, :final approval by the House of S. 1736 will mark a landmark in the efforts to put the construction of Federal public buildings on a businesslike basis. Since the leasepurchase program is a pioneer program as far as the Federal Government is concerned, the bill wisely contains a 3-year limitation. This will enable future legislation to profit from experience under this legislation.

However, it seems to me that there are two major achievements of the bill, one with an immediate e:ffect, the other having a long-range effect. The immediate e:ffect is that the bill will allow the General Services Administration to move ahead without delay on the many Federal building projects which have been held up under the old system in which the financing from the start required congressional appropriations. Because of :fiscal constraints, this meant that only a few such buildings could be completed each year. Many cities have had to wait many years before obtaining the necessary office space to accommodate adequately the Federal employees engaged in work in the locality.

The city of Akron, Ohio, has been waiting for over 8 years for a Federal office building. The site has been cleared, the

title to the land is in the General Services Administration, the aTchitect's designs for the building have been completed and paid for, yet the construction of the building has been held up for several years, even though both GSA and the Public WOrks Committee have both given it high priority.

Moreover, the completion of the downtown urban renewal program, so important to the preservation to the central city as a viable economic resource, has been stalled because prospective developers were uncertain as to the future construction of the Federal office building. This has meant that millions of Federal and local dollars invested in the downtown urban renewal program have not been achieving their maximum e:ff ect and that the city of Akron has been losing millions of dollars of potential tax revenue.

I have been advised that, once this bill becomes law, the GSA is prepared to move rapidly ahead on the Akron Federal building, and I am sure, on many similar projects in other parts of the country. This is a most welcome break for the many thousands of citizens who are dependent upon services of the Federal Government and it is a most welcome break for the taxpayers in the city of Akron.

The long-range achievement of the bill is to require the occupying agencies and other Federal offices to pay a rental for the space. This should facilitate proper accounting within the Federal Government itself and curb any tendencies toward excessive office space on the part of any particular agency. It also builds up a revolving fund for construction of future Federal office buildings.

The Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds are to be commended for their excellent work in putting together this legislation.

Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the conference report on S. 1736, Public Buildings Amendments of 1972. One provision contained in the report ends a long battle by the people of my district to have the opportunity to construct housing on the Morgan Annex site at 29th Street and Ninth Avenue in Manhattan.

The Morgan Annex property was acquired by the Post Office in Decem .. ber 1963, for $5.4 million. Some 300 families and businesses were displaced so that the annex could be built adjacent to the Morgan Station postal facility. In 1966, Congress authorized a proposed exPansion plan for the site, but a 1967 fire in Morgan Station halt.eel those plans. The post office then decided it wanted a massive rail handling facility in Secaucus, N.J.

In an executive session of the Building and Grounds Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee, held June 11, 1970, Assistant Postmaster General Henry Lehne declared that if the Secaucus facility were authorized, Morgan Annex would be declared excess to Post Office needs and conveyed to the City of New York for housing. The transcript reads as follows:

19630 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 Mr. LEHNE. What I wanted to say ls that 1t

seems like part of the property is going to be surplus to the Post Office Department needs. we plan to discuss that with General Services (Administration) a.s soon as possible. The entire disposition of the property wm be up to them.

we have reached the point that we do want to modify Morgan Station as preferential mall handling only. This will relieve greatly the need, because that whole property was involved in foreign mall, which is now going to Jersey and bulk mall, so some of the property wm be made available to General Services. How much, we wm have to discuss with them.

Mr. Lehne's assistant, Jerry I_?.eynolds, made the same promise again on June 22, 1970, in a letter to Rep: ~NNETH. J. GRA y, chairman of the Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee. The relevant paragraph is as follows:

As soon a.s the New Jersey facility is operational, this truck traffic will de~rease by about one-half in the Morgan Station area., and the Post Office Department will no longer need the block in question for parking and maneuvering purposes, except, of course, the 16,000 square feet which would be involved in a. 20-foot widening of 29th street. Thus, of the approximately 160,000 square feet in the block, 144,000-90 per cent--would become available.

These promises were in part responsible for eventual approval by Congress of the Secaucus facility, which, it may be noted, has already experienced. a cost overrun of about 109 percent with no end in sight.

In a Nov. ~. 1970, letter to Commissioner Albert A. Walsh of the New York Housing and Development Administration, Mr. Lehne again said:

As soon as the New Jersey fac111ty is operational, this truck traffic will decrease and the block in question will no longer be needed, except for the widening at 29th Street.

The Public Works Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds, of which I am a member met in New York City on May 14 1971' to ascertain public feeling on th~ futu~e of the annex land. Sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of housing-and housing only-on the property. Post om.ce officials appearing at th~t hearing, however, were vague as to t~eir plans for Morgan Annex, so the question of Post om.ce plans was again raised before the Investigations and Oversight Committee of the Public Works Committee in Washington on July 13, 1971.

on that date, Mr. Lehne again said at least three times that the Post Office would not need the Morgan Annex once the Secaucus facility became operational:

It ls stm the intent of the Postal Service that in June of 1973, provided the schedules a.re continuing to be met as we now plan them, that that land will be available.

• • • • • The letter that we signed is Post Office

policy. The land will no longer be available to it for our use, no longer needed for our use.

• • • I think we have stated, Mrs. Abzug, that

the property ls not required in our plans when the Morgan Statton refurbishing is complete, and when the New Jersey fa.cil1ties are operational in 1973.

There is no question that this commitment was made, repeatedly and firmly, to the people of New York City by responsible Post Office officials.

In order to insure that the Postal Service would fulfill their commitment, I offered an amendment when this bill was marked up in the Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds. This amendment, which was accepted without change by the subcommittee, provided that the Morgan Annex site be conveyed to New York City without charge, for use solely for housing purposes.

Shortly after the original submission of my amendment, the Post Office-now reconstituted as the U.S. Postal Service-cast aside all it had promised earlier and announced that it needed the Morgan Annex land.

In another letter from Mr. Reynolds to members of the Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee, the Postal Service proposd to build its Vehicle Maintenance Facility-VMF-for 1,300 trucks on the site. This letter, dated Nov. 8, 1971, read as follows:

Mr. Lehne testified that the Postal Service did not anticipate having a need for this property once the Secaucus bulk installation becomes operational in approximately two years.

Since that date, it has become apparent that the Postal Service will have a critical need for this property, even after Secaucus becomes operational.

The Postal Service thereupon proposed a four-story VMF, two floors above ground and two below, with walls and foundations sufficiently reinforced to allow construction of 20 stories of housing above the garage. For the reinforcement, the Postal Services would require $4 million from the city of New York.

The Chelsea-Clinton community, while anxious to get housing, expressed a preference to do so without mixed use of the Morgan site. Among other objections raised to the Postal Service's decision to build on the site was the fact that an eminently satisfactory alternative location for the vehicle facility was available nearby. It is a full block, half owned by the city and half by the Sharp Development Corp. at 30th Street and 12th Avenue. It possesses all the advantages the Postal Service cites for Morgan Annex: a lower Manhattan location, available space, and reasonable financing. In addition, the site would not interfere with existing traffic patterns, would not disrupt a residential area and would aid in revitalizing the 12th A venue area for commerce.

However, the Post Office initially gave the Sharp site only cursory attention and dismissed it as financially unworkable on grounds a VMF there would cost $73.5 million while the same facility at the Morgan site would cost only $5.1 million-a $68 million difference. The Sharp site was not even included in the feasibility study the Postal Service commissioned from the Army Corps of Engineers and which has not yet been completed.

However, a General Accounting Office report which I commissioned revealed that the Postal Service's cost analysis had been prepared from preliminary data in 1 day. It further showed that according

to standard GAO accounting methods, the cost differential between the two sites was not $68 million but only $2.1 million.

The Sharp Development Corp., working with the New York Economic Development Administration, subsequently made another off er to the Postal Service that would provide the full block and would be even less costly, thus tipping the economic balance in favor of the Sharp site.

Unfortunately, the Postal Service persisted in its objections, and the provision was amended on the House floor to provide that although the city would receive the air rights to the site without charge, the Postal Service would be afforded 2 years to begin building its facility there. The provision was not altered by the confere:ice committee.

Subsequent to House consideration of the bill, Postal Service and New York City officials met to begin planning the construction for the site. Among other things, the Postal Service agreed to advance to the city funds for the preliminary design study of the high rise residential tower, to defer payment of the city's share of the foundation cost of $1.9 million-which had originally been expected to be around $3 million-and to aid the city in seeking financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In summary, then, we began with a situation in which the Postal Service had decided to foreclose the building of any housing on or above the Morgan Annex site. The hearings before the Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds, followed by its adoption of my original amendment, compelled the Postal Service to enter into bargaining on the question, and the final result is somewhat better than the best off er which the Postal Service had advanced prior to floor consideration of the buildings legislation.

A site which was unavailable for housing will now become available to the people of my district who so desperately need adequate shelter. Thanks for · this victory are due to many members who helped bring it about-Chairman JOHN BLATNIK, Acting Chairman BOB JONES, and Subcommittee Chairman KEN GRAY-as well as to the fine staff of the Public Works Committee and the Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee.

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference report.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the

conference report. The question was taken; and the

Speaker announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.


The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

The question was taken; and there were--yeas 278, nays 40, not voting 114, as follows:


{Roll No. 185 J YEAS-278

Adams Fraser Mosher Addabbo Frenzel Murphy, ill. Alexander Frey Myers Anderson, Fulton Natcher

Calif. Fuqua Nedzl Anderson, Dl. Garmatz Nelsen Andrews, Ala. Gettys Nichols Annunzio Giaimo Obey Arends Goldwater O'Hara Ashley Gonzalez Patman Aspin Grasso Patten Aspinall Gray Perkins Badillo Green, Pa. Peyser Baker Griffiths Pickle Barrett Haley Pike Begich Hamilton Pirnie Bennett Hammer- Poage -Bergland schmidt Podell Betts Hanley Poff Bevill Hansen, Idaho Powell Biaggi Hansen, Wash. Preyer, N.C. Blackburn Harrington Price, ID. Boggs Harsha Pucinski Bolling Harvey Quie Brad em as Hastings Randall Brasco Hathaway Rees Brooks Hays Reid Broomfield Hebert Reuss Brotzman Hechler, W. Va. Riegle Brown, Mich. Heckler, Mass. Roberts Brown, Ohio Heinz Roe Broyhill, N.C. Henderson Rogers Broyh111, Va. Hicks, Mass. Roncalio Buchanan Hicks, Wash. Rooney, Pa. Burke, Fla. Hillis Rosenthal Burke, Mass. Hogan Rostenkowskt Burleson, Tex. Horton Roush Burlison, Mo. Hosmer Roy Byrne, Pa. Howard Ryan Byrnes, Wis. Hull Sandman Byron Hungate Sar banes Cabell Hunt Satterfield Carey, N.Y. !chord Saylor Carlson Jarman Schneebeli Carney Johnson, Calif. Schwengel Carter Johnson, Pa. Scott Casey, Tex. Jones, Ala. Seiberling Chamberlain Jones, N.C. Shriver Clausen, Karth Sikes

Don H. Kastenmeier Sisk Clay Kazen Skubitz Cleveland Keating Slack Colmer Kee Smith, Iowa Conable Keith Staggers Conover Kemp Stanton, Corman King J. William Cotter Kluczynski Stanton, Coughlin Koch James V. Culver Kuykendall Stephens Daniel, Va. Landrum Stratton Davis, S.C. Latta Sullivan de la Garza Lennon Talcott Delaney Lent Taylor Dellenback Link Teague, Tex. Denholm Long, Md. Terry Dent McClure Thompson, Ga. Derwinski McColl1ster Thompson, N.J. Devine McCormack Thomson, Wis. Dingell McCulloch Thone Donohue McDade Udall Dorn McEwen Vander Jagt Downing McFall Vanik Drinan McKay Vigorito du Pont McKevitt Waggonner Dwyer Mahon Wampler Eckhardt Mailllard Ware Edwards, Ala. Mallary Whalen Edwards, Calif. Mann White Eilberg Mathias, Calif. Whitehurst Erl en born Matsunaga Wiggins Esch Mayne Williams Evans, Colo. Mazzoli Winn Fascell Meeds Wolff Findley Metcalfe Wright Fish Mikva Wyatt Fisher Miller, Ohio Wydler Flood Mllls, Ark. Wylie Flowers Minish Wyman Flynt Minshall Yates Foley Mitchell Yatron Ford, Gerald R. Mizell Young, Tex. Ford, Mollohan Zablocki

William D. Monagan Zion Forsythe Montgomery Zwach Fountain Morgan

Archer Bi ester Bow Bray Brinkley Collier

NAYB-40 Collins, Tex. Crane Dennis Dickinson Duncan Evins, Tenn.

Gaydos Goodling Gross Hall Hutchinson Jacobs

Jonas Kyl Martin Mathis, Ga. Michel Mills, Md. Pelly Price, Tex.

Qulllen Rarick Robison, N.Y. Ruth Scherle Se bell us Smith, Calif. Snyder

Spence Steed Steiger, Ariz. Steiger, Wis. Teague, Calif. Young, Fla.

NOT VOTING-114 Abbitt Abernethy Abourezk Abzug Anderson,

Tenn. Andrews,

N.Dak. Ashbrook Baring Belcher Bell Bingham Blanton Blatnik Boland Burton Caffery Camp Cederberg Cell er Chappell Chisholm Clancy Clark Clawson, Del Collins, Ill. Conte Conyers Curlin Daniels, N.J. Danielson Davis, Ga.. Davis, Wis. Dellums Diggs Dow Dowdy Dulski Edmondson

Eshleman Frelinghuysen Galifianakis Gallagher Gibbons Green, Oreg. Griffin Grover Gubser Gude Hagan Halpern Hanna Hawkins Helstoski Holifield Jones, Tenn. Kyros Landgrebe Leggett Lloyd Long, La. Lujan McClory Mccloskey McDonald,

Mich. McKinney McMillan Macdonald,

Mass. Madden Melcher Miller, Calif. Mink Moorhead Moss Murphy, N.Y. Nix O'Konski

O'Neill Passman Pepper Pettis Pryor, Ark. Purcell Ralls back Rangel Rhodes Robinson, Va. Rodino Rooney, N.Y. Rousselot Roybal Runnels Ruppe St Germain Scheuer Schmitz Shipley Shoup Smith, N.Y. Springer Steele Stokes Stubblefield Stuckey Symington Tiernan Ullman Van Deerlin Veysey Waldie Whalley Whitten Widnall Wilson, Bob Wilson,

Charles H.

So the conference report was agreed to.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

On this vote: Mr. Widnall for, with Mr. Rousselot

against. Mr. Rhodes for, with Mr. Landgrebe

against. Mr. Gude for, with Mr. Schmitz against. Mr. Del Clawson for, with Mr. Ashbrook

against. Mr. Bob Wilson for, with Mr. Camp

against. Mr. Frelinghuysen for, with Mr. McClory

against.

Until further notice: Mr. Shipley with Mr. Cederberg. Mr. Tiernan with Mr. Andrews of North

Dakota. Mr. Boland with Mr. Conte. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Mc

Donald of Michigan. Mr. Daniels of New Jersey with Mr. Rails-

back. Mr. Hanna with Mr. Ruppe. Mr. Miller of California with Mr. Bell. Mr. Celler with Mr. Halpern. Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Grover. Mr. Pepper with Mr. Clancy. Mr. Gibbons with Mr. McKinney. Mr. Rangel with Mr. Waldie. Mrs. Abzug with Mr. Diggs. Mr. Jones of Tennessee with Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Holl:fleld with Mr. Pettis. Mr. Conyers with Mr. Helstoski. Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Lujan. Mr. St Germain with Mr. Davis of Wis-

consin. Mr. O'Neill with Mr. Mccloskey. Mr. Dent with Mr. Eshleman. Mr. Dellums with Mr. Scheuer. Mr. Dow with Mr. Stokes. Mr. Dulski with Mr. Dowdy. Mr. Galafianakis with Mr. Collins of Illi

nois.

Mrs. Chisholm with Mr. Rodino. Mr. Gallagher with Mr. O'Konskl. Mr. Burton with Mr. Nix. Mr. Clark with Mr. Whalley. Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Belcher. Mr. Moss with Mr. Shoup. Mr. Moorhead with Mr. Smith of New

York. Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts with Mr.

Springer. Mr. Kyros with Mr. Steele. Mr. Leggett with Mr. Gubser. Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Runnels. Mr. Hagan with Mr. Robinson of Virginia. Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Whitten. Mr. Curlin with Mr. Baring. Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Pryor of

Arkansas. Mr. McMillan with Mr. Stubblefield. Mr. Symington with Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Abourezk with Mr. Purcell. Mr. Roybal with Mr. Ullman. Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Madden. Mr. Caffery with Mr. Anderson of Tennes-

see. Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Long of Louisiana. Mr. Bingham with Mr. Blanton. Mr. Chappell with Mr. Danielson. Mr. Griffin with Mr. Stuckey. Mrs. Mink with Mr. Charles H. Wilson. Mr. Melcher with Mr. Passman.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


GENERAL LEAVE Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the conference report just agrted to.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the reques~ of the gentleman from Illinois?


NATIONAL CEMETERIES ACT OF 1972

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill <H.R. 12674) to amend title 38 of the United States Code in order to establish a National Cemetery System within the Veterans' Administration, and for other purposes, as amended.

The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "National Cemeteries Act of 1972".

SEC. 2. (a) Part II of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new chapters 24 and 25: "Chapter

"Sec.

24.-NATIONAL CEMETERIES AND MEMORIALS

"1000. Establishment of National Cemetery System; composition of such system; appointment of director.

"1001. Persons eligible for interment in national cemeteries.

"1002. Memorial areas. "1003. Administration. "1004. Disposition of inactive cemeteries. "1005. Acquisition of lands. "1006. Authority to accept and maintain

suitable memorials. "§ 1000. Establishment of National Cemetery

System; composition of such system; appointment of director

19632 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 "(a) There shall be within the Veterans'

Administration a National Cemetery System for the intermerut of deceased servicemen and veterans. To assist him in carrying out his responsibilities in administering the cemeteries within the System, the Administrator may appoint a Director, National Cemetery System, who shall perform such functions as may be assigned by the Administrator.

"(b) The National Cemetery System shall consist of-

" ( 1) national cemeteries transferred from the Department of the Army to the Veterans' Administration by the National Cemeteries Act of 1972;

"(2) cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration on the date of enactment of this chapter; and

"(3) any other cemetery, memorial, or monument (which ls designated by the Administrator as a national cemetery) transferred to the Veterans' Administration by the National Cemeteries Act of 1972, or later acquired or developed. "§ 1001. Persons eligible for interment in

national cemeteries "(a) Under such regulations as the Ad

ministrator may prescribe and subject to the provisions of section 3505 of this title, the remains of the following persons may be buried in any open national cemetery:

"(1) Any veteran (which for the purposes of this chapter includes a person who died in the active military, naval, or air service).

"(2) Any member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces, and any member of the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, whose death occurs under honorable conditions while he is hospitalized or undergoing treatment, at the expense of the United States, for injury or disease contracted or incurred under honorable conditions whlle he is performing active duty for training, inactive duty training, or undergoing that hospitalization or treatment at the expense of the United States.

"(3) Any member of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps at the Army, Navy, or Air Force whose death occurs under honorable conditions whlle he is-

" (A) attending an authorized training camp or on authorized practice cruise;

"(B) performing authorized travel to or from that camp or cruise; or

"(C) hospitalized or undergoing treatment, at the expense of the United States, for injury or disease contracted or incurred under honorable conditions while he is-

" (i) attending that camp or on that cruise;

"(ii) performing that travel; or "(111) undergoing that hospitalization or

treatment at the expense of the United States.

"(4) Any citizen of the United States who, during any war in which the United States is or has been engaged, served in the armed forces of any government allled with the United States during that war, and whose la.st such service terminated honorably.

"(5) The wife, husband, surviving spouse, minor child, and, in the discretion of the Administrator, unmarried adult child of any of the persons listed in paragraphs (1) through ( 4) .

" ( 6) Such other persons or classes of persons as may be designated by the Administrator.

"(b) Eligibility criteria. for interment in national cemeteries shall be applied uniformly with respect to all such cemeteries in the National Cemetery System. "§ 1002. Memorial areas

"(a.) The Administrator shall set a.side, when avallable, suitable areas in national cemeteries to honor the memory of members of the Armed Forces missing in action, or who died or were killed while serving in such forces and whose remains have not been identified, have been burled at sea, or have been determined to be nonrecoverable.

"(b) Under regulations prescribed by the Administrator, appropriate memorials or markers may be erected to honor the memory of those individuals, or groups of individuals, referred to in subsection (a) of this section. "§ 1003. Administration

"(a) The Administrator is authorized to make all rules and regulations which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter, and may designate those cemeteries which are considered to be national cemeteries.

"(b) In conjunction with the development and administration of cemeteries for which he is responsible, the Administrator may provide all necessary facilities including, as necessary, superintendents' lodges, chapels, crypts, mausoleums, and columbariums.

"(c) Each grave in a national cemetery shall be marked with an appropriate marker. Such marker shall bear the name of the person buried, the number of the grave, and such other information as the Administrator may by regulation prescribe.

"(d) There shall be kept in each national cemetery, and at the main office of the Veterans' Administration, a register of burials in each cemetery setting forth the name of each person buried in the cemetery, the number of the grave in which he is buried and such other information as the Administrator by regulation may prescribe.

" ( e) In carrying out his responsibilities under this chapter, the Administrator may contra.ct with responsible persons, firms, or corporations for the care and maintenance of such cemeteries under his jurisdiction as he shall choose, under such terms and conditions as he may prescribe and without regard to the laws concerning advertising for competitive bids.

"(f) The Administrator is authorized to convey to any State, or political subdivision thereof, in which any national cemetery is located, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to any Governmentowned or controlled approach road to such cemetery if, prior to the delivery of any instrument of conveyance, the State or political subdivision to which such conveyance is to be made notifies the Administrator in writing of its willingness to accept and maintain the road included in such conveyance. Upon the execution and delivery of such a conveyance, the jurisdiction of the United States over the road conveyed shall cease and thereafter vest in the State or political subdivision concerned.

"(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator may at such time as he deems desirable, relinquish to the State in which any cemetery, monument, or memorial under his jurisdiction is located, all, or such portion as he may deem desirable, of the jurisdiction acquired by the United States over the lands involved, reserving to the United States such concurrent or partial jurisdiction as he may deem necessary. Relinquishment of jurisdiction under the authority of this subsection may be made by filing with the Governor of the State involved a notice of such relinquishment and shall take effect upon acceptance thereof by the State in such manner as its laws may prescribe.

"(h) The Administrator shall provide for the care, maintenance, and operation of any cemetery or burial plot transferred to the Veterans' Administration by the National Cemeteries Act of 1972 but which is not a part of the National Cemetery System, and may prescribe conditions for interment therein. .. § 1004. Disposition of inactive cemeteries

"(a) The Administrator may transfer, with the consent of the agency concerned, any inactive cemetery, burial plot, memorial, or monument within his control to the Department of the Interior for maintenance as a national monument or park, or to any other agency of the Government.

"(b) The Administrator may also transfer any inactive cemetery or burial plot, or portion thereof, to a State, or political subdivision thereof, which agrees to maintain such cemetery in an appropriate manner, with the understanding that control thereof shall be returned to the Veterans' Administration 1f the Administrator deems such action to be appropriate.

"(c) If a cemetery not within the National Cemetery System has been or is to be dis· continued, the Administrator may provide for the removal of remains from that cemetery to any cemetery within such System. He may also provide for the removal of the remains of any veteran from a place of temporary ln· terment, or from an abandoned grave or cemetery, to a national cemetery. "§ 1005. Acquisition of lands.

"As additional lands are needed for national cemeteries, they may be acquired by the Administrator by purchase, gift (including donations from States or political subdivisions thereof), condemnation, transfer from other Federal agencies, or otherwise, as he determines to be in the best interest of the United States. "§ 1006. Authority to accept and maintain

suitable memorials "Subject to such restrictions as he may

prescribe, the Administrator may accept gifts, devises, or bequests from legitimate societies and organizations or reputable individuals, made in any manner, which are made for the purpose of beautifying national cemeteries, or are determined to be beneficial to such cemetery. He may make land available for this purpose, and may furnish such care and maintenance as he deems necessary.

"Chapter 25.-AMERICAN BA TI'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

"Sec. "1100. The American Battle Monuments

Com.mission; purpose; appointment; terms of office; vacancies; expenses; designation of secretary.

"1101. Functions of Com.mission. "1102. Armed Forces officers assigned; other

personnel. "1103. Mllltary cemeteries in foreign coun

tries; determination as permanent cemeteries; selection of new sites; design and construction; maintenance; construction by Armed Forces; burials and reburials; reentry.

"1104. Powers and duties as to memorials. "1105. Approval of designs for memorials. "1106. Cooperation with States, citizens,

municipalities, or associations, in erection of memorials.

"1107. Arrangements with foreign countries. "1108. Funds received from States, munici

palities, or private sources. "1109. Transfer of administrative functions,

supplies, materials, and equipment to Commission; maintenance of cemeteries located in foreign countries.

"1110. Acquisition and disposition of land in foreign countries; operation of vehicles; establishment of offices; printing authority; contract power; claims against Commission.

"1111. Regulations; delegations. '

0 § 1100. The American Battle Monuments Com.mission; purpose; appointment; term of office; vacancies; expenses; designation of secretary.

"(a.) The American Battle Monuments Commission (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 'Commission') established pursuant to the Act entitled 'An Act for creation of the American Battle Monuments Commission to erect suitable memorials commemorating the services of the American soldier in Europe, and for other purposes', approved March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1509) , as amended by the Acts of June 26, 1946 (60 Stat. 317), and July 25, 1956 (70 Stat. 640), is continued as an instrumentality of the


United St.ates within the Veterans' Adm1nlstration to adm1nlster and maintain, under the Administrator, the permanent mllltary cemeteries, monuments, and memorials on foreign soil and perform such other functions as are set forth in section 1101 of this chapter.

"(b) (1) The Commission sh.all consist of not more than eleven members who shall be appointed by the President, who shall designate one such member as Chairman. The members shall serve at the pleasure of the President who shall fill any vacancies that from time to time occur.

"(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, commissioned officers of the Armed Forces of the United States may be appointed members of the Commission.

"(3) The members of the Commission shall serve a.s such without compensation, except that (A) their Mtual expenses in connection with the work of the Commission, (B) when in a travel status outside the continental United States, a per diem of $40 in lieu of subsistence, and ( C) when in a travel status within the continental United States a per diem at tha same rate authorized to be paid under section 5703 (c) (1) of title 5, may be paid to them from any funds appropriated for the purposes of this ch.apter, or acquired by other means authorized by this chapter.

( c) There shall be a secretary to the Commission who may be a commissioned officer of the United States Armed Forces on active duty. "§ 1101. Functions of Commission

"The functions of the Commission shall be those necessary to--

" ( 1) administer and maintain World War I American national cemeteries, memorials, and monuments in Europe;

"(2) erect and maintain works of architecture and art in such American cemeteries located outside the United States, its territories, and possessions, as the Secretary of the Army shall declare to be permanent cemeteries, and to administer and maintain such cemeteries after they have b~n transferred to the Commission;

"(3) prepare plans and estimates for the erection of suitable memorials to mark and commemorate the services of the American Armed Forces;

" ( 4) erect and maintain memorials in the United States or outside the United States where the American Forces have served or shall hereafter serve as the Commission and the Administrator shall determine· and

" ( 5) carry out any other function designated by the President or the Administrator. "§ 1102. Armed Forces officers assigned; other

personnel " (a) Upon the request of the Administra

tor, the Secretary of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is authorized to designate such personnel, and to make available to the Commission such facilities, as may be necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes of this chapter, and may expend for such purposes any funds appropriated to such department, and services, with reimbursement from the Veterans' Administration for the pay and allowances of the personnel so designated. The Administrator is authorized to employ such further personnel as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

"(b) Where station allowance ha.s been authorized by the Department of the Army for officers of the Army serving the Army at certain foreign stations, the same allowance shall be authorized for omcers of the Armed Forces assigned to the Commission while serving at the same foreign stations.

"(c) When traveling on business of the Commission, omcers of the Armed Forces serving as members or as secretary of the Commission may be reimbursed for expenses as provided for civllian members of the Commission.

"§ 1103. MilLtary cemeteries in foreign countries; determination as permanent cemeteries; selection of new sites; design and construction; maintenance; construction by Armed Forces; burials and reburials; reentry

"When, as a result of comba.t operations, the Armed Forces shall establish military cemeteries in zones CJ! operations outside the United States and its territories and possessions, the Commission and the Secretary of the Army immediately upon the cessation of hostilities, shall determine which of the cemeteries so established, 1! a.ny, shall become permanent cemeteries or, as they may deem desirable, select new sites at any other location for such cemeteries. The Commission shall be solely responsible for the design and construction of such permanent cemeteries, a.nd of all buildings, plantings, headstones, and other permanent improvements incidental thereto except that (1) the Armed Forces shall be responsible for the maJ.ntenance of such permanent cemeteries until such time as the Commission shall express its readiness to assume the functiOIIls of administration hereinafter authorized, (2) a.11 construction undertaken by the Armed Forces in establishing and maintaining the cemetery prior to its transfer to the Commission shall be nonpermanent in nature, (3) burials and reburials therein by the Armed Forces shall be carried out in a.ccordance with plans prepared by the Commission, (4) the Armed Forces shall have the right to reenter any cemeteries transferred to the Commission for the purpose of making exhumations or reinterments should they deem any such action to be necessary. "§ 1104. Powers and duties as to memorials

" (a) The Commission shall prepare plans and estimates for the erection of suitable memorials to commemorate the services of the American Armed Forces, and shall erect and ma.intaln memoria.ls at such places outside the United States where the American Armed Forces have served since April 6, 1917, or shall hereafter serve, as the Commission sh.all determine. The Commission shall also erect and maintain works of architecture and art in such American cemeteries located outside of the United States, its territories, and possessions, as have been or may hereafter be declared to be permanent cemeteries.

"(b) The Commission shall control as to materials and design and provide regulations for, and supervise the erection of, all memorial monuments and buildings in American cemeteries located outside the United States, its territories, and possessions.

"(c) The Commission shall control as to design and provide regulations for the erection of all memorial monuments and buildings commemorating the services of the American Armed Forces erected in any foreign country or political division thereof which may authorize the Commission to perform such functions.

"(d) (1) The Commission ls authorized, in its discretion, to assume responslbillty for the control, administration, and maintenance of any war memorial erected before, on, or after the effective date of this subsection outside the United States by an American citizen, a State, a political subdivision of a State, any other non-Federal governmental agency, foreign agency, or private association to commemorate the services of any of the American Armed Forces in hostillties occurring since April 6, 1917, 1! (A) the memorial is not erected on the territory of the former enemy concerned, and (B) the sponsors of the memorial consent to the Commission's assUllling such responsibilities and transfer to the Commission all their right, title, and interest in the memorial. If reasonable ef· fort fails to locate the sponsors of a memorial, the Commission may assume responsibility therefor under this subsection by agreement with the appropriate foreign au-

thorities. A decision of the Commission to assume responsibility for any war memorial under this subsection is final.

"(2) Any funds accumulated by the sponsors for the maintenance and repair of a war memorial for which the Commission assumes responsibility under this subsection may be transferred to the Commission for use in carrying out the purposes of this subsection. Any such funds so transferred shall be deposited by the Commission in the manner provided for in section 1108 of this chapter.

"(e) The Commission is authorized to take necessary measures to demolish any war memorial erected on foreign soil by an American citizen, a State, a political subdivision of a State, any other non-Federal governmental agency, foreign agency or private association and to dispose of the site of such memorial in such manner as it deems proper, 1!-

"(l) the appropriate foreign authorities agree to such demolition; and

"(2) the sponsors of the memorial consent to such demolition; or

"(3) the memorial has fallen into disrepair and a reasonable effort on the part ot the Commission has failed-

" (A) to persuade the sponsors to maintain the memorial at a standard acceptable to the Commission, or

"(B) to locate the sponsors. "(f) As used in this section, the term

'sponsors' includes the legal successors to the sponsor. "§ 1105. Approval of designs for memorials

"Before any designs for any memorial is accepted by the Commission, it shall be approved by the National Commission of Fine Arts. "§ 1106. Cooperation with States, citizens,

municipalities, or associations, in erection of memorials

"The Commission is authorized to cooperate with American citizens, States, municipalities, or associations desiring to erect war memorials outside the continental limits of the United States in such manner as may be determined by the Commission: Provided, That no assistance in erecting any such memorial shall be given by any administrative agency of the United States unless the plan has been approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. "§ 1107. Arrangements with foreign coun

tries "The President is requested to make the

necessary arrangements with the proper r.uthorities of the countries concerned to enable the Commission to carry out the purposes of this chapter. "§ 1108. Funds received from States, mu

nicipalities, or private sources "The Commission is authorized to receive

funds from any State, municipal, or private source for the purposes of this chapter, and such funds shall be deposited by the Commission with the Treasurer of the United States and shall be kept by him in separate accounts and shall be disbursed upon vouchers approved by the Commission. "§ 1109. Transfer of administrative func

tions, supplies, materials and equipment to Commission; maintenance of cemeteries located in foreign countries

"The President may by Executive order transfer to the Commission, with respect to any permanent military cemeteries located outside of the United States, its territories, and possessions, the same functions of administration which were transferred to the Com.mission by Executive Order 6614, dated February 26, 1934, and Executive Order 10057, dated May 14, 1949, as amended by Executive Order 10087, dated December 3, 1949, together with any supplies, materials, and equipment located therein or 1n military depots overseas which are excess to the

19634 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 5, 1972 needs of the Department of Defense and are requested by the Commission for the performance of such functions. Thereafter the Commission shall be responsible for the maintenance of such cemetery and of all improvements therein. "§ 1110. Acquisition and disposition of land

in foreign countries; operation of vehicles; establishment of offices; printing authority; contract power; delegation of authority; claims against Commission

"(a) Within the limits of any f:>.ppropriation or appropriations made for the purposes of this chapter, the Commission ls authorized ( 1) to acquire land or interest in land in foreign countries for carrying out the purposes of this chapter or of any Executive order conferring functions upon the Commission without submission to the Attorney General of the United States under the provisions ot section 255 of title 40; (2) to establish offices outside of the United States; (3) to rent office and garage space in foreign countries which may be paid for in advance; (4) to procure printing, binding, engraving, lithographing, photographing, and typewriting, including the publication of information concerning the American activities, battlefields, memorials, and cemeteries with respect to which it may exercise any functions.

"(b) Notwithstanding the requirements of existing laws or regulations, under such terms and conditions as the Commission may in its discretion deem necessary and proper, the Commission may contract for work, supplies, materials, and equipment outside, or for use outside, of the United States and engage, by contract or otherwise, the services of architects, firms of architects, and other technical and professional personnel.

" ( c) The Commission may under such terms and conditions and in such manner as it may deem proper dispose of any land or interest in land in foreign countries which has been or may after June 26, 1946, be acquired by the Commission in connection with its work.

" ( d) Claims of the type described in section 224d of title 81, on account of damage to or loss or destruction of property both real and personal, or personal injury or death of any person, arising on or after July 25, 1956, and caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any member of the Commission the secretary of the Commission, any member of the Armed Forces assigned to the Commission, civllian employee of the Veterans' Administration detailed or assigned to the Commission, while acting within the scope of his office or employment, may be considered, ascertained, adjusted, determined, and paid in the manner provided in sections 224d-224i of title 31 for the settlement of Army claims, except that in such cases one or more officers of the Armed Forces or employees of the Veterans' Administration who are detailed to or working with the Commission upon the recommendation of the Commission may be appointed by the Secretary of the Army to a claims commission or commissions or as officers to approve settlements of claims made by such commission or commissions, and all payments in settlement of such claims shall be made out of appropriations made for the purposes of this chapter. "§ 1111. Regulations; delegations

"(a) The Commission, with the approval of the Administrator, has authority to make all rules and regulations which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the functions provided in this chapter.

"(b) The Commission may delegate to its Chairman, secretary, or officials in charge of any of its offices, under such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, such of its authority as it may deem necessary and proper."

(b) The table of chapters of part II, and the table of parts and chapters of title 38, United States Code, are each amended by inserting immediately below "23. Burial benefits________________ 901" the following: "24. National cemeteries and memo-

rials ------------------------- 1000" "25. American Battle Monuments

Commission ---------------- 1100." (c) Section 5316 of title 5, United States

Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"(132) Director, National Cemetery System, Veterans' Administration."

SEC. 3. (a) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive study and submit his recommendations to the Ninety-third Congress, within thirty days after the convening of such Congress, concerning-

( 1) the criteria which should govern the development and operation of the National Cemetery System, including the concept of regional cemeteries;

(2) the relationship of the National Cemetery System to other burial benefits provided by the Federal Government to servicemen and veterans; and

(3) the steps to be taken to conform the existing System to the recommended criteria.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall not transfer (by sale, lease, or otherwise) any real property under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration, to any public or private agency or person, except pursuant to a public law.

SEC. 4. (a) Chapter 23 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by-

( 1) amending section 903 to read as follows: "§ 903. Death in Vet erans' Administration

facility; plot allowance "(a) Where death occurs in a Veterans'

Administration facllity to which the deceased was properly admitted for hospital or domiciliary care under section 610 or 611 of this title, the Administrator-

"(1) shall pay the actual cost (not to exceed $250) of the burial and funeral or, within such limits, may make cont ract s for such services without regard to the laws requiring advertisement for proposals for supplies and services for the Veterans' Administration; and

"(2) shall, when such a death occurs in a State, transport the body to the place of burial in the same or any other State.

"(b) In addition to the foregoing, if such a veteran, or a veteran eligible for a burial allowance under section 902 of this title, is not buried in a national cemetery or other cemetery under the jurisdiction of the United States, the Administrator, in his discretion, having due regard to the circumstances in each case, may pay a sum not exceeding $150, as a plot or interment allowance to such person as he prescribes. In any case where any part of the plot or interment expenses have been paid or assumed by a State, any agency or political subdivision of a State, or the employer of the deceased veteran, no claim for such allowance shall be allowed for more than the difference between the entire amount of the expenses incurred and the amount paid or assumed by any or all of the foregoing entities."; and

(2) adding at the end of such chapter the following new section: "§ 906. Headstones and markers

"(a) The Adm1n1strato4" shall furnish, when requested, appropriate Government headstones or markers at the expense of the United States for the unmarked graves of the following:

" ( 1) Any individual buried in a national cemetery or in a post cemetery.

"(2) Any individual eligible for burial in a national cemetery (but not buried there),

except for those persons or classes of persons enumerated in section 1001 (a) (4), (5), and (6) of this title.

"(3) Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War.

"(b) The Administrator shall furnish, when requested, an appropriate memorial headstone or marker to commemorate any veteran dying in the service, and whose remains have not been recovered or identified or were buried at sea, for placement by the applicant in a national cemetery area reserved for such purposes under the provisions of section 1002 of this title, or in any private or local cemetery."

(b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 23 of title 38, United States Code, is amended-

(1) by striking out "903. Deaith in Veterans' Administration

facility." and inserting in Meu thereof "903. Death in Veterans' Administ ration fa

cility; plot allowance."; and

(2) inserting immediately after "905. Persons eligible under prior law." the following: "906. Headstones and markers.".

SEC. 5. (a) ( 1) There are hereby transferred from the Secretary of the Army to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs all jurisdiction over, and responsibility for, (A) all national cemeteries (except the cemetery at the United States Soldiers' Home), and (B) any other cemetery (including burial plots), memorial, or monument under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army immediately preceding the effective da.te of this section (except the cemetery located at t he United States Military Academy at West Point).

(2) There are hereby transferred from the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs all jurisdiction over, and responsibility for, any cemetery (including burial plots), memorial, or monument under the jurisdiction of either &cretary immediately preceding the effective date of this section (except those cemeteries located at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, the United States Naval Home Cemetery located at Philadelphia, and the United States Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs) .

(b) So much of the personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds available to, or under the jurisdiction of, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, in connection with functions transferred by this Act, as determined by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, are transferred to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

( c) There are hereby transferred from the American Battle Monuments Commission to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs all jurisdiction over, and responsibillty for, any cemetery, memorial, and monument under the jurisdiction of the American Battle monuments Commission immediately preceding the effective elate of this section.

(d) The personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, alloca tlons, and other funds available to the American Battle Monuments Commission are hereby transferred to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

(e) All offenses committed and all penalties and forfeitures incurred under any of the provisions of law amended or repealed by this Act may be prosecuted and punished in the same manner and with the sa1ne effect as if such amendments or repeals had not been made.

(f) All rules, regulations, orders, permits, and other privileges issued or gr!i.nted by the Secretary of the Army, the .Secretarv of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Fore~. or the American Battle Monuments Commis-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19635 sion with respect to the cemeteries, memorials, and monuments transferred to the Veterans' Adm1n1stration by this Act, unless contrary to the provisions of such Act, shall remain 1n full force and effect until modified, suspended, overruled, or otherwise changed by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

(g) No suit, action, or other proceeding commenced by or against any officer in his official capacity as an official of the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, or the American Battle Monuments Commission with respect to functions transferrP.d under subsection (a) or ( c) of this section shall abate by reason of the enactment of this section. No cause of action by or against any such Department or Commission with respect to functions transferred under such subsection (a) or (c), or by or against any officer thereof in his official capacity, shall abate by reason of the enactment of this section. Causes of actions, suits, or other proceedings may be asserted by or against the United States or such officer of the Veterans' Administration as may be appropriate and, in any litigation pending when this section takes e:ffect, the court may at any time, upon its own motion or that of any party, enter an order which will give effect to the provisions of this subsection. If before the date this section takes e:ffect, any such Oepartmen t or Commission, or officer thereof in his official capacity, is a party to a suit with respect to any function so transferred, such suit shall be continued by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

SEc. 6. (a) The following provisions of law are repealed, except with respect to rights and duties that matured, penalties, liabilities, and forefitures that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun, before the e:ffective date of this section:

(1) Sections 4870, 4871, 4872, 4873, 4875, 4877, 4881, and 4882 of the Revised Statutes (24U.S.C.271,272,273,274,276,279,286,287).

(2) The Act entitled "An Act to provide for a national cemetery in every State", approved June 29, 1938 (24 U.S.C. 271a).

(3) The Act entitled "An Act to provide for selection of superintendents of national cemeteries from meritorious and trustworthy members of the Armed Forces who have been disabled in line of duty for active field service", approved March 24, 1948, as amended (24 u.s.c. 275).

(4) The proviso to the second paragraph preceding the center heading "MEDICAL DEPARTMENT" 1n the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, and for other purposes", approved July 24, 1876, as amended (24 U.S.C. 278).

(5) The Act entitled "An Act to provide for the procurement and supply of Government headstones or markers for unmarked graves of members of the Armed Forces dying 1n the service on or after honorable discharge therefrom, and other persons, and for other purposes", approved July 1, 1948, as amended (24 U.S.C. 279a-279c).

(6) The Act entitled "An Act to establish eligibillty for burial in national cemeteries, and for other purposes", approved May 14, 1948, as amended (24 U.S.C. 281).

(7) The Act entitled "An act to provide for the erection of appropriate markers in national cemeteries to honor the memory of members of the Armed Forces missing in action", approved August 27, 1954, as amended. (24 u.s.c. 279d).

(8) The Act entitled "An Act to provide for the utilization of surplus War Department owned military real property as national cemeteries, when feasible", approved August 4, 1947 (24 U.S.C. 281a-28lc).

(9) The Act entitled "An Act to preserve

historic graveyards in abandoned military posts", approved. July l, 1947 (24 U.S.C. 296).

(10) The Act entitled "An Act to provide for the utilization as a national cemetery of surplus Army Department owned military real property at Fort Logan, Colorado", approved March 10, 1950 (24 U.S.C. 281d-f).

( 11) The Act entitled "An Act to provide for the expansion and disposition of certain national cemeteries", approved August 10, 1950 (24 u.s.c. 281g).

(12) The ninth paragraph following the side heading "National Cemeteries" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and for other purposes", approved August 24, 1912 (24 U.S.C. 282).

(13) The fourth paragraph after the center heading "NATIONAL CEMETERIES" in title II of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the milltary and nonmilltary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1926, and for other purposes", approved February 12, 1925 (24 U.S.C. 288).

(14) The second para.graph following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1942, for civil functions administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved May 23, 1941 (24 U.S.C. 289).

(15) (A) The first proviso to the second para.graph and all of the third paragraph following the center heading "NATIONAL CEMETERIES" in title II of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the military and nonmlllta.ry activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1927, and for other purposes", approved Aprll 15, 1926 (44 Stat. 287).

(B) The first proviso to the second paragraph and all of the third paragraph following the center heading "NATIONAL CEMETERIES" 1n title II of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the military and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1928, and for other purposes", approved February 23, 1927 ( 44 Stat. 1138).

( C) The first proviso to the fourth paragraph and all of the fifth paragraph following the center heading "NATIONAL CEMETERIES" in title II of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the military and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes'', approved March 23, 1928 (45 Stat. 354).

(D) The first proviso to the second paragraph and all of the third paragraph following the center heading "NATIONAL CEMETERIES" in title II of the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for the military and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1930, and for other purposes", approved February 28, 1929 (45 Stat. 1375).

(E) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in title II of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the milltary and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1931, and for other purposes", approved May 28, 1930 (46 Stat. 458).

(F) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in title II of the Act entitled. "An Act making appropriations for the military and nonmllltary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1932, and for other purposes", approved February 23, 1931 (46 Stat. 1302).

(G) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CE1111-

ETERIAL EXPENSES" in title II of the Act entitled. "An Act making appropriations for

the mill tary and nonmilitary a.ct! vi ties of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, and for other purposes", approved July 14, 1932 (47 Stat. 689).

(H) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in title II of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the milltary and nonmlllta.ry activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other purposes", approved March 4, 1933 ( 47 Stat. 1595) .

(I) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in title II of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the miUtary and nonmllitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, and for other purposes", approved April 26, 1934 (48 Stat. 639).

(J) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in title II of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the mllltary and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, and for other purposes", approved April 9, 1935 (49 Stat. 145).

(K) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center beading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in title II of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the mllltary and nonmllitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, and for other purposes", approved May 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 1305).

(L) The first proviso to the paragraph following the center heading "cEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, for civil functions administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved July 19, 1937 (50 Stat. 515).

(M) The first proviso to the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, for civll functions administered by the War Department and for other purposes", approved June 11, 1938 (52 Stat. 668) .

(N) The first proviso to the first paragraph and all of the second pargraph following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, for civil functions administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved June 28, 1939 ( 53 Stat. 857) .

( O) The first proviso to the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, for civil functions administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved June 24, 1940 (54 Stat. 505).

(P) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1944, for civil functions administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved May 23, 1941 (55 Stat. 191).

(Q) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, for civil functions administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved April 28, 1942 ( 56 Stat. 220).

(R) The first proviso to the paragraph im-

mediately following the center heading "CEl\llETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1944, for civil functions

19636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved June 2, 1943 (57 Stat. 94).

(S) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "cEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, for civil functions administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved June 26, 1944 ( 58 Stat. 327-328).

(T) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, for civil functions administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved March 31, 1945 (59 Stat. 39).

(U) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, for civil functions, administered by the War Department, and for other purposes", approved May 2, 1946 (60 Stat. 161).

(V) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for civil functions administered by the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and for other purposes", approved July 31, 1947 (61 Stat. 687).

(W) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1949, and for other purposes", approved June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 1019).

(X) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fl.seal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other purposes", approved October 18, 1949 (68 Stat. 846).

(Y) The first proviso to the paragraph following the center heading "cEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in chapter IX of the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes", approved September 6, 1950 (64 Stat. 725).

(Z) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1952, and for other purposes", approved October 24, 1951 (65 Stat. 617).

(AA) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, and for other purposes", approved July 11, 1952 (66 Stat. 579).

(BB) The first proviso to the para.graph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department ot the Army tor the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes", approved July 27, 1953 (67 Stat. 197).

(CC) The first and second provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making a.pproprta.tions for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fl.seal year ending June 30, 1955, and for other purposes", approved June 30, 1954 (68 Stat. 331).

(DD) The first and second provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, certain agencies of the Departmenrt of the Interior, and civil functions administered by the Department of the Army, for the fl.seal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes", approved July 15, 1955 (69 Stat. 360).

(EE) The first and second provisos to the para.graph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for the Tennessee Valley Authority, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, and civil functions administered by the Department of the Army, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for other purposes", approved July 2 , 1956 (70 Stat. 474).

16(A) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army and certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, and for other purposes", approved August 26, 1957 (71 Stat. 416).

(B) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, and for other purposes", approved September 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1572).

(C) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960, and for other purposes", approved September 10, 1959 (73 Stat. 492).

(D) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority and certain study commissions, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes", approved September 2, 1969 (74 Stat. 743).

(E) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority and certain study commissions, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, and for other purposes", approved September 30, 1961 (75 Stat. 722).

(F) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for certain civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority and certain river basin com.missions for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1963, and for other purposes", approved October 24, 1962 (76 Stat. 1216).

( G) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for certain cl vll !unctions administered by the Department of Defense, certain agencies of the

Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Saint Lawrence Sea.way Development Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority and certain river basin commissions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes", approved December 31, 1963 (77 Stat. 844).

(H) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETEIUAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for certain civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the Panama canal, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Delaware River Basin Oommlssion, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for other purposes", approved August 30, 1964 (78 Stat. 682).

(I) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL ExPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making. appropriations for certain civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the Panama Canal, certain agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Delaware River Ba.sin Commission, and the Interocea.nic Canal Commission, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes", approved October 28, 1965 (79 Stat. 1096).

(J) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for certain civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the Panama oanal, certain agencies of the Department of Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the AtlanticPacific Interoceanic 0anal Study Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, the Sa.int Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Water Resources Council, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for other purposes", approved October 15, 1966 ( 80 Stat. 1002).

(K) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for certain civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the Panama Canal, certain agencies of the Department of Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the AtlanticPacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Water Resources Council, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and for other purposes'', approved November 20, 1967 (81 Stat. 471).

(L) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for certain civil functions administered by the Department of Defense, the Panama Canal, certain agencies of the Department of Interior, the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Water Resources Council, and the Atomic Energy Commission, for the fiscal year ending June SO, 1969, and for other purposes", approved August 12, 1968 (82 Stat. 705) .

(M) The third proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "CEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for public works for water, pollution control, and power development, including the Corps of Engineers-Civil, the Panama Canal, the Federal

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19637 Water Pollution Control Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation power agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, and related independent agencies and commissions for the fiscal year ending June so, 1970, and for other purposes". approved December 11, 1969 (83 Stat. 327).

(N) The first proviso to the paragraph following the center heading "CEMETEBIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for public works for water, pollution control, and power development, including the Corps of Engineers--Civ11, the Panama Canal, the Federal Water Quality Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, power agencies of the Department of the Interior, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, and related independent agencies and commissions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes", approved October 7, 1970 (84 Stat. 893).

(0) The first proviso to the paragraph following the center heading "cEMETERIAL EXPENSES" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for public works for water and power development, including the Corps of Engineers--Civll, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonneville Power Administration and other power agencies of the Depa.rtmen t of the Interior, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, and re~,ated independent ageneies and commissions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for other purposes", approved October 5, 1971 (85 Stat. 368).

(17) The Act entitled "An Act to revise eligibility requirements for burial in national cemeteries, and for other purposes", approved September 14, 1959 (73 Stat. 547).

(18) The Act entitled "An Act to amend the Act of March 24, 1948, which establishes special requirements governing the selection of superintendents of national cemeteries". approved August 30, 1961 (75 Stat. 411).

(b) The following provisions of law are repealed, except with respect to rights and duties that matured, penalties, liabil1ties, and forfeitures that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun, before the effective date of this section:

(1) The Act entitled "An Act for creation of the American Battle Monuments Commission to erect suitable memorials commemorating the services of the American soldier in Europe, and for other purposes", approved March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1509), as a.mended by the Acts of June 26, 1946 (60 stat. 317). and July 25, 1956 (70 State. 640).

( 2) The second and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI"LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, and prior fiscal years, to provide supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, and for other purposes", approved April 2, 1924 ( 43 Stat. 35).

(3) The first and second provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925, and for other purposes", approved June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 522).

( 4) The second, third, fourth, and fifth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BA'ITLE

MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled. "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 80,

1927, and for other purposes", approved Aprll 22, 1926 (44 Stat. 306).

( 5) The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" "in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1928, and for other purposes", approved February 11, 1927 (44 Stat. 1071).

(6) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI"LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes", approved May 16, 1928 ( 45 Stat. 575).

(7) The first, second, and fourth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1930, and for other purposes", approved February 20, 1929 (45 Stat. 1231).

(8) The first, second, and fourth provisos to the para.graph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June SO, 1931, and for other purposes", approved Aprll 19, 1930 (46 Stat. 230).

(9) The first, second, and fourth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1932, and for other purposes", approved February 23, 1931 (46 Stat. 1356).

(10) The first, second, and fourth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading .. AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, and for other purposes". approved June 30, 1932 ( 47 Stat. 454).

( 11) The first and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other purposes". approved June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 285).

(12) The first, third, and fourth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offi.ces, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, and for other purposes", approved February 2, 1935 ( 49 Stat. 7) .

( 13) The first, third, and fourth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMLSSION" 1n the Act titled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, and for other purposes", approved March 19, 1936 (49 Stat. 1169).

(14) The first, third, and fourth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, and for other purposes", approved June 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 331).

(15) The first, third, and fourth provisos to the paragraph lmmedia.tely following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, and for other purposes", approved May 23, 1938 ( 52 Stat. 412).

(16) The first, third, and fourth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, and for other purposes", approved March 16, 1939 (53 Stat. 525).

(17) The first, third, and fourth provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and for other purposes", approved April 18, 1940 (54 Stat. 113).

(18) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1942, and for other purposes", approved April 5, 1941 (55 Stat. 95).

(19) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immecilately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Offi.ce and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, and for other purposes", approved June 27, 1942 ( 56 Stat. 395) .

(20) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1944, and for other purposes", approved June 2cs. 2943 ( 57 stat. 171) .

(21) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center neading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, and for other purposes", approved June 27, 1944 (58 Stat. 363).

(22) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fl.seal year ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes", approved May 3, 1945 (59 Stat. 107).

(23) The first and second provisOs to the

19638 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent exectuive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for other purposes", approved March 28, 1946 (60 Stat. 62).

(24) The first proviso to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENT COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissdons, and offices for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and for other purposes", approved July 30, 1947 (61 Stat. 588).

(25) The first and second provisos to the para.graph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent excutive bureaus, boards commissions, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1949, and for other purposes" approved April 20, 1948 (62 Stat. 179).

(26) The first and second provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENT S COM

MISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other purposes", approved August 24, 1949 (63 Stat. 633).

(27) The first and second provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in chapter VIII of title I of the Act entitled "An Act ma.king appropriations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes", approved September 6, 1950 (64 Stat. 699).

(28) The first and second provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies and offices, for the fiscal year ending June SO, 1962, and for other purposes", approved August 31, 1961 (65 Stat. 269).

(29) The first and second provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, and for other purposes", approved July 5, 1952 (66 Stat. 396).

(30) The first and second provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes", approved July 31, 1953 (67 Stat. 299).

(31) The first, second, and third provisos to the first paragraph and the first and second provisos to the second paragraph following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE

MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Otnce and sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and offices, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1955, and for other purposes", approved June 24, 1954 (68 Stat. 275).

(32) The first, second, and third provisos to the first paragraph and the first proviso to the second para.graph following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office of the President and sundry general Government agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes", approved June 29, 1955 (69 Stat. 194).

(33) The first, second, and third provisos to the first paragraph and the first proviso to the second paragraph following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office of the President and sundry general Government agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for other purposes", approved June 13, 1956 (70 Stat. 279) .

(34) The first, second, and third provisos to the first paragraph and the first proviso to the second paragraph following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office of the President and sundry general Government agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, and for other purposes", approved June 5, 1957 (71 Stat. 52) .

(35) The Act entitled "An Act vesting in the American Battle Monuments Commission the care and maintenance of the Surrender Tree site in Santiago, Cuba", approved August 13, 1957 (71 Stat. 344).

(36) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office of the President and sundry general Government agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, and for other purposes", approved June 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 223).

(37) The first , second, and third provisos to the paragra.ph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office of the President and sundry general Government agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960, and for other purposes", approved July 8, 1959 (73 Stat. 164).

(38) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title I of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office of the President and sundry general Government agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes", approved July 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 476).

(39) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title IV of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Commerce, and sundry agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, and for other purposes", approved August S, 1961 (75 Stat. 279).

( 40) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE MONU

MENTS COMMISSION" in title v of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for other purposes", approved October 18, 1962 (76 Stat. 1100).

( 41) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title v of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes", approved December 30, 1963 (77 Stat. 796).

(42) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title v of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for other purposes", approved August 31, 1964 (78 Stat. 731).

( 43) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATl'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title v of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and commerce, the Judiciary and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes", approved September 2, 1965 (79 Stat. 639).

(44) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title v of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for other purposes", approved November 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 1501).

( 45) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title v otf the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Department of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and for other purposes", approved November 8, 1967 (81Stat.429).

( 46) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title v of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and .for other purposes", approved August 9, 1968 (82 Stat. 686).

(47) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title v of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes", approved December 24, 1969 (83 Stat. 4.21).

(48) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATI'LE MONUMENTS COMMISSION" in title v of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Departments of Sta;te, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes", approved October 21, 1970 (84 Stat. 1058).

(49) The first, second, and third provisos to the paragraph immediately following the center heading "AMERICAN BATTLE MON U

MENTS COMMISSION" in title v of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for other purposes", approved August 10, 1971 (85 Stat. 264).

(c) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect in any manner the functions, powers , and duties of-

(1) the Secretary of the Interior with respect to those cemeteries, memorials, or monuments under his jurisdiction on the effective date of this section, or

(2) the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to those cemeteries, memorials, or monuments under his jurisdiction to which the transfer provisions of section 5 (a) of this Act do not apply.


SEC. 7. Secti;:m 3505 (a) of t~tle 38, United Stat es Code, is amended by inserting immediately after the words "gratuitous benefits" where first appearing therein, the following: "(including the right to burial in a national cemetery)".

SEC. 8. Subchapter II of chapter 3 of title 38, United States Code, ifl a.mencied by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "§ 218. Standards of conduct and arrests for

crimes at hospitals, domiciliaries, cemeteries and other Veterans' Administration reservations

" (a. ) For the purpose of maintaining law and order and of protecting persons and property on lands (including cemeteries) and in buildings under the juris<iiction of the Veterans' Administration (and not under the control of the Administrator of General Services) the Administrator or officers and employees of the Veterans' Administration duly authorized by him may-

" ( 1) make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the property under their charge and control, and annex to such rules and regulations such reasonable penalties within the limits prescribed in subsection ( b) of this section, as will insure their enforcement. Such rules and regulations shall be posted in a conspicuous place on such property;

"(2) design.ate persons who shall have authority to make arrests for violation of the rules and regulations :rr..ade and published under subsection (a) (1) of this section or for any crime or offense against the United States committed on such Veterans' Administration installations. The jurisdiction and policing powers of such designated persons shall not extend to the service of civil process, and arrests by such persons for violations of Veterans' Administration rules and regulations shall be made only on property over which the United States has acquired exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction. Any person so arrested shall be taken forthwith before the nearest United States magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is located; and

"(3) empower officers or employees of the Veterans' Administration who have been duly authorized to perform investigative functions to act as special investigators and to carry firearms, whether on Federal property or in travel status. Such special investigators shall have, while on real property under the charge and control of the Veterans' Administration, the power to enforce Federal laws for the protection of persons and property and the power to enforce rules and regulations made and published under subsection (a) (1) of this section. Any such special investigator may make arrests without warrant for any offense committed upon such property if he has reasonable ground to believe (1) the offense constitutes a felony under the laws of the United States, and (2) that the person to be arrested is guilty of that oftense.

"(b) Whoever shall violate any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) ( 1) of this section shall be fined not more than $50 or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."

(b) Section 625 of title 38, United States Code, is hereby repealed.

(c) The table of sections a.t beginning of chapter 3 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting immediately after-"217. Studies of rehabilitation of disabled

persons." the following "218. Standards of conduct and arrests for

crimes at hospitals, domiciliaries, cemeteries, and other Veterans' Administration reservations.",

and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, 1s amended by striking out--"625. Arrests for crimes in hospitals and

domiciliary reservations.".

SEC. 9. (a) The Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, is authorized and directed to cause to be brought to the United States a body of an American, who was a member of the Armed Forces, who served in Southeast Asia and who lost his life during the Vietnam era and whose identity has not been established, for burial in the Memorial Amphitheater of the National Cemetery at Arlington, Virginia.

(b) The implementation of this section shall take place after the United States has concluded its participation in hostilities in Southeast Asia, as established by the President or the Congress of the United States.

(c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

SEC. 10. (a) The first section and sections 2 and 7 of this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Sections 4, 5, and 6 of this Act shall take effect July 1, 1973, or on such earlier date as the President may prescribe and publish in the Federal Register; except that clauses (1) and (2) of section 4(a) shall take effect on the first day of the second calendar month following the date of enactment of this Act.

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded? Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr. Speak

er, I demand a second. The SPEAKER. Without objection, a

second will be considered as ordered. There was no objection. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker,

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

<Mr. TEAGUE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 12674, entitled the "National Cemeteries Act of 1972," has several objectives which I will briefly outline, but is primarily designed to establish a national cemetery system within the Veterans' Administration.

In my extension of remarks I will include for the RECORD a detailed sectionby-section analysis of the bill, accompanied by a brief review of the background of this legislation and a resume of the reasoning behind the various policy decisions made by the committee and reflected ill the reported bill. In its present form the bill would-

Establish within the Veterans' Administration a national cemetery system which would consist of national cemeteries transferred to the Veterans' Administration from the Department of the Army, cemeteries presently under the jurisdiction of the VA, and all military post cemeteries, as well as other cemeteries, memorials, or monuments which may be later acquired or developed. The only cemeteries not so transferred are those located in national parks operated by the Department of the Interior, cemeteries at the three military academies located at Colorado Springs, Colo., Annapolis, Md., and West Point, N.Y., the U.S. Soldiers' Home at Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Naval Home located in Philadelphia, Pa.

Continue the American Battle Monuments Commission as an instrumentality of the United States within the vet-erans' Administration, to administer and maintain, under the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, the military cemeteries, monuments, and memorials on foreign soil. The Commission is to operate sub-

stantially as now authorized by law, but all statutory provisions are incorporated in title 38, United States Code. The responsibility of the Battle Monuments Commission, under the VA, would be extended by authorizing it to assume responsibility for maintenance of certain memorials on foreign soil over which they do not now have jurisdiction.

Direct the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to conduct a comprehensive study and submit his recommendations to the 93d Congress within 30 days after the convening of such Congress, concerning: (a) the criteria which should govern the development and operation of the National Cemetery System, including the concept of regional cemeteries; (b) the relationship of the national cemetery system to other burial benefits provided by the Federal Government to servicemen and veterans; and (c) the steps to be taken to conform the existing system to the recommended criteria.

Provide that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall not transferby sale, lease, or otherwise-any real property under the jurisdiction of the Veterans Administration, to any public or private agency or person, except pursuant to a Public Law.

Authorize a special plot allowance of $150 {in addition to the present allowance for burial and funeral expenses of $250) payable in any case in which the veteran is not buried in a national or other Federal cemetery.

Provide authority in VA, now exercised by the Department of the Army for furnishing a headstone or marker, 'upon re~ue~t: for the unmarked graves of any mdiv1duals buried in a national cemetery or in a post cemetery, as well as most individuals eligible for burial in those locations but not buried there, and soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War.

Provide broader authority in the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to establish standards of conduct and arrests for crimes at hospitals, domiciliaries cemeteries and other VA reservatio~. This authority would supersede the more limited authority now vested in the Administrator under 38 U.S.C. 625 and accordingly, the latter provision would be repealed.

Include provision for the burial of an unknown soldier of the war in Vietnam and Southeast Asia in Arlington National Cemetery at an appropriate time to be selected at a later date.

Throughout the hearings on this proposal it was practically the unanimous view of all interested parties that the various Federal Cemetery Systems in the United States are unduly and inefficiently fragmented. On this point, it would be well to quote the following excerpt from the Veterans Administration's report on H.R. 12674, which report was, of course, cleared by the Office of Management and Budget:

There is merit in consolidating the national cemeteries now under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army with those cemeteries currently operated by the Veterans' Administration, in order to achieve administrative simplicity and maximum utilization. While experience over many years has shown that

19640 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 the Department of the Army can administer a National Cemetery System in an effi.cient manner, the figures which have been made available to us reveal that more than 90 percent of interments in national cemeteries are of veterans and their dependents, with servicemen dying in active service comprising less than 10 percent. Thus, as it now exists, burial in a national cemetery is more closely related to veterans' benefits than to the functions of a service department. Consequently, we believe that it would be logical for the national and Veterans' Adminstration cemeteries to be consolidated into one system to be administered by the Veterans' Administration. We would also agree that the responsibility for providing grave markers and headstones should likewise be transferred to the Veterans' Administration as a correlative function.

Our Committee believes it is entirely appropriate, in view of the objective of uniform consolidation, to include Arlington National Cemetery in the overall transfer. At the same time, we recognize that this particular installation adjacent to the Nation's Capitol has certain unique aspects. It is expected that the Administrator will avail himself to the fullest extent that he deems it desirable and feasible to utilize with the Department of the Army the broad "cross-servicing" authority which is available to him under 31 U.S.C. 686, as well as appropriate mutual agreements that may be entered into. The Army representative stated in testimony before the Committee on March 28, 1972, that many of the ceremonies of state that are conducted at Arlington are coordinated with the Military District of Washington. The Committee feels that the Veterans Administration can coordinate these functions with the Military District of Washington under the cited authority, as well as can the Department of the Army. Similarly, such cross-servicing may be appropriate in connection with the operation of certain post cemeteries where unusual circumstances are present.

We will await with interest receipt of the Administrator's in-depth report and recommendations at the beginning of the 93rd Congress. At the hearings the VA spokesman indicated that there has been an in-house study conducted by the VA on this subject for some time and that certain meaningful data has already been compiled.

While the Committee is realistic enough not to assume that the newly authorized plot allowance will serve as a total solution to the national cemetery problem, it will necessarily have a major effect in reducing the current demands for burials in existing national cemeteries. In this connection, experience has shown that the families of deceased veterans, in the vast majority of cases, have preferred and sought burial of the vet-erans within 50 miles of the family home. Although the plot allowance is relatively modest, its availability should serve to encourage more burials in local and surrounding cemeteries.

The provision for the burial of a Vietnam unknown soldier in Arlington National Cemetery follows the text of a separate bill (H.J. Res. 609) introduced

by the Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr. of New York.

Our Committee has learned and is pleased to invite attention to the historical fact that in 1920 a similar resolution resulting in the creation of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of World War I was sponsored by the father of Congressman Fish, the Honorable Hamilton Fish, Sr. The Defense Department advises that to date all deceased servicemen have been accounted for; however, this authorizing legislation is desirable since it will permit immediate implementation at such time as the hostilities have been :finally terminated.

In recent years, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has been disturbed at the increasing activity of certain segments in the executive branch which have, as a result of extensive surveys, attempted to effect the disposition of thousands of acres of Federal land. It would be presumptuous for me to allege a lack of justification across the board for any such disposition. On the other hand, our Committee has a deep interest and abiding concern that substantial blocks of acreage surrounding our veterans' hospitals throughout the land must not be indiscriminately whittled away without its oversight knowledge and congressional approval in advance. In the event of enactment of the provision of the bill prohibiting the transfer of any VA lands except by Public Law, the committee assures the executive branch that any proposals to transfer real property under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration will receive an objective hearing and serious consideration of the justification submitted.

I think it appropriate to particularly point out that, contrary to certain proposals in the past, this legislation does not propose to abolish the American Battle Monuments Commission. Since, with minor exceptions, the bill places overall responsibility for the administration of all Federal cemetery activity in the Veterans' Administration, it would appear logical to place the Commission within the organizational framework of the VA. As will be noticed more particularly in the sectional analysis, the various responsibilities and duties of the Commission will continue substantially as now authorized by law, but the existing statutory provisions are more appropriately incorporated in title 38, United States Code. At the specific request of the Battle Monuments Commission, the committee has included in the bill a provision which extends greater authority in that body with respect to certain memorials, monuments, and so forth, on foreign soil, over which they do not now have jurisdiction.

A new section 8 has been added to H.R. 12674 which would give the Administrator authority to maintain the peace, dignity and decorum in the national ceme-teries under his jurisdiction. This authority is substantially comparable to that provided under existing law for the General Services Administration under 40 U.S.C. 318-318d, and for the National Park Service of the Department of Interior under 16 U.S.C. 10-lOa. For many years, the law <now 38 U.S.C. 625) has authorized the Administrator for the

purpose of maintaining law and order and protecting persons and property at Veterans' Administration hospitals and domiciliaries, to designated persons at such hospitals and domiciliaries who shall have authority to make arrests for any crime or offense against the United States committed on the reservation of hospitals or domiciliaries.

The provisions added by Section 8 would authorize the Administrator to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to maintain law and order and protect persons and property in cemeteries and would establish reasonable penalties necessary to ensure their enforcement; and to designate persons having authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of such rules and regulations and for crimes against the United States. Since the Committee believes it is desirable for this authority to apply equally to other lands, buildings and facilities over which the Administrator has jurisdiction, the new section added by the bill would have that effect and, therefore, would repeal the current provisions of 38 u.s.c. 625.

COST

With respect to cost, the VA has advised as follows:

Except for certain costs incidental to the transfer of records and personnel, it is not anticipated that the first-year costs of the administration of the proposed national cemetery system within the Veterans' Administration would exceed that being incurred by the separate organization entities. However, we estimate that the enactment of section 4(a) of the bill would result in a first-year cost of $39.6 million, and a total first 5-year cost of $217.5 mlllion. A detailed cost table covering each of the first 5 years is enclosed.

• • • Based on a recent VA study, approxi

mately 15 percent of the veterans dying were buried in a national cemetery. Assuming this proportion stm preva.lls, and that each purchaser receives the maximum payment, estima.ted costs of H.R. 12674, if enacted would be as follows:

Fiscal year: 1973 _ - --- ----. ----- -----197 4 _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1975 _ - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -1976_ - - -- - -- -- - -- - - -- - - -1977 - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- ---

Burial awards affected

Additional annual cost

264, 000 $39, 600, 000 281, 000 42, 150, 000 293, 000 43, 950, 000 302, 000 45, 300, 000 310, 000 46, 500, 000

Note: The amended bill provides that if any part of the plot or interment expense has been paid by a State or its sub· division, or by an employer of the deceased veteran, a claim could only be allowed for the difference between the entire amount of the expenses and the amount paid. To th is extent, which cannot be estimated, the costs set out above would be reduced.

Mr. Speaker, our committee has given extended and thoughtful consideration to the problem of national cemeteries and related matters. I believe H.R. 12674 represents a reasonable and forward looking approach to what we hope will be an ultimate satisfactory solution and I strongly recommend its approval by the House.

At this point, I include in my remarks a detailed section-by-section analysis of H.R. 12674, as amended, together with pertinent tables setting forth the locations, interments, and other relevant statistical data with regard to all of the ex-


isting national cemeteries, cemeteries under the Department of the Interior, and cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration: SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 12674,

92D CONGRESS, AS AMENDED A bill to a.mend title 38 of the United States

Code in order to establish a National cem~tery System within the Veteran's Administration, and for other purposes.

SECTION 1

This section provides that this Act may be cited as the "National Cemeteries Act of 1972".

SECTION 2 Subsection (a) amends part II of title 38,

United states Code, to add new chapters 24 and 25. The contents of the new chapter 24 are largely patterned after chapter 7 of title 24, United States Code, and chapter 8 of title 36, United States Code. The language of the new chapter 24 has been modernized and simpllfied to have it conform with the present language of title 38. A more detailed analysis of the new chapter 24 follows:

CHAPTER 24.-NATIONAL CEMETF.i&IES AND MEMORIALS

Sec. 1000. Establishment of National Cemetery

System; composition of such system; appointment of direotor.

1001. Persons eligible for interment in na-tional cemeteries.

1002. Memorial areas. 1003. Administration. 1004. Disposition of inactive cemeteries. 1005. Acquisition of lands 1006 Authority to accept and maintain suit

able memorials Section 1000. Establishment of National

Cemetery System; composition of such system; appointment of director A National Cemetery System would be es

tablished within the Veterans Administration for interment of deceased servicemen and veterans. The new System would be headed by a Director who would be responsible to the Adm.inistrator for operation of those cemeteries encompassed. within the new System as well as any other placed under the jurisdiction of the Veterans AdministTation. The new System would consist of national cemeteries transferred. from the Department of the Army to the Veterans Administration; cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the Veterans Administration at the time this bill is enacted; and any other cemetery, memorial, or monument transferred by this bill or later acquired or developed. Section 1001. Persons eligible for interment

in national cemeteries This section designates those persons who,

subject to regulations the Administrator shall prescribe and the forfeiture provisions of section 3505 of title 38, shall be eligible for interment in national cemeteries. These include certain servicemen, veterans, reservists, National Guardsmen, Reserve Officers Training Corps members, United States citizens who served honorably with armed forces allied with the United States in wa.rs engaged in by this country, certain dependents of eligible persons in the a.foregoing categories, and other persons or classes of persons as may be designated by the Administrator. The eligibility criteria for interment in national cemeteries would be required to be applied uniformly with respect to all c&meteries in the new System.

Section 1002. Memorial areas The Administrator would be directed to set

aside, when available, suitable areas in na-tional cemeteries to honor the memory of those servicemen missing in action, or whose remains have not been identifted, those buried a.t sea and those whose remains have

been determined to be nonrecoverable. He would be authorized to prescribe regulations governing the erection of appropriate memorials or markers to honor such individuals or such groups of individuals.

Sectton 1003. Administration The Administrator would be authorized to

make a.11 rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of chapter 24 of title 38; to designate those cemeteries considered to be National Cemeteries; and to provide all necessary fac111ties for cemeteries including superintendents' lodges, chapels, crypts, mausoleums and columbariums. Graves in national cemeteries would be required to be marked by appropriate markers and with certain specified information placed thereon. Registers of burials would be kept in each cemetery and also at the main office of the Veterans Administration.

In carrying out his responsib111ties under this new chapter of title 38, the Administrator would be authorized to contract, without regard to the laws concerning advertising for competitive bids, for the care and maintenance of these cemeteries.

The Administrator would be authorized to convey to any State, or political subdivision thereof, in which any national cemetery is located, all right, title and interest of the United States to any Government-owned or Government-controlled approach road providing the State or political subdivision states in writing, prior to such conveyance, its wlllingness to accept and maintain such road. Upon conveyance, the jurisdiction of the United. States over such road would cease and would vest in the State or political subdivision.

When the Administrator deemed it to be desirable, he could relinquish to a State in which any cemetery, monument or memorial under his jurisdiction is located, all or part of the jurisdiction the United States has over such lands, reserving such concurrent or partial jurisdiction as he deemed necessary. The relinquishment would be accomplished by filing with the Governor of the State involved a notice of such relinquishment of jurisdiction and would take eft'ect upon acceptance by the State.

The Administrator would be directed to care for, maintain and operate any cemetery or burial plot transferred by the bill which would not be a part of the National Cemetery System and would be authorized to prescribe the conditions for interment therein.

Section 1004. Disposition of inactive cemeteries

The Administrator would be authorized to transfer, with the consent of the agency concerned, any inactive cemetery, burial plot, memorial or monument within his control to the Department of the Interior for maintenance as a national monument or park, or to any other agency of the Government. He also would be permitted to transfer any inactive cemetery or burial plot to a State or political subdivision thereof provided the State or subdivision agreed to maintain such cemetery in an appropriate manner. The transfer would be subject to an understanding that the Administrator might reacquire the property if he deemed such action to be appropriate.

Where a cemetery not within the National System has been or is to be discontinued, the Administrator could provide for the removal of remains from that cemetery to any cemetery within the System and for the removal of any veteran's remains from a place of temporary interment, or from an abandoned grave or cemetery, to a national cemetery.

Section 1005. Acquisition of lands The Administrator would be authorized to

acquire additional lands for national cemeteries as needed. This could be accomplished by purchase, gift (including donations from States or political subdivisions), condemnation, transfer from other Federal agencies, or otherwise, as he deemed in the best interest of the United States.

Section 1006. Authority to accept and maintain suitable memorials

The Administrator, subject to such restrictions as he may prescribe, would be authorized to accept gifts, devises, or bequests from legitimate societies and organizations or from reputable individuals, for the purpose of beautifying or benefiting national cemeteries. He also would be authorized _to make land available for this purpose and to furnish such care and maintenance as he deemed necessary.

The contents of the new chapter 25 are largely patterned after chapter 8 of title 36, United States Code. The language of the new chapter 25 has been simplified and reformed to conform to the present language of title 38. In general it confines the authority of the American Battle Monuments Commission to the administration and care of cemeteries, monuments, and memorials located outside the United States, with one exception. That exception is a preservation of its authority to design and erect the General John J. Pershing memorial in Washington, D.C. (Public Law 89-786). A more detailed analysis of the new chapter 25 follows: CHAPTER 25.-AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS

COMMISSION Sec. 1100. The American Battle Monuments Com

mission; purpose; appointment; terms of office; vacancies; expenses; designation of secretary.

1101. Functions of Commission. 1102. Armed Forces officers assigned; other

personnel. 1103. Military cemeteries in foreign coun

tries; determination as permanent cemeteries; selection of new sites; design and construction; maintenance; construction by Armed Forces; burials and reburials; reentry.

1104. Powers and duties as to memorials. 1105. Approval of designs for memorials. 1106. Cooperation with States, citizens, mu-

nicipalities, or associations, in erection of memorials.

1107. Arrangements with foreign countries. 1108. Funds received from States, munici

palities, or private sources. 1109. Transfer of administrative functions,

supplies, materials, and equipment to Commission; maintenance of cemeteries located in foreign countries.

1110. Acquisition and disposition of land in foreign countries; operation of vehicles; establishment of offices; printing authority; contract power; claims against Commission.

1111. Regulations; delegations. Section 1100. The American Battle Monu

ments Commission,· purpose; appointment,· term of offlce; vacancies; expenses, designation of secretary Subsection (a) provides that the Ameri

can Battle Monuments Commission, is continued as an instrumentality of the United States within the Veterans Administration to administer and maintain, under the Administrator, the permanent military cemeteries, monuments, and memorials on foreign soil and perform such other functions as are set forth in section 1101 of this chapter.

Subsection (b) provides that (1) the Commission shall consist of not more than eleven members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President, with one such member designated by him as Chairman; the President is authorized to fill vacancies; (2) officers of the Armed Forces of the United States may be appointed as members of the Commission; and (3) members of the Commission shall serve without compensation, except they can receive actual expenses and travel expenses.

Subsection (c) provides that there shall be a secretary to the Commission who may

19642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 5, 1972 be a. commissioned omcer of the United Sta.tea Armed Forces on active duty. Section 1101. Functions of Commission

This section provides tha.t the functions of the Commission sha.11 be those necessary to-

(1) administer and maintain World War I American national cemeteries, memorials, and monuments in Europe.

(2 ) erect and maintain works of architecture a.t such American cemeteries located outside the United States as the Secretary of the Army declares to be permanent, and to administer and maintain such cemeteries after they have been transferred to the Commission;

(3) prepare plans and estimates for the erection of memorials to mark and commemorate the services of the American Armed Forces;

(4) erect and maintain memorials In the United States or outside where American Forces have served or shall hereafter serve as the Commission and the Administrator shall determine; and

( 5) carry out any other function designated by the President or the Administrator. Section 1102. Armed Forces officers assigned;

other personnel Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary

of the Army, Navy, or Afr Force, upon request of the Administrator, ls authorized to make personnel a.nd faclllties a.va.lla.ble to the Commission on a reimbursable basis, as may be necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes of this chapter. The Administrator is authorized to employ such further personnel as may be necessary.

Subsection (b) provides that where station allowance has been authorized for Army officers at certain foreign stations, the same allowance is authorized for Armed Forces omcers serving with the Commission at the same foreign stations.

Subsection (c) provides that Armed Forces officers serving as members or as secretary of the Commission would receive reimbursement for travel expenses as provided for civlllan members of the Commission. Section 1103. Military cemeteries in foreign

countries; determination as permanent cemeteries; selection of new sites; design and construction; maintenance; construction by Armed Forces; burial and reburials; reentry This section provides that when as a result

of combat operations, the Armed Forces establishes military cemeteries in zones of operations outside the United States and its territories and possessions, the Commission and the Secretary of the Army immediately upon the cessation of hostlllties, shall determine which of these cemeteries, if any, shall become permanent cemeteries or, if they deem desirable, select new sites at any other location for such cemeteries. The Commission shall be solely responsible for the design, construction, buildings, plantings, headstones and other permanent improvements of the permanent cemeteries and the permanent Improvements incidental thereto with exception that--

( 1) the Armed Forces shall be responsible for maintenance of the permanent cemeteries until the Commission expresses its readiness to assume the functions of administration authorized in this legislation;

(2) the construction undertaken by the Armed Forces in establishing and maintainin accordance with plans prepared by the Commission shall be of a nonpermanent nature;

(3) any burials or reburials by the Armed Forces in the cemetery shall be carried out in accordance wtih plans prepared by the Commission;

( 4) the Armed Forces has the right to reenter any cemeteries transferred to the Commission for the purpose of making exhuma-

tions or reintennents should they deem any such action to be necessary.

Section 1104. Powers and duties as to memorials.

Subsection (a ) provides that the Commission shall prepare plans and estimates for the erection of suitable memorials to commemorate the service of the American Armed Forces, and shall erect and maintain memorials at such places outside the United States where the American Armed Forces have served since Aprll 6, 1917, or shall hereafter serve, as the Commission shall determine. This subsection also provides that the Commission shall erect and maintain works of architecture and art in American cemeteries located outside of the United states, its territories, and possessions, as have been or may be declared to be permanent cemeteries.

Subsection (b) provides that the Commission shall control the materials and design and provide regulations for and supervise the erection of all memorial monuments a.nd buildings in the American cemeteries located outside the United States, its territories, and possessions, as have been or will be declared to be permanent cemeteries.

Subsection (c) provides that the Commission shall control the design and provide regulations for the erection of every memorial, monuments and buildings commemorating the services of the American Armed Forces erected in any foreign country or political division thereof which may a.uthoriY.e the Commission to perform such functions.

Subsection {d) contains the following provisions:

( 1) The Commission ls authorized, in its discretion, to assume responslbllity for the control, administration, and maintenance of any war memorial erected before, on, or after the effective date of this subsection (d) outside the United states by an American citizen, a State, a political subdivision of a State, any other non-Federal governmental agency, foreign agency, or private association to commemorate the service of any of the American Armed Forces in hostilities occurring since April 6, 1917, If (A) the memorial ls not erected on the wrrltory of the former enemy concerned, and (B) the sponsors of the memorial consent to the Commission's assuming such responsibilities and transfer to the Commission all their right, title, and interest in the memorial. The Commission may assume responsiblllty for a memorial where a reasonable effort falls to locate its sponsors and such agreement ls ma.de With the appropriate foreign authorities. The decision of the Commission to assume responsibility for any war memorial under subsection (b) is final.

(2) Under this subsection, funds accumulated by the sponsors for the maintenance and repair of a war memorial for which the Commission assumes responslbllity under this subsection Ikl.8.Y be transferred to the Commission for use in carrying out the purposes of this subsection and shall be deposited in the manner provided for in section 1108 of this chapter.

Subsection (e) authorizes the Commission to take necessary measures to demolish any war memorial erected on foreign soil by an American citizen, a State, a political subdivision of a State, any other non-Federal Governmental agency, foreign agency or private association and to dispose of the site of such memorial in such mannet· as it deems proper, if-

(1) the appropriate foreign ruthorlties agree to suoh demoUtion; and

(2) the sponsors of the memorial consent to such demolition; or

(3) the memorial has fallen into disrepair and a reasonable effort on the part of the Commission has falled-

(A) to persuade the sponsors to maintain the memorial at a standard acceptable to the Commission, or

(B) to locate the sponsors.

Subsection (f) provides that the term "sponsors" includes the legal successors to the sponsor. Section 1105. Approval of designs for memo

rials This section provides that before any de

sign for any memorial is accepted by the Commission, it shall be approved by the National Commission of Fine Arts. Section 1106. Cooperation with, States, citi

zens, municipalities, or associations, in erection of memorials This section authorizes the Commission

to cooperate with American citizens, States, municipalities, or associations desiring to erect war memorials outside the continental limits of the United States in such manner as may be determined by the Commission. The section contains a proviso that no assistance in erecting any such memorial shall be given by any administrative agency of the United States unless approval of the plan has been made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Section 1107. Arrangements with foreign countries

This section requests the President to make arrangements with the proper authorities of the countries concerned to enable the Commission to carry out the purposes of Chapter 25. Section 1108. Funds received from States,

municipalities, or private sources This section authorizes the Commission to

receive funds from any State, municipal, or private source for the purposes of this chapter. The funds shall be deposited by the Commission with the Treasurer of the United States, be kept by him in separate accounts, and disbursed upon vouchers approved by the Commission. Section 1109. Transfer of administrative

functions, supplies, materials and equipment to Commission,· maintenance of cemeteries located in foreign countries This section provides that the President

may by Executive order transfer to the Commission, with respect to any permanent military cemeteries located outside of the United States, its territories, and possessions, the same functions of administration which were transferred to the Commission by Executive Order 6614, dated February 26, 1934, and Executive Order 10057, dated May 14, 1949, as amended by Executive Order 10087, dated December 3, 1949, together with any supplies, materials, and equipment located therein or in military depots overseas which a.re excess to the needs of the Department of Defense a.nd are requested by the Commission for the performance of such functions. This section further provides that the Commission shall be responsible for the maintenance of such cemeteries and for all improvement therein.

Section 1110. Acquisition and disposition. of land in foreign. countries; operation of vehicles; es-fqblishment of offices; printing authority; contract power; delegation of authority,· claims against Commission

Subsection (a) authorizes the Commission within the limits of any appropriation or appropriations made pursuant to chapter 25-

( 1) to acquire land or interest in land in foreign countries for carrying out the purposes of this chapter or of any Executive order conferring functions upon the Commission without submission to the Attorney General of the United States under the provisions of section 255 of title 40;

(2) to establish offices outside of the United States;

(3) to rent office and garage space in foreign countries which may be paid for in advance;

(4) to procure printing, binding, engraving, lithographing, photographing, and typewriting, including the publication of information concerning the American activi-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19643 ties, battlefields, memorials, and cemeteries with respect to which it may exercise any functions.

Subsection (b) provides that not withstanding any requirements of existing laws and regul.ations, the Commission may contract for work, supplies, materials, and equipment outside, or for use outside, of the United States and engage, by contract or otherwise, the services of architects, firms of architects, and other technical and professional personnel under such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion deems necessary and proper.

Subsection (c) allows the Congress to dispose of any land or interest in land or foreign countries which has been or ma.y after June 26, 1946, be acquired by the Commission in connection with its work in such manner as it may deem proper.

Subsection (d) provides that claims of the type described in section 224d of title 31, on account of damage to or loss or destruction of property both real and persona.I, or personal injury or death of any person, arising on or after July 25, 1956, and caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any member of the Commission, the secretary of the Commission, clviUan employee of the Veterans Administration detailed or assigned to the Commission, while acting within the scope of his office or employment, may be considered, ascertained, adjusted, determined, and paid in the ma.nner provided in sections 224d-224i of title 31 for the settlement of Army claims, except that in such cases one or more officers of the Armed Forces or employees of the Veterans Administration who are detailed to or working with the Commission upon the recommendation of the Commission may be appointed by the Secretary of the Army to a claims commission or commissions or as officers to approve settlements of claims made by such commission or commissions. This subsection further provides that all payments and settlement of such claims shall be made out of appropriations made for the purposes of this chapter.

Section 1111. Regulations,· delegations Subsection (a) provides that the Com

mission has the authority to make all rules and regulations which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the functions of new chapter 25 once the approval of the Administrator has been obtained.

Subsection (b) allows the Commission to delegate to its Chairman, secretary, or officials in charge of any of its offices, under such terms and conditions that may be prescribed under the necessary and proper authority.

SECTION 3

This section directs the Administrator to conduct a comprehensive study and submission of his recommendations to the 93d Congress within 30 days after such Congress convenes, concerning the criteria which should govern the development and operation of the National Cemetery System, including the concept of regional cemeteries; the relationship between that system to other Federal burial benefits provided servicemen and veterans; and the steps to be taken to conform the existing System to the recommended criteria. It would also prohibit the Administrator from transferring any real property under his jurisdiction to any public or private agency or person except pursuant to a Public Law.

SECTION 4

Subsection (a) would (1) amend section 903 of title 38 to provide that in addition to the amounts payable for the burial or funeral expenses of an eligible veteran under sections 902 O!' 903, if the veteran is not buried in a national cemetery or other cemetery under the jurisdiction of the United States, the Administrator, in his discretion, _having


due regar i to the cir.::umstances in each case, may pay a sum not exceed1ng $150 as a :rlot er interment allowance to such person as he prescribes. If any part of the plot or interment expense has been paid or assumed by a State or its subdivision, or the employer of the deceased veteran, a claim for only the difference between the entire amount of the expenses and the amount paid could be allowed; (2) amend chapter 23 of title 38 to add a new section 906 on headstones and markers. This transfers the existing authority of the Secretary of the Army under chapter 7 of title 24, United States Code, to provide headstones and markers to the Administrator of Veterans Affairs. The language has been modernized and simplified to make it conform with the present language of title 38. The new section directs the Administrator to furnish appropriate headstones or markers at Government expense where requested, for the unmarked grave of (1) any individual buried in a national cemetery or post cemetery; (2) any individual eligible for burial in a national cemetery, but not burled there (except for graves of the United States citizens who served honorably with the armed forces of foreign countries allied with the United States, dependents of certain servicemen and veterans, and those other persons or classes of persons designated by the Administrator as eligible for burial in such cemeteries); and (3) soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War.

Subsection (b) of this new section authorizes the Administrator to furnish, when requested, an appropriate memorial headstone or marker to commemorate any veteran dying in the service and whose remains have not been recovered or identified or were buried at sea, for placement in a national cemetery area reserved for such purposes or in a private or local cemetery.

Subsection (b) of section 4 of the bill amends the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 23 of title 38 to include a reference to the new section 906.

SECTION 5

Section 5(a) provides for the transfer from the Secretary of the Army to the Administrator of Veterans Affairs jurisdiction over and responsibility for all national cemeteries. Excepted from this transfer ls the cemetery at the United States Soldiers' Home. This subsection also provides for the transfer from the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force to the Administrator of Veterans Affairs, jurisdiction over and responsibility for any cemetery, memorial or monument coming within their respective jurisdiction.

Excepted from this transfer are the cemeteries located at the United States Military Academy at West Point, the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, the United States Naval Home at Philadelphia, and the United States Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs.

Subsection (b) directs the transfer of so much of the personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations and other funds available to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force, in connection with functions transferred by this blll, as determined by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to the Administrator of Veterans Affairs.

Subsection ( c) directs the transfer from the American Battle Monuments Commission to the VA of all cemeteries, memorials, and monuments under its jurisdiction.

Subsection (d) would transfer all personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds available to the American Battle Monuments Com.mission to VA.

Subsection (e) is a savings clause whereby all offenses committed and all penalties and forfeitures incurred under any law amended

or repealed by this measure may be prosecuted and punished in the same manner as if these amendments or repeals had not been made.

Subsection (f) provides that all rules, regulations, orders, permits, and other privileges issued or granted by the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or the American Battle Monuments Commission wlll remain in full force and effect until modified, suspended, overruled, or otherwise changed by the Administrator, by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

Subsection (g) is a further savings clause under which (1) no suit, action, or other proceeding commenced by or against any officer in his official capacity as an official of the Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or the American Battle Monuments Com.mission with respect to functions transferred by this bill shall abate because of the enactment of this bill; (2) no cause of action by or against any Department or Commission concerning the functions transferred or by or against any officer thereof in his official capacity shall abate because of the enactment of this blll; (3) ca.uses of actions, suits, or other proceedings may be asserted by or against the United States or appropriate officer of the Veterans Administration in any litigation pending at the time this Act takes effect with the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, being authorized to enter an order giving such effect; and ( 4) suits commenced prior to the date of the enactment of this bill with respect to any function transferred shall be continued by the Administrator.

SECTION 6

Section 6(a) provides for the repeal of statutes giving the Secretary of the Army jurisdiction over and responslbllity for national cemeteries. At the same time, all rights and duties that matured, penalties, liabilities, and forfeitures that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun the effective date of the transfer of these cemeteries to the new National Cemetery System are preserved under the language of this subsection.

Subsection (b) provides for the repeal of statutes giving the American Battle Monuments Commission jurisdiction over and responsibility for national cemeteries, memorials, or monuments located outside the United States. At the same time, all rights and duties that matured, penalties, liabilities, and forfeitures that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun, before the e:fiective date of the transfer of such cemeteries, memorials, or monuments are preserved under the language of this subsection.

Subsection ( c) provides that nothing in the repeal section shall be deemed to a:fiect in any manner the functions, powers, and duties of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to those cemetries, memorials, or monuments coming within his jurisdiction on the date the new National Cemetery System is created or those of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, or Air Force with respect to those cemeteries, memorials, or monuments under their respective jurisdiction to which the transfer provisions of this bill do not apply.

SECTION 7

Section 7 amends section 3505 (a) of title 38, United States Code, to provide that where an individual is convicted of certain crimes which are subversive in nature, he shall forfeit his right to burial in a national cemetery.

SECTION 8

This section would amend subchapter n of chapter 3 of title 38, by adding a new section 218. The new section would authorize the Administrator to prescribe rules and reg-


ulations necessary to maintain law and order and protect persons and property in cemeteries and on other VA lands and in buildings, and establish reasonable penalties necessary to inSure their enforcement; and to designate persons having authority to make investigations and arrests for violations of such rules and regulations and for crimes against the United States committed in such cemeteries or on other VA installations. Since this provision would apply not only for offenses committed in the cemeteries of the national cem~tery system, but also in VA hospitals, domiclliaries, or nursing homes and other VA facilities, subsection (b) of the bill would repeal current section 625 of title 38.

Subsection ( c) would make technical changes in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3, by inserting the catchllne for the new section 218.

SECTION 9

Subsection (a) of this section would authorize and direct the Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, to cause to be brought to the United States .a body of an unidentified American who was a member of the Armed Forces who served in Southeast Asia and who lost his llfe during the Vietnam era, for burial in Arlington National Cemetery Memorial Amphitheater.

Subsection (b) provides that implementation of this section shall take place after the United States has concluded its participation in hostillties in Southeast Asia.

Subsection (c) authorizes to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

SECTION 10

Section lO(a) provides that section 1, relating to the title of the Act; section 2, creating the new Cemetery System and providing for its administration; and section 7, relating to forfeiture of right to burial, are to take effect on the date of the bill's enactment.

Subsection (b) provides that section 4, concerning headstones and markers; section 5, transferring the various cemeteries to the new System; and section 6, repealing present authority of the Secretary of the Army over the transferred areas, are to take effect on July 1, 1973 or on such earlier date as the President may prescribe and publish in the Federal Register; except that clauses ( 1) and (2) of section (4) (a) shall take effect on the first day of the second calendar month following the date of enactment of the Act.

CLASSIFICATION OF INTERMENTS IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES-FISCAL YEAR 1971

Percent Number of total interred interred

World War I veterans ___ _______________ 7, 072 19. 0 World War II veterans _________________ 12, 227 32. 8 Korea veterans ____ -------------- _____ 1, 180 3.2 Peacetime veterans ___________________ 1, 259 3. 4 Spanish American War veterans ________ 64 .2 Vietnam veterans _____________________ 433 1.1 Retired servicemen ___________________ 2,823 7.6

Total veterans __________________ 25, 058 67. 3 Active duty servicemen ___ ________ _____ 1, 217 3.2

Total veterans and servicemen ___ 26, 275 70. 5 Dependents __________________________ 10, 995 29. 5

Grand totaL ___________________ 37, 270 100.0

CLASSIFICATION OF INTERMENTS IN ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY-FISCAL YEAR 1971

Percent of Number total interred interred

World War I veterans ________________ _ 96 3.6 World War II veterans __ -------------- 86 3. 3 Korea veterans ______________________ _ 22 .8 Peacetime veterans __ ----------------- 6 .2 Spanish American War veterans _______ _ Retired servicemen ___ ----------------

1 ----------1, 004 38. 0

Total veterans ________________ _ Active duty servicemen ______________ _

1, 215 45. 9 315 11. 9

Total veterans and servicemen___ 1, 530 57. 8 Dependents__________________________ 1, 117 42. 2

Grand total____________________ 2,647 100.0

CLASSIFICATION OF INTERMENTS IN SOLDIERS' HOME NATIONAL CEMETERY-FISCAL YEAR 1971

Percent of Number total interred interred

World War I veterans _________________ 23 19. 8 World War II veterans_--------------- 10 8.6 Korea veterans ______ ------ ___________ 3 2.6 Peacetime _________________ ------ ____ 8 7. 0 Spanish American War veterans ________ 2 1.7 Retired servicemen _______ ------------ 63 54.3

Total veterans _________________ 109 94.0 Active duty servicemen. _____ --------- 0 ----------

Total veterans and servicemen ___ 109 94.0 Dependents __________________________ 7 6.0 Grand total_ ___________________ 116 100.0

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF SUPPORT SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C

Date Area in acres Interments Date Area in acres Interments estab- estab-

National cemeteries lished Total Developed Known Unknown Total National cemeteries Ii shed Total Developed Known Unknown Total

Alexandria, Pineville, La ___ 1867 8. 230 8. 230 4,602 2,380 6, 982 Hampton, Va.~------------ 1866 26. 530 26. 530 20, 564 638 21, 202 Alexandria, Va ____________ 1862 5. 500 5.500 3, 935 125 4, 060 Jefferson Barracks, St. Alton, Ill_--------- --- --- - 1948 .480 .480 479 2 481 Louis, Mo ______________ 1863 306. 980 105. 330 48, 781 3, 255 52, 036 Annapolis, Md ___ -- ----- - - 1862 4.125 4.125 2, 676 206 2, 882 Jefferson City, Mo _________ 1867 2.010 2.010 l, lll 448 1, 559 Arlington;Fort Myer, Va ___ 1864 517. 830 430. 300 151, 997 4, 724 156, 721 Keokuk, Iowa _____________ 1862 21.100 5.100 2, 287 48 2,335 Balls Bluff, Leesburg, Va ___ 1865 .057 . 057 1 53 54 Knoxville, Tenn ___________ 1863 9.830 9.830 6,044 166 7,210 Road Right-of-way _________________ 4. 573 4. 573 ---- --------------------------- Lebanon, KY----------- --- 1867 2.830 2. 830 1,325 277 1,602 Baltimore, Md_____ ________ 1936 72. 227 72. 227 32, 968 0 32, 968 Lexington, Ky _____________ 1863 • 750 • 750 1, 278 106 1,384 Barrancas, Pensacola , Fla._ 1868 29.910 16.690 7, 037 971 8,008 Little Rock , Ark _________ __ 1868 24.950 24. 950 10, 166 3,045 13, 211 Baton Rouge, La _________ _ 1867 7.690 7. 690 4,607 540 5, 147 Long Island, Farmingdale, Beaufort, S.C. __ ---- ------ 1863 28. 920 28. 920 6,631 4, 018 10, 649 Long Island, N.Y ___ · __ ___ 1936 364.000 364. 000 186, 984 105 187,089 Beverly, NJ ______________ 1864 64. 550 64. 550 35, 875 14 35, 889 Loudon Park, Baltimore, · Back Hills. Sturgis, S. Oak. 1948 105. 900 12. 000 3,933 0 3, 933 Md._------------------ 1862 5. 600 5. 600 6, 617 368 6, 985 Camp B'utle-r,Springfield, llL 1862 39. 250 16. 450 6, 285 166 6, 451 Marietta, Ga ______________ 1866 23.256 23. 256 13, 109 3,095 16,204 Camp Nelson, Nicholasville, Mem£his, Tenn ___________ 1867 44.150 44.150 15, 698 8,866 24, 564

Ky ________ --- - -- - -- -- -- 1866 9. 7.50 9. 750 4,046 1, 245 5, 291 Mill prings, Nancy, Ky ____ 1862 3. 500 3.500 1,023 408 1, 431 Cave Hill, Louisville, Ky ____ 1863 4.108 4.108 5, 085 595 5,680 Mobile, Ala _______________ 1865 5.240 5.240 3,406 1,423 4,829 Chattanooga, Tenn ________ 1867 120. 800 77. 000 16, 341 5,059 21, 400 Mound.City, llL. __________ 1864 10. 500 10. 500 3, 785 2, 759 6,544 Citfc Point, Hopewell, Va ____ 1866 6.660 6.660 5, 080 1, 422 6, 502 Nashville, Madison, Tenn ___ 1866 65. 000 65.000 18, 133 4, 140 22, 273 Cod Harbor, Mechanicsville, Natchez, Miss _____________ 1866 10. 720 10. 720 1, 897 2, 786 4, 683

Va _____ ------ _____ --- -- 1866 1. 430 1.430 742 1, 313 2,055 National Memorial Ceme-Corinth, Miss _____________ 1866 20. 000 20:000 2, 107 3, 996 6, 103 tery of PaciflC, Hawaii. ___ 1948 111. 540 111.-540 19, 641 2,920 22, 561 Crown Hill, Indianapolis, New Albany, Ind __________ 1862 6. 310 6.310 4, 352 684 5, 036 Ind ____________________ 1866 1. 370 1. 370 . 758 37 795 New Bern , N.C _____ _______ 1867 7.680 7. 680 3, 492 l, 113 4, 605 Culpeper, Va _____________ 1867 6. 470 6.470 2, 218 912 3, 130 Perryville, Ky ____ __ _______ 1931 4.390 4. 390 - -- --- - - -- --- - ---- - --------- ---Cypress Hills, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Pa ___________ 1862 13. 320 13.320 11, 656 40 11,696

N. y ____ ------- -- ---- - -- 1862 18. 197 18. 197 19, 894 444 20, 338 Port Hudson, La __________ _ 1866 8.040 8.040 2,038 3, 240 5, 278 Danville, Ky __ ------------ 1862 • 310 .310 380 13 393 Puerto Rico, Bayamon, P.R .• 1948 108. 240 29.300 7, 960 6 7,966 Danville, Va ______________ 1866 3. 500 3. 500 2, 020 156 2, 176 Quincy, llL __ _____________ 1899 .450 .450 390 57 447 Fayetteville, Ark _____ ___ __ 1867 6.110 6. llO 2,079 793 2,872 Raleigh , N.C ____________ __ 1865 6, 950 6. 950 2, 115 548 2, 663 Finn's Point, Salem, N.J ____ 1876 4. 590 4. 590 2,673 31 2, 704 Richmond, Va _____________ 1866 9. 740 9. 740 3, 125 5, 705 8,830 Florence, S.C ____________ ;_ 1865 5. 870 5. 870 1, 135 2,802 3, 937 Rock Island, llL ___________ 1863 31. 500 19. 700 8. 250 47 8, 297 Fort Bliss, Tex ____________ 1939 59. 850 42. 850 9, 999 24 10, 023 St. Augustine, Fla ___ ___ ___ 1881 1. 360 1. 360 1, 070 l , 554 2,624 Fort Gibsor., Okla __________ 1868 32. 210 13. 510 3,807 2,208 6, 015 Salisbury, N.C __ ____ _______ 1865 5. 970 5. 970 1, 548 12, 036 13, 584 Fort Harrison, near Rich- San Antonio, Tex __________ 1867 3.660 3.660 2, 817 319 3, 136

mond, Va _____________ .:_ 1866 1. 550 1. 550 748 583 1, 331 San Francisco. Calif.. ______ 1884 28. 340 28. 340 24, 322 517 24, 839 Fort Leavenworth, Kans ____ 1862 36.100 36. 100 12, 141 1, 589 13, 730 Santa Fe, N. Mex __________ 1875 34. 590 14. 460 7, 144 495 7,639 Fort Logan, Denver, Colo ___ 1950 137. 166 40.800 13, 559 1 13, 560 Seven Pines, Va ___________ 1866 1. 900 1. 900 446 1, 237 1, 683 Fort McPherson, Maxwell, Sitka, Alaska _____ __ ______ 1924 1. 390 1.390 466 19 485

Nebr ___________________ 1873 20. 000 14. 000 2,627 584 3, 211 Soldier's Home, District of Fort Rosecrans, San Diego, Columbia ____ _____ ___ ___ 1862 15. 800 15. 880 12, 671 292 12, 963

Calif ___________________ 1934 71. 340 71. 340 45, 192 22 45, 214 Springfield, Mo ______ ______ 1867 13. 820 13. 820 4, 779 1, 995 6, 774 Fort Sam Houston, San Staunton , Va ______________ 1866 1.150 1. 150 411 529 940

Antonio, Tex ____________ 1937 60.110 60.110 26, 473 89 26, 562 Willamette , Oreg __________ 1950 201. 450 76. 450 30, 757 0 30, 757 Fort Scott, Kans ___________ 1862 10. 510 10. 510 2,484 126 2, 610 Wilmington, N.C ___________ 1867 5.065 5. 065 2. 225 1, 613 3,838 Fort Smith, Ark ___________ 1867 14. 590 14. 950 3,406 1,464 4,870 Winchester, Va ____________ 1866 4.890 4.890 2, 828 2, 395 5, 223 Fort Snelling, St. Paul, Woodlawn , Elmira, N.Y _____ 1874 7.624 7.624 6, 247 19 6, 266

Minn ______ ---------- - -- 1939 476. 570 127. 570 47, 795 283 48, 078 Zachary Taylor , Louisville, Glendale, near Richmond, Ky _____ -- -- -- -- --- ----- 1928 16.430 16. 430 8, 866 8,867

Va _____ ------- _______ - _ 1866 2.080 2.080 910 960 1, 870 Golden Gate, San Bruno, Total cemeteries

Calif. _______ ;_-------- - 1939 161. 500 161. 500 97, 930 39 97, 969 under the Depart-Grafton, W. Va ____________ 1867 3. 210 3. 210 1,428 664 2,092 ment of the Army ______ ____ 3, 763. 738 2, 561. 902 l, 105, 907 llO, 967 1, 216, 874

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19645 CEMETERIES UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Area in acres Interments Area in acres Interments

National cemeteries Total Developed Known Unknown Total National cemeteries Total Developed Known Unknown Total

Andersonville, Ga _____ ______ ----- __ 117. 060 27. 150 14, 045 l, 041 15, 086 Poplar Grove, Va __________________ 8. 650 8.650 2, 206 4, 110 6,316 Prison Park ______ __ -- ------------- 84. 200 60. 000 ------------------------------- Shiloh, Tenn ____ -------_- - -------- 10. 250 10. 250 l, 379 2, 370 3, 749 Andrew Johnson, Tenn _____________ 14. 250 14. 250 569 ---------- 569 Stones River, Tenn _________ _______ 20. 000 20. 000 4, 291 2, 562 6, 853 Antietam, Md _________ ------------ 11. 500 11. 500 3, 196 1, 836 5, 032 Vicksburg, Miss_------------------ 117. 850 117. 850 5, 254 12, 954 18, 208 Battleground, District of Columbia ___ 1. 033 1.033 45 ---------- 45 Yorktown, Va _____________________ 3. 000 3.000 758 1, 446 2, 204 Chalmette, La ________ ------------- 17. 330 17. 330 8,506 6, 773 15, 279 Custer Battlefield, Mont_ ___________ 8. 080 8. 080 3,642 277 3, 919 Total cemeteries under the Fort Donelson, Tenn _______________ 15. 000 5. 000 540 512 l, 052 Department of the Interior __ 460. 758 336.643 51, 805 48, 292 100, 097 Fredericksburg, Va ______ ---------- 12. 005 12. 005 2, 587 12, 746 15, 333 Gettysburg, Pa ____ ---------------- 20. 550 20. 550 4, 787 1, 665 6,452 Total of all cemeteries ________ 4, 224. 496 2, 898. 545 1, 157, 712 159, 259 1, 316, 971

Note: List of national cemeteries authorized by act of Congress of July 17, 1862, and subsequent acts, showing the area of and number of interments in each as of Dec. 31, 1971.

NATIONAL CEMETERIES OPERATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AS OF DEC. 31, 1971

No.-Cemetery and location (city and State)

1. Alexandria: Pineville, La--------------------2. Alexandria: Alexandria, Va _________________ _ 3. Alton: Alton, 11'----------------------------4. Annapolis: Annapolis, Md __________________ _ 5. Arlington: Arlington, Va ___________________ _

6. Balls Bluff: Leesburg, Va ____________________ 1. Baltimore: Baltimore, Md ___________________ 8. Barrancas: Pensacola, Fla ___________________ 9. Baton Rouge: Baton Rouge, La ______________

10. Beaufort: Beaufort, S.C _____________________ 11. Bever'r Beverly •. N.J _______________________ 12. Black ills: Sturgis, S. Oak _________________ 13. Camp Butler: Springfield, Ill. •••. -----------14. Camp Nelson: Nicholasville, KY--------------15. Cave Hill: Louisville, KY--------------------16. Chattanooga: Chattanooga, Tenn _____________ 17. Citfi Point: Hopewell,.Va-:-------------------18. Cod Harbor: Mechamcsvalle, Va _____________ 19. Corinth: Corinth, Miss ______________________ 20. Crown Hill: Indianapolis, Ind ________________ 21. Culpeper: Culpeper, Va _________ ____________ 22. Cypress Hills: Brooklyn, N.Y ________________ 23. Danville: Danville, KY----------------------24. Danville: Danville, Va ______________________ 25. Fayetteville: Fayetteville, Ark _______________ 26. Finn's Point: Salem, NJ ____________________ 27. Florence: Florence, S.C _____________________ 28. Fort Bliss: Fort Bliss, Tex _________________ __ 29. Fort Gibson: Fort Gibson, Okla _______________ 30. Fort Harrison: Richmond, Va ________________ 31. Fort Leavenworth: Fort Leavenworth, Kans ____ 32. Fort Logan: Denver, Colo ______ _____________ 33. Fort McPherson: Maxwell, Nebr_ ____________ 34. Fort Rosecrans: San Diego, Calif_ ____________ 35. Fort Sam Houston: San Antonio, Tex _________ 36. Fort Scott: Fort Scott, Kans _________________ 37. Fort Smith: Fort Smith , Ark _________________ 38. Fort Snelling: St Paul, Minn _________________

39. Glendale: Richmond, Va ____________________ 40. Golden Gate: San Bruno, Calif_ ______________ 41. Grafton: Grafton, W. Va _____________________ 42. Hampton: Hampton, Va _____________________ 43. Jefferson Barracks: St. Louis, Mo ____________

44. Jefferson City: Jefferson Caty, Mo ____________ 45. Keokuk: Keokuk, Iowa __ ___________________ 46. Knoxville: Knoxville, Tenn __________________ 47. Lebanon: Lebanon, Ky ___ ___________________ 48. Lexington: Lexington, Ky __ -----------------49. Little Rock: Little Rock, Ark __ _____________ ._ _ 50. Long Island: Farmingdale, N.Y ______________

51. Loudon Park: Baltimore, Md ________________ 52. Marietta: Marietta, Ga ______________________ 53. Memphis: Memphis, Tenn __________________ 54. Mill Springs: Nancy, KY--------------------55. Mobile, Mobile, Ala ________________________ 56. Mound City: Mound City, llL _______________ 57. Nashville: Madison, Tenn ___________________ 58. Natchez: Natchez, Miss __ ___________________ 59. New Albany: New Albany, Ind ______________ 60. New Bern: New Bern, N.C __________________ 61. Perryville:. Perr~yille, KY.--- ------------- - ---62. Ph1ladelph1a: P 1ladelph1a, Pa _______________ 63. Port Hudson: Zachary, La ___________________ 64. Quin.cy: iuin~y,l IL _______________________ 65. Raleigh: ale1gh, N.C ___ ___ _________________ 66. Richmond: Richmond, Va ______ _____________ 67. Rock Island: Rock Island, 111__ ______________ 68. St. Augustine: St. Augustine, Fla _____________ 69. Salisbury: Salisbury, N.C ___________________ 70. San Antonio: San Antonio, Tex __ ____________ 71. San Francisco: Presidio of San Francisco,

Calif.

Footnotes at end of table.

Acreage

Developed Undeveloped

8.230 5.500 .480

4.125 430. 300

4.630 72. 227 16. 690 7.690

28.920 64. 550 12.000 16. 450 9. 750 4.108

77. 000 6.660 1.430

20. 000 1.370 6.470

18.197 . 310

3. 500 6. llO 4. 590 5.870

42.850 13. 510 1. 550

36.100 40.800 14. 000 71. 340 60. llO 10. 510 14. 590

127. 570

2.080 161. 500

3. 210 26. 530

105. 330

2. 010 5.100 9. 830 2. 830 . 750

24. 950 364. 000

5.600 23. 256 44.150

3. 500 5.240

10. 500 65. 000 10. 720 6. 310 7. 680 4. 390

13. 320 8. 040 .450

6. 950 9.470

19. 700 1. 360 5.970 3. 660

28. 340

0 0 0 0

87. 530

0 0

13. 220 0 0 0

93.900 22. 800 0 0

43.800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17.000 18. 700 0 0

96. 336 6.000 0 0 0 0

349.000

0 0 0 0

201- 650

0 316. 000

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11. 800 0 0 0 0

Gravesites Fiscal year Other personnel

Developed Undeveloped Date

closed Expected Grade of closeout superintendent Graded

6, 444 4,060

533 2, 912

168, 598

25 36, 395

8, 819 5,068

17, 028 39, 968 5,878 8, 194 5,371 5,625

24, 343 5, 512

948 13, 473

795 3,683

18, 687 396

2, 177 3, 577 2, 705 4,625

25, 263 8, 578 1, 048

19, 520 25, 204 5, 648

44, 340 37,677 5,959 8,832

66, 774

1, 289 101, 368

2, 130 21, 450 67, 506

1, 633 2, 537 7,500 1, 996 1, 384

17, 895 255, 693

6,486 16, 538 27, 454 2, 168 3,872 7,893

31, 112 4,961 5,082 5,607

0 10, 327 6,082

581 4, 998 7,456

12, 538 1, 143

14, 300 3, 042

22,825

0 -------------- 1981 GS-7 ___________ None _______________ _ O 1967 -------------- None _______________ do ______________ _ 0 1961 ___________________ do ______ ------- .do _________ • ____ • 0 1961 -------------- GS-7 ________________ do ______________ _

14, 727 -------------- 21976 GS-15__ _______ 1GS-14,2 GS-12's, l GS-10, 1 GS-9, 1 GS-8, 4 GS-J's, 2 GS-O's, 6 GS-5's, 21 GS-4's, and 12 GS-3's.

1865 -------------- None __________ None _______________ _ 0 1971 -------------- GS-lQ __________ 1 GS-5 ______________ _

7, 424 -------------- 1987 GS-9__ _________ 1 GS-5 ______________ _ 0 1960 -------------- GS-8 ___________ None _______________ _ 0 -------------- 2000+ GS-8 ________________ do ______________ _ 0 1966 -------------- GS-10 __________ 1 GS-4 ______________ _

56,340 -------------- 2000+ GS-9 ___________ None _______________ _ 14, 093 -------------- 2000+ GS-9 ___________ 1 GS-3 ______________ _

0 1967 -------------- GS-7 ___________ None _______________ _ 0 1939 -------------- None _______________ do ______________ _

26, 000 -------------- 2000+ GS-10 __________ 2 GS-5 ______________ _ 0 1972 -------------- GS-7 ___________ None _______________ _ 0 1970 -------------- None _______________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 2000+ GS-7 ________________ do ______________ _ 0 1867 --------- ----- None _______________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1973 GS-8 ___________ 1GS-5,1 GS-2 _______ _ 0 1954 -------------- GS-8 ___________ None _______________ _ 0 1955 -------------- None _______________ do ______________ _ 0 1971 -------------- GS-J ________________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1978 GS-J ________________ do ______________ _ 0 1947 -------------- GS-J ________________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1981 GS-J ________________ do ______________ _

10, 200 -------------- 200o+ GS-10 __________ 1 GS-0 ______________ _ 11, 22p -------------- 2000+ GS-8 ___________ None _______________ _

O 1967 -------------- None _______________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1981 GS-10 __________ 1 GS-3 _____________ _ _

49, 840 -------------- 2000+ GS-ll__ ________ 1GS~.1GS_5,1 GS-4_ 3, 956 -------------- 2000+ GS-8 ___________ None ________________ _

0 1967 -------------- GS-10 __________ 1 GS-5, GS-4 _________ _ 0 -------------- 1977 GS-ll__ ________ 2 GS-5 _______________ _ 0 -------------- 2000+ GS-7 ___________ None ________________ _ 0 -------------- 1996 GS-8 ___________ 1 GS-7 _______________ _

208, 699 -------------- 2000+ GS-13 __________ 1 GS-11, l GS-7. 1 GS-5, 1 GS-4, and 1 GS-3.

0 1970 -------------- GS-7 ___________ None ____ ____________ _ 0 1967 -------------- GS-12 __________ 2 Gs~·s, 1 GS-3 ______ _ 0 1961 -------------- GS-J ___________ None ________________ _ 0 1970 -------------- GS-9 ________________ do _______________ _

118, 976 -------------- 2000+ GS-12 __________ 1 GS- 10, l GS-7, l GS-5, and 1 GS-3,

0 1969 -------------- GS-7_ _ -------- None __ -- - ---- -------0 -------------- 1979 GS-7 _______________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1972 GS-8 _______________ do ______________ _ 0 ------- ------- 1976 GS-7 _______________ do ______________ _ 0 1939 -------------- None _______________________________ _ 0 --------- ----- 1985 GS-9_ --------- 1 GS-5 ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1978 GS-14_ -------- 1 GS-13, l GS-7, 7

GS-5's, 3 GS-4'-s, 5 GS-3's, and 1 GS-2.

1971 -------------- None __________ None __ --------------0 1970 -------------- GS-9 _______________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1976 GS-10_ -------- 1GS~.1 GS-5 _______ _ 0 -------------- 1983 GS-7 _ --------- None_---------------0 1963 ----------- - -- GS-7 _______________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1991 GS-7 _______________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1995 GS-10 •• ------- 1 GS-5 ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1982 GS-7 _ --------- None __ --------------0 1960 -------------- GS-7 _______________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- 1993 GS-7. ______________ do ______________ _ 0 -------------- (4) None·-------------------------------. 1947 -------------- GS-8_ --------- None_---------------0 -------------- 1977 None _______________ do _______ _______ _ O -------------- 1995 _____ do _____________________________ _ 0 -------- - ----- 1998 GS-7_ _________ None _______________ _

8, 41g ---------~~~~---------m5-- ~~~9:: :::::::: ~ g~::::::::::::::: 0 1949 -------------- GS-7 _ --------- None_---------------0 -------------- 1983 GS-7 _______________ do ______________ _ 0 1961 -------------- GS-7 _______________ do ______________ _ 0 1962 -------------- GS-9 _______________ do ______________ _

Wage board

2 1

(1) 1

129

~ll 7 1 4

13 4 7 2

(1) 10 2 1 1

(!) 4 4

(1) 1 2 1 1

11 3 1 9

16 3

16 26 2 3

32

1 35 1 6

28

1 2 2 3

(!) 5

100

1 3

11 3 1 3

11 3 1 1

(1) 2 2

(1) 1 2 6 1 1 1 6

19646 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 NATIONAL CEMETERIES OPERATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AS OF DEC. 31, 1971--Continued

No.- Cemetery and location (city and State)

72. Santa Fe: Santa Fe, N. Mex ________________ _ 73. Seven Pines: Sandston, Va _________________ _ 74. Soldiers' Home: Washington, D.C ___________ _ 75. Springfield: Springfield, Mo ________________ _ 76. Staunton: Staunton, Va ____________________ _ 77. Willamette: Portland, Oreg _________________ _

78. Wilmington: Wilmington, N.C __ _____________ _ 79. Winchester: Winchester. Va ________________ _ 80. Woodlawn : Elmira, N.Y ____________________ _ 81. Zachary Taylor: Louisville, Ky ______________ _

1. National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific: Honolulu, Hawaii.

2. Puerto Rico: Bayamon, Puerto Rico __________ _ 3. Sitka: Sitka, Alaska ________________________ _

Acreage

Developed Undeveloped

14. 460 20.130 1. 900 0

15. 800 0 13. 820 0 1.150 0

76. 450 125. 000

5. 065 0 4.890 0 7. 624 0

15. 430 0

Gravesites Fiscal year Other personnel

Developed Undeveloped Date

closed Ecxp

0escetoeudt Grade of

le superintendent Graded

9, 563 1.126

13, 678 8, 133

844 47,623

4,393 5,051 6,433 9, 415

12, 000 -------------- 1996 GS-9_ --------- 1 GS-3 ______________ _

g _ --------~~~- --------197r- g~: :::::::::_~_o_n_elo~:::::::::::::: 8 ---------1910---------~~~~-- g~=~: ::::::::::::J~:::::::::::::::

75, 000 -------------- 2000+ GS-12_ -------- 1 GS-11, 1 GS-7, 2 GS-5's, 2 GS-4's.

i ---------mi-::::::::~~~'.:= ib~~~~~:~:~:~1~=~=~~~~~~~~=~ OVERSEAS NATIONAL CEMETERIES

lll. 540

29. 300 1.390

0

78. 940 0

27, 328

11,676 669

0 --------------

30, 179 --------------0 --------------

1980 GS-12_ -------- 1GS-10,1GS-5,1

2000, + GS-11 _ - ------- 1 8s5=L~~~~--------1993 None __________ None _______________ _

1 Contract. a Not suitable for gravesites. 2 This is the closeout date for the present developed area currently available for burial. The entire 'No burials.

acreage to be used for Arlington National Cemetery will extend the life to beyond the year 1986.

ANNUAL REPORT, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION CEMETERIES-AS OF JUNE 30, 1971

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Acreage Graves Developed graves Graves used-fiscal year Burials-fiscal year

Wage board

6 I 4 3 1

31

1 1 2 4

28

10 (1)

Original Date Estimated of Devel- Undevel- Devel- Undevel- Avail-cemetery closing

Station data operation oped oped oped oped Used able 1971 1970 1969 1971 1970 1969 date

VAC, Bath, N.Y ___________ 1879 1929 19.00 0 8, 109 0 7,599 510 107 103 119 107 103 121 1976 VAC, Biloxi, Miss __________ 1934 1934 25.00 0 11, 336 0 l, 296 10, 040 50 47 45 50 50 45 2000 VAH, Danville, 11'---------· 1898 1930 30.00 0 6, 552 0 5, 615 937 58 57 42 58 57 42 2000 VAC, Dayton, Ohio _________ 1867 1930 55.00 0 22, 507 0 22, 016 671 185 210 226 186 211 226 1973 VAH, Fort Lyon, Coto _______ 1914 1922 8.00 0 956 0 730 226 11 6 18 11 6 18 1985 VAHCHouston, Tex ________ 1965 1965 45.00 374.0 20, 250 187, 000 3, 198 17, 052 704 710 592 725 722 601 2000 VAE H, Los Angeles, CaliL 1889 1930 111.00 3.5 60,960 3,200 54,040 6,920 1,398 1,338 1,432 1,670 1,406 l, 519 1973 VAH, Marion, Ind __________ 1890 1930 14.00 0 4, 613 0 4,084 529 31 30 28 31 30 28 1980 VAC, Mountain Home, Tenn. 1903 1930 30.00 0 10, 000 0 4,856 5, 144 94 112 113 95 112 113 2000 VAC, Prescott, Ariz ________ 1888 1921 6.00 0 2,556 0 2,401 155 127 121 115 135 125 116 1972 VAH, Roseburg, Oreg ______ 1894 1932 3.00 0 2, 130 0 1,422 708 44 49 43 46 49 43 1983 VAC. Leavenworth, Kans ___ 1886 1930 30.00 0 14, 550 0 12, 435 2, 115 57 90 92 61 95 95 1980 VAD, White City, Oreg _____ 1951 1951 8.00 0 1, 200 0 505 695 33 33 21 33 33 21 2000 VAC, Wood, Wis ___________ 1871 1930 27.00 0 22,800 0 15, 663 7, 137 260 281 294 265 286 297 1995 VAC, Bay Pines, Fla.2 ______ 1933 1933 9.00 0 4, 199 0 4, 199 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 1964 Ft. Bavard, N. Mex.2 _______ 1866 1922 16.00 0 2,600 0 l, 560 1,040 10 1 6 11 2 7 1965 VAH, Fort Meade, S. Dak.2 __ 1878 1944 2.00 0 133 0 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1948 VAC,Hampton, Va.2 ____ ___ _ 1898 1930 .03 0 22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1912 VAC, Hot Springs, S. Dak.2 __ 1903 1930 12.00 0 l, 482 0 1, 481 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1964 VAH, Kerrville, Tex.2 _______ 1923 1943 2.00 0 460 0 460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1957 VAC, Togus, Maine2 _______ 1867 1930 29.00 0 5,371 0 5, 371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1961

Tota'------------ _______________________ 481. 03 337.5 202, 841 190, 200 149, 161 53, 680 3, 169 3, 188 3, 186 3,485 3, 291 3, 297 ----------

(1) (2) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

Original Date Operating cost-fiscal year -cost-fiscal year Expansion 1 Estimated cemetery of KNG. closing

Station data operation 1971 1970 1969 1971 1970 1969 employees Acres Graves date

~~!: l~~~!i.~~i::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~~=~~~ 1897 1929 $13, 874 $11, 449 $15, 467 $227 $28 (1) 1.5 (1) (1) 1976 1934 1934 5,408 7,330 6,304 (3) (1) (1) 1. 5 4 1, 976 2000 1898 1930 9, 588 10, 003 9,698 (3) ~·> $~ 1.3 10 5,216 2000 1867 1930 60, 564 63, 582 77, 878 530 9 7 5.0

lW <·~ 1973 VAH, Fort Lyon. Colo ________________________ 1914 1922 724 409 775 105 135 138 .1 23,04 1985 VAH, Houston, Tex __________________________ 1965 1965 98, 790 77, 340 70, 168 2,299 2, 173 4, 116 .2 (1) ~3) 2000 VAZCH, Los Angeles, CaliL-- -- --------------- 1889 1930 256, 118 261, 866 223, 371 34, 821 32, 561 37, 371 26.0 (3~ 1) 1975 VAH, Marion, Ind ____________________________ 1890 1930 6,646 7, 648 6, 515 1, 759 1, 417 l, 287 1.0 1, 600 1980 VAC, Mountain H~me, Tenn __________________ 1903 1930 20, 646 19, 396 15, 845 (1) (3) 101 2.0 30 10, 000 2000 VAC, Prescott, AnL------------------------- 1888 1921 8, 777 10, 424 8, 919 (3) (3) 61 1.0 (3) (3) 1972 VAH, Roseburg, Oreg ________________________ 1894 1932 7, 748 5, 556 6,389 (3) 60 296 1.0 ~~ (3~ 1982 VAC Leavenworth, Kans _____________________ 1896 1930 30, 907 26, 380 22, 657 12, 050 10, 567 2, 321 3.0 36,60 1980 VAD', White Ci~y, Oreg _______________________ 1951 1951 9, 592 9, 745 8, 154 1, 543 2,288 1, 434 1.0 14 4,000 2000 VAC, Wood, W1s----------------------------- 1871 1930 34, 183 34, 088 23, 554 5, 826 1, 611 9, 703 7.3 il (1) 1995 VAC Bay Pines, Fla.2 ----------------------- 1933 1933 7, 109 9, 532 8, 750 1,072 339 589 1. 0 4,200 1964

~!~:B~!!~~~~~\~-~~~~=::::::::::::::::::: 1866 1922 5,992 7, 175 5, 700 (3) (3) (1) (I) (3) (3) 1965 1878 1944 ~) ~) J.3l (3) ~~ (B? (8~ ~3) (3) 1948 1898 1930 2 2 1 9 (') (1 1) ~·> 1912

VAC: Hot Springs, S. Oak--------------------- 1903 1930 1, 600 915 1, 008 158 60 1~4 (1) 3) 1966 VAH, Kerrville, ~ex.!------------------------- 1923 1943 943 739 725 (3) 69 19 .14 ~~ (3) 1957 VAC, Togus, Mame ------------------------- 1867 1930 1, 846 4, 720 3,905 268 166 675 .5 2, 100 1961

Total _____ ---------- - - -- -- -- -- --- --- ---- - -- -- -- ---- ------- 581, 327 568, 462 516, 000 60, 750 53, 133 58, 741 62.94 344 88, 737 ----------

t Not included in estimated closing date. t Closed, grave sites not available.

a None.

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19647 Mr. Speaker, at the time of the hear

ings on this subject the Veterans' Administration representative referred to a VA task force that had developed some background material on the historical, factual, and statistical information relative to Federal burial and cemetery benefits for servicemen and veterans. At his request, there was inserted in the RECORD this material as exhibit B. For the information of the Members and for ready reference, the committee report incorporated this same material which is found on pages 46 through 60 of the rePort. Unfortunately, it is not clearly shown to be attributable to the Veterans' Administration, rather than to the committee. The executive director of the National Funeral Directors Association has recently informed me that it is their belief that some of the statistical data included in the VA exhibit may be misleading. Accordingly, I insert at this point a letter to me dated June 2, 1972, from Howard C. Raether, executive director, National Funeral Directors Association.

NATIONAL FuNERAL DIRF.CTORS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNrrED STATES, INC.,

June 2, 1972. Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN TEAGUE: In the Report No. 92-1069 of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs which deals with H.R. 12674 there is the following paragraph on page 60:

"These figures indicate that the veterans' funeral expenses were substantially in line with those incurred on behalf of other deceased citizens. The rise in the average costs incurred on behalf of deceased veterans is somewhat higher than that experienced nationwide. According to the Monthly Labor Review of May 1971, the 1970 index of adult funeral services was 112.9 (based on 1967= 100). This had increased to 115.9 in March 1971. Our survey reports indicates an increase of 34 percent in the same period."

The officers of our association feel that the average reader of this paragraph may be misled by it because it is our belief that an erroneous deduction is made in it. Furthermore, the paragraph is unclear as to what the period of your "recent surveys" ls.

Let me take up the matter of the question first. Some who have read the above quoted paragraph and the one before it believe that your survey reports are comparing 1967 with March, 1971 statistics and that a 34% increase in the coot of funerals is refiectedtherein. Others who have read these para· graphs feel that what you are saying is that the 34 % increase is between 1970 and March of 1971. We feel sure that this ls not what ls intended. On the other ha.nd, this ls what has been read into the statistic which could be quoted and provide inaccurate information in the process.

Beyond the error of interpretation which there could be based on the m.anner in which the dates are given, it must be pointed out that a meaningful comparison or contrast cannot be made between the U.S. Department of Labor Index statistic and the average cost of funerals selected.

The U.S. Department of Labor Index is a continuing comparison of the same or similar funeral with the same or similar merchandise and services. The data ls based on specifications spelled out in the gathering of information for the Index as to adult serv-ices. It may be of interest to you to know that using the 1967 base as 100%, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that as of January, 1972 the index for the cost of living as 123.2; the index for the cost of serv-

ices less rent, 134.1; and, the index for adult funeral services, 119.5.

On the other hand, apparently your figures are of the expenses of a variety of funerals as selected by veterans' families. The increase in them between 1967 and 1971, if these are the dates compared in the report, was an average of 34 % . This is due to the faot that the families selected and got better services and merchandise. But, during the same period, had they continued to purchase the same quality of service and merchandise they did in 1967, the increase would undoubtedly have been in the area of 16 % . Only if the service and merchandise selected by veterans' families in 1967 was the same or similar to that selected in March, 1971 could an accurate comparison be made between the Bureau of Labor percentage and that which is based on the "recent surveys" referred to in the report.

Inasmuch as this measure will soon be considered by the House, and perhaps later by the Senate, we thought you and Senator Va.nee Hartke and a member of each of your staffs should have the explanation contained herein.

Respectfully submitted, HOWARD C. RAETHER,

Executive Director.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. However, I will not take the time of the House to repeat the reason why, which were so ably explained by the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, this measure will consolidate the administration of the various Federal cemetery systems and require the Veterans' Administration to make a comprehensive study and report to Congress on the criteria which should govern the future of the national cemetery system. Under the terms of the bill, the Veterans' Administration report is due within 30 days of the convening of the next session of Congress.

The need for national guidelines to determine the location of cemeteries to be constructed is readily apparent. No new national cemeteries have been constructed since 1950. Those already in existence are gradually being closed to further interment because they have reached their capacity. In my own State of California all of the existing national cemeteries are closed to future burials. Accordingly, I have introduced a measure calling for the establishment of a national cemetery on the grounds of Vandenberg Air Force Base. This site is centrally located and easily accessible by any conventional form of transportation from the populous areas of the State. I am hopeful that the Veterans' Administration study will result in a recommendation for a cemetery at Vandenberg Air Force Base.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the bill authorizes an allowance of $150 for the purchase of a burial plot in a private cemetery on behalf of any veteran not buried in a national cemetery. Since it would be highly impractical to create national cemeteries in every city in the Nation, the plot allowance offers an equitable solution for those who must necessarily be buried in private cemeteries.

I support the bill and urge that it be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan <Mr. BROWN).

Mr. BROWN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for developing and reporting this legislation and I again indicate my enthusiastic support of this bill to establish a national cemetery system within the Veterans' Administration. I have in recent years been privileged to work for such legislation and have testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which ha.s repcirted this bill.

I could cite numerous facts and figures regarding our national cemetery policy, but no amount of statistical or rhetorical analy:>is of the system can detract from or add to the underlying attitude of the veterans, and the public generally, toward the privilege of burial in a national cemetery.

Every veteran should have the right to burial in a national cemetery reasonably close to his home, and the conditions under which the national cemetery policy is to be established are squarely up to Congress.

Opposition in the past to any expansion of the cemetery system has basically been on two points: first that in many areas it is not feasible or financially possible to acquire the necessary land, and second that it is discriminatory to place national cemeteries where large sections of the country do not have access to them.

Both points are well taken; however, my support of the legislation being considerel today has been based in part on the firm belief that we have not done enough to explore all the possible means for expanding our national cemetery system. In my testimony before the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have advocated one possible approach, heretofore unexplored, which could, I believe, provide an opportunity to expand our national cemetery program without lavish spending proPosals.

I have recommended that a survey of available Federal land be undertaken to determine what land may be available for use as national cemeteries at little or no cost to the American taxpayer. In my own Third District of Michigan, the Department of Defense has declared as excess to its needs a portion of land within the present boundaries of the Fort Custer Military Reservation and adjacent to the existing post cemetery. Development of a national cemetery there would not affect planning for further Federal, State, or private use of other portions of the military reservation.

I would also Point out that the area is ideally situated midway between Detroit and Chicago and is serviced by air as well as two four-lane approaches, and numerous smaller roads connecting it with Interstate Highway I-94. Such a cemetery site would serve the thousands of eligible veterans living in the upper Midwest.

I am sure that many such sites exist across our Nation which can serve as hallowed ground and the final resting

19648 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1.972

place of those who have given s-0 much to our Nation.

The legislation being considered today will do much to provide a systematic consideration of this and other possibilities to guarantee to our veterans their right and privilege to burial in a national cemetery.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I were not at this time to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House the untiring efforts and enthusiastic support of Mr. Ira Dodrill of Battle Creek, Mich., who is the national chairman of the Disabled American Veterans efforts to expand our national cemetery system and who has for -the last five and a half years worked unceasingly to see a national cemetery become a reality at Fort Custer. Mr. Dodrill has made a special trip to Washington today to be present for, and observe, the passage of this vital legislation.

While I would say to Mr. Dodrill that passage of this bill does not insure the establishment of a national cemetery at Fort Custer, it is an essential first step, and I join with him and veterans all across our Nation in rejoicing at this most important and constructive step toward the establishment of a national cemetery system within the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON.)

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my concern about the transfer of the American Battle Monuments Commission to the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration, as provided in H.R. 12674.

I certainly favor those portions of the bill tha.t would assist the Veterans' Administration in providing benefits for veterans and their dependents and survivors by transferring to it the national cemeteries that are open for burials. However, I do feel obligated to call to the attention of the House my extreme disappointment that when this bill was being marked up in executive session that apparently an amendment was added at that time that would put the American Battle Monuments Commission under the Veterans' Administration.

When H.R. 12674 was introduced and scheduled for hearings before the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, the transfer of the American Battle Monuments Commission from its current independent status to the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration was not included in the bill. Nevertheless, the committee did contact the Commission, asking if the Commission wished to testify on the matter. Because the Commission was not included in the provisions of the bill at that time, members of the Commission decided that their testimony was not necessary. Subsequently the committee decided in executive session that the Commission should be included in the formation of a new National Cemeteries System. In reading the hearing record, I have discovered that the matter of transferring the Commission was mentioned only twice, and one of these was when a representative of the Veterans' Administration reiterated the administration's opposition to the transfer.

Let me quote several pertinent excerpts from the testimony of Mr. Rufus H. Wilson, Associate Deputy Administrator of Veterans' Affairs:

Let me briefly describe the current Federal cemetery function. Four cemetery systems are managed by Federal agencies: The Department of the Army operated the National Cemetery System; the American Battle Monuments Commission operates the overseas cemeteries; the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, operates cemeteries in conjunction with Military and Battlefield Parks; and the Veterans Administration. We operate 24 cemeteries and burial plots of which 14 are currently open for further burials. Eligibllity for burial in these VA cemeteries is generally limited to veterans who die while receiving hospital, domiciliary, or nursing home care in a Veterans Administration facility or while receiving such care at Veterans Administration expense in a non-Veterans Administration facility, or where an eligible veteran dies in the immediate vicinity of a Veterans Administration field station having a cemetery, whose body is unclaimed and whose relatives cannot be located.

• • • • Consolidation of national cemeteries . . .

with Veterans Administration cemeteries into a single system administered by the Veterans Administration would appear logical, and we would favor such transfer of jurisdiction . . . As noted above, there are two other Federal cemetery systems. The cemeteries operated by the Department of Interior are generally closed to future burials and are in the nature of military or battlefield parks such as Gettysburg. The Congress has recognized this distinction in maintaining jurisdiction over these cemeteries in the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in both the House and Senate, and we agree that they should be excluded from any new National Cemetery System.

The remaining system is comprised of those cemeteries, memorials and monuments under the jurisdiction of the Amrican Battle Monuments Commission. These are in the nature of historical parks or shrines and, with limited excepton, are not open for burials. They are, therefore, comparable to those cemeteries operated by the Department of Interior. Hence, the arguments which favor consolidating the administration of Federal cemeteries in which veterans and servicemen may be buried do not have equal force when applied to the overseas cemeteries operated by the American Battle Monuments Commission.

The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, Mr. Johnson, has not changed his assessment of the proposed transfer in this bill since the conclusion of the hearings. He still maintains, as he stated in a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Mr. TEAGUE of Texas, that--

These cemeteries (i.e., those of the Department of Interior and the American Battle Monuments Commission) are generally closed to future burials and are in the nature of historical parks or shrines. We agree that they shoud not be included in the new proposed consolidated system.

I understand from this bill that even though the committee decided to transfer those cemeteries under the current care of the American Battle Monuments Commission to the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration, it did not decide to transfer those under the Department of the Interior. Not only are these cemeteries analogous as pointed out in the testimony previously cited, but there

is the added fact that inclusion of the American Battle Monuments Commission's cemeteries and memorials in a new Federal system will absolutely not address the critical problem of a shortage of available plots in these cemeteries.

The Commission's cemeteries are located on foreign soil. The only people now being buried there are those who are still being found on the battlefields of past wars. These cemeteries exist through the good graces of the governments of the countries in which they are located. Even if it were conceivable that these memorials have adequate space to accommodate veterans and their dependents to be buried in the future, it is not conceivable that any agreement to this end could be reached with the concerned foreign governments.

Additionally, I fail to see how any plan such as this will help to alleviate the problem of interring veterans at great distances from their families and friends. As has been stated, many veterans in California must now be buried in Washington State or even further away. A closed cemetery in Holland or France would certainly not solve this dilemma.

I certainly agree that action to combat this growing problem is needed in the Congress, but the act of transferring the American Battle Monuments Commission to the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration will have no such effect. It will most likely only decrease the efficiency and increase the operating costs of the Commission by placing it in the hierarchy of an ever-growing bureaucracy which already has numerous and critical problems to face. I am not implying that the Veterans' Administration is not doing a good job for caring for the veterans in our Nation. Its record has been and continues to be admirable, but it does not need this added burden, which it has explicitly stated it does not want.

Wh.wt I am asserting is that the record of the American Battle Monuments Commission, operating on approximately $3.2 million per year, has been commendable in every respect. I had the occasion recently to look at some of the colored pictures that have been taken of all these monuments and memorials, and we can indeed be proud as Americans of the job that this Commission is doing. At this point, I would like to read from several letters which have been written to the Commission by persons who have loved ones buried in the Commission's cemeteries:

On a recent visit to Europe and the gravesite of our son who is buried at Henri Chapelle Military Cemetery, we had the pleasure of meeting the Superintendent of this Cemetery, Bert Dewey. He met us at the train and drove us to the Cemetery. The rain and wind being rather bad, he furnished Mrs. Gettinger and I with heavy raincoats and hats for the trip ... Mr. Dewey was unusually kind and concerned and so solicitous 1n regard to Mrs. Gettinger . . . Certainly, any one who visits with Mr. Dewey would have a tremendous respect not only for the man, but for the country he represents." (George D. Gettinger, Terre Haute, Ind.)

I have just returned from my fifth consecutive tour of the American Military Cemeteries in France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands ... As each year in the past, I found each of these hallowed resting places to be a thing of beauty and in magniflcent

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 19649 condition . . • I wish to compliment the Battle Monuments Commission and the Superintendents .•• they may justly feel proud of their efforts." (Ha.rold F. Mohn, MyeTStown, Pa.)

I had occasion . . . to visit my brother's gravesite ait Margra.ten Cemetery in the Netherlands . . . how pleased and happy I was to see this lovely memorial. It was kept so beautiful and it shows that no one has forgotten these cemeteries. The men we talked to were very helpful and kind and seem to care very deeply about the cemetery. They took a lovely picture of my brother's cross and presented it to us. I wish I could tell all relatives of the men buried at Margraten what I saw and felt while I visited there. (Mrs. Daniel Parielis)

The testimony of these letters and hundreds like them bespeak the eff ectiveness and tactfulness which the American Battle Monuments Commission has brought to its sensitive tasks far better than I can in these brief moments.

To summarize, I must take objection to transferring the American Battle Monuments Commission to the VA and including it in a new Federal Cemetery System which is so critically needed for the following reasons:

First. The cemeteries operated by the Commissio~ arc closed for all practical purposes. They would not in any way alleviate the prevalent shortage of cemetery space.

Second. The cemeteries operated by the National Park Service under the Department of the Interior are essentially the same as those operated by the Commission. It would be logical to follow the course recommended by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs and transfer neither group of cemeteries to the new system.

Third. The proposed transfer of the Commission was not adequately discussed by the Committee in hearings on this legislation, and the evidence that was presented tends to support the opposite course.

Fourth. The proposed transfer, besides doing nothing to combat the central problem of shortage, would likely reduce the efficiency and increase the costs of operating the Commission. While I recognize and agree with the public and congressional sentiment in favor of establishing a National Cemeteries System, I discern no sentiment among the majority of my colleagues or the public to move the American Battle Monuments Commissio:'l to the jurisdiction of the VA.

Mr. Speaker, I have stated earlier that I favor those sections of this bill which relate to benefits for veterans and their dependents. I again commend the committee for its work in this area, and because of the urgency of the problem, I will vote in favor of this legislation t.oday. I do hope that before the Congress takes final action on this matter that the trans•fer of the American Battle Monuments Commission will be reconsidered and that the Congress will decide to let this small, dedicated group of men and women continue with their excellent, efficient, and economic work.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas <Mr. HAllDIERSCHMIDT).

Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Speak-

er, I rise in support of H.R. 12674. This is a bill designed to create a national cemetery system. It would be administered by the Veterans' Administration. With very few exceptions all cemeteries created for members of the Armed Forces, veterans and their dependents would come under the system as would any that may be acquired or developed in the future. Currently, most military cemeteries are maintained and administered by the Department of the Army. Experience has shown, however, that 90 percent of the burials are of veterans and their dependents. It is more practical, therefore, to place the program under the Veterans' Administration.

For many years there has been almost no planning for future burials despite the basic entitlement to it of all honorably discharged veterans and their dependents. This bill directs the Veterans' Administration to conduct a study and submit recommendations to the next Congress. This is absolutely necessary because available burial sites are fast disappearing and a program will have to be worked out to meet the needs of the immediate future.

A plot allowance of $150 also is provided for those veterans who are buried in private cemeteries. This is an approach which should reduce the demand for burial sites in military cemeteries. Headstones or markers will continue to be available for gravesites with the responsibility of supplying them transferred to the Veterans' Administration. At present they may be obtained from the Department of the Army.

The American Battle Monuments Commission would come under the organizational framework of the Veterans' Administration. It would continue to function substantially as it has since it was created with the additional authority of maintaining certain memorials and monuments on foreign soil not now under its jurisdiction.

I consider this bill to be well conceived and very necessary if we are to fulfill our obligation to our veterans and their dependents.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia <Mr. ScoTT).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor I rise in support of H.R. 12674. This bill would establish a National Cemetery System within the Veterans' Administration. Much of the present system is administered by the Department of the Army. Of course, this came about because initially only soldiers who fell in battle or died of disease in the field and in hospitals were eligible for burial in a military cemetery. Over the years the eligibility was enlarged to in~lude wartime veterans and their dependents with the result that at the present time fewer than 10 percent of the burials are active-duty decedents. The remaining more than 90 percent are veterans and their dependents. In view of this it is not only more appropriate, but also more expeditious to place the program under the Veterans' Administration and in so doing coordinate other smaller cemetery programs, including the one operated by the Veterans' Administration under one system.

The bill also provides for a plot allowance of $150 for those veterans who are buried in private cemeteries and the furnishing of a headstone or marker for the gravesites of all eligible veterans.

The American Battle Monument Commission would continue to administer and maintain military cemeteries, monuments, and memorials on foreign soil with the added responsibility for the maintenance of certain memorials on foreign soil not now under their jurisdiction. The Commission would operate, however, within the Veterans' Administration and under the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

The Veterans' Administration is directed also to conduct a study and submit recommendations to the next Congress regarding the overall program of veterans burial benefits.

I would hope this recommendation would include a provision for relief of the crowded condition at Arlington National Cemetery. One solution would be an auxiliary such as the measures I have sponsored for a cemetery at the Manassas National Battlefield Park or adjacent thereto. Our committee has had hearings on one of these bills but has taken no further action. This acute problem must be resolved.

I · believe this bill represents a sound approach to a problem which is increasingly urgent and I intend to vote for it.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. FISH).

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. I am glad to yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House that the father of the gentleman from New York introduced the first bill for the unknown soldier's interment in Arlington Cemetery, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. F!sH) has introduced this bill this year for a spot for the unknown soldier.

Our report says that there is no unknown soldier at this time. But what we should have said was that they really will not know until the war is over and all the missing in action are counted.

We certainly think by that time_ that there will be an unknown soldier.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from New York for recognizing the situation and doing something about it.

Mr. FISH. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Cemeteries Act of 1972-H.R. 12674. This legislation would revise and streamline the administration of our national cemeteries by consolidating them under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration. The bill also authorizes a comprehensive study by the VA on the future development and operation of the National Cemeteries System and provides for an additional plot allowances of $150 in cases where the veteran is not buried in a national or other Federal cemetery.

I am particularly proud that the Veterans Affairs Committee has incorporated into their omnibus measure, legislation which I originally introduced as House Joint Resolution 609. My bill, now section 9 of H.R. 12674, would authorize

19650 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 5, 1972

the interment of an unknown soldier from the Vietnam war in the Arlington National Cemetery.

Over 51 years ago, on December 21, 1920, my father, Hamilton Fish, Sr., introduced a similar measure in the House of Representatives. The adoption of my father's resolutions resulted in the creation of the Tomb of the Unlmown Soldier, a revered national shrine. Since that time, unknown casualties of both World War II and Korea have joined their comrade of World War I, and are similarly enshrined near the tomb of Arlington. I introduced my resolution at the urging and with the support of my father, who at the age of 8'3 continues to be very active on behalf of our Nation's 28 million veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that this is a most appropriate way to commemorate the sacrifices made by American servicemen in Vietnam. We all know that the Vietnam war is uniquely different from those which preceded it. It has, perhaps, mustered a lower level of public support than any other war in our country's history. But we cannot permit these political facts to obscure the equally real sacrifices made by the 2.5 million young men who have served in Southeast Asia.

This tragic war has resulted in over 50,000 dead and well over a quarter of a million wounded. Through the adoption of this legislation, Congress can demonstrate that, despite diverging opinions on the wisdom of this conflict, that the personal sacriflces of these boys and their families will not be forgotten.

Section 9 provides that the implementation of this provision will take place after the United States has concluded Hs participation in hostilities in Southeast Asia. The proposal has the expressed public support of the Department of Defense, speciflcally the Department of the Army, and the Office of Management and Budget. Numerous veterans organizations have also expressed their strong support, including: the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Catholic War Veterans, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Military Order of the World Wars, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Marine Corps League, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States and the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

In conclusion, I want to express my deep appreciation to chairman OLIN E. TEAGUE of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, for his courtesy and assistance regarding the Vietnam Unknown Soldier legislation. I also want to congratulate the chairman and the entire membership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their excellent work on the national cemeteries bill. It deserves the overwhelming support of the House of Representatives and I urge all my colleagues to vote accordingly.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time remaining to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SAYLOR).

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, for too many years, this Nation has had little if

any policy on the future of national cemeteries and burial benefits for the Nation's veterans. If any policy has emerged, it has been a dictum of sorts laid down years ago by the agency that preceded OMB, the Bureau of the Budget---"We are opposed to any expansion of the national cemetery system."

Under this mandate, and despite the fact that all of the Nation's 28 million veterans are entitled by law to burial in a national cemetery, the national cemetery system is rapidly phasing out. Of the 84 national cemeteries operated by the Department of the Army, 39 are closed to further burials. Only 13 of the remaining 42 active cemeteries will be open for interments in the year 2000. Many areas of the Nation have no national cemetery. In California, for example, all of the national cemeteries are closed and deceased veterans who had expressed a desire to be buried in a national cemetery must be interred in Willamette at Portland Oreg., or even further from the home of his survivors.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before this body today, H.R. 12674, represents the first step in creating a national policy on cemeteries and burial benefits for veterans. It wiil vest the Veterans' Administration with administrative responsibility for the operation of most of the cemeteries maintained by the Federal Government. The bill requires the Veterans' Administration to make an indepth study and report to Congress on the criteria which should govern the future of the national cemetery system. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill will provide a burial plot allowance of $150, to be paid on behalf of any veteran not interred in a national cemetery.

There are several agencies presently administering a Federal cemetery program. The Department of the Army administers the national cemetery system. The military services also administer the many military post cemeteries throughout the Nation. The Veterans' Administration operates several burial grounds adjacent to Veterans' Administration hospitals. The American Battle Monuments Commission maintains the overseas cemeteries on foreign soil, all of which are closed. The Interior Department operates a group of cemeteries located in national parks. All of these systems, under the terms of the bill, with the exception of cemeteries operated by the Interior Department, would be transferred to the Veterans' Administration. Since approximately 90 percent of the interments in national cemeteries are those of veterans, it seems logical that the Veterans' Administration should operate the new system. Because cemeteries of the Interior Department are located within the boundaries of national parks, it appears equally logical that national park personnel should continue to be responsible for maintaining these grounds.

Mr. Speaker, with approximately 1 million grave sites available for 28 million eligible veterans, it would be virtually impossible to provide sufficient national cemetery grave sites equitably dis:-;:>ersed geographically to care for this need. It is also true that all veterans do not wish to be interred in national cemeteries. The

$150 burial plot allowance, which would be payable in additional to the existing statutory burial plot allowance, would permit the next of kin of those veterans not buried in national cemeteries to purchase burial space in private cemeteries near their homes.

Mr. Speaker, this is necessary legislation and I urge that it be passed.

Mr. HILLIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HILLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on the fine statement he has made on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support H.R. 12674, the National Cemetelies Act of 1972.

I had the honor of being a cosponsor of this measure and would certainly like to take this time to commend the chairman of our Veterans' Affairs Committee, the Honorable OLIN TEAGUE of Texas, for his handling of this matter.

This measure will put the National Cemetery System under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration.

At the present time such cemetelies as Arlington National, are under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.

This measure will also give the VA the needed funds to operate and maintain this cemetery system.

The VA will provide grade markers and headstones for the graves.

This legislation also provides for the burial of a Vietnam unknown soldier in Arlington National Cemetery. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of this many times in my congressional district, and find that there is great support among my constituents for this type of project.

During the past few years we have had many inquiries and proposals regarding the development of the National Cemetery system. This bill will direct the VA Administrator to conduct a comprehensive study and submit his recommendations to the 93d Congress concerning the criteria which should govern the development and operation of the National Cemetery System including the concept of regional cemeteries.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that this bill be passed by this 92d Congress.

Mr. BROWN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BROWN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I was remiss in commending only the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, for his fine work in developing this veterans' legislation. I should also in my earlier remarks have commended the gentleman in the well, the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for his work also. I know the gentleman was always present in the development of this legislation, and certainly my commendation and congratulations go to the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania also.

Mr. SAYLOR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I might say this work was begun when the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Rutherford was on the committee. We have attempted to continue his work.

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19651 Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen

tleman yield? Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman

from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, is there any

thing in this proposed legislation that would limit the amount of space that any one individual may be allocated in Arlington Cemetery?

Mr. SAYLOR. No, there is nothing in this bill that would limit the amount of space, but in any case, Arlington is filling so rapidly those eligible now under the statute will be lucky to get one burial plot.

Mr. GROSS. In other words, the spouse and other dependent members of the ordinary family will, in the future, have to be buried in tiers rather than in separate spaces. Is that correct?

Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct. Mr. GROSS. But there is still nothing

to limit certain individuals from getting all the space in Arlington Cemetery that their families might desire. Is that correct?

Mr. SAYLOR. There is nothing at the present time. I am hoping when the Veterans' Administration gives their survey to the Congress that this matter will be covered.

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his stand on this matter. As the gentleman knows, we are vitally interested in southern New Jersey in obtaining some additional land for the Beverly National Cemetery. For a number of years the Beverly Cemetery has been closed out except for the families now occupying some of the spaces. The Congressman from New Jersey <Mr. RoE) and I have a bill in that would have somebody find some additional land in the vicinity of Beverly for the purpose of enlarging our cemetery.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his assistance in that matter.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for one further question?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, is there any plan to claim any portion of the burial space in Arlington Cemetery that was wrongfully allocated because it is far beyond any conscionable need and will deprive veterans of final resting places there?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. So far as I know, there is none.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will

the gentleman yield? Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I yield to the

gentleman from Ohio. Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,

I support H.R. 12674, the National Cemeteries Act of 1972, and urge its passage.

It is widely recognized that the various Federal cemetery systems are frag-mented in site locations, administratively complex, inadequate to handle eligible interments, and inequitable in the

,~treatment of the Nation's veterans. The CXVIII--1239-Part 15

fact that since 1967 Arlington National Cemetery has been closed for veteran burials, except for certain "VIP" classifications, has brought the whole problem to national attention.

Additionally, it has been obvious that the present meager $250 allowance for burial and funeral expenses, which has not been increased since 1958, is totally inadequate in reducing current demands for burials in national cemeteries and encouraging more local burials. I believe the committee has done a commendable job in setting forth a basic restructuring of the national cemeteries system and creating a more rational and equitable policy with respect to the rights of servicemen and veterans who have fought for and served this Nation.

H.R. 12674 provides for a consolidation of cemeteries into one system under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration. In that 90 percent of the interments in national cemeteries are veterans and their dependents, the VA is the most logical and appropriate administering agency.

The bill also increases the burial allowance to $400 for veterans not buried in a national cemetery, and perhaps most important to a permanent resolution to the overall problem directs the VA to conduct a comprehensive survey and make recommendations early next year for the development and operation of a national cemetery system including the concept of regional cemeteries.

H.R. 12674 is landmark legislation and requires prompt consideration and approval by the Congress.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas <Mr. GONZALEZ).

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, my colleague from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman a question. As the gentleman knows, I represent an area that contains, not even with the exception of Arlington, no more historical or no more hallowed ground for veterans and soldiers than Fort Sam Houston National Burial Park in San Antonio. We have had a problem I have discussed with the gentleman. The question I have is, There is nothing in this proposed legislation that would preclude Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery from continuing as such?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. There is not. Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the

Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery because it represents a unique case. Expansion of this cemetery has been barred because of the existing freeze policy. Yet Government-owned land exists for this expansion, and in fact use of this landsome 15 or more acres-has long been intended for cemetery purposes. Ironically, it would cost the Government nothing to acquire land enough to keep this cemetery in operation for many more years, beyond the projected closing date of 1977. Therefore, I am heartened by the gentleman's assurance that this bill is designed to permit the continued operation of this cemetery.

I believe that the Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery should be expanded. Its expansion would provide burial space for veterans at a cost less than would be possible through any other means, since the planned expansion would involve the use of land already owned by the Government and designated for cemetery use. It is only an accident that the freeze policy, which was intended to remedy a problem wholly unrelated to the case at Fort Sam Houston, happened to affect it.

Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the American Battle Monuments Commission presently administers and maintains the American military cemeteries, monuments, and memorials on foreign soil.

The bill before us continues the American Battle Monuments Commission. However, the commission is transferred to the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Administration.

Some citizens, knowing the excellent work of the Commission, have expressed a very real concern that the proposed transfer will result in a deterioration of the American cemeteries on foreign soil.

For example, Mr. Speaker. let me read you a letter from a constituent of mine whose son is buried in Margraten, Holland. She writes:

I have lea.rned that the House Veterans Affairs Committee has placed a provision in the National Cemetery Bill (H.R. 12674) tha.t would reassign the American Battle Monuments Commission to the control of the Veterans Administration in lieu of its present position of reporting d1rectly to the President of the Unitec:. States.

I am unalterably opposed to the inclusion of the American Battle Monuments Commission in this bill and believe it is not in the best interests of our country. I ask that you vote against this provision.

I have visited the American Military Cemetery in Margraten, Holland, where my son is buried. It is comforting to know what our government is doing in giving perpetual care, and the goOC. job the American Battle Monument Commission is doing. To change anything that would place this program in jeopardy would be a grievous mistake. I therefore ask your support in maintaining the American Battle Monuments Commission under its present d1rection.

Sincerely, J. HELENE MURPHY.

I certainly agree with Mrs. Murphy that we should not take any action which would jeopardize the American Battle Monuments Commission.

Can the gentleman give her any assurance that the excellent work of the Commission will be continued?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. This bill expands the authority of the Battle Monuments Commission. It takes nothing from it. The members will be appointed by the President, as they have been in the past.

This merely brings the whole cemetery system a little closer together. I cannot feature the Battle Monuments Commission being harmed in any way, shape, or form.

Mr. ANDERSON of California. So, in effect, there would be no change to the detriment of the system so ably admin-

19652 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 197.~

istered by the Battle Monuments Commission?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. In my opinion there would be no change in that way.

Mr. ANDERSON of California. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MIZELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. MIZELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to offer a word of support for the National Cemeteries Act of 1972.

As I have said on many occasions, in this Chamber and elsewhere, there is no group of citizens more worthy of our consideration and assistance than the veterans of our armed services, and I am happy to see that several excellent provisions have been included in this legislation which we are considering today.

One of the provisions I am particularly gratified to see is that section authorizing a special plot allowance of $150, in addition to the present allowance for burial and funeral expenses of $250, payable in cases in which veterans are not buried in a national or other Federal cemetery.

As all of my colleagues know, many of our national cemeteries are approaching capacity, and the families of veterans are having to turn increasingly to private facilities, causing substantial additional eXPense. This additional payment will greatly help these families.

The other provisions, which have been discussed in detail here today, are also generous measures designed to insure that the honor the American veteran earned in life is maintained after his passing.

More than a century has passed since President Lincoln first issued the great national commitment "to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan." I am gratified to see that this Congress is still dedicated to that commitment, still trying to enlarge and strengthen it, as this legislation surely does.

Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 12674, the National Cemeteries Act of 1972.

Across the country, veterans are being denied their right to burial in national cemeteries of their choosing.

In California, the problem is especially acute. There are over 3.1 million veterans in California and approximately 2 million in southern California.

But, what facilities do we have for -those who wish to be buried in a national cemetery?

In the San Diego area, there is Fort Rosecrans, a national cemetery operated by the Department of the Army. This facility was closed to further development in 1967.

In northern California, there is the Golden Gate National Cemetery located in San Bruno, and the national cemetery at the Presidio of San Francisco. According to the Veterans' Administration, the cemetery at San Bruno was closed in 1967, and the cemetery at the Presidio was closed in 1962.

The only remaining cemetery is lo-

cated in Los Angeles at the Wadsworth Veterans Center. This facility is expected to close for further development in 1975. But, presently, it does not meet the needs of the area. In fact, Mr. Rufus Wilson, Associate Deputy Administrator of Veterans Affairs, testified that "with some few exceptions, the only people buried in Sawtell~Wadsworth-are those who died in the VA hospital there."

Mr. Speaker, this does not meet the needs of those veterans in the Los Angeles area who served honorably, and would like to be buried in a national cemetery within a reasonable distance of their families.

I am shocked by reports that California veterans, who wish to be interred in a national cemetery, are being buried as far away as Portland, Oreg., or Santa Fe, N. Mex.

In order to provide for the establishment of a national cemetery in Los Angeles County, I introduced H.R. 11465. After the tragic earthquake of February 1971, which demolished the Olive View Veterans Hospital in the San Fernando Valley, I had hoped that the VA would establish a cemetery at that 94-acre site. However, the land was transferred to the county of Los Angeles for the purpose of building a park.

The bill before us today, H.R. 12674, would undertake a revision in the cemetery program by consolidating all Department of the Army, military post, and Veterans' Administration cemeteries under a national cemetery system within the Veterans' Administration. This ad .. justment is necessary to eliminate the confusing and uncertain conditions presently associated with the national cemetery program.

In addition, this proposal directs the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to conduct a comprehensive study and submit his recommendations to the 93d Congress within 30 days after convening. This study will focus upon, first, the criteria which should govern the development and operation of the national cemetery system. Second, it would study the relationship of the national cemetery system to other burial benefits provided by the Federal Government to servicemen and veterans. Third, this study will spell out the steps to be taken to carry out the recommendations.

An important provision of the bill would prevent the VA from transferring any real property to any other agency without the approval of the Congress.

In order to help the widow and the family of a veteran meet the expenses of a funeral and burial, a special plot allowance of $150-in addition to the present allowance of $250-is payable in any case in which the veteran is not buried in a national cemetery.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. TEAGUE, for his sincere concern for the problems in this area, and for his willingness to come to grips with the many deficiencies inherent in the system as it is presently constituted.

I feel that the proposal, H.R. 12674, is a major step toward shaping the framework of a Federal cemetery policy that will be in the best interests of the Nation's veterans and their families.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to keep in close contact with the VA in order to develop a program which will alleviate the problems in the southern California area by establishing a national cemetery in Los Angeles County.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of H.R. 12674, the National Cemeteries Act of 1972.

Mr. BURKE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 12674, the National Cemeteries Act. I do so in spite of the fact that the Veterans' Administration recommended against favorable consideration of my two bills, H.R. 9984, which would establish a national cemetery in Broward or Dade County, Fla., and H.R. 10027, which would establish a national cemetery elsewhere in the State of Florida.

The Veterans' Administration objected to my bills on the basis that until the policy with respect to the future of the National Cemetery System has been resolved, it is premature to consider any measure proposing the expansion of that system.

In fairness, our national cemetery program was not originally planned. Federal agencies and officials did not originally grant the right of burial in a national cemetery to all who served honorably in the Armed Forces. There was no assessment of the total impact of isolated policy decisions to embrace the many categories of decedents among those now eligible for burial. In fact, no action was ever taken at the final decision level to provide, on E.. continuing basis, the resources needed even to implement the law.

At last some action is being taken to place the various Federal cemeteries such as past cemeteries of garrisons, Veterans' Administration cemeteries, and Army National Cemeteries, under the jurisdiction of one Federal agency; namely, the Veterans' Administration.

Originally the purpose of Federal cemeteries was simple. Post cemeteries were used to bury the dead at isolated military posts. Veterans cemeteries served the_ National Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers that cared for the veterans disabled by the war, and national cemeteries were intended for soldiers of the United States who died in battle or of disease in the field of combat.

Many changes have occurred, however, since the 1800's when these cemeteries first were established. A study in the 87th Congress showed that fewer than 10 percent of the persons buried in national cemeteries were active-duty soldiers and their families. Instead more than 90 percent of the burials were veterans and their dependents. Further, about 83 percent of those interred lived within 50 miles of the cemeteries of their burial, indicating a close relationship between proximity and the use made of national cemeteries. Again, about 83 percent of all burials regularly occur in 11 national cemeteries near large cities.

This inequitable distribution of existing cemeteries, the wide variation in the size of installations, the heavy concentrations of workload in a comparatively small number of cemeteries, and the disparity between the number of persons now eligible for burial, and the availabil-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19653 ity of gravesites is a grave injustice to most veterans and their families.

Florida, as you know, is an attractive place for our citizens to retire. Many retired military, as well as veterans of either World War I or World War II, have found their way to Florida to live out the remainder of their lives. The mild climate and the casual style of living eases the weight of time. For many, the most important thing they want to be remembered for is their service to their country in the military. The part of those that served in the military in securing liberty and a democratic way of life for themselves, and all other citizens of our country, is the memory they cherish most. I feel it is only fitting that national cemeteries be made available to them in recognition of the valor of their deeds. Further, I feel it is important that these cemeteries be located as close as possible to the residents of the family to honor them in death for their service to our country.

At the present time the only national cemetery in Florida is Barrancas National Cemetery in Warrington, Fla. This cemetery has only 777 available gravesites, while the projected deaths of veterans in Florida in fiscal year 1972 is 11,000. Further, the projected cumulative number of veteran deaths in Florida by the fiscal year 2000, according to the Veterans' Administration, is 743,000. Certainly, a meager 777 gravesites is woefully inadequate to meet present demands, and only a token for the future.

In addition, the present national cemetery is located in the Florida panhandle which is approximately 650 miles northwest of the area I represent. This puts it too far away for many of my constituents who would like to be interred in a. national cemetery. Broward County, Fla., which I represent is one of the three fastest growing counties in the United States, according to the 1970 U.S. census. Much of the increase, as I indicated above, is due to the infiux of retired persons, many of whom are veterans. There are more than 204,400 veterans in Dade County, and more than 84,800 in Broward County.

The legislation before us today, H.R. 12674, the National Cemeteries Act of 1972, will direct that the Administrator of the Veterans• Administration conduct a comprehensive study and submit his recommendations to the 93d Congress concerning the criteria which should govern the development and operation of the national cemeter.1 system. Include<! in this study will be the concept of regional cemeteries, the relationship between that system and other burial benefits provided servicemen and veterans, and the steps to be taken to conform the existing system to the recommended criteria.

If all veterans are to have equal access to national cemeteries as they should have, then it is time we took cognizance of the fact that although initial legislation provided for the burial in national cemeteries of only those soldiers who died on active duty, eligibility has been extended since then to approximately 28 million veterans and some of their dependents. For this reason, these cemeteries .:hould be consolidated under the

Veterans' Administration since it is estimated that 90 percent of the total interments in national cemeteries are veterans and their dependents. The additional costs created by H.R. 12674, above the customary expenses of administering and maintaining the cemeteries, are those incidental to the transfer of records and personnel, and costs incurred by providing for burial plot allowances which would result in a first-year cost of $39.6 million, and a total first 5-year cost of $217.5 million.

I strongly favor this legislation because I feel that it moves us toward implementation of the Federal Government's obligations to provide national cemeteries for our veterans who wish to be buried in them.

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, I most earnestly hope that this House will promptly and overwhelmingly approve this measure now before us, H.R. 12674, the National Cemeteries Act of 1972.

In substance this measure provides for the transfer, to the Veterans' Administration, of the responsibility for adminstration of practically all Federal cemetery activity; authorizes a plot allowance of $150, in addition to the present allowance for burial and funeral expenses in any case in which a veteran is not buried in a national or other Federal cemetery; and extends authority to the Veterans' Administration to provide, upon request, a headstone or marker for unmarked veterans' graves. The bill further directs the Veterans' Administration to conduct a study and submit recommendations to the Congress, very shortly after the opening of the 93d Congress, concerning methods to improve the operation of the national cemetery system, including the concept of regional cemeteries, the relationship of the new cemetery system to other veterans' and servicemen's burial benefits, and the steps necessary to expedite the conformity of the present system to the new system.

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations contained in this bill for increased assistance to families in the overall burial expenses of a veteran and the projection of the establishment of regional cemeteries, particularly in our New England area where we have long advocated such establishment, are timely and unquestionably in the national interest. In substance and in projection the wholesome improvements, affecting our veterans and servicemen, contained in this measure are long overdue and I believe they merit the resounding approval of the House.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, having introduced similar legislation in both the 91st and 92d Congresses, I want to express my wholehearted support of H.R. 12674, which would establish a National Cemetery System under the administrative control of the Veterans' Administration.

As I pointed out in early 1969 when I first introduced legislation on this subject, since 1966, uncommitted gravesites at seven national cemeteries have been exhausted. I am sure that this situation has grown worse in the intervening 3 years. Moreover, the Department of the Army at one time estimated that an

additional 21 national cemeteries will become inactive by 1975.

This increasing scarcity of gravesites amply demonstrates the need for the comprehensive program of administration and expansion that this bill would provide. Important in this regard is a provision of the bill directing the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to submit recommendations to the 93d Congress regarding the development and further expansion of the cemetery system.

I also applaud the authorization of a special plot allowance of $150 for the burial of a veteran in a place not designated as a national or other Federal cemetery. Hopefully the enactment of this provision will help ease the currently unmanageable demand for burials in existing national cemeteries.

I have been attempting since 1965 to have a national cemetery established in New England. Passage of this legislation is a necessary first step for the reassessment of the need for additional cemeteries not only in New England but throughout the Nation as well. I urge its enactment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, today

we are considering a bill which will, if passed, benefit thousands of young men and women who have sacrificed some of the best years of their lives, and some their lives, for their country. H.R. 12674, the National Cemeteries Act of 1972, not only brings the national cemetery system under th" Veterans' Administation, but it requires the Director of Veterans' Affairs to conduct a comprehensive study of the system and submit a report to the 93d Congress.

This study will include the criteria which should govern the development and operation of the national cemetery system, including the concept of regional cemeteries; the relationship of the National Cemetery System to other burial benefits provided by the Federal Government to veterans; and the steps to be taken to conform the existing system to the recommended criteria.

The study is important at this time because it is a possible first step in the revision and expansion of the system. We are all aware that our national cemetery system is woefully inadequate. Many of the cemeteries are filled to capacity, while many more are rapidly approaching that state. In addition, many areas of the country have no facilities at all convenient for veterans.

Mr. Speaker, this is especially true of New England. For many years I have sponsored legislation to establish a national cemetery in this area of our country. Arlington, Va. is still the closest place where there is any space available for those who has served their country from New England. Even there, however, the space is severely limited with the remaining gravesites reserved for longterm veterans or those who have died in Vietnam.

But even if there were more space available in Arlington, it would be a hardship on the friends and relatives of a deceased veteran to require them to travel hundreds of miles to visit the

19654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 5, 1972 gravesite and to pay their proper respects. This in e:tiect is denying our veterans a right which has been granted them and leaves unfulfilled a promise that our Nation has made to those who have fought for her.

It is my hope that the study provided for in this bill today will recommend the establishment of more national cemeteries. Something should be done to provide our veterans with the burial so many desire and all deserve; in a place of honor, a national cemetery.

Another important part of this bill is the provision for a special $150 plot allowance for veterans who either cannot or do not wish to be buried in national cemeteries. The rising cost of burial expenses makes this addition to the $250 reimbursement allowance for burial and funeral expenses a necessary and humane step. This is especially true in light of the crisis in the national cemetery system.

It is for these reasons that I support the National Cemetery Act of 1972 and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 12674, the National Cemeteries Act.

In Maryland, there is no space available in national cemeteries. California and New England face the same problem. Within 10 years, there will be no more space available in 17 out of the 50 veterans' cemeteries now open in the United States. Veterans in these areas will have to be transported to other States in order to be buried in a national cemetery.

The Veterans' Administration pays $250 toward burial of a veteran in a private cemetery, but this amount rarely covers the cost of a private burial. Our veterans deserve a fairer deal.

'!'his legislation will show America's appreciation to those deserving men who served in our Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.12674, the National Cemeteries Act of 1972. This bill is long overdue and I am confident it will receive our overwhelming endorsement.

I believe the Veterans' A:t!airs Committee has been able to develop a realistic, e:t!eclive bill that permits us to rapidly resolve the problems facing our national cemetery system.

Many people are not aware that for each available burial plot in a national cemetery, there are more than 100 eligible veterans. This does not eve:i include eligible dependents.

The value of the legislation we have before us is in its dual approach to this growing problem. First, it requires an indepth, comprehensive analysis to be made of the cemetery system which will permit a complete evaluation of the criteria which should gov.em the development and operation of the national cemetery system.

In addition, the blll provides for a needed increase in the burial allowance. This $150 plot allowance-in addition to the present allowance for burial and funeral expenses of $250--is payable in any case in which the veteran is not buried in a Federal cemetery. This amount more fully reflects modern burial costs.

I am convinced that any study of the existing cemeteries will clearly show the need to expand the system. No additions have been made in over 20 years and over two-thirds of the existing facilities are products of the Civil War.

During the study authorized by the bill we are considering, I will, or get the VA to look into the feasibility of creating a new national cemetery in the Redwood empire of California. It would be particulariy appropriate, in my judgment, that a sacred resting grounds for our veterans be located in or near the cathedral-like Redwood groves of the Redwood National Park.

I have discussed the question of a new national cemetery in northern California as well as the issue of modernization of the national cemetery system with many, many members of veterans groups in my congressional district. They have been unanimous in support of the concepts embodied in H.R. 12674.

GENERAL LEA VE

Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks and to include extraneous matter on the bill H.R. 12674.

The SPEAKER. Is the1 e objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I

have no further requests for time. The SPEAKER. The question is on the

motion o:tiered by the gentleman from Texas <Mr. TEAGUE) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 12674, as amended.

The question was taken. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I object to

the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.



The question was taken; and there were-yeas 312, nays 4, not voting 116, as follows:

Adams Addabbo Anderson,

Cali!. Anderson, Ill. Andrews, Ala. Annunzio Archer Arends Ashley Asp in Aspinall Badillo Baker Barrett Begich Bennett Bergland Betts Bevill Biaggi Biester Blackburn Blatnik Boggs Bol11ng Brademas Brasco Brinkley Brooks Broomfield Brotzman

[Roll No. 186] YEAS-312

Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, N.C. Broyhill, Va. Buchanan Burke, Fla. Burke, Mass. Burleson, Tex. Burlison, Mo. Byrne, Pa. Byrnes, Wis. Byron Cabell Carey, N.Y. Carlson Camey Carter Casey, Tex. Chamberlain Clausen,

DonH. Cleveland Collier Collins, Tex. Colmer Conable Conover Corman Cotter Coughlin Culver Daniel, Va.

Davis, S.C. de la Garza Delaney Dellen back Denholm Dennis Dent Derwin ski Devine Dickinson Dingell Donohue Dorn Downing Drinan Duncan du Pont Dwyer Eckhardt Edwards, Ala. Edwards, Calif. EU berg Erlenborn Esch Evans, Colo. Fascell Findley Fish Fisher Flood Flynt Foley

Ford, Gerald R. Lent Ford, Link

William D. Long, Md. Forsythe McClure Fountain Mccollister Fraser McCormack Frenzel McDade Frey McDonald, Fulton Mich. Fuqua McEwen Garmatz McFall Gaydos McKay Gettys McKevitt Giaimo Mahon Goldwater Mailliard Gonzalez Mallary Goodling Mann Grasso Martin Gray Mathias, Cali!. Green, Pa. Mathis, Ga. Griffiths Matsunaga Gross Mayne Haley Mazzoli Hall Meeds Hamilton Melcher Hammer- Metcalfe

schmidt Michel Hanley Mikva Hansen, Idaho Miller, Ohio Hansen, Wash. Mills, Ark. Harrington Mills, Md. Harsha Minish Harvey Mitchell Hastings Mizell Hathaway Mollohan Hays Monagan Hebert Montgomery Hechler, W. Va. Morgan Heckler, Mass. Mosher Heinz Murphy, DI. Henderson Myers Hicks, Mass. Natcher Hicks, Wash. Nedzi H1111s Nelsen Hogan Nichols Horton Obey Hosmer O'Hara Howard Patten Hull Pelly Hungate Perkins Hunt Peyser Hutchinson Pickle I chord Pike Jacobs Pirnie Jannan Poage Johnson, Cali!. Po1f Johnson, Pa. Powell Jones, Ala. Preyer, N.C. Jones, N.C. Price, ill. Jones, Tenn. Price, Tex. Karth Pucinsk! Kastenmeier Purcell Kazen Quie Keating Quillen Kee Randall Keith Rarick Kemp Rees King Reid Kluczynski Reuss Koch Riegle Kuykendall Roberts Kyl Robison, N.Y. Landrum Roe Latta Rogers Lennon Ronca.Ho

NAYS-4 Bray Evins, Tenn. Crane

Rooney, Pa. Rosenthal Rostenkowski Roush Roy Ruth R yan Sandman Satterfield Saylor Scher le Schnee bell Schwengel Scott Sebelius Seiberling Shriver Sikes Sisk Skubitz Slack Smith, Calif. Smith, Iowa Snyder Spence Staggers Stanton,

J. William Stanton,

James V. Steed Steele Steiger, Ariz. Steiger, Wis. Stephens Stratton Sullivan Symington Talcott Taylor Teague, Cali!. Teague, Tex. Terry Thompson, Ga. Thompson, N.J. Thomson, Wis. Thone Udall Ullman VanderJagt Vanik Vigorito Waggonner Wampler Ware Whalen White Whitehurst Williams Winn Wolff Wright Wyatt Wydler Wylie Wyman Yates Yatron Young, Fla. Young, Tex. Zablocki Zion zwach

Wiggins

NOT VOTING-116 Abbitt Chisholm Gallagher Abernethy Clancy Gibbons Abourezk Clark Green, Oreg. Abzug Clawson, Del Grtmn Alexander Clay Grover Anderson, Collins, Ill. Gubser

Tenn. Conte Gude Andrews, Conyers Hagan

N.Dak. CUrlin Halpern Ashbrook Daniels, N .J. Hanna Baring Danielson Hawkins Belcher Davis, Ga. Helstoski Bell Davis, Wis. Holifield Bingham Dellums Jonas Blanton Diggs Kyros Boland Dow Landgrebe Bow Dowdy Leggett Burton Dulski Lloyd Caffery Edmondson Long, La. Camp Eshleman Lujan Cederberg Flowers McClory Cell er Frelinghuysen McCloskey Chappell Galiflanakis McCulloch

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 19655 McKinney Pettis Shipley McMillan Podell Shoup Macdonald, Pryor, Ark. Smith, N.Y.

Mass. Railsback Springer Madden Rangel Stokes Miller, Calif. Rhodes Stubblefield Mink Robinson, Va. Stuckey Minshall Rodino Tiernan Moorhead Rooney, N.Y. Van Deerlin Moss Rousselot Veysey Murphy, N.Y. Roybal Waldie Nix Runnels Whalley O'Konski Ruppe Whitten O'Neill St Germain Widnall Passman Sarbanes Wilson, Bob Patman Scheuer Wilson, Pepper Schmitz Charles H.

So <two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.


Mr. Shipley with Mr. Cederberg. Mr. Tiernan with Mr. Andrews of North

Dakota. Mr. Boland with Mr. Conte. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Bow. Mr. Daniels of New Jersey with Mr. Rails-

back. Mr. Hanna with Mr. Ruppe. Mr. Miller of California with Mr. Bell. Mr. Celler with Mr. Halpern. Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Grover. Mr. Pepper with Mr. Clancy. Mr. Gibbons with Mr. McKinney. Mr. Rangel with Mr. Waldie. Mrs. Abzug with Mr. Diggs. Mr. Alexander with Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Holifield with Mr. Pettis. Mr. Conyers with Mr. Helstoskl. Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Lujan. Mr. St Germain with Mr. Davis of Wiscon-

sin. Mr. O'Neill with Mr. Mccloskey. Mr. Podell with Mr. Eshleman. Mr. Dellums with Mr. Scheuer. Mr. Dow with Mr. Stokes. Mr. Dulski with Mr. Gerald R. Ford. Mr. Galifianakis with Mr. Collins of Illi-

nois. Mrs. Chisholm with Mr. Rodino. Mr. Gallagher with Mr. O'Konski. Mr. Burton with Mr. Nix. Mr. Clark with Mr. Whalley. Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Belcher. Mr. Moss with Mr. Shoup. Mr. Moorhead with Mr. Smith of New

York. Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts with Mr.

Springer. Mr. Kyros with Mr. Ashbrook. Mr. Leggett with Mr. Gubser. Mr. Minshall with Mr. Runnels. Mr. Hagan with Mr. Robinson of Virginia. Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Whitten. Mr. Curlin with Mr. Baring. Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Pryor of

Arkansas. Mr. McMlllan with Mr. Stubblefield. Mr. Sarbanes with Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Abourezk with Mr. Ca.mp. Mr. Roybal with Mr. Clay. Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Madden. Mr. Caffery with Mr. Anderson of Tenn-

essee. Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Long of Louisiana. Mr. Bingham with Mr. Blanton. Mr. Chappell with Mr. Danielson. Mr. Griffin with Mr. Stuckey. Mrs. Mink with Mr. Charles H. Wilson. Mr. Rousselot with Mr. Passman. Mr. Flowers with Mr. Del Clawson. Mr. Patman with Mr. McCulloch. Mr. Frelinghuysen with Mr. Schmitz. Mr. Rhodes with Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. Gude with Mr. Jonas. Mr. Widn.a.ll with Mr. Mcclory. Mr. Coughlin with Mr. Bob Wilson.



APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 7117, TO AMEND THE FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7117) to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to expedite the reimbursement of U.S. vessel owners for charges paid by them for the release of vessels and crews illegally seized by foreign countries, to strengthen the provisions therein relating to the collection of claims against such foreign countries for amounts so reimbursed and for certain other amounts, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. GARMATZ, DINGELL, and PELL Y.

NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES ACT Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to

suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9501) to amend the North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954, and for other purposes, as amended.

The Clerk read as follows: H.R. 9501

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of .Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,, TITLE I-AMENDMENT OF THE NORTH

PACIFIC FISHERIES ACT OF 1954 SEC. 101. The North Pacific Fisheries Act of

1954 (hereinafter in this title referred to as the "Act") is amended by redesignating section 7 as section 8 and by inserting immediately after section 6 the following new section:

"SEc. 7. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized and directed to administer and enforce all the provisions of the Convention, this Act, and regulations issued pursuant thereto, except to the extent otherwise provided for in this Act. In carrying out such functions he is authorized and directed to adopt such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and this Act, and, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, he may cooperate with the duly authorized omcials of the government of any party to the Convention. He shall adopt such regulations on consultation with the United States Section and they shall apply only to stocks of fish in the Convention area north of the parallel of north latitude of 48 degrees and 30 minutes. No such regulations shall apply in the Convention area south of the 49th parallel of north latitude with respect to sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) or pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) .".

SEC. 102. Section 8 of the Act as amended(1) by redeslgnating such section as sec

tion 9; (2) by redeslgnating subsections (a), (b),

(c), and (d), as subsections (b), (c), (d), and ( e) , respectively;

(3) by striking out "subsection (a)" each place it appears in subsections (c), (d), and ( e) , as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this section, and inserting in lieu thereof at each such place "subsection (b) "; and

(4) by inserting immediately after "SEc. 9.", as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this section, the following new subsection:

"(a) Enforcement activities under the provisions of this Act relating to vessels engaged in fishing and subject to the juris-

dict ion of the United States shall be primarily the responsiblllty of the Secret ary of t h e Department in which the Coast Guard ls operating, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of St ate, is authorized to adopt such regulations as may be necessary to provide for procedures and methods of enforcement pursuant to articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.".

SEC. 103. Section 9 of the Act is redesignat ed as subsection (f) of section 9, as so redesignated by paragraph ( 1) of section 102 of this title.

SEc. 104. Section 10 of the Act ls amended( 1) by redesignating subsections (a ) , (b) ,

(c), (d), and (e) as subsections (b ) . (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively;

(2) by striking out "subsection (a ) " each place it appears in subsection (c ), as so redesignated by paragraph ( 1) of this section, and inserting in lieu thereof at each place "subsection (b) ";

(3) by inserting immediately after "SEC. 10." the following new subsection:

"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in fishing in violation of any regulation adopted pursuant to this Act or of any order of a court issued pursuant to section 11 of this Act; to ship, t ransport, purchase, sell, offer for sale, import, export, or have in custody, possession, or control any fish taken or retained in violation of any such regulation or order; to fail to make, keep, submit, or furnish any record or report required of him by such regulation, or to refuse to permit any officer authorized to enforce such regulations to inspect such record or report at any reasonable time."; and

( 4) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(g) It shall be unlawful for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to do any act prohibited or fail to do any act required by any regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.".

SEC. 105. Section 11 of the Act is amended(1) by striking out "subsection (a), (b),

or (c)" in subsection (a) of such section and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection (b), (c), or (d) ";

(2) by striking out "subsection (d)" in subsection (b) of such section and inserting in lieu thereof "subseotion (e) ";

(3) by striking out "subsection ( e) " in subsection (c) of such section and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection (f) ": and

(4) by amending subsection (d) of such section to read as follows:

"(d) Any person violating any other provision of this Act or any regulation adopted pursuant to this Act, upon convict ion, shall be fined for a first offense not more than $500 and for a subsequent offense committed within five years not more than $1,000 and for such subsequent offense the court may order forfeited, in whole or in part, the fish taken by such person, or the fishing gear involved in such fishing, or both, or the monetary value thereof. Such forfeited fish or fishing gear shall be disposed of in accordance with the direction of the court.".

SEC. 106. Section 12 of the Act is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 12. (a) Any duly authorized enforcement omcer or employee of the Department of Commerce: any Coast Guard officer; any United States marshal or deputy United States marshal; any customs omcer; and any other person authorized to enforce the provisions of the Convention, this Act, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall have power without warrant or other process to arrest any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States committing 1n his presence or view a. Violation of the Convention or of this Act, or of the regulations issues pursuant thereto, and

19656 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 to take such person immediately for examination before a justice or judge or any other official designated in section 3041 of title 18 of the United States Code; and shall have power, without warrant or other process, to search any vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he has reasonable cause to believe that such vessel is engaging in fishing in violation of the provisions of the Convention or this Act, or the regulations issued pursuant thereto. Any person authorized to enforce the provisions of the Convention, this Act, or the regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall have power to execute any warrant or process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of t his Act, and shall have power with a search warrant to search any vessel, vehicle, person, or place at any time. The judges of the United States district courts and the United States magistrates may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause, issue warrants in all such cases. Any person authorized to enforce the provisions of the Convention, this Act, or the regulations issued pursuant thereto may, except in the case of a first offense, seize, whenever and wherever lawfully found, all fish taken or retained, and all fishing gear involved in fishing, contrary to the provisions of the Convention or this Act or to regulations issued pursuant thereto. Any property so seized shall not be disposed of except pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction or the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, or, if perishable, in the manner prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of Commerce.

"(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2464 of title 28, United States Code, when a warrant of arrest or other process in rem is issued in any cause under this section, the marshal or other officer shall stay the execution of such process, or discharge any property seized if the process has been levied, on receiving from the claimant of the property a bond or stipulation for double the value of the property with sufficient surety to be approved by a judge of the district court having jurisdiction of the offense, conditioned to deliver the property seized, if condemned, without impairment in value or, in the discretion of the court, to pay its equivalent value in money or otherwise to answer the decree of the court in such cause. such bond or stipulation shall be returned to the court and judgment thereon against both the principal and sureties may be recovered in event of any break of the conditions thereof as det ermined by the court.".

SEC. 107. (a) In subsection (b) of section 9 of the Act, as so redesignated by section 102 of this t itle, strike out "Coast Guard in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Custom.s" and insert in lieu thereof "Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Treasury".

(b) In subsections (c) and (e) of section 9 of the Act, as so redesignated by section 102 of this title, strike out "Fish and Wildlife Service" and insert in lieu thereof "Department of Commerce".

(c) In subsection (f) of section 9 of the Ac:t, as so redesignated iJy section 103 of this title, and in subsection (b) of section 13 of such Act, strike out '"Secretary of the Interior" and insert in lieu thereof "Secretary of Commerce".

SEc. 108. (a) Section 3 of the Act ls amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 3. (a) The United states shall be represented on the Commission by not more than four United States Commissioners to be appointed by the President and to serve at his pleasure; except that after January 1, 1973, (1) each United States Commissioner shall be appointed for a term of omce of not to exceed four years, but ls ellgible for re-

appointment; and (2) any United States Commissioner may be appointed for a lesser term if necessary to insure that the term of office of not more than one Commissioner will expire in any one year. Of such Commissioners, who shall receive no compensation for their services as Commissioners, one shall be an official of the United States Government, and each of the others shall be a person residing in a State, the residents of which maintain a substantial fishery in the Con ventlon area.

"(b) The Secretary of state, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, may designate from time to time Alternate United States Commissioners to the Commission. An Alternate United States Commissioner may exercise, at any meeting of the Commission or of the United States Section or of the Advisory Committee established pursuant to section 4, all powers and duties of a United States Commissioner in the absence of a duly designated Commissioner for whatever reason. The number of such Alternate United States Commissioners that may be designated for any such meeting shall be limited to the number' of authorized United States Commissioners that wm not be present.".

{b) The second sentence of section 4{d) of the Act is amended by striking out "may" and inserting in lieu thereof "shall".

( c) Section 5 of the Act ls repealed. ( d) Section 13 (a) ( 1) of the Act is amended

by inserting immediately after "Commissioners" the following: "or Alternate Commissioners". TITLE II-ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS

SEC. 201. In order to insure appropriate representation at meetings of international fisheries commissioners, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce or of the Interior as appropriate may designate from time to t ime Alternate United States Commissioners to the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, the International Whaling Commission, the Commission for the Conservation of Shrimp in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and any similar commission (other than the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission) established pursuant to a convention between the United States and other governments. Alternate United States Commissioners may exercise, at any meeting of the respective Commission or of the United States Section thereof, all powers and duties of a United States Commissioner in the absence of a duly designated Commissioner for whatever reason. The number of such Alternate United States Commissioners that may be designated for any such meeting shall be limited to the number of authorized United States Commissioners that will not be present. In the event that there are Deputy United States Commissioners pursuant to the convention or statute, such Deputy United States Commissioners shall have precedence over any Alternate Commissioners so designated pursuant to this title.

SEC. 202. Alternate United States Commissioners shall receive no compensation for their services. They may be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence at the rates authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, when engaged in the performance of their duties.

SEC. 203. (a) Section 5 of the Great Lakes Fisheries Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 934) is repealed.

(b) Section 5 of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (16 U.S.C. 954) ls repealed.

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded? Mr. PELL Y. Mr. Speaker, I demand

a second. The SPEAKER. Without objection, a

second will be considered as ordered.

There was no objection. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Inter

national Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean was signed in Tokyo on May 9, 1952, by the countries of the United States, Canada, and Japan.

The Convention has as its purpose to promote and coordinate the scientific studies necessary to ascertain the conservation measures required to insure the maximum sustained productivity of the North Pacific Ocean fisheries resources of joint interest to the signatory nations.

The Convention established the International Commission for the North Pacific Fisheries. The Commission is composed of three national sections, each of which consists of not more than four members appointed by the governments of the respective signatory nations.

In order to implement the U.S. role in the Convention, the Congress passed and the President signed the North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954. In brief, the original act did four things: It provided for U.S. representation on the Commissionby not more than four; it established the U.S. Advisory Committee-to be composed of not less than five nor more than 20-and set forth its rights and functions; it vested in the Coast Guard, in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of the Customs, general enforcement authority; and it described offenses and set forth penalties for them.

Mr. Speaker, the North Pacific Fisheries Act now contains a provision-section 12 of the act-which incorporates by reference sections 7 (a) and (b), 9, 10, and 11 of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act. These provisions provide the authority necessary to carry out the enforcement of the act.

The need for this legislation is occasioned in part by enactment of legislation handled by the Foreign Affairs Committee late last year which amended, among other sections, those sections of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act which are incorporated in the North Pacific Fisheries Act by reference. These changes have the inadvertent effect of modifying the provisions of the North Pacific Fisheries Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of State deemed it desirable not to amend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act with exceptions for the North Pacific Fisheries Act incorporated therein by reference, but to insert the pertinent provisions in the North Pacific Fisheries Act itself, including those provisions of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act applicable to it which are now being amended in order that the North Pacific Fisheries Act in the future will stand alone.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Stat.e forwarded to you Executive Communica-tion No. 634 which in tum was forwarded to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee for consideration. The dis-tinguished chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Mr. GARMATZ introduced legislation to carry out the purposes of the Executive Communication in the form of H.R. 9501.

Mr. Speaker, briefly explained, sections 101 through 107 of the bill would ac-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19657 complish the purpose of including in the North Pacific Fisheries Act those provisions of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act that have previously been incorporated in the act by reference. These sections do not in any way amend the substance of those provisions; they are all technical in nature.

Section 108 would make substantive changes in the act. Subsection (a) of this section would change the way in which U.S. Commissioners to the Commission have been appointed in the past. Heretofore, such appointments have been made by the President and the Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the President. Subsection (a) would provide, that after January 1, 1973, such appointments will be made on a staggering term basis and no Commissioner will be appointed for a period of more than 4 years. However they would be able to succeed themselves.

Also subsection (a) of this section would make a substantive change in the act in that it would authorize the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, to designate Alternate Commissioners to the Commission so that in the event of the absence of a regularly apPointed Commissioner, the United States would be assured of full representation at meetings of the Commission. These appointments would be made on a case by case basis and would be limited to the number of authorized U.S. Commissioners that would not be present at any scheduled meeting.

Subsection (b) of this section would make it mandatory that the Department of State pay the travel expenses and per diem of those members of the Advisory Committee-not to exceed three-that are designated by the committee to be in attendance at meetings of the Commission.

Subsection (d) of this service would have the effect of providing this same courtesy to Alternate Commissioners appointed to attend a meeting of the Commission.

Subsection (c) of this section would repeal section 5 of the act--at the recommendation of the Department of Justice-which would have the effect of making Commissioners and members of the Advisory Committee who are apPointed "from private life," in general, exempt from the conflict of interest laws, as provided in 18 U.S.C. 202-209, which provides the extent to which the conflict of laws apply to any "special Government employee."

Title II of the bill would do the following things: Provide for the aPPointment of Alternate U.S. Commissioners to approximately 12 other Commissioners enumerated in the bill; the payment of travel expenses and per diem for their services; and it would repeal section 5 of the Great Lakes Fisheries Act of 1956 and section 5 of the Tuna Convention Acts of 1950, which would have the effect of making the conflict of interest laws provisions of 18 U.S.C. 202-209 ap-plicable to Commissioners and Advisory Committee members app0inted "from private life."

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9501 received favor-

able departmental reports and was unanimously reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and I urge its prompt passage.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9501, a bill to amend the North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954. The purpose of this act is to carry out the obligations of the United States pursuant to the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries for the North Pacific Ocean. That convention entered into force on June 12, 1953. The convention between the United States, Canada, and Japan was prompted by the continuing need to insure the maximum sustained productivity of the fishery resources of the North Pacific Ocean. The convention provided for the establishment of an International Commission composed of four representatives of each of the contracting parties. The central theme of the Commission is that the contracting parties will recognize the established conservation measures of the respective nations and abstain from taking those stocks of fish which are of particular significance to the respective parties in the designated areas of the North Pacific Ocean. The convention primarily covers halibut, herring, and, most importantly, salmon.

The International Commission was established to perform scientific studies of the stocks of fish in the North Pacific Ocean to determine which specifically qualify under the abstention principle. Based upon its studies, the Commission recommends to the contracting parties the conservation measures which should be taken to carry out the spirit of the convention.

Each of the contracting parties is required by the terms of the convention to enact domestic legislation providing for the enforcement of the convention with respect to its nationals. The North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 sets forth the necessary mechanisms for the appointment of the U.S. Commissioners, the Advisory Committee to the U.S. section, and contains necessary enforcement provisions to insure that American fishermen abide by the terms of the convention.

Since the North Pacific Fisheries Act and its implementing legislation followed by several years the adoption of the International Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention, it was considered expedient to incorporate by reference into the North Pacific Fisheries Act, much of the housekeeping and procedural language of the earlier Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act.

This has, however, proved cumbersome, particularly in view of the fact that the two conventions are substantially different with respect to enforcement mechanisms. The principal purpose of H.R. 9501, therefore, is to incorporate into the North Pacific Fisheries Act appropriate housekeeping and enforcement provisions so that it will no longer be necessary to refer to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Act.

M:.-. Speaker, your committee has amended this bill in several important

respects which will insure that the U.S. section of the International Commission functions more smoothly and receives a periodic infusion of new ideas and viewpoints. To accomplish this, your committee has provided that the expenses of Advisors and Alternate Commissioners who are authorized to attend the meetings of the Commission shall be paid by the Federal Government. The permissive language of the existing law has acted as a restraint upon the Advisors who on many occasions have been reluctant to travel great distances, for example Japan, to attend meetings, when the issue of their travel expenses has been unresolved. If the U.S. section of the Commission is to have the benefit of the knowledge of these Advisors, they obviously must be present at the meetings of the Commission. They are selected for their expertise, without regard to their ability to finance such trips.

The Commission meets annually in a city of one of the three contracting parties. Only when the Commission meets in Japan will this involve anything more than nominal expenses. To insure a fresh viewpoint, your committee has amended the bill to provide for a 4-year term on the U.S. section. Heretofore, the members of the U.S. section have served at the pleasure of the President for indefinite periods of time. The committee amendment provides that a new Commissioner will be appointed each year.

Title II of H.R. 9501 provides for the appointment of alternate U.S. Commissioners to a variety of international fish commissions which do not now provide for the designation of alternates in the case of the absence of one or more of the regular Commissioners.

The enforcement provisions set forth in H.R. 9501 ·are similar to those already enacted for many fishery commissions. The Coast Guard and the Department of Commerce have the primary enforcement authority under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission is one of the most important multilateral e1forts to conserve fishery resources that we have been engaged in. H.R. 9501 will insure that U.S. participation in the convention will continue at its traditionally high level and will enjoy an even greater degree of expertise so that the U.S. position on the important conservation issues before the International Convention will have even greater weight. I, therefore, urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (Mr. GARMATZ).

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9501. This legislation, which was unanimously reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, also has received favorable reports from the concerned Federal agencies.

The legislation is rather complex, and a full explanation of its many details was presented today by the Honorable

19658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 JOHN D. DINGELL, the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation.

Rather than confuse the issue by going into additional detail on this legislation, I pref er to make a general observation that the bill will help to clarify and to make more effective the role of the United States in international fishery agreements entered into by the United States with other fishing nations of the world.

I introduced this legislation in order to carry out the purposes and goals outlined in Executive Communication No. 634, which was submitted by the State Department. I hope my colleagues in the House will support and rapidly pass this bill.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 9501, as amended.

The question was taken; and-twothirds having voted in favor thereofthe rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.

GENERAL LEAVE Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?


SEAL BEACH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill <H.R. 10310) to establish the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, as amended.


To establish the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to establish the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter referred to in this Act as the "refuge") as part of the national wildlife refuge system.

SEC. 2. (a) The refuge shall consist of certain lands, to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior with the advice and consent of the Secretary of the Navy, within the United States Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California.

(b) Upon determination of the boundaries of the refuge by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Navy the Secretary of the Interior shall immediately designate the area agreed upon as the refuge by publication of a description of such area in the Federal Register.

(c) That portion of the United States Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California designated pursuant to this Act as a national wildlife refuge shall be transferred, without consideration, to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior at such times as such portion is determined by the Department of Defense to be excess to its needs.

SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Interior shall administer the refuge in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Adminis-

tration Act of 1966, as amended (80 Stat. 927; 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and pursuant to plans which are mutually acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Navy.

SEC. 4. There is authorized to be appropriated until the close of June 30, 1977, not to exceed $525,000 to carry out the purposes of this Act.

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded? Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a

second. The SPEAKER. Without objection, a

second will be considered as ordered. There was no objection. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from

Michigan is recognized. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 10310

is to protect and preserve a valuable salt water marsh and estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wildlife within the U.S. Naval Weapons Station at Seal Beach, Calif.

Mr. Speaker, the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station is located j:ist south of the city of Los Angeles. The station consists of approximately 5,400 acres, of which approximately 700 acres consists of tidal slough. This tidal slough is the last pristine salt water marsh on the southern California coast.

It is the natural spawning and nursing area for such game fish as the California halibut and diamond turbot. It is the feeding and resting area for migratory waterfowl and for such endangered species as the light-footed clapper rail, California least tern, and the brown pelican.

Mr. Speaker, because of the possible threat of the construction of a highway through this salt marsh area, my good friend and colleague from the State of California, CRAIG HOSMER, along with 16 other Members of the H-0use from the State of California, all of whom I would like to highly commend at this time, took the initiative in introducing this legislation that is designed to give this area the protection to which it is entitled.

Briefly explairn~d H.R. 10310 would authorize the Secretary of the Interiorwith the advice and consent of the Secretary of the Navy-to designate certain lands within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station as a national wildlife refuge. The designated lands would be transferred, since they are already in Federal ownership, without consideration to the Secretary of the Interior and such lands would be administered by the Secretary as a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. There would be authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $525,000 over a 5-year period to carry out the purposes of the act.

Mr. Speaker, the bill received favorable departmental reports and all witnesses testifying at the hearings were strongly in favor of the legislation. The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries unanimously ordered the bill reported to the House and I urge its prompt passage.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa, for a question.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. What happens at the end of the 5-year period?

Mr. DINGELL. The rules of the House require that in reporting legislation to the House, we give the total cost anticipated for the 5-year period. The committee suggested that cost. Frankly, it is my judgment that the succeeding costs will be rather less than the $525,000 in that most of that sum is for construction work and work necessary to preserve and protect the marsh and it will not be repetitive probably.

Mr. GROSS. I am not so much referring to the total cost, but what happens at the end of the 5 years?

Mr. DINGELL. It will be a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge system and will continue to be administered by the Department of the Interior.

Mr. GROSS. Why is it not admitted at this time to that system?

Mr. DINGELL. The legislation does so provide that it will be admitted to the refuge system, but I simply gave you the estimated cost of $525,000.

Mr. GROSS. Then that represents an additional cost to the National Wildlife Refuge system for the administration.

Mr. DINGELL. That is the total cost of administering this particular area.

Mr. GROSS. This particular area over a 5-year period?

Mr. DINGELL. That is correct. Mr. GROSS. And then it will be ab

sorbed into the system? Mr. DINGELL. That is correct. It is

the total cost of services, administration, protection, development, and all of the things that are necessary to have it as a viable unit of the refuge system.

Mr. GROSS. I will say to the gentleman, I think it is much more worth while than the bill we had earlier this afternoon dealing with the so-called cultural center.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for yielding.

Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend from Iowa. He has always looked with kindness and sympathy at the conservation bills reported by our committee and I appreciate his kindness.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. HosMER).

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee for his prompt action on H.R. 10310, which will establish a national wildlife refuge within the naval weapons station at Seal Beach, Calif. I also want to thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) for his considerate and interested attention to this legislation. Without his help and that of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. PELLY) who has been equally kind and helpful, we could not have progressed so swiftly.

This legislation directs the Secretaries of the Interior and the Navy to develop boundaries for a Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge within the Federal property of the naval weapons station. Since this area is already owned by the Federal Government, no additional expenditure for land acquisition will be required,

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE # 19659

and there will be no interference with the Navy's use of the property as an ammunition storage depot.

Since 1940, this area has been a wildlife refuge in practice, if not in law, due to Federal ownership and the Navy's conscientious program for preserving the natural environment and protecting the fish and wildlife resources.

While the Navy is to be commended for its diligent efforts to preserve this resource, the legislation before the House today would place the area under the care and protection of the Department of the Interior, assuring its character as a refuge for all time.

Mr. Speaker, through enactment of H.R. 10310, the Congress is afforded an opportunity for multiple use of land already in Federal ownership.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10310, a bill to establish the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge will consist of approximately 700 acres of salt marsh, water. and uplands located within the boundaries of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. This land situated just south of the city of Los Angeles is the largest single undisturbed tract of salt marsh between San Francisco and the Mexican border. The land is a nesting ground for the endangered Galifornia least tern and the light-footed clapper rail. Other threatened species such as brown pelican also frequent this area.

The Navy is to be commended for its farsighted preservation of this land. The personnel of the Naval Weapons Station have taken pride in this preservation effort. The Department of the Interior and the Navy contemplate that limited public access to the refuge will be provided at sites near the Pacific coast highway where an elevated wildlife trail will be constructed. The refuge, of course, is within easy reach of the Los Angeles metropolitan area and offers an excellent opportunity for the residents of this area. to appreciate the diverse wildlife values found here. Since this already is Federal land, no acquisition costs are involved. However, it is contemplated that the development of limited public access to the area and management expenses will be in the neighborhood of $500,000 over the 5-year period authorized by the bill.

The Secretary of the Interior will administer the refuge in accordance with the National Wildlife System Administration Act of 1966 pursuant to plans which are mutually acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Navy. The bill is strongly supported by the Interior Department and the Navy, and I think is an excellent example of our efforts to preserve areas of significant wildlife value in the vicinity of major metropolitan centers. Wetland areas such as Seal Beach are now as rare as many of the birds which inhabit them. This relationsip between the land and the wildlife is such that it is pointless to declare any animal or bird an endangered specie unless we are prepared to take the necessary steps to preserve its habitat.

I commend the sponsors of this legis-

lation (Mr. HOSMER and Mr. MAILLIARD) and other Members of the California delegation who joined with them in introducing this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine ar.d Fisheries, the gentleman from Maryland CMr. GARMATZ).

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Speaker, the demands of our modern society are causing many problems, but one of the most serious is the constant and ever-growing absorption and destruction of irreplaceable natural resources-such as wetlands, wooded areas and wildlife refuge areas.

One of the primary responsibilities of the Congress is to assure the protection and conservation of some of these invaluable natural resources, so they may be enjoyed by future generations of Americans.

H.R. 10310 is a bill designed with that purpose in mind. Its purpose is to protect and preserve for posterity a salt water marsh and estuarine area located south of Los Angeles.

The area in question, which is located on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, is a valuable habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wildlife, and a valuable spawning and nursing area for important California game fish-such as the halibut and diamond turbot.

Recently, there has been talk about the possible construction of a highway through this valuable marsh area. This kind of senseless destruction must be blocked, and that is precisely what H.R. 10310 would do, Mr. Speaker. Basically, this legislation would specifically set aside certain lands within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station-and they would be preserved as a wildlife refuge.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California CMr. HOSMER) and the gentleman from California <Mr. MAILLIARD) as cosponsors of this legislation have shown great interest in it. Of course, the gentleman from California <Mr. MAILLIARD) is a valued member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, I vigorously support this legislation, and I urge its rapid approval by the Hcuse.

Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge favorable consideration of H.R. 10310, a bill to establish the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge.

I am one of the 16 Californians who have joined Congressman CRAIG HosMER in coauthoring this legislation. I am familiar with the circumstances and the very great need for preservation of this area as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

California, fortunately is a way-station for migrating waterfowl and other migratory birds following the Pacific Flyway. The "gateway to California" on this ftyway from the north is the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge and the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, both situated just south of the Oregon border and in the Second Congressional District, which I represent. Literally mil-

lions of waterfowl stop at these refuges during their twice a year migrations.

On down through the State in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the Federal Government and the State government have established the system of waterfowl refuges which are critical to preservation of this flyway. Additional refuges are needed in the southern portions of the State. Since this land is already in Federal ownership and already is used by more than 100 species of migratory water, shore and marsh birds, including such endangered species as the least tern, the lightfooted clapper rail and the threatened brown pelican, we have an opportunity here today to establish a new national refuge without removing from the private tax rolls any more land and without a major acquisition cost.

The only expenses would be those involved in a minimal development program and an annual expenditure for operation and maintenance of approximately $40,000. For this small annual cost we will provide not only a resting and feeding place for the migrating birds but we anticipate that citizens of the metropolitan Los Angeles area will visit the refuge in order to see the wildlife at a rate of possibly 100,000 visits per year.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting a very fine program for our money and I hope that the Congress will support this legislation.

Thank:·ou. Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.

Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10310, a bill which would establish the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge in my home State of California.

As a resident of Los Angeles County, and as a coauthor of this bill, I am well aware of the great need to protect and preserve the valuable salt water marshes and estuarine habitats along our coast.

In southern California, 75 percent of the wet lands which existed in 1900 have been pav~d-over, filled-in, dredged-out, or otherwise destroyed. The remnant of our tidal marshes are today threatened by the lemming-like rush to populate and develop our shoreline.

The salt marshes and mudflats of Anaheim Bay, located within the U.S. Naval Weapons Station at Seal Beach, are particularly valuable in that they provide the vegetation and the environment needed to sustain birds and fishes. Three endangered species of birds are found here. It is a nesting area for the endangered southern California clapper rail. The California least tern depends upon Anaheim Bay for nesting and for food.

The outer portions of the bay provide sanctuary for the California brown pelican. In total, some 107 bird species are documented as using the marsh, and additional species are still being sighted.

This valuable refuge also provides a spawning, nursing, and feeding area for over 50 different species of fish. It is the key nursery between Point Fermin and Oceanside for halibut and turbot, staples of local sport and commercial fishing.

The bill before us today would protect this pristine area by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior-with the advice and consent of the Secretary of the Navy-to designate certain lands within

19660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 5, 1972 the U.S. Naval Weapons Station at seal Beach as a national wildlife refuge.

The Department of the Interior, which will administer the lands, anticipates that if the refuge is established, as proposed, there would be approximately 100,-000 visits annually at selected sites. An elevated wildlife trail, an information and interpretive contact center, and a parking area are planned to be built in the refuge.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the adoption of H.R.10310.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission which oversees many of the Government's wildlife refuge programs, I want to congratulate the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee for reporting out this bill. H.R. 10310 would protect a salt water marsh and estuarine habitat valuable for migrating waterfowl and other wildlife in Seal Beach, Calif.

It is most important that the House take prompt action to preserve this natural resource, which is a valuable spawning and nursery area for game fish, as well as a feeding and resting place for migratory shore and water birds on the Pacific flyway. Unless this bill is passed, there is grave danger that heavy construction and other onslaughts of modern civilization will seriously impair this sanctuary for public fishing and nature study.

I heartily endorse its approval by this Chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Speaker,

as one of the coauthors of H.R. 10310, the bill to establish a national wildlife refuge at Seal Beach in southern California, I would obviously ask the House to approve it overwhelmingly.

The members of the committee have explained the purposes of, and more than adequately expressed the need for, this legislation.

Mr. HosMER, the lead author, is deserving of our highest commendation for his diligent and competent leadership in advancing this legislation.

In addition, I believe the RECORD should indicate the key role our ranking Californian on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, BILL MAILLIARD, actually played in getting the committee to move the bill to a position of higher priority for consideration and passage.

During two discussions I had with Chairman GARMATZ, regarding the progress of the legislation, he conveyed, very emphatically, to me, the impression and in words, that Mr. MAILLIARD's extremely cooperaitive and constructive attitude on the committee would guarantee favorable consideration and passage by the committee.

Once again Congressman MAXLLIARD

has proven his ability and effectiveness in moving conservation legislation through the committee and through the House that has such broad support in California.

I commend him and thank the committee for their responsiveness. I hope the Senate will act just as expeditiously,

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from

Michigan <Mr. DINGELL) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 10310, as amended.

The question was taken. Mr. MIZELL. Mr. Speaker, I object to






Calif. Anderson, Ill. Andrews, Ala. Annunzio Archer Arends Ashley Asp in Aspinall Badillo Baker Barrett Begich Bennett Bergland Betts Bevill Biaggi Bi ester Blackburn Blatnik Boggs Bolling Brademas Bras co Bray Brinkley Brooks Broomfield Brotzman Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, N.C. Broyhill, Va. Buchanan Burke, Fla. Burke, Mass. Burleson, Tex. Burlison, Mo. Byrne, Pa. Byron Cabell Carey, N .Y. Carlson Carney Carter Casey, Tex. Chamberlain Clausen,

DonH. Clay Cleveland Collier Collins, Tex. Colmer Conable Conover Corman Cotter Coughlin Crane Culver Daniel, Va. Davis, S .C. de la Garza Delaney Dellen back Denholm Dennis Dent Derwinskl Devine Dickinson Dingell Donohue Dorn Downing Drinan Duncan


du Pont King Dwyer Kluczynskl Eckhardt Koch Edwards, Ala. Kuykendall Edwards, Calif. K yl Ell berg Landrum Erlenborn Latta Esch Lennon Evans, Colo. Lent Fas cell Link Findley Long, Md. Fish McClure Fisher McCollister Flood McCormack Flowers McCulloch Foley McDade Ford, Gerald R. McEwen Ford, McFall

William D. McKay Forsythe McKevitt Fountain Macdonald, Fraser Mass. Frenzel Mailliard Frey Mallary Fulton Mann Fuqua Martin Garmatz Mathias, Cali!. Gaydos Mathis, Ga. Gettys Matsunaga Giaimo Mayne Goldwater Mazzoli Gonzalez Meeds Goodling Melcher Grasso Metcalfe Gray Michel Green, Pa. Mikva Griffiths Miller, Ohio Gross Mills, Ark. Haley Mills, Md. Hall Minish Hamilton Minshall Hammer- Mitchell

schmidt Mizell Hanley Mollohan Hansen, Idaho Monagan Hansen, VV'ash. Montgomery Harrington Morgan Harsha Mosher Harvey Murphy, Ill. Hastings Myers Hathaway Natcher Hays Nedzi Hechler, VI. Va. Nelsen Heckler, Mass. Nichols Heinz Obey Henderson O'Hara Hicks, Mass. Patten Hicks, VV'ash. Pelly Hillis Perkins Hogan Peyser Horton Pickle Hosmer P ike Howard Pirnie Hull Poage Hungate Podell Hunt Poff Hutchinson Powell !chord Preyer, N.C. Jacobs Price, Ill. Jarman Price, Tex. Johnson, Cali!. Pucinski Johnson, Pa. Purcell Jonas Quie Jones, Ala. Quillen Jones, N.C. Randall Jones, Tenn. Rarick Karth Rees Kastenmeier Reid Kazen Reuss Keating Riegle Keith Roberts Kemp Robison, N.Y.

Roe Rogers Roncalio Rooney, Pa. Rosent h al Rostenkowskl Roush Roy Ruth Ryan Sandman Sar banes Satterfield Saylor Scher le Schneebeli Schwengel Scott Sebelius Seiberling Shriver Sisk Skubit z Slack Smit h , Iowa

Snyder Vander Jagt Sp ence Van ik Staggers Vigorito Stanton, Waggonner

J. William Wampler St anton, Ware

James V. Whalen Steed White Steele Whitehurst Steiger, Ariz. Wiggins Steiger, Wis. Williams Stephens Winn Stratton Wolff Sullivan Wright Symington Wyatt Talcott Wydler Taylor Wylie Teague, Calif . Wyman Teague, Tex. Yates Terr y Yatron Thompson, Ga. Young, Fla. Thompson, N.J. Young, Tex. Thomson, Wis. Zablocki Thone Zion Udall Zwach

NAYS-0

NOT VOTING-118 Abbitt Abernethy Abourezk Abzug Alexander Anderson,

Tenn. Andrews,

N. Dak. Ashbrook Baring Belcher Bell Bingham Blanton Boland Bow Burton Byrnes, Wis. Caffery Camp Cederberg Cell er Chappell Chisholm Clancy Clark Clawson, Del Collins, Ill. Conte Conyers CUrlin Daniels, N.J. Danielson Davis, Ga. Davis, Wis. Dellums Diggs Dow Dowdy Dul ski

Edmondson Eshleman Evins, Tenn. Flynt Frelinghuysen Galifianakls Gallagher Gibbons Green, Oreg. Griffin Grover Gubser Gude Hagan Halpern Hanna Hawkins Hebert Helstoski Holifield Kee Kyros Landgrebe Leggett Lloyd Long, La. Lujan McClory Mccloskey McDonald,

Mich. McKinney McMillan Madden Mahon Miller, Calif. Mink Moorhead Moss Murphy, N.Y. Nix

O'Konski O'Neill Passman Patman Pepper Pettis Pryor, Ark. Railsback Rangel Rhodes Robinson, Va. Rodino Rooney, N.Y. Rousselot Roybal Runnels Ruppe St Germain Scheuer Schmitz Shipley Shoup Sikes Smith, Cali!. Smith,N.Y. Springer Stokes Stubblefield Stuckey Tiernan Ullman Van Deerlin Veysey Waldie Whalley VV'hitten VV'idnall Wilson, Bob VV'ilson,

CharlesH.



Mr. Shipley with Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. Tiernan with Mr. Ruppe. Mr. O'Neill with Mr. Conte. Mr. Celler with Mr. Halpern. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Ceder-

berg. Mr. Mahon with Mr. Bow. Mr. Leggett with Mr. Bell. Mr. Holifield with Mr. Del Clawson. Mr. Charles H. Wilson with Mr. Bob Wilson. Mr. Curlin with Mr. O'Konskt. Mr. Miller of California. With Mr. Smith of

California. Mrs. Chisholm with Mr. Roybe.1.. Mr. Rodino with Mr. Rangel. Mr. Moss with Mr. Mccloskey. Mr. McMillan with Mr. Davis of Wisconsin. Mr. Scheuer with Mr. Dellum.s. Mr. Bingham with Mr. Conyers. Mr. Moorhead with Mr. Eshleman. Mr. Flynt with Mr. Whalley. Mr. Evins of Tennessee with Mr. Springer. Mr. Ga.llflana.kis with Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Lloyd. Mrs. Mink with Mr. Diggs.

/

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19661 Mr. Chappell with Mr. Belcher. Mr. Boland with Mr. Railsback. Mr. Hebert with Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Helstoski with Mrs. Abzug. Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Ashbrook. Mr. Burton with Mr. Collins of Illinois. Mr. Nix with Mr. Dow. Mr. Stokes with Mr. Waldie. Mr. Daniels of New Jersey with Mr. Fre

linghuysen. Mr. Clark with Mr. Smith of New York. Mr. Anderson of California with Mr.

Gubser. Mr. Hanna with Mr. Rousselot. Mr. IBlman with Mr. Shoup. Mr. Patman with Mr. Widnall. Mr. Abourezk with Mr. Andrews of North

Dakota. Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Ca.mp. Mr. Dulski with Mr. Grover. Mr. St Germain with Mr. Gude Mr. Runnels with Mr. Lujan. Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Pettis. Mr. Danielson with Mr. Schmitz. Mr. Madden with Mr. McDonald of Mich-

igan. Mr. Kyros with Mr. McKinney. Mr. Blanton with Mr. McClory. Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Robinson of Virginia. Mr. Whitten with Mr. Byrnes of Wiscon-

sin. Mr. Sikes with Mr. Clancy. Mr. Alexander with Mr. Long of Louisiana.. Mr. Baring with Mr. Stubblefield. Mr. Caffery with Mr. Pepper. Mr. Passman with Mr. Gibbons. Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Pryor of

Arkansas. Mr. Hagan with Mr. Griffin. Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Murphy of New

York. Mr. Gallagher with Mr. Dowdy.



GENERAL LEAVE Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection t.o the request of the gentleman from Michigan?


PERSONAL STATEMENT Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, on roll

call No. 186, the passage of the National Cemeteries Act, I was necessarily absent tending t.o a constituency matter. Had I been present, I would have voted "yea."

SHOOTING ANIMALS FROM AIRCRAFT

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill <H.R. 14731) to amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 in order to provide for the effective enforcement of the provisions therein prohibiting the shooting at birds, fl.sh, and other animals from aircraft, as amended.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 13 of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (85 Stat. 480-48; Public Law 92-169) is amended

by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

"(d) Th~ Secretary of the Interior shall enforce the provisions of this section and shall promulgate such regulations as he deems necessary and appropriate to carry out such enforcement. Any employee of the Department of the Interior authorized by the secretary of the Interior to enforce the provisions of this section may, without warrant, arrest any person committing in his presence or view a violation Of this section or of any regulation issued hereunder and take such person immediately for examination or trial before an officer or court of competent jurisdiction; may execute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of the provisions of this section; and may, with or without a warrant, as authorized by law, search any place. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with State fish and wildlife agencies or other appropriate State authorities to facllitate enforcement of this section, and by such agreements to delegate such enforcement authority to State law enforcement personnel as he deems appropriate for effective enforcement of this section. Any judge of any court established under the laws of the United States, and any United States magistrate may, within his respective jurisdiction, upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause, issue warrants in all such cases.

"(e) All birds, fish, or other animals shot or captured contrary to the provisions of this section, or of any regulation issued hereunder, and all guns, aircraft, and other equipment used to aid in the shooting, attempting to shoot, capturing, or harassing of any bird, fish, or other animal in violation of this section or of any regulation issued hereunder sh.all be subject to forfeiture to the United States.

"(f) All provisions of law relating to the seizure, forfeiture, and condemnation of a. vessel for violation of the customs laws, the disposition of such vessel or the proceeds from the sale thereof, and the remission or mitigation of such forfeitures, shall apply to the seizures and forfeitures incurred or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this section, insofar as such provisions of I.aw a.re applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this section; except that all powers, rights, and duties conferred or imposed by the customs laws upon any officer or employee of the Treasury Department shall, for the purposes of this section, be exercised or performed by the Secretary of the Interior or by such persons as he may designate."

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded? Mr. PELL Y. Mr. Speaker, I demand a

second. The SPEAKER. Without objection, a

second will be considered as ordered. There was no objection. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as I am

sure many of the Members of this distinguished body will recall, in November of 1969, the NBC television network showed a documentary film entitled, "The Wolf Men." Several of the scenes from the film depicted the hunting of wolves from aircraft and presented an interesting account of the status of the North American wolf, which now totals approximately 5,400 in number.

Subsequent to the showing of this film, my good friend and colleague from the State of Pennsylvania, JOHN SAYLOR, along with 21 other Members of the House introduced H.R. 5060. This legislation passed the House early last year and was enacted into law on Novem-

ber 18, 1971. It became Public Law 92-159.

Briefly explained, this law makes it unlawful for anyone while airborne to shoot or attempt to shoot for the purpose of capturing or killing any bird, fish, or other animals, or to harass any bird, fish, or other animal, or to knowingly participate in using an aircraft for any of these purposes. Violators of the act are subject to a $5,000 penalty or 1-year imprisonment, or both.

Mr. Speaker, the need for the legislation under consideration today arises from the fact that Public Law 92-159 amended the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. This act is simply a declaration of national fish and wildlife policy and contains no provision which would authorize enforcement responsibility. Where no agency is given specific enforcement authority in an act, then enforcement of that act falls upon the FBI to carry out.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries unanimously felt that the enforcement of this act should be delegated specifically to the Department of the Interior since it is already responsible for the enforcement of other Federal laws protecting fish and wildlife. Also, they already have a trained professional staff of U.S. Game Management agents to carry out those responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 14731 would provide the Secretary of the Interior with the necessary enforcement authority needed to effectively enforce the provisions of this act.

Briefly explained, H.R. 14731 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to enforce the act. Any employee of the Department of the Interior designated by the Secretary could, without a warrant, arrest any person comitting in his presence or view a violation of the act and, with or without a warrant, as authorized by law, search any place.

All birds, fish, or other animals captured and all articles used contrary to the provisions of this act would be subject to forfeiture.

All provisions of laws relating to the seizure, forfeiture, and condemnation of a vessel for violation of the customs laws would, in general, be applicable to seizures and forfeitures incurred under this act.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation received favorable departmental reports and was unanimously reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and I urge its prompt passage.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wyoming <Mr. RoNcALio).

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the eminent chairman of the subcommittee for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose this legislation, and I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that this makes a bad law.

First, we are in the process now of passing a bill specifically delegating to the administrative appointees downtown the right to promulgate such rules and

19662 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 5, 1972

regulations as they may desire. If we do this I think we are giving away and dele'gating congressional authority, and by doing so, we make the Congress something smaller.

Still, Mr. Speaker, we sit back and acquiesce, as administrators do as they please. The occupational safety ~nd health mess is the result of our having delegated to someone downtown the right to promulgate rules and regulations with reference to the enforcement of that act.

Second, this bill provides that the Secretary of the Department of the Interior may not make rules and regulations which will affect the livestock man's right to get a State permit to kill predators. I am worried that this may be a detriment to the livestock operators. .

There is no one, Mr. Speaker, speaking for the cattlemen in the Western Stat~s. As you know, just about every State m that area has coyotes, and this legislation makes ever more difficult for the cattlemen to control the predator. We have had pointed out what damage can be done to the livestock industry through the lack of control of predators, nor do I think this legislation will help to protect the endangered species.

Under the provisions of this bill, Federal inspectors would have the right to go onto the premises of the cattlemen and ranchers and invade their rights. It's just that basic.

I am opposed to this legislation for these reasons. In my opinion we are overdoing it in the case of predators and, secondly, we are delegating to someone downtown the right to make these rules and regulations, someone who is not elected by the people and who has no responsibility to the people.

I think you will find that it will not have a beneficial effect.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 14731, amending the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 in order to enforce the ~rovisions of that act prohibiting the shooting of wildlife from aircraft.

Earlier in this Congress, Public Law 92-159 was enacted. That statute, of course, makes it unlawful for anyone, while airborne, to shoot or attempt to shoot for the purpose of capturing or killing any bird, fish or other animal. Harassment of wildlife also is prohibited. A penalty of up to $5,000 and 1-year imprisonment is provided for. Public Law 92-159 was enacted as an amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, which is a declaration of national wildlife policy and contains no enforcement pro~sions. Where no department or agency lS given specific authority to enforce an act, this authority rests with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It does appear more appropriate that enforcement authority of the shooting from aircraft statute be vested in the Department of the Interior, which has broad authorities with respect to the enforcement of many other Federal wildlife statutes. The bill, therefore, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enforce the provisions of Public Law 92-159, and sets forth the normal authorities which are incident to the enforcement of a Federal criminal statute.

I am sure that all my colleagues will agree that the indiscriminate shooting of wildlife from aircraft should be prohibited. Certainly this cannot be considered a sport in any sense. Public Law 92-159 contains appropriate language exempting bona fide State wildlife management programs. However, there are undoubtedly those who will be tempted to engage in unauthorized shooting from aircraft. This bill will give the Secretary of the Interior the needed authority to arrest such persons and provides for the disposition of illegally taken wildlife and guns, aircraft or other equipment used in such taking. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland <Mr. GARMATZ), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Speaker, a law to prohibit the shooting of birds, fish, and other wildlife from aircraft was enacted on November 18, 1971. That legislation, which is now Public Law 92-159, was the subject of intensive hearings by our committee, and it was approved by the committee and the Congress because it was widely recognized as being essential to the cause of conservation.

But in order to make Public Law 92-159 truly effective, my committee today is asking the House to approve another piece of legislation-H.R. 14731.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 14731 is to give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to enforce Public Law 92-159. As that law is now written, it does not give enforcement authority to any specific agency, and in such situations the FBI is required to perform the enforcement function.

The Interior Department is the logical agency to have this authority, because it has the expertise in the area of wildlife conservation and management, and because it already has the responsibility for enforcing other Federal laws which protect fish and wildlife.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to approve this needed legislation.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 14 731, a bill I coauthored, which would provide for effective enforce~ent of a law passed earlier in this Congress to prohibit the shooting of birds, fish and other animals from aircraft.

Last year, this Congress wisely decided to halt the unsportsmanlike and unnecessary practice of shooting wildlife from aircraft. It was the Congress' intent at that time to stop essentially all aerial hunting, and to give only State or Federal game control agents the right to shoot from aircraft, and then only for purposes of protection and administra-tion of wildlife, livestock, and other resources. It was certainly not the intention of the Congress to allow the States to grant permits indiscriminately for the aerial hunting of wolves, coyotes, or other wildlife.

Unfortunately, a great deal of controversy surrounds the intent of Congress. I have received numerous letters asking for interpretations of that law.

The Interior Department has been contacted several times by States and national conservation organizations to look into alleged violations of the law, but they have been powerless to act under the provisions of the law which we passed last year.

As one of the coauthors of the original bill, I am very aware of the airborne hunting situation as it exists in some States. I have been receiving about one letter a week from concerned individuals from all over the country, pointing out the violations of the law and asking what can be done to protect the animals who are victimized by these violations. This bill will answer those people, providing for enforcement by the Department of the Interior.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. Our Nation now realizes the value of its natural resources, and we cannot afford the indiscriminate slaughter of our wildlife from aircraft, whether the animal is predator or prey. I applaud this committee's fast action on this bill, and hope that with its passage we will see the purpose of the original prohibition against aerial shooting finally realized.

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which to extend their remarks on the bill H.R. 14731.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection. The SPEAKER. The question is on the

motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan <Mr. DINGELL) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 14731 as amended.

The question was taken. Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I object to




The question was taken: and there were-yeas 312, nays 5, not voting 115, as follows:

Adams Anderson,

Calif. Anderson, Ill. Andrews, Ala. Annunzio Archer Arends Ashley Asp in Aspinall Badillo Baker Barrett Begich Bennett Bergland Betts Bevlll Biaggi Bi ester Blackburn Blatnik Boggs Bolllng Brademas Brasco

[Roll No. 188)

YEA&-312 Bray Brinkley Brooks Broomfield Brotzman Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, N.C. Broyhill, Va. Buchanan Burke, Fla. Burke, Mass. Burleson, Tex. Burlison, Mo. Byrne, Pa. Byron Cabell Carlson Carey, N.Y. Carney Carter Casey, Tex. Chamberlain Clausen,

DonH. Clay Cleveland

Colller Collins, Tex. Colmer Conable Conover Corman Cotter Coughlin Crane Culver Daniel, Va. Davis, S.C. de la Garza Delaney Dellen back Dennis Dent Derwinski Devine Dickinson Dingell Donohue Dorn Downing Drinan Duncan du Pont

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 19663 Dwyer Keith Eckhardt Kemp Edwards, Ala. King Edwards, Calif. Kluczynski Eilberg Koch Erl en born Kyl Esch Landrum Evans, Colo. Latta Evins. Tenn. Lennon Fascell Lent Findley Link Fish Long, Md. Fisher Mccollister Flood McCormack Flowers McCulloch Foley McDade Ford, Gerald R. McEwen Ford, McFall

William D. McKay Forsythe McKevitt Fountain Macdonald, Fraser Mass. Frenzel Mahon Frey Mailliard Fulton Mallary Fuqua Mann Garmatz Martin Gaydos Mathias, Calif. Gettys Mathis, Ga. Giaimo Matsunaga Goldwater Mayne Gonzalez Mazzoli Goodling Meeds Grasso Melcher Gray Metcalfe Green, Pa. Michel Griffiths Mikva Gross Miller, Ohio Haley Mills, Ark. Hall Mills, Md. Hamilton Minish Hammer- Minshall

schmidt Mitchell Hanley Mizell Hansen, Idaho Mollohan Hansen, Wash. Monagan Harrington Montgomery Harsha Morgan Harvey Mosher Hastings Murphy, Ill. Hathaway Myers Hays Natcher Bechler, W. Va. Nedzi Heckler, Mass. Nelsen Heinz Nichols Henderson Obey Hicks, Mass. O'Hara Hicks, Wash. Patten Hillis Pelly Hogan Perkins Horton Peyser Hosmer Pickle Howard Pike Hull Pirnie Hungate Poage Hunt Podell Hutchinson Poff I chord Powell Jacobs Preyer,N.C. Jarman Price, Ill. Johnson, Calif. Pucinski Johnson, Pa. Purcell Jones, Ala. Quie Jones, N.C. Quillen Jones, Tenn. Randall Karth Rarick Kastenmeier Rees Kazen Reid Keating Reuss Kee Riegle

Denholm McClure

NAYS-5 Price, Tex. Roncalio

R oberts Robison, N.Y. Roe Rogers Rooney, Pa. Rosenthal Rostenkowski Roush Roy Ruth Ryan Sandman Sar banes Satterfield Saylor Scher le Schneebeli Schwengel Scott Sebelius Seiberling Shriver Sikes Sisk Skubitz Slack Smith, Calif. Smith, Iowa Snyder Spence Staggers Stanton,

J. William Stanton,

JamesV. Steed Steele Steiger, Wis. Stephens Stratton Sullivan Symington Talcott Taylor Teague, Calif. Teague, Tex. Terry Thompson, Ga. Thompson, N.J. Thomson, Wis. Thone Udall Ullman Vander Jagt Vanik Vigorito Waggonner Wampler Ware Whalen White Whitehurst Wiggins Williams Winn Wolff Wright Wyatt Wydler Wylie Wyman Yates Yatron Young, Fla. Young, Tex. Zablocki Zion Zwach

Steiger, Ariz.

NOT VOTING-115 Abbitt Abernethy Abourezk Abzug Addabbo Alexander Anderson,

Tenn. Andrews,

N.Dak. Ashbrook Baring Belcher Bell Bingham Blanton Boland Bow Burton

Byrnes, Wis. Caffery Camp Cederberg Celler Chappell Chisholm Clancy Clark Clawson, Del Collins, Ill. Conte Conyers Curlin Daniels, N.J. Danielson Davis. Ga. Davis, Wis. Dellums

Diggs Dow Dowdy Dul ski Edmondson Eshleman Flynt Frelinghuysen Galifianakis Gallagher Gibbons Green, Oreg. Grltnn Grover Gubser Gude Hagan Halpern Hanna

Hawkins Moorhead Hebert Moss Helstoski Murphy, N.Y. Holifield Nix Jonas O 'Konski Kuykendall O'Neill Kyros Passman Landgrebe Patman Leggett Pepper Lloyd Pettis Long, La. Pryor, Ark. Lujan Railsback McClory Rangel Mccloskey Rhodes McDonald, Robinson, Va.

Mich. Rodino McKinney Rooney, N .Y. McMillan Rousse lot Madden Roybal Miller, Calif. Runnels Mink Ruppe

St Germain Scheuer S chmitz Shipley Shoup Smith,N.Y. Springer Stokes Stubblefield Stuckey Tiernan VanDeerlin Veysey Waldie Whalley Whitten Widnall Wilson, Bob Wilson,

Charles H.

So <two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended. was passed.


Mr. Shipley with Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. Tiernan with Mr. Ruppe. Mr. O'Neill with Mr. Conte. Mr. Celler with Mr. Halpern. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Ceder-

berg. Mr. Leggett with Mr. Bell. Mr. Holifield with Mr. Del Clawson. Mr. Charles H. Wilson with Mr. Bob Wilson. Mr. Curlin with Mr. O'Konski. Mrs. Chisholm with Mr. Roybal. Mr. Rodino with Mr. Rangel. Mr. Moss with Mr. Mccloskey. Mr. McMillan with Mr. Davis of Wisconsin. Mr. Scheuer with Mr. Dellums. Mr. Bingham with Mr. Conyers. Mr. Moorhead with Mr. Eshleman. Mr. Flynt with Mr. Whalley. Mr. Adda.bbo with Mr. Springer. Mr. Ga.lifia.nakis with Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Lloyd. Mrs. Mink with Mr. Diggs. Mr. Chappell with Mr. Belcher. Mr. Boland with Mr. Railsback. Mr. Hebert with Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Helstoski with Mrs. Abzug. Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Ashbrook. Mr. Burton with Mr. Collins of Illinois. Mr. Nix with Mr. Dow. Mr. Stokes with Mr. Waldie. Mr. Daniels of New Jersey with Mr. Fre

linghuysen. Mr. Clark with Mr. Smith of New York. Mr. Anderson of Tennessee with Mr.

Gubser. Mr. Hanna with Mr. Rousselot. Mr. Kuykendall with Mr. Shoup. Mr. Patman with Mr. Wldnall. Mr. Abourezk with Mr. Andrews of North

Dakota. Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Ca.mp. Mr. Dulski with Mr. Grover. Mr. St Germain with Mr. Gude. Mr. Runnels with Mr. Lujan. Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Pettis. Mr. Danielson with Mr. Schmitz. Mr. Madden with Mr. McDonald of Michl-

gan. Mr. Kyros with Mr. McKinney. Mr. Blanton with Mr. McClory. Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Robinson of Virginia.. Mr. Whitten with Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin. Mr. Jonas with Mr. Clancy. Mr. Alexander with Mr. Long of Louisiana. Mr. Baring with Mr. Stubblefield. Mr. Ca.trery with Mr. Pepper. Mr. Passman with Mr. Gibbons. Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Pryor of

Arkansas. Mr. Hagan with Mr. Griffin. Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Murphy o! New




AMENDING THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING ACT

Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 14106) to amend the Water Resources Planning Act to authorize increased appropriations, as amended.

The Clerk read as fvllows: H.R. 14106

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 401 of the Water Resources Planning Act (79 Stat. 244), as a.mended (42 U.S.C. 1962(d)), iG amended by striking out subsection (b) and inserting a new subsection (b) as follows:

"(b) not to exceed $2,500,000 annually for the expenses of the Water Resources Coun. cil in administering this Act, excluding the preparation of assessments, and not to exceed $2,500,000 annually for the expenses of the Water Resources council in th~ preparation of assessments: Provided, That the council may transfer to river basin commissions and to Federal and State agencies, upon such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, such portion of the sums appropriated as it deems desirable, and such commissions and Federal agencies a.re hereby authorized to receive and expend such funds for the purpose for which they were appropriated."

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded? Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I demand

a second. The SPEAKER. Without objection, a

second will be considered as ordered. There was no objection. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr.

Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado <Mr. ASPINALL), chairman of the full committee.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago the Water Resources Planning Act was enacted to encourage and make possible the prudent development of the Nation's water and related land resources through sound comprehensive and coordinated planning.

To accomplish this purpose that act established a Cabinet Level Water Resources Council in the executive branch. It also authorized the establishment of River Basin Planning Commissions and provided for :financial assistance to the States for water resources planning.

The legislation we have under consideration today involves only the Water Resources Council and the funding needed to carry out its duties and responsibilities. Among other things, the Council was given responsibility for assessing national and regional water supplies and needs and coordinating river basin plans. H.R. 14106 authorizes additional appropriations to meet these two responsibilities of the Council.

In line with our longstanding policy, the Water Resources Planning Act includes a ceiling on the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Council's operations. At the present time only $1.5 million annually is authorized to be appropriated for the expenses of the Water Resources Council in administering the act. The Council has found from experi-

19664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 197~

ence over the last several years that this amount is not sufficient to adequately meet its responsibilities, particularly its responsibilities for assessing the Nation's water supplies and needs for coordinating river basin plans.

During the last several years the Council has had to call upon the various Federal agencies in the water resources planning field for funds to assist it in carrying out the directions given it by the Congress. These funding arrangements have not proved satisfactory, and both the Council and the agencies have agreed that funding through the Council's budget will improve the objectivity of the assessment and coordinating work and should result in a reduction in the overall cost. It seems clear to me that if the Council has the responsibility for directing the assessment work and coordinating the river basin plans, then it should control the purse strings.

H.R. 14106 provides an increase of $3.5 million in the amount authorized to be appropriated to the Water Resources Council to carry out the program to assess water resources and needs and to direct and coordinate river basin plans. For the most part, this increase will be offset by a reduction in the amounts that would otherwise have to be appropriated to the various Federal agencies in the water field.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the approval of this legislation.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania <Mr. SAYLOR).

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 14106 as reported unanimously by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

This bill amends the Water Resources Planning Act to authorize increased appropriations to the Water Resources Council in order that it may more effectively perform its assessment activities and exercise leadership and coordination of planning as set forth in Public Law 89-90.

Briefly, that act sets forth four requirements of the Council. Categorization and augmentation of funding for the implementation of two of those requirements is a principal purpose of this bill. The two requirements are, and I

. quote from Public Law 89-90-(a) maintain a continuing study and pre

pare an assessment biennially, or at such less frequent intervals as the Council may determine, of the adequacy of supplies of water necessary to meet the water requirements in each water resource region in the United States and the national interest therein; and

(b) maintain a continuing study of the relation of regional or river basin plans and programs to the requirements of larger regions of the Nation and of the adequacy of administ rative and statutory means for the coordination of the water and related land resources policies and programs of the several Federal agencies; it shall appraise the adequacy of existing and proposed policies and programs to meet such requirements; and it shall make recommendations to the President with respect to Federal policies and programs.

The increase is $3,500,000. Of that amount, $2,500,000 are categorized for

the program to assess water resources and needs. One national assessment has been made and the Council intends that the second assessment · shall be made during fiscal years 1974 and 1975. The Council estimates that about two-thirds of these funds will be transferred to cooperating agencies for this assessment work.

The other $1,000,000 are to be used by the Council to direct and coordinate river basin plans. It will be utilized for new study startn by agencies. During the past 2 years, Congress has been appropriating funds for such work to single agencies with the directive that the study be performed with Council guidance. Under the provisions of this bill, the appropriation will be made to the Council "7hich will fund the studies through its own budget.

Although this may seem like a large increase in funding for the Council, in reality it is not. As is pointed out in the committee report accompanying this bill, the net cost will be much less because the appropriation to the Council will be offset by a decrease in the amount that would otherwise be appropriated to the various participating Federal agencies.

This funding authority should provide the Council with an emcient coordinating and control tool and should produce assessments and plans that take into consideration the demands of our increasingly urbanized society and our growing concern for environmental quality.

I want to point out that the fiscal year 1973 budget request includes amounts of $100,000 to initiate preliminary national assessment work and $531,000 for the Council's direction and coordination of river basin plans. This bill is necessary to support those requests.

I urge your favorable vote on this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the full committee has explained the background of this legislation.

H.R. 14106, which is recommended by the administration, amends the We.ter Resources Planning Act by increasing the authorization for the appropriation of funds to administer the act from $1.5 million per year to $5 million per -year. This increase is necessary to·permit the Water Resources Council to adequately carry out its responsibilities under the act.

Congress made the Council responsible for coordinating river basin plans and maintaining a continuing study of water supply requirements and management-and it is in this area that the Council finds that it cannot adequately meet its responsibilities under the fund ceiling presently in the act. The Council's job has become more difficult in the last few years because of the growing urbanization of our society, the problems of pollution, the increased concern for the environment, and the desire for sound regional development. The Council has the responsibility for developing a planning system to cope with these concerns of our society.

If the Council is to direct the studies

and coordinate river basin plans, the funds needed for accomplishing this should properly be appropriated to the Council.

H.R. 14106 authorizes a $2.5 million annual appropriation to assess this Nation's water resources and our future water needs. These funds are earmarked for assessment work only and cannot be expended for any other purpose. The Council has made one national assessment and proposes to make a second during fiscal years 1974 and 1975.

The remaining $1 million increase in the annual appropriation authorization will permit the Council to adequately carry out congressionally assigned functions of directing and coordinating river basin plans.

Early enactment of this legislation is needed because the fiscal year 1973 budget includes a request for funds in excess of the amounts presently authorized to be appropriated. The budget includes $100,000 for preliminary work in connection with the national assessments and $531,000 for study direction and coordination of four comprehensive regional and river basin planning studies.

Although the bill involves an apparent cost of $3,500,000 annually, the net cost will be much less because the appropriation to the Council will be off set by a decrease in the amounts that would otherwise be appropriated to the various Federal agencies. The national assessment of water supplies and needs will be undertaken in cooperation with the participating Federal agencies, and approximately two-thirds of the funds for making the assessment will be transferred to the cooperating agencies. If the Council were not given the funding authority, it would be necessary to increase the budgets of the cooperating agencies by a corresponding amount. The same thing is true with respect to directing and coordinating the regional or river basin plans. If the Council were not given the funding authority, it would be necessary to designate one or more of the Federal agencies as the lead agency and increase its budget by a corresponding amount. By authorizing the appropriation of the funds to the Council, better controls over the programs can be exercised.

This legislation was reported unanimously after a full and complete hearing before my subcommittee. So far as I am aware, there is no opposition.

I urge the legislation be approved. Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield

myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.

14106, a bill amending the Water Resources Planning Act to authorize increased appropriations.

The purpose of H.R. 14106 as reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is to increase the appropriation authorization for the administrative expenses of the U.S. Water Resources Council.

This legislation was introduced as a result of an executive communication from the Chairman of the Water Resources Council which is printed in the report accompanying the bill.

The Water Resources Council has been

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 19665 working along for quite a while. It has 4 more budgetary years to go. One of the things that the Council does is coordinate all river basin plans, and it has been allowed the sum of $1.5 million for this year for that purpose.

It has become apparent that to maintain this activity, it is going to take more money. In this legislation, we have provided for $1 million more for that purpose.

Less than $600,000 of that amount is planned to be spent this year, but before the program ends, it all will be consumed.

The other part of water resources planning involves assessment of national and regional water supplies and needs. In the past, we have been doing that on an interdepartmental and interagency basis. We have had to put together a deal to assess some particular region or river system, and then get some agency like the Corps of Engineers or the Department of the Interior to request the money for the project through its own budget. That has turned out to be very inefficient. Experience with the studies has resulted in the Council's recommendation to us that it be the conduit for future funding and direction of studies remaining to be done.

In this bill $2.5 million is provided for that purpose.

This is not really a new and additional governmental expenditure, or a new way of budgeting. It is merely implementation of good budgeting principles. But make no doubt about it, the money always comes out of the taxpayer's pocket and that is not going to change in any way. Here, we are merely authorizing the Council to do the same job, but in a better way.

By authorizing appropriation of these funds directly to the Council, in accordance with its request, it is hoped that better coordination and control can be exercised.

The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs carefully reviewed this legislation and believes its enactment will improve the operations of the Water Resources Council.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. KEE).

Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, I highly commend our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. JOHNSON) and I highly commend our illustrious chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. AsPINALL) and highly commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SAYLOR) for the tremendous amount of work that has gone into this well thought-out bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully call the attention of the Members of the House to the language of the committee report on page 2 which reads as follows under "Committee Recommendation":

The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs believes that this legislation is needed and, by a unanimous voice vote, recommends that the bill, as amended, be enacted.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this bill will pass unanimously without one single solitary vote against it.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. BOGGS) . The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. JOHNSON) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 14106, as amended.

The question was taken. Mr. MIZELL. Mr. Speaker, I object to


The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.




Calif. Anderson, Ill. Andrews, Ala. Annunzio Archer Arends Ashley Asp in Aspinall Badlllo Baker Barrett Begich Bennett Bergland Betts Bevill Biaggi Bi ester Blackburn Blatnik Boggs Bolllng Brademas Brasco Bray Brinkley Brooks Broomfield Brotzman Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, N.O. Broyhill, Va. Buchanan Burke, Fla. Burke, Mass. Burleson, Tex. Burlison, Mo. Byrne, Pa. Byrnes, Wis. Byron Cabell Carey, N.Y. Carlson Carney Carter Casey, Tex. Chamberlain Clausen,

DonH. Cleveland Colller Collins, Tex. Colmer Conable Conover Corman Cotter Coughlin Crane Culver Daniel, Va. Davis, S.C. de la Garza Delaney Dellen back Denholm


Dennis Hillis Dent Hogan Derwinski Horton Devine Hosmer Dickinson Howard Dingell Hull Donohue Hungate Dorn Hunt Downing Hutchinson Drinan I chord Duncan Jacobs du Pont Jarman Dwyer Johnson, Calif. Eckhardt Johnson, Pa. Edwards, Ala. Jonas Edwards, Calif. Jones, Ala. Eilberg Jones, N.C. Erlenborn Jones. Tenn. Esch Karth Evans, Colo. Kastenmeier Evins, Tenn. Kazen Fascell Keating Findley Kee Fish Keith Fisher Kemp Flood King Flowers Kluczynski Flynt Koch Foley Kuykendall Ford. Gerald R. Kyl Ford, Landrum

William D. Latta Forsythe Lennon Fountain Lent Fraser Link Frenzel Long, Md. Frey McClure Fulton McCollister Fuqua McCormack Garmatz McCulloch Gaydos McDade Gettys McEwen Giaimo McFall Goldwater McKay Gonzalez McKevitt Goodling Macdonald, Grasso Mass. Gray Mahon Green, Pa. Mailliard Griffiths Mallary Gross Mann Haley Martin Hall Mathias, Calif. Hamilton Mathis, Ga. Hammer- Matsunaga

schmidt Mayne Hanley Mazzoli Hansen, Idaho Meeds Hansen, Wash. Metcalfe Harrington Michel Harsha Mikva. Harvey Miller, Ohio Hastings Mills, Ark. Hathaway Mills, Md. Hays Minish Bechler, W. Va. Minshall Heckler, Mass. Mitchell Heinz Mizell Henderson Mollohan Hicks, Mass. Monagan Hicks, Wash. Montgomery

Morgan Mosher Murphy, Ill. Myers Natcher Nedzi Nelsen Nichols Obey O'Hara Patten Pelly Perkins Peyser Pickle Pike Pirnie Poage Podell Poff Powell Preyer, N.C. Price, Ill. Price, Tex. Pucinski Purcell Quie Quillen Randall Rarick Rees Reid Reuss Riegle Roberts Robison, N.Y. Roe Rogers

Roncalio Rooney, Pa. Rosenthal Rostenkowski Roush Roy Ruth Ryan Sandman Sar banes Satterfield Saylor Scher le Schnee bell Schwengel Scott Se bell us Seiberling Shriver Sikes Skubitz Slack Smith, Calif. Smith, Iowa Snyder Staggers Stanton,

J. William Stanton.

JamesV. Steed Steele Steiger, Ariz. Steiger, Wis. Stephens Stratton Sullivan Symington

NAYS-0

Talcott Taylor Teague, Calif. Teague, Tex. Terry Thompson, Ga. Thompson. N .J. Thomson, Wis. Thone Udall Ullman VanderJagt Vanik Vigorito Waggonner Wampler Ware Whalen White Whitehurst Wiggins Williams Winn Woltf Wright Wyatt Wydler Wylie Wyman Yates Yatron Young, Fla. Young, Tex. Zablocki Zion Zwach

NOT VOTING-114 Abbitt Dulski Abernethy Edmondson Abourezk Eshleman Abzug Frelinghuysen Alexander Gallfianakis Anderson, Gallagher

Tenn. Gibbons Andrews, Green, Oreg.

N. Dak. Grifl:l.n Ashbrook Grover Baring Gubser Belcher Gude Bell Hagan Bingham Halpern Blanton Hanna Boland Hawkins Bow Hebert Burton Helstoski Caffery Holifield Camp Kyros Cederberg Landgrebe Cell er Leggett Chappell Lloyd Chisholm Long, La. Clancy Lujan Clark McClory Clawson, Del McCloskey Clay McDonald, Collins, Ill. Mich. Conte McKinney Conyers McMillan Curlin Madden Daniels, N.J. Melcher Danielson Miller, Calif. Davis, Ga. Mink Davis, Wis. Moorhead Dellums Moss Diggs Murphy, N.Y. Dow Nix Dowdy O'Konski

O'Neill Passman Patman Pepper Pettis Pryor, Ark. Railsback Rangel Rhodes Robinson, Va. Rodino Rooney, N.Y. Rousselot Roybal Runnels Ruppe St Germain Scheuer Schmitz Shipley Shoup Sisk Smith, N.Y. Spence Springer Stokes Stubblefield Stuckey Tiernan Van Deerlin Veysey Waldie Whalley Whitten Widnall Wilson. Bob Wilson,

Charles H.



Mr. Shipley with l'vlr. Landgrebe. Mr. Tiernan with Mr. Ruppe. Mr. O'Neill with Mr. Conte. Mr. Celler with Mr. Halpern. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Ceder-

berg. Mr. Burke of Massachusetts with Mr. Bow. Mr. Leggett with Mr. Bell. Mr. Holifield with Mr. Del Clawson. Mr. Charles H. Wilson with Mr. Bob Wilson. Mr. Curlin with Mr. O'Konski. Mr. Miller of Calliornia with Mr. Clay. Mrs. Chisholm with Mr. Roybal. Mr. Rodino with Mr. Rangel.

19666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 Mr. Moss with Mr. McCloskey. Mr. McMillan With Mr. Davis of Wisconsin. Mr. Scheuer with Mr. Dellums. Mr. Bingham with Mr. Conyers. Mr. Moorhead With Mr. Eshleman. Mr. Spence With Mr. Whalley. Mr. Melcher with Mr. Springer. Mr. Galifiana.kis with Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Lloyd. Mrs. Mink with Mr. Diggs. Mr. Chappell with Mr. Belcher. Mr. Boland with Mr. Railsback. Mr. Hebert With Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Helstoski with Mrs. Abzug. Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Ashbrook. Mr. Burton with Mr. Collins of Illinois. Mr. Nix With Mr. Dow. Mr. Stokes with Mr. Waldie. Mr. Daniels of New Jersey with Mr. Fre

linghuysen. Mr. Clark with Mr. Smith of New York. Mr. Anderson of Tennessee with Mr.

Gubser. Mr. Hanna with Mr. Rousselot. Mr. Sisk with Mr. Shoup. Mr. Patman With Mr. Widnall. Mr. Abourezk with Mr. Andrews of North

Dakota. Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Camp. Mr. Dulski with Mr. Grover. Mr. St Germain With Mr. Gude. Mr. Runnels with Mr. Lujan. Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Pettis. Mr. Danielson With Mr. Schmitz. Mr. Madden With Mr. McDonald of Michi-

gan. Mr. Kyros with Mr. McKinney. Mr. Blanton with Mr. McClory. Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Robinson of Virginia. Mr. Whitten With Mr. Clancy. Mr. Alexander with Mr. Long of Lousiania. Mr. Baring with Mr. Stubblefield. Mr. Caffery with Mr. Pepper. Mr. Passman with Mr. Gibbons. Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Pryor of

Arkansas. Mr. Hagan with Mr. Griffin. Mr. Abernethy With Mr. Murphy of New




ENCLOSE IN OPAQUE INNER AND OUTER COVERS BEFORE TRANSMITTING <Mr. OBEY asked and was given per

mission to address the House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.>

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, Government documents needlessly stamped secret or confidential will keep piling up by the millions as long as the security classification system operates under executive order instead of statutory law.

Hearings by the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee have disclosed that under the present system, some documents are kept secret for 75 years, the big four classifying agencies spend twice as much to withhold information from the public as they do to make it available, and whole volumes can be classified though they contain nothing but unclassified information.

I am pleased, therefore, to join the subcommittee chairman, Mr. MooRHEAD, in sponsoring the Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1972 <H.R. 15172) to put the system under statutory control and help resolve disputes be-

tween Congress and the executive branch over access to information.

On March 8, when he issued an executive order providing for the classification and declassification of national security information and material, President Nixon acknowledged that the present system "has failed to meet the standards of an open and democratic society, allowing too many papers to be classified for too long a time." However, I accept Mr. MOORHEAD'S judgment that the new Executive order "does not correct the major security classification problems about which we are all gravely concerned. Indeed, it is a document written by classifiers for classifiers."

Perhaps what is wrong with the present system can be summed up in a word borrowed from the National Security Council directive implementing the President's new Executive order. The directive, signed by Henry A. Kissinger and published May 19, instructs that "classified information and material shall be enclosed in opaque inner and outer covers before transmitting." That is fair enough, but I think our problem is that the purposes of the security classification system have become opaque to those who operate it.

The independent Classification Review Commission that -vould be created by the Freedom of Information Act amendments is a promising approach provided that it truly builds an access bridge between Congress and the executive branch, not a new barrier.

THE SHATTERING TRADE DEFICIT <Mr. GAYDOS asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. GAYDOS. Mr. Speaker, last year's shattering trade deficit of $2.05 billionthe first in nearly 100 years--already has been eclipsed in 1972. In just 4 months the high water mark of red ink has reached $2.2 billion.

Unquestionably, this situation is critical and experts on all sides are offering solutions to turn the tide. Some of these experts base their hopes on the new understanding between management and labor with relation to increased productivity and a halt to unrealistic pay boosts.

Mr. O. R. Strackbein, president of the Nation-Wide Committee on ImportExport Policy, discussed this proposed solution to the trade dilemma in a report to the Joint Economic Committee. I am inserting a copy of the report into the RECORD, and I am certain my colleagues will find Mr. Strackbein's analysis both interesting and informative.

PRODUCTIVITY AND FuLL EMPLOYMENT

(By 0. R. Strackbein) Increasing the productivity of labor is

seemingly one of the present-day imperatives if we are to douse the fires of inflation and meet foreign competition. Greater output per man-hour at a given level of wages will, of course, reduce the cost of production. The forc~s of competition, to the extent that they operate, will then also reduce the cost to the consumer. If wages rise less than productivity the consumer will enjoy lower prices. If the wage level rises in equal proportion to productivity prices will

stand still, other things being equal. Of course, if wages rise faster than productivity prices would be expected under normal conditions of supply, to rise. At least, so goes the catechism of economies.

The imperative of increasing productivity has been raised almost to the majesty of the absolute.

It is desirable therefore to examine some of the credentials of this towering imperative. While its very simplicity makes it attractive, the side effects it may produce may detract from any inclination to extend blank endorsement to the mandate.

CREDENTIALS OF HIGHER PRODUCTIVITY

In the first place, productivity can be increased in any meaningful sense only by displacement of labor. This follows from the fact that some 80% of the corporate production costs consists of employee compensation. It was not the faster shoveUng of coal by the coal miners that so greatly increased the output per man-hour in the coal industry. It was the introduction of mammoth machines and strip-mining that accomplished the decimation of the miners' ranks. The result was a great gain in competitive standing, not only in opening foreign markets but in avoiding eviction of coal from our domestic market by petroleum and natural gas.

The output of coal per man-year increased from 1,239 tons in 1950 to 4,261 tons in 1968. The number of coal miners on the other hand, as might be expected, declined from 415,000 in 1950 to 127,000 in 1968. (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1971, Table 1049, p. 642). In other words as productivity rose 3.4-fold between 1950 and 1968, the number of miners declined in almost equal proportion, or by 70%, or to a level of 30 % of the 415,000 employed in 1950.

One of the results was, of course, the great distress of the coal-mining region, usually referred to euphemistically as "Appalachia", which has cost the Treasury hundreds of millions of dollars without curing the blight. Meantime our exports rose to 50 million tons, or 10 % of our domestic output. Obviously our amazing productivity achievement that brought us gratifying exports and competitive prowess did little to help the displaced mine workers-some 300,000 of them or 70% of the work force! Since the number of bituminous coal miners (responsible for over 98% of our coal production) had fallen to 127,000 by 1968, the 10% exports saved the jobs of some 12,000 miners. Such a meager result should give pause to those who would raise increasing productivity to the level of a virtual categorical imperative, to be loved, honored and obeyed.

In the field of economics hard facts armed. with a warhead of real meaning are not often encountered. When we do encounter them we should be grateful and learn something from their significance, rather than dismissing them because they raise disconcerting questions.

For example, higher productivity in other fields need not be looked to much more hopefully as a source of higher employment than coal under the present status of world trade and our position in it.

The further notion that we can pull ourselves out of our present unenviable economic position either at home or abroad by increasing our exports, an endeavor that ls seen to rest on rising productivity, ls almost totally false. This is especially true of in-creasing exports of agricultural products made possible by rising output per manhour. In the 1930's nearly half of our total exports were agricultural products. After the permanent displacement of some two-thirds of agricultural workers by greater productivity our exports of farm products were only some 16% of total exports.

It goes without saying that for the coal mining industry the productivity leap was

June 5, 1,972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19667 unquestionably an imperative, indeed the only means of survival; but its cost in employment prevents its conversion into a justification for a similar course to be adopted by other industries.

THE HISTORIC ROLE OF INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY

It is true, on the other hand, that rising productivity has been both the source of greater employment and higher wages in this country. In fact what was our unique econoinic system until a few years ago owed its genesis in great measure to the rising productivity that flows from invention and proliferating technology.

The fruits of technology, to be sure, were not enough of themselves to build our system, but they represented one of the cornerstones. Without them we would not have cut our anchorage that held us to the more pedestrian European system some seventy years ago. Technology by itself was not enough because the mass-production of which it was the efficient cause did not and cannot stand on its own feet. It needs the complement of mass-consumption; and this fact, a strictly American perception, though in no sense abstruse, long evaded comprehension by our European forebears. Their skepticism, as reflected by the British was no doubt sustained many years by the negative attitude of their leading economists, such as Ricardo, toward wages and their economic function. The British econoinists were in a sense apologists for the factory system that revulsed Dickens and Burke before him, and others, who were appalled at the employment of children and the inhuman working conditions imposed on factory workers and miners in general.

ORIGIN OF FREE TRADE

English leadership in the world rested on her commerce, protected by her navy. Since she was short on natural resources she depended on imports of raw products to feed her factories. These in turn not only supplied the home market but also produced surplus output for export. The latter brought her the exchange necessary to sustain her necessary imports.

The English situation indeed gave rise to the elaboration of the blessings and benefits of free trade--a system that was well suited to England's interest in holding her colonies as sources of raw materials (i.e., as agrarian and raw material econoinies) and as markets for her factory output. Our own acadelllic econoinists drank deeply of the Adam Sinith vintage of free trade and, fa111ng to note the great difference between our economic situation and that of the British, undertook to apply to us what was good for England but not necessarily for us. They took the words of the British economic apologists as the gospel and using our chairs of university economics preached the gospel of free trade to generation after generation of students. The result was an intellectual and emotional conditioning of our economists that has not yet achieved the ab111ty to break through to reality. What was good for colonial England in the 18th and 19th centuries was fastened on us as if it were also a superb prescription for our econoinic health. Actually we flouted the theory in great part in practice and erected a protective tariff, beginning in 1816. This action made possible our econoinic independence of England, as we had earlier gained our political independence.

However, it was not until after the Civil War that we began to lay the basis for a new system (still capitalistic, to be sure) that greatly modlfled our econoinic heritage. The point of departure was not immediately visible but in time produced a divergence of great proportions.

Once the post-Civil War heavy concentrations of capital built trusts and virtual monopolies we began to see the need for anti-trust legislation if the lowered costs of

production that were made possible by our mechanical developments were to be passed on to the public, Le., the consumers. 1890 marked the passage of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. This was followed in some 25 years later by the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve Acts. After another 20 years we put the RobinsonPatman Act on our statute books: another anti-monopoly measure.

After the turn of the century we turned more and more to the mass production made possible by our inventiveness and industrial talent. Then came the redeeming recognition of the link between mass-production and mass-consumption. By itself mass production would only accumulate indigestible surpluses of goods. It was necessary to place higher purchasing power into the hands of the consumers.

Very well, who were the principal consumers? Potentially they were those who in the aggregate have the most money to spend, rather than the few who receive the highest incomes.

In 1969 the number of males employed in this country was 48.8 million while the number of employed females was 29.0 million. The average pay of the males was $7,659 and of females $3,958. Here then was a potential consumer market of $370 billion among the employed males and $114 billion among the employed females, for a total potential market of $488 billion. Had the per capita income been only $1000 per year instead of the higher figure, the potential market, assuming the same price level, would have been very much smaller, or about $79 billion instead of $488 bill1on. Yet such a low level of income would still have exceeded by far the average per capita income of the Chinese (mainland) population of some 750 million and that of the Indian population of some 550 million, not to mention the great majority of the 265 million (plus) of Latin American population.

U.S. DEVELOPMENT

This country was not noted as being in the forefront of wage levels until the twentieth century; nor was it noted as an industrial nation, except perhaps as being on the threshold of new departures.

Given our mechanical, technological and managerial talent it nevertheless did not follow that we would know what to do With it. We had no greater endowment in those fields than the Europeans from whom we sprang. We did have greater distances staring us in the face; and it may be guessed that, much as the automobile is being castigated today as the mother of many of our ills, the need for farther and more agile locomotion, to tame our distances, may have motivated and sparked the mass-production outbreak to which we gave ourselves in the early years of this century when we tinkered with the automobile. In any event there can be little question that the connection between massproduction and mass-consumption was grasped by the great entrepreneur of that industry who put it into actual effect before it was recognized and implemented elsewhere.

It needed vision, obvious as the equation is today, to perceive the great market possibilities that would open if the cost of a highly useful and enjoyable product could be brought to a level low enough to come within the pocketbook reach of the mass of the people. It needed not quite so much sharpness perhaps to see further that achievement of the objective could be helped if the income of these masses could rise and thus meet the lowering cost half way.

Monopoly power would perhaps have led the automobile makers to concentrate on the upper levels of income. If we would gain an idea of the difference between the two approaches, i.e., a. limited high-income market and a mass market, we must move to recent dates because of the state of ava1lab111ty of statistical data.

In 1962 the number of "Top Wealthholders" in this country, Le. those With gross assets of $60,000 or more, was 4.13 million of a population of over 180 Inillion. Of these 4.13 million over half had gross assets under $100,000. Those With gross assets of $200,000 or more numbered 670,000 and those with assets of $1 million or more numbered 59 thousand. This was one pel"Son out of 3,000 of the 1962 population. (Ibid., 1971, Table 523, p. 327).

If we turn to actual income as distinguished from gross assets we come to a different but nonetheless very useful measure so far as market potentials go.

In 1969 the median income of males aged 14 ancl. ove=- was $6,429. For females the median was $2,132. Of the men 92.5% had an income; and 65.8 % of the females.

The males with an income of $10,000 and over were 24.1 % of the total; females 2.4%. Males With an income of $7-9,999 were 21.6% of the total; females 5.9 % . The next lower bracket of $6-6,999 showed 7 .6 % of the males and 4.8% of the females. From $5-5,999, the percentages were 7.0 %for males and 6.9% for females. (Ibid., Table 509, p. 320.)

A yacht manufacturer might aim at the market represented by the 670,000 who had gross assets of $200,000 or more.

The earlier automobile manufacturers no doubt also aimed at the higher but sparsely populated high income levels, because of the high units cost of their product. Monopoly power might have elected to stay at that level, preferring a small volume with a high profit per unit.

That was not, however, what happened. Henry Ford is usually credited with the breakthrough. He had no Census Bureau statistics to show him the various layers of income of the people, but he could guess that he would have a much larger market if he could bring down his costs to a level that would tap the mass market. This he did, thanks to his vision, his courage and productive genius. He also recognized the market-boosting effect of adequate wages.

He did have some conditions weighted in his favor, such as a toil-willing population, free enterprise, a national patent system, free trade among the States, low tax levels, no import competition distorting his tiining options, and skilled labor. There was adequate competition, but, in view of his glimpse of the potentials of a mass market it is doubtful that he would have traded his vision for a more limited but high-price market.

The advent of the automobile, of course, boded 111 for the wagon and carriage industry, not to mention horse breeding and growing of feed grain.

There was a fruitful lesson still to be learned. This lurked in the meaning of an elastic demand. Not all products enjoy the species of groWing demand that greeted the cost reductions accomplished by the automobile industry. Had Henry Ford been a wheat or corn farmer he would have faced a wholly different market prospect. The reason is simple and obvious. Every person has only one stomach. Therefore biology sets a limit to consumption. This is true also of domesticated animals that may consume grains.

Had Mr. Ford come into possession of millions of acres of crop land so that he could have devoted his mechanical talen ts to mass production and sharp reduction in the price of wheat or corn per bushel, he would not have been greeted by a happily expansive market. The demand for food products ls quite inelastic. While everyone has a stomach not everyone had an automobile. While everyone needed a st omach in order to live he did not need an automobile but could perhaps use one if he could afford the cost and expense of having one. He could even own more than one machine, if it came to that. A second or even an auxiliary stomach

19668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 5, 1972 is perhaps not yet even on the drawing boards, much as gourmets might like an extra one.

Mr. Ford might have succeeded in reducing the number of manhours to produce wheat but this achievement would not have increased the number of stomachs that might be fed. The planters and harvesters whom he would have displaced would not have been rehired because of a ballooning of demand such as greeted his automobile. In the latter instance the increased demand led to the hiring of more and more workers. The distressed carriage and wagon makers and horse and feed grain producers would become absorbed in the work force, albeit not directly or overnight. If there were other products to follow the example of the automobile, the labor market would take up the slack instead of settling into stagnation.

Mr. Ford's wheat would have accumulated huge surpluses in search of storage space. Presumably he might have sought export markets and might indeed have found some. Even so he would not "have encountered an indefinitely expansible demand beyond the head-count of the population here or abroad.

The national experience with agricultural labor in this country under the farm program completely supports these observations. The six or seven millions of farm workers who have been displaced by modern agriculture in this country and the phenomenal increase in productivity of our farming operations, have not found resettlement and reemployment on the land. Inela.sticity of demand for food products, which account for more than three quarters of our farm acreage, ls the bar absolute against achievement of the employment expansion characteristic of new or radically modified nonessential products produced by industry.

Rising productivity in the production of essential goods, be they agricultural or mineral, represents a countervailing force working against full employment. When we released agricultural workers from the land because of rising productivity they could no longer remain on the land. They poured into the cities. The higher productivity of farmers did not lead to significantly higher consumption of farm products. Therefore the displaced workers remained displaced. They could hope to find reemployment only in the industries or services that catered to an elastic demand. While the number of products for which the demand is elastic ls very large absorption of displaced workers is a slow process. Witness Appalachia. With respect to nonessential goods the only limit to demand ls income, assuming wage increases in keeping with the higher productivity. (Today, to be sure, other limitations are raising rather ugly heads in the form of resource exhaustion, pollution, etc.)

We have obviously not lacked rising employee compensation in recent years. We have, however, encountered a different obstacle to absorption of the work force. Time was, until recently, when we could depend on new products or revolutionized methods of producing established products, to lead to additional sales as costs were brought down, as witness radio, television (for a time) , household appliances of a great variety, synthetic textiles, etc. This meant new job openings sufficient to absorb the net additions to our work force which are now well in excess of a million per year.

Now, however, even though costs can still be reduced by mechanical and other innovations, the incentive ls no longer what it was. We can no longer rely on our domestic market to supply the customers for made-in-U.S.A. products as we could in the past.

Our high productivity has been exported, so to speak. Foreign costs are below ours because foreign wages, while rising quite rapidly, did not bridge the gap. Foreign productivity came much closer on our heels

than foreign wages, partly because our companies established manufacturing facllities abroad and used our own patents in these fac111ties, and partly because we licensed foreign producers to use our patents.

A budding young Henry Ford today, looking about himself, would see a vastly changed world-setting from the one of Henry Ford two generations ago. The latter had all the time he needed to develop and improve h1S product. Every substantial improvement in production meant more sales as he cut h1S costs. If anyone contested his market, h1S competitor, whoever he might be, operated under the same wage levels as hlmSelf, or not so far below that Mr. Ford could not cope with the difference within the amount of time he had available.

He (the elder Ford) was not likely to awaken one day as does his young successor in some other industry, to be confronted by a chllling challenge from abroad where some entrepreneur, either American or foreign, offers !or the American market an acceptable competitive product, as good as h1S own, or better, at a cost so much lower than he could match that he must look beyond this country for additional sales territory. Unlike his young successor the elder Ford had no import competition, and needed none to stir him into a maximum effort.

His young counterpart would now be in much the same straits with his marketing as the elder Ford would have been with his wheat surplus had he gone into vast wheat acreage as previously pictured. While the young Ford's sales of nonfood products would not be limited by the one-stomach per person as it would be with wheat, it would be limited nevertheless by the import intrusion that would despoil his ms.rket, upset hls planning and his timing no less than darken his prospects for serving an expanding market. The imports would do what the inelastic demand does for wheat.

He would now look abroad for an increasing part of his expansion. The higher employment that would have happened here under the old condition would now be shared with his foreign plants and with other foreign producers.

The cry for greater efficiency is now an ironic mockery as it reverberates throng!t t he manufacturing community, be it automobile, steel or textiles, electronics, office machines or a hundred varieties of other consumer goods. Others can now manufacture the same thing the American industrial leader does, and do it cheaper, be it ln Japan, West Germany, Italy, or wherever our technology has taken root. Moreover, they need foreign markets because their low wages do not provide a sufficient home market.

The competitive margin needed for holding our home market or expanding it for our own products, has been greatly narrowed and in a number of Instances has disappeared. The market for the nonessential product, which ls the mainstay of our employment, has been converted Increasingly into the relatively static characteristic of the essential product so far as job-generation ls concerned-for the reason already given.

When rising imports strike the market for an essential product like wheat, meat or other food product, they may take away a certain share of the market and thus deprive the growers of that much acreage output. They must then curtail their acrease or run the risk of creating a price-depressing surplus.

Yet the effect ls not as serious as the invasion of our market for nonessentials of the kind that enjoy an expanding market as the costs are reduced, the product improved, made more useful, pleasurable and more attractive. When the imports cut off the potential expansion or cut the expansion down to merely supplying the increase in population, our coefficient or ratio of expansion is

destroyed or severely crippled and the nonessential product is converted into the same pedestrian pace as the nonessential one in point of job creation.

Capital will not come forth readily or eagerly to be poured into research and development, consumer research, market cultivation, plant expansion and similar activities. Rather a cautious atmosphere will prevail. Venture capital aimed at production of nonessentials ls notoriously timid for the simple reason that the consumer can for a variety of reasons curtail his spending, postpone his buying or reduce his consumption. If possible the venture capital will hedge by going overseas to participate in the low labor-cost advantage that confers the competitive margin on foreign producers by dint of which they have penetrated our market.

Established industries will undertake foreign manufacture to supply foreign markets from within. They will in many cases equip their foreign plants with American machinery and equipment and thus boost exports of these products. In 1971 our exports of machinery continued to run a strong surplus while nearly all other manufactured goods sustained heavy trade deficits. The indication is that foreign productivity will continue to rise as our export of machinery continues at a high level.

However, this may be a short road, since our imports of machinery have grown much more rapidly in the pa.st ten years than our exports. The recipient countries of our exports are fast learning how to build their own machinery and to gain world markets for their exports.

If we insist on confronting our problem with a hypnotic chant citing our superior "know-how'', hand in hand with a worshipful attitude toward increasing productivity, and a nostalgic attachment to free trade while refusing to accept the meaning of cumulative evidence of the sterility of this posture, we will surrender the motivation that brought us world industrial leadership in the first instance.

It needs no heavy protectionlst onslaught to preserve what this country built in pioneering fashion. No turning back of the clock is needed nor injury to our trading partners in the world: only adaptation to radically changed conditions.

OPPOSED TO INTERSTATE OIL COMPACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts <Mr. CONTE) is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, as one who has testified in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 72, to renew the Interstate Oil Compact, which was passed earlier today on the Consent Calendar, I want to explain why I do not object to the bill in its present form, and to commend the committee for its recognition of the impropriety of past practices of the Compact Commission and for moving to correct these abuses.

The sole purpose of the compact is set out in article II as follows:

To conserve oil and gas by the prevention of physical waste thereof !rom any cause.

As I testified, however, and as the committee report states, under the guise of its concern for conservation, the Compact Commission has engaged over the years in a series of "extracurricular activities" which "appear to fall outside, or at best, have a very tenuous connection with, the limited purposes of the compact."

These extracurricular activities ha.ve,

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19669 in my view, been nothing more than federally sanctioned lobbying activities in favor of preserving every aspect of the whole range of special privileges extended to the oil industry at the consumer's expense. Among other things the Compact Commission has opposed any cut in the depletion allowance, fought to preserve oil import quotas which cost U.S. consumers over $5 billion annually, and opposed any change in the State production control, or prorationing, system under which the oil producing States of Texas and Louisiana have been able to artificially hold down production, and thereby maintain demand and higher prices.

I want to commend particularly my distinguished Massachusetts colleagues, TORBERT MACDONALD, chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Power, and HASTINGS KEITH, its ranking minority member, and their subcommittee colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. TIERNAN), for taking forthright action to end these abuses. As the report explains, the resolution has been amended to require the Attorney General to report specifically on whether the operations of the Compact Commission "have been limited to activities related directly to the immediate purpose of such compact." No less important is the stem warning in the report that such extracurricular lobbying activities "under the aegis of the compact" must be stopped.

I should mention at this point, Mr. Speaker, that I continue to have doubts about the need for this compact legislation, but I am pleased that the Commission will no longer be able to serve as a mouthpiece for the oil lobby. All of us know that lobby's voice is already heard loud and clear in too many circles in this Government.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that the Subcommittee on Communications and Power which has performed this service today, now move to build on this initial effort by considering my bill, H.R. 3548-and identical companion bills H.R. 4930, 4931, 4932, 5187 and 6750-to repeal the so-called Connally "Hot Oil" Act which permits the prorationing I spoke of earlier. Ninety of my House colleagues, including Chairman MACDONALD, Mr. KEITH, and Mr. TIERNAN, are cosponsors of this bill. I am convinced that hearings on this legislation would demonstrate that this more substantive consumer abuse simply must be ended.

STRONG CANADIAN PROTEST OVER THE ALASKA PIPELINE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Wisconsin <Mr. AsPIN), is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the RECORD today a letter from the Canadian Minister for Energy, Mines, and Resources, Donald S. MacDonald, to Interior Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton. Mr. MacDonald's letter charges that the Interior Department failed to adequately consider Canada's views on the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline and hints that U.S. approval of the controversial pipeline could affect future United States-Canada relations.

I believe Mr. MacDonald's letter is strong evidence that the Interior Department failed to make a good faith effort to objectively compare the relative merits of a Canadian oil pipeline as an alternative to the Alaska pipeline. The letter tends to confirm my previous assertion that the administration's approval of the Alaska route was not based on environmental and economic criteria. Mr. MacDonald's letter is unusually frank and reveals how the Interior Department has apparently gone out of its way to avoid getting the latest data on the Canadian pipeline.

The letter from Mr. MacDonald to Secretary Morton follows:

MAY 4, 1972. Hon. ROGERS c. MORTON, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Washington, D .a.

DEAR SECRETARY MORTON: I found most useful my meet ing with you in your office in Washington March 30 last, and appreciate greatly your courtesy in discussing with me certain aspects of the interesting decision you have under consideration in connection with an application for a permit to construct an oil pipeline in Alaska.

At the time of our conversation, you suggested that you would like to have more insights and information into the Canadian interest in having such an oll pipeline constructed through Canada from Prudhoe Bay. I undert0ok to write this letter to you to expand on our current position regarding a possible Canadian project and, in particular, to comment on matters related to the environment, financing and timing.

There would be many advantages arising from the use of a Canadian pipeline route. We believe it would enhance the energy security of your country by providing an overland route for your Ala.ska oll production, thereby servicing the oll deficit areas of the mid-continent and also the Pacific North West. Although cost comparisons of the Trans-Canada and Trans-Alaska routes are interesting, they wm, of course, not in the strictest sense be subject to direct comparison since the Canadian costs provide for placing Alaska North Slope oll directly into the mid-continent and Puget Sound markets. Canada has an interest in the energy security of your country, and this land route for Alaska crude oil would enhance that security of supply to deficit areas in the United States. Furthermore, this security of supply could be further enhanced during the interim period of Northern pipeline construction by extra Canadian crude, as I indicated in m y remarks in the House of Commons April 19.

The MacKenzie route would, of course, be advantageous to Canada in that it would give access to our potential oil resources in the Northern Yukon and MacKenzie River areas. Within Canada, also, there would be benefits to the economy of these Northern regions from this new activit y and opportunities for the employment and training of our native peoples.

In reciting some of the advantages to the United States and Canada of a cooperat ive relationsl'1ip between us in the construction of au oil pipeline across Canada, I am mindful, too, that such a measure would avoid the considerable increase in tanker movements of oil on the Pacific Coast and particularly in the inland waters of Ala.ska, British Columbia and Washington State, and the resultant significant risk of serious environmental and economic damage. This is an area which, if not solved with reason and wisdom by us today, could produce difficult influence in Canada-United States relations.

In considering the environmental impact of oil pipelining in Northern Canada, it should

not be overlooked that there are current proposals being studied by gas transmission and distribution companies for a gas pipepline from Alaska through Canada to the continental United States. If these proposals are successful, there will be environmental disturbance in any events.

The major environmental impact study which was released by your department to the public March 20 has been under review here since its receipt. The report is an historic document in evaluation of the impact of pipelining on the social and biological environment. Your department deserves congratulations for the !breadth of the study.

As you are well aware, the comments made in the report on the so-called Canadian alternative are based on data in the public sector, some of which have become out of date and very little of which was produced in the last two years. Your officials did not ask for any technical assistance from departments of the Government of Canada in connection with the environmental aspects of this study. I brought to your attention during our meeting, and by way of a letter March 28, the substantial program of work in the environmental field which my government has been undertaking with the commencement of the 1970 field season. In addition, we have recently ma.de public and have provided to your State Department a list of the thirty environmental and social studies under way at this time and scheduled for completion later this year. Of course, our general work program was known to officials of your department and has been a matter of considerable public information in Canada.

We are of the view that your consideration of the Canadian alternative could benefit substantially from a knowledge of the work which has been done by both industry and government and which is to be completed this year. A result of detailed consideration would lead, in our view, to an improved appreciation of the advantages in an environmental sense of the Canadian alternative. We would be prepared to hold meetings between officials of our two governments at your early convenience.

The Prime Minister of Canada, in a statement on April 28, indicated the decision of the government to begin construction of an all-weather highway to link the communities of Fort Simpson and Inuvik in the Northwest Territories. When completed, this will provide a. road from the Northern boundary of the Province of Alberta to the Arctic Ocean on a route selected to be of use for oil or gas pipelines built along the MacKenzie Valley. Such a road wlll, in our judgment, substantially ease the construction of a pipeline. This decision is, I think, a signlflcant new factor which affects the balance of advantage between alternative routes. I am sure it will be taken into account by any private entities that may be interested in building an oil or a gas pipeline, and I think it ought to be a factor in governmental assessment as well.

As to the timing for construction and completion of an oil pipeline, this ls dependent on the assembly by the applicants of the technical information required, on the financial arrangements which are made and on other normal criteria for pipeline construction in Canada: These matters are subject to regulatory supervision under laws in Canada with which your officials have had a familiarity in connection with pipeline systems which now carry the bulk of Canada-United States oil and gas trade. I would confl.rm to you my comments in Washington on March 30 last that, in the opinion of our technical advisers, there should be no reason why regulatory and governmental consideration could not be given in an expeditious manner commencing with a.n application filed by the end o! thLs year.

I would be grateful for your reaction to the suggestions put forward 1n this letter.

Yours sincerely, DONALD 8. MACDONALD.

19670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE June 5, 1972

END THE NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from New York <Mrs. ABZUG) is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, I am today submitting a resolution which would establish a House Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency. Similar to Senate Resolution 304, introduced by Senator MATHIAS and 14 other Members of the other body, it would direct the special committee to study the effects of terminating the state of national emergency declared by President Harry Truman in 1950 and still in effect today.

It may surprise some to learn that we are still in a state of national emergency proclaimed in the depth of the Korean war. And that while the Korean war has passed into history, the emergency proclaimed to deal with that war remains in force.

Based on authority granted by the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, a President can, by the simple expedient of declaring a national emergency, assume a vast web of powers rendering the Congress expendable. This is not simply an interesting anachronism without practical force. The powers available to the President under this state of emergency are not trivial-fully some 200 special powers accrue to the President from it. In January 1968, for example, President Johnson used it to control American investments abroad in an effort to ease that year's balance-of-payments crisis. In February 1971, President Nixon invoked the same authority to suspend the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.

In this past year, we have witnessed a striking application of Presidential emergency powers. With a single speech on August 15, President Nixon did more than months of Senate hearings to dramatize the enormous arsenal of powers within the grasp of the Executive. Wielding authority granted him by law, the President drastically changed the economic course of the Nation and the world. By the time Congress returned 3 weeks later, it was required to legislate in a radically altered J>Vlitical and economic context.

The powers the President was able to invoke with regard to economic stabilization emphasize once again the incredibly broad scope of authority which Congress has relinquished-or permitted to be arrogated-to the President and his White House subordinates. In thus adding power over the dollar to his command of American military forces and his influence over mass media, the President has lent support to the conclusion of Prof. Duane Lockard, chairman of the department of politics at Princeton, that--

In essence the Presidency has become an elective kingship with decisive power in a. broad range of mat ters ... He can start a war or end one; he can breathe life into a domestic project or smother it.

This situation is not without legislative precedent. Alas, Congress has frequently been accomplice in its own decline, conceding initiat ives to the ex-

ecutive and tolerating procedural abuses when their ends were agreeable. One need only name the Formosa resolution of 1955, the Middle East resolution of 1957, the Cuba resolution of 1962, and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964 to illustrate how readily Congress delivered up to the President large elements of its constitutional jurisdiction.

The resolution I am introducing today seeks to restore the constitutional balance between the President and the Congress. It establishes a bipartisan House committee to study the problems which may arise as the result of terminating our protracted state of national emergency and to consider the necessary or desirable legislative actions toward this end. It is expected that the committee's recommendations would, among other things, have the effect of restoring to Congress its full constitutional authority to regulate commerce, and would clearly define a national emergency. Together with the war powers bill which was passed by the Senate in April, this would serve to assure that emergency powers would only be applied for the duration of genuine emergencies.

In the effort to restore the constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches of our Government, the war powers bill and now the emergency powers resolution, represent a good start. We must press forward to see them passed this year. And we must repel any effort to bring them into the arena of partisan politics in this election year. Restoring to Congress its constitutional responsibility is an effort which must be joined by Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks the text of the resolution and the text of a speech made by Senator MATHIAS when he introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 27, the predecessor of Senate Resolution 304 and my resolution:

H. RES. 109 Resolution establishing the Special Commit

tee on the Termination of the National Emergency and authorizing expenditures thereby Whereas the existence of the state of

national emergency proclaimed by the President on December 16, 1950, is directly related to the conduct of United States foreign policy and our national security: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, Thait (a) there is hereby established a special committee of the House of Representatives to be known as the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency (hereinafter referred to as the "special committee").

(b) The special committee shall be composed of eighteen Members of the House equally divided bet ween the majority and minority parties to be appointed by the Speaker, no more than 8 of whom shall be members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(c) The special committee shall select a chairman and vice chairman from among its members. A majority of the members of t h e special committee shall constitute a. quorum thereof for the transaction of business, except that the special committee may fix a lesser number as a quorum for the purpose of taking testimony. Vacancies in the membership of the special committee shall not affect the authority of the remaining members to execute the functions of the special committee.

SEC. 2. (a) It shall be the function of the special committee to conduct a study and investigation with respect to the matter of terminating the national emergency proclaimed by the President of the United States on December 16, 1950, and announced in Presidential Proclamation Numbered 2914, dated the same date. In carrying out such study and investigation the special committee shall:

(1) consult and confer with the President and his advisers;

(2) consider the problems which may arise as the result of terminating such national emergency; and

(3) consider what administrative or legislative actions might be necessary or desirable as the result of terminating such national emergency, including consideration of the desirability and consequences of terminating special legislative powers that were conferred on the President and other omcers, boards, and commissions as the result of the President proclaiming a national emergency.

SEC. 3. For the purposes of this resolution the special committee is authorized from date of agreement to this resolution through February 28, 1973, in its discretion (1) to make expenditures from the contingent fund of the House, (2) to employ personnel, (3) to hold such hearings, (4) to sit and act at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the House, (5) to require, by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and documents, (6) to take such testimony, (7) to procure the service of individual consultants or organizations thereof, in accordance with the provisions of section 202 (i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and (8) with the prior consent of the Government department or agency concerned and the Committee on House Administration, to use on a reimbursable basis the services of personnel of any such department or agency.

SEC. 4. The expenses of the special committee under this resolution shall not exceed $100,000, of which amount not to exceed $15,000 shall be available for the procurement of the services of individual consultants, or organizations thereof as authorized by section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended.

SEC. 5. The special committee shall report its findings, together with such recommendations for legislation as it deems advisable, to the House at the earliest practicable date, but not later than February 28, 1973.

SEC. 6. Expenses of the special committee under this resolution shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the special committee.

REMARKS OF MR. M.ATHIAS Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, last year, Con

gress revoked the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964. It was a first step in the long-overdue effort to restore to Congress its responsibilities under the Constitution for questions of war and peace.

In February of this year, Senator Javits introduced S. 731, A Bill to Regulate Undeclared War. Also in February, Senator Church introduced Senate Joint Resolution 48 to repeal the Formosa. Resolution of 1955. I was pleased to co-sponsor both. In the next weeks I shall introduce legislation to repeal the Middle East Resolution of 1957 and the Cuba. resolution of 1962.

Today, I rise to present a Senate Concurrent Resolution aimed at terminating the state of national emergency rroclaimed by President Truman in December, 1950 in the depths of the Korean War. It ts a sad paradox that this country has remained omcially in a state of emergency since that time. Indeed, it may be useful at this point briefly to


review bow Congress-with barely a whimper-relinquished important parts of its constitutional authority to the office of the President.

On May 9, 1933, at a moment of dire Depression emergency, F'ranklin D. Roosevelt convened the Congress and demanded, in effect, that it revamp the Constitution before midnight. The purpose of the reform was to make Congress--and the Constitution~ptional at the discretion of the President, as the national interest required.

The demand came as part of the Emergency Banking Act, an omnibus bill reorganizing the nation's then collapsing banking system and retroactively legitimizing the President's Bank Holiday proclamation of three days before. Referred to the Banking and Currency Committee-with instructions that it be reported out in an hour the bill was not printed and was not available for Senators to read. Senator Long complained that he did not know what was in it until it was read by the clerk. Most Senators indicated that they had grave reservations about what they understood to be the bill's provisions and Senator Long protested the extraordinary powers it granted to the President. But in the extremity of ·,;he crisis at hand, Congress felt it had to act immediately as the President demanded. The blll was passed by both houses before midnight and the American constitutional Republic has been in its Damoclean shadow ever since.

The key provision, not much remarked by the Congress at the time, came in an amendment to Section 5b of the Trading with the Enemy Act Of 1917. As enacted in 1917, Section 5b shifted from Congress to the President the power to regulate .. rade and financial transactions between Americans and foreigners in wartime. The 1933 amendment to 5b authorized the President-by the simple expedient of declaring a national emergency- to assume in peacetime these extensive wartime emergency powers.

By declaring in the 1933 amendment that the President could assume emergency powers by declaration in peace time, Congress established a principle with reverberations going far beyond the legislation at hand. For the courts have interpreted the principle as creating a virtually unlimited executive prerogative that now applies to some 200 laws granting special powers to the President during national emergencies. But neither Congress nor the courts have set criteria to define the kind of crisis which would justify innovation of these multivarious powers. Since 1933 they have been available essentially as the President wishes.

In accord with President Roosevelt's approach, the President is left to determine by himself when a national emergency exists and when it ends--when the executive should have access to the near dictatorial authority conveyed in emergency legislation. The President decides when be should share power with Congress as the Constitution prescribes, and when Congress can be made optional by proclamation.

This assignment of emergency powers has worked very smoothly over the years. Since that dire extremity of 1933, there have been six Presidents-four Democrats and two Republicans. They have disagreed on many issues. But they have been unanimous on the question of when the country is in a state of national emergency and when the Congress, on a wide range of issues, ls optional. Their answer, quite simply put-in a word-is: always. In the last 37 years, the country has passed through many vicissitudes of war and peace. But Presidential powers have been continuously "at war." Not once during that period has a President allowed his special powers to lapse. The result, described by Jeffrey G. Miller and John R. Garson in an excellent article in the February 1970 issue of the Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law Review, is that "some 60 percent of the nation's pop-

ulation have lived their entire lives under a continuous unbroken chain of national emergencies.''

A court did judicially acknowledge-in 1962-that the Depression had ended. But no authority has yet recognized the end of the Korean emergency, proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950 and still in effect today. Since the President declared with reference to Korea that "world conquest by communist imperialism is the goal of the forces of aggression," the State Department has interpreted the emergency as meaning the Cold war.

This interpretation, however, has not limited the emergency powers to military matters affecting the protracted conflict with the Communists. The Korean authority, in fact, was most recently invoked in 1968 in relation to our economic competition with our European allies. President Johnson felt he would have difficulty securing from Congress the broad powers he needed to deal with the deficit which had beer. emerging for several years in the nation's balance of payments. Yet the Constitution clearly reserves to the Legislative branch all powers for regulating Foreign Cvmmerce. So the President invoked the emergency powers granted in 1950 in relation to the Korean war and signed Executive Order 11387, "Governing Certain Transfers Abroad." The Department of Commerce immediately issued the Foreign Direct Investment Regulations (FDIR) . The Executive Order and the FDIR restrict the amounts of capital that American investors may transfer to or accumulate in foreign affiliates and compel repatriation of short term liquid balances such as foreign bank deposits.

Without citation of the Korean war powers, these measures clearly represent an unconstitutional encroachment on legislative authority. The courts have upheld them. however, and they remain the law of the land. It is currently the law of the land, therefore; that the state of national emergency proclaimed by President Truman in 1050 in relation to the Korean conflict can be invoked in relation to a balance of payments deficit 18 years later. Similarly, regulations against gold hoarding, activated by the Depression emergency, are continued under the 1950 proclamation. Other measures invoked under 5b pursuant to the Korean proclamation include the Foreign Assets Control Regulations, the Egyptian Assets Control Regulations, and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. The Cuban trade embargo of 1962 was also based in part on the 1950 emergency.

Among the nearly 200 other Emergency laws are measures permitting the President to sell stocks of strategic materials, revoke leases on real and personal property, suspend rules and regulations applicable to broadcasting stations, detain enlisted troops beyond the term of their enlistments, detail military men to the governments of other countries, and exercise control over consumer credit. Among hundreds of local properties available to the Executive, the President may take over parts of Howard University, and in my own state of Maryland, he may close Fort McHenry-the birthplace of the "Star Spangled Banner"-and "use it for such period thereafter as the public needs may require."

These powers infringe on so many crucial constitutional rights and principles that collectively they may be seen as placing our system of democratic government in jeopardy. Certainly the deprivation of rights and property ls authorized without due process. But perhaps most important, these measures threaten the Constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Because a state of official emergency has obtained continuously since 1933-and has been upheld by the courts to validate actions unrelated to the original crisis--the national emergency powers have accumulated and become institutionalized

in the axecutive. The Presidency, already enhanced by modern trends, has been further aggrandized by the paradox of the continuous emergency.

Unless we accept the principle of an optional Constitution and an optional Congress, we must reject the concept of national emergencies declarable by the President at his discretion in peace time without termination dates. Since this concept has been upheld in essence by the Courts, it is up to the Congress to recover by legislation the constitutional role that it has allowed the executive to usurp. We must reassert the principle that emergency powers are available only for brief periods when Congress is unable to act and for purposes directly related to the emergency at hand.

This is easier said than done. We discover that the continuous and cumulative and institutionalized emergency is also almost irrevocable. So many executive agencies and procedures are rooted in emergency powers that it is extremely difficult to rescind them without major administrative disruptions. With this in mind, the distingushed Majority Leader, Mr. Mansfield, joined with me during the last session in S.J. Res. 166, a resolution which, among other things, proposed the creation of a special committee to explore with the executive the consequences of terminating the Korean Emergency. In the aftermath of the Cambodia incursion, however, our proposals were not acted upon. And so I am now re-introducing the resolution as a Senate Concurrent Reso-1 ution. It calls for the establishment of a commission to study and make recommendations terminating the state of national emergency.

It is to be expected that the commission's recommendations would among other things, have the effect of restoring to Congress its full constitutional authority to regulate commerce, and would clearly define a national emergency. Together with S-731, An Act to Regulate Undeclared War, which was introduced in February by the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Jav1ts, this would serve to assure that emergency powers would only be applied for the duration of genuine emergencies. The Constitution did not envision a state of national emergency to be the normal state of affairs.

Under the best of circumstances, the Congress will not find it easy to maintain its historic constitutional role in the modern age. Modern communications, national tnterpendence, and international involvement coverage to enhance the Presidency; real emergencies continually arise requiring the kind of decisive response the executive is best equipped to give. But if the Congress allows these national executive advantages to be expanded by special emergency powers responding to unspeclfl.ed emergencies without determination or limit, the balance o! powers between the branches of our government may be irreparably broken.

I believe that we do face today a national emergency--even a paradoxically continuous one. It emerged during the depression and has been with us for several decades. It ls a crisis that throws our whole system of Constitutional government into jeopardy. This is the a.trophy of Congress. It is not an emergency which calls for the decisive exercise of executive powers. It calls for the decisive recovery of legislative powers.

Only Congress can redeem itself; but in serving itself, it can also save the Constitution. And I believe that to save the Constitution is to save the most precious heritage of our country.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCE PROPOSAL The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas <Mr. GONZALEZ) is recognized for 10 minutes.

19672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, since

1967 I have proposed and advocated the enactment of a Children's Allowance Act. According to the Library of Congress Research Service, I was the first to introduce such legislation. I still believe that this approach is far better than the present welfare system, and even the administration's proposed family allowance plan. The Canadian program is a living example of the success which is possible.

I bring to your attention, for your deliberations on this matter, an excellent article written by Leif Haanes-Olsen in the Social Security Bulletin, May 1972, entitled "Children's Allowances: Their Size and Structure in Five Countries."

In subsequent discussions I will present the remaining parts of this excellent study.

The article follows: CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES: THEm SIZE AND

STRUCTURE IN FIVE COUNTRIES

(By Leif Haanes-Olsen •} Children's allowances-primarily cash

benefits to families with children-are found in about he.If the countries of the world. including all the industrial nations except Japan and the United States.1 All of the programs in the Western World are, in effect, universal in coverage for families with specified numbers of children. In some countries, however, a degree of selectivity appears to arise from the fact that employers (e.nd the self-employed} are the only contributors to children's allowances. Thus, in . theory, the right to an allowance is tied to the occupational activity of the family breadwinner. But even in these countries, when the covered person stops working because of disability, unemployment, or death, payments under the children's a.llowa.nces program continue.

Unlike the old-age, invalidity, and survivor insurance programs, children's allowances programs generally la.ck any mechanism for regular adjustment of benefits to cost-ofllving or wage increases. The allowances are usually modest in amount since there are often long delays in making ad hoc adjustments--delay sometimes attributed to the political climate. Nevertheless, concern with the need to update allowance rates more frequently seems to be growing in some countries, perhaps because of renewed interest in the problems of poverty.

This article discusses children's allowances programs in five countries--Cane.da, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany. The countries selected represent different approaches to such programs in the following areas: (1) Rea.sons for introducing the programs, (2) benefit patterns, (3) actual and relative size of payments, (4) :flna.ncing, and (5) solution of problems encountered in striving toward original program goals.

BACKGROUND

Early developments Historically, the rationale for children's

allowances has gone full circle, in a sense returning to its point of origin after almost a century-the idea of helping the poor. Assistance based on family burden

•omce of Research and Staitistics, International Staff.

i Siltty-two nations now have children's allowances programs: All European countries except Malta; 20 African countries (South Africa and the 19 French-Speaking countries); five countries in Oceania a.nd Southeast Asia (Australia, New Zea.land, Nauru, Cambodia, and South Vietnam); Lebanon, Iran and Israel in the Middle East; six countries in South America; and Canada in North Amert ca.

began first in France on a small scale about 1870 and next in Germany at the end of World War I, when employers decided to assist workers with children in meeting their family responsibilities. Within individual countries, however, evolution has sometimes taken a different path. France's initial humanitarian approach, for example, has since been replaced by one stressing population policy, and Sweden's early population approach (1920's-1930's) has evolved into a humanitarian or social rights program.

Developments after World War I Conditions arising from World War I had

a strong effect on children's allowances in both France and Germany. Allowances in France received a boost from such war-related conditions as severe manpower losses and rapid increases in the cost of living. Because inflation and labor shortages exerted pressure for ever-higher wages, more and more employers turned to children's allowances-a fringe benefit for workers with families-as an alternative to more expensive wage increases for all. Until the end of the war, employers themselves had paid allowances directly to their employees. In a move to streamline the administration of these fringe benefits and distribute the cost burden, the first local "equalization funds" were esablished and financed by employer groups in 1918, disbursing allowances to eligible employees.

In Germany, on the other hand, economic conditions immediately following World War I steadily deteriorated, and virtually all benefit funds were wiped out during the inflationary period of the 1920's. There, too, the tendency at first was to regard children's allowances as an alternative to higher wages though not for the same reason as in France. The program called for depositing the contributions from employers and the self-employed in funds established within each occupational group. It attempted to minimize the economic advantages enjoyed by single persons or married persons without children in disposing of their income.2

The birth rate problem.-During the 1920's and 1930's, French lawmakers, concerned a.bout lagging birthrates, believed that a system of children's allowances woUld serve as a convenient vehicle to reverse this situation. It has been argued in France that the children's allowances system for wage earners in industry, made compulsory by 1932 legislation, was based on a need to achieve equality among wage earners.a Even then, however, the French Government remained disturbed about both the wartime losses and the continually declining birth rate. This situation led to the general application of children's allowances as a demographic tool through the Family Code in 1939.

In the United Kingdom and Sweden, similar concern over lagging or falling birth rates has been reflected in debates extending back to the mid-1920's and the 1930's. Among the British, proposals for a children's allowances program to remedy their population problem were well supported, but the economic and political climate preceding World War II prevented specific action. In Sweden, prolonged debates extending into the period of World War II likewise prevented early acceptance.

The change toward a population policy approach was also briefly evident in Germany where the National Socialist regime launched a children's allowances program in 1935 with the specific goal of increasing the birth rate.

2 Ubersicht uber die soziale Sicherung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, der Bundesminister fur Arbeit und Sozialordnung, January 1967, pages 113-114.

3 Nicole Questiaux, "Fam.Uy Allowances in France," Children's Allowances ana the Economic Welfare of Children, Citizen's Committee for Children of New York, Inc., 1968.

The humanitarian approach.-During the late 1930's and early war years, demographic considerations in the United Kingdom and Sweden were noticeably pushed aside in favor of a greater concern for the welfare of children and their families. In Sweden this concern, due in no small part to the participation of such social scientists as the Myrdals in public debates, was to produce after the war an allowances program that looked primarily to the welfare of families.

In the United Kingdom, a similar trend was revealed in three important documents that appeared during World War II: A 1942 memorandum by the Chancellor of the Exchequer summarizing the main points brought out by the supporters of children's allowances; the Beveridge Report, published in November 1942; and a white paper issued in September 1944.

One point in the memorandum dealt with child malnutrition and what a children's allowances program might do to lessen this risk. Another point focused on compensation to large families to combat increases in living costs. A variation of the negative income tax was also advanced. To help poor families, it was suggested that parents With incomes too low to be taxable should receive benefits similar to the tax allowances extended to the well-to-do. Two obstacles blocked the way for this proposal: (1) The government did not favor a means test and (2) a program based on income tax assessment was considered too difficult to administer. Finally, the argument was made that children's allowances might also encourage parenthood and counteract the declining birth rate.

Children's allowances, preferably financed through general revenues, were regarded by Sir William Beveridge as a necessary part of a comprehensive social security system. He felt thali without these benefits no adequate protection could be provided to large families when earnings were interrupted. He believed, on the other hand, that in general wages were sufficient to provide for a one-child family and thus recommended against children's allowances for the first child. He wanted to abolish the means test for economic as well as humanitarian reasons: In a means-tested program, administrative costs would be large enough to make overall savings negligible, and eliminating income as a basis for eligibility would remove the stigma of a means test.

The White Paper of September 1944 explicitly stated that the children's allowances program was intended t • contribute to the needs of families with children, not to provide full maintenance for each child. Thus, the recommended level of allowances was considerably lower than that estimated by Beveridge as necessary for meeting subsistence needs. As in the Beveridge proposals, the first child in a family was to be exempt, but the allowances were to be supplemented by free meals and milk for all school children.

The Family Allowances Act, adopted in June 1945, incorporated proposals from all three sources-including ineligibllity of the first child, universality, and general revenue financing. The program of free school meals never became operative.

Developments After World War II Canada.-The publication of the Beveridge

Report in 1942 evoked much interest in Canada and resulted in the appearance of a Canadian version (the Marsh Report} the following year. A family allowance law became effective July 1, 1945. The original broad objective of the Canadian program was to help correct the imbalance between family income and family need and to make an investment in the nation's children. The program aimed at a. redistribution of income in favor of low-income families and regions.

Yet views on what children's allowances might accomplish differed widely. The Canadian National Labor Board, for example, was

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19673 impressed with the program as an alternative to raising the general level of wages (reminiscent of the early French and German programs) and gave its support on that basis. To counter the severe economic conditions foreseen for the postwar years, children's allowances were expected to make two related contributions: to increase aggregate demand and help in maintaining high employment and income levels. Under this interpretation, the program would channel significant amounts into the spending stream by increasing the purchasing power of the needy. It would, in addition, tend to stabllize purchasing power since payments would be continuous and nonseasonal. And children's allowances paid during periods of unemployment and illness would help to ensure a steady income for social insurance and assistance recipients with large families. Finally, the allowances would aid employment by contributing to a higher level of aggregate demand.

Meanwhile, social objectives of the program were discussed in terms similar to the Swedish concept of social rights: The burden of raising the next generation ought to be shared by the population in general instead of being borne by a small segment of the working population.'

France.-.Chlldren's allowances were included in a comprehensive social security plan in 1946. Interest in these allowances as a demographic tool has been maintained, however, throughout the post-World War II era, and efforts of the French Government to influence the birth rate through children's allowances have continued to the present. According to the Minister of Social Affairs, for example, the express aim of the 1969 increases 1n children's allowances was to halt the declining birth rate. That increase was regarded as a first step in a program to encourage population growth, as the birth rate had dropped from 18.1 per 1,000 in 1964 to 16.8 per 1,000 in 1967 and was expected to range around 16.6-16.8 per 1,000 in 1968.

Germany, Federal .Republtc.-In its method of financing and its humanitarian approach, the children's allowances program introduced in the Federal Republic (West Germany) 1n 1954 resembled the original German program set up after World War I. It was to be funded by private means andsince it was aimed at the largest (and presumably the most needy) families of those who worked in private industry-it was basically humanitarian in concept. The benefits, together with tax exemptions, were intended to cover only part of the cost of child support. According to this reasoning, German tax exemptions would go far 1n covering the cost of rearing the first two chlldren 1n the family and benefits would be provided only from the third child on.s Children's allowances were thus looked upon as earnings supplements for families with heavy flnanclal burdens. The extension of benefits 1n 1961 to the second child in lowincome families with three or more children was consistent with this policy. Ten years after its introduction, however, the program had evolved toward a view similar to the British and Swedish, emphasizing social rights, when the Federal Government

'During the debate in the House of Commons preceding the adoption of the children's allowances program, it was pointed out that 84 percent of all Canadian children under age 16 were dependent on only 19 percent of the gainfully employed. See Joseph Willard, "Family Allowances in Canada," in Children's Allowances and the Economic Welfare of Ohi'ldren, Citizen's Committee for Children of New York, Inc., 1968.

11 Klaus Steinwender, "Das Klndergeld," in the series, Sozialpolittk in Deutschland (No. 80), 1968.

1n 1964 took over the burden of financing the entire program.

United Kingdom.-Unlike Sweden, Britain still has a dual system of children's allowances and tax deductions for children. Tax deductions become more significant as income rises, and for many families in the middle and upper income brackets the deductions are much more substantial than children's allowances.

Less attention seems to have been paid to these allowances in the United Kindom than in the other four countries studied. In the past, benefit rates were constant over long periods of time, and it is only rather recently that they have risen to a substantial degree, mainly perhaps in response to agitation by civic organizations such as the Child Poverty Action Group.

Sweden.-A system of tax deductions for children was abolished with the introduction of noncontributory children's allowances on January 1, 1948. When the program became effective, the improvement in the standard of living for families with children was stressed. There was thus a national acknowledgement that the economic burden of raising children belonged to some extent to society in general, not wholly to the individual household. No basic change has been made in the program since its introduction. The benefit rates have been adjusted upward, however, and are now at a considerably higher level in· terms of purchasing power than they were when the program began.

HOWELL LANCASTER-A GREAT MAN

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Florida <Mr. FUQUA), is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Speaker. The work of Howell E. Lancaster lives on, although he is absent from our midst.

As long as men admire courage, integrity, ability and dedication in their elected officials, Howell Lancaster will never die.

My friend passed away earlier this year. At the time he was ranked third in seniority in the Florida House, having been elected to serve 11 terms.

Howell was without question the most respected voice in our State in agricultural matters. His was a powerful voice.

But, it was not because he served a long time or because he was so knowledgeable in agriculture that he earned the place in history we give to him.

I served with him in the Florida House of Representatives and I know.

Howell never backed off from a fight. He was a reasonable man and he would listen to any view. But once he made up his mind, he was in the thick of the fight. It was a measure of the man that those who disagreed with him, liked and respected Howell.

I remember when I was a freshman legislator that he took the time to help new members such as myself. If he liked you, he was your friend for life-as long as you kept your word and had the sincerity of your convictions. He could disagree without being disagreeable.

In April, the State of Florida did something that I think Howell would have appreciated more than anything else. The Florida Youth Development Center, which he fought so hard to establish, was renamed the Howell E. Lancaster Youth Development Center.

Howell was an active man and he would have appreciated having his name attached to something that would serve others-particularly young people who needed a helping hand. He was that kind of man.

Gov. Reubin Askew, in dedicating the center, said that--

Howell will live on in the hearts and lives of people who could not shake his hand.

The center would not have been established without the work of Howell. The institution has now functioned for a little over a year and already is amassing a record of successful rehabilitation of young people.

Mrs. Virginia Lancaster, widow of my friend who passed away January 9, 1972, and other members of the Lancaster family joined State and local officials for the dedication ceremonies in April.

A plaque was presented to Mrs. Lancaster and to Superintendent James Hart of the institution, along with a portrait of Howell from Emmett Roberts, Director of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

State Re.:;>resentative Eugene Shaw of Starke presented Mrs. Lancaster with a framed copy of the resolution adopted by the Florida House of Representatives commemorating his work.

State Senator Louis de la Parte of Tampa presented her with a framed copy of the bill which renamed the center.

I counted it a real personal privilege to participate and just to be called a friend.

The Howell E. Lancaster Youth Development Center housed 95 boys and 75 girls at that time. It does not have fences, guard dogs or other security measures. It is a bold new concept for such institutions, teaching young people responsibility through trust and rehabilitation.

Born July 31, 1911, at Eugene, Fla., Howell was a man who was to succeed in everything he attempted. He was a successful businessman, farmer and cattleman.

He attended the University of Florida and one of the great unfinished works of his life was the realization of the College of Veterinary Medicine at his alma mater. He was dedicated to such an institution, as am I, which will provide health resources to animals and man through teaching and research.

Without his work, we would not be this far along the road to seeing such a facility become a reality in our great State. The day that it opens, it too will be a lasting memorial to one of Florida's finest statesmen.

Besides his gracious and charming wife, he leaves a daughter, Linda Ann, and a son, Howell, Jr. They have reason to be proud of their father.

Howell loved hunting and fishing. When he suffered his fatal attack, he was on a hunting trip with our close friend, Cecil Rowell, another fine gentleman from Trenton who was as close to Howell as if he had been a brother.

Few services that I have ever attended brought together more of the leaders of our State in simple and honest tribute.

Florida has lost one of its finest sons and I have lost a dear friend.

19674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 The one thing that I am certain of is

that Howell would not want us to pause too long. He was an active man who would want us to get about the business of completing those things he set out to do.

He was that kind of man.

RESPONSIBLE CRITICISM <Mr. SAYLOR asked and was given

permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, there has been substantial criticism hurled at society since the recent assassination attempt of a public figure.

I do not condemn the right of dissent. It is a cornerstone of our free society. I am not criticizing all those who attack the social problems of the United States; I only beckon them to assess the good as well as the bad in the country.

Those who blindly cast stones at the country must realize and accept their responsibility to help change the country. Furthermore, they must remember and respect the accomplishments made by their fell ow countrymen.

Mr. Speaker, a writer with the Blairsville Dispatch of Blairsville, Pa., captured the essence of "responsible criticism" when he said:

In their desire to provide the greatest possible range of opportunities for disagreement, Americans may have let their innate sense of tolerance gain the edge over their reason.

The full text of the editorial follows: AMERICANS BASICALLY Goon--VIOLENCE Is

EXCEPTION, NOT RULE American citizens, heartened by the news

that presidential candidate George Wallace is out of danger from the bullet wounds inflicted by an assassin, are praying for his full recovery.

Concurrent with their prayers it is apparent that Americans also are doing a great deal of soul-searching in an effort to discover the root causes of the social lllness that leads to such attacks upon public figures.

As study goes forward, comments are heard that the United States of America is a sick society, that it is sliding backward into a primeval barbarism, and that a bent for violence that has been endemic for years has become the rule rather than the exception.

This is nonsense. If Americans w1ll but look about them they will see the strength and res111ence of their society. Our moral standards, despite aberrations, are high, our laws are just, our institutions are outstanding, our Constitution stlll is an example to the world and most of the 200 million American citizens are respectable, hardworking, loyal and responsible.

Indeed if the majority of Americans have erred in respect to the increase in violence it is because of the healthy aspects of their society, not its sickness. It appears that Americans simply have not yet settled on the permissible boundaries of right and wrong, nor have they defined adequately the permissible boundaries of dissent.

All responsible citizens wm agree that the vitality and progress of the United States depends upon the freedom of its people to challenge the decisions of their government and institutions through legitimate channels. They also agree that such dissent should be given great latitude.

However, in their desire to provide the greatest possible range of opportunities for disagreement, Americans may have let their

innate sense of tolerance gain the edge over their reason.

Through permissive court decisions, benign law enforcement and overly liberal laws, Americans have given tools to many persons who are far more than responsible dissenters. In doing so they also have shifted the focus of national interest from the acoomplishments of the good citizens to the actions of the violent few.

While persons committed to violence and assassination may have many motives for their behavior, or even none at all, it also is true that they live in a larger society and are encouraged by its attitudes.

Thus, as we look at the events that led to the shooting of a presidential candidate, we must by all means look to our national weaknesses and correct those that can be corrected. Equally important, it wlll benefit all Americans to review the sources of national strength and rededicate themselevs to nourishing the qualities that made the United States the envy of the world for almost two centuries.

HIGHER EDUCATION CONFERENCE REPORT

<Mr. BRADEMAS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and .to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, on May 31, 1972, the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, the Honorable CARL D. PERKINS of Kentucky; the ranking minority member of the committee, the Honorable ALBERT H. QUIE of Minnesota; the Honorable JOHN DELLENBACK of Oregon, and I wrote a joint letter to the presidents of all colleges and universities in the United States, explaining the provisions of the conference report on the Education Amendments of 1972, the omnibus education bill, on which the House is scheduled to vote on Thursday of this week.

Included in our letter was a listing of the major higher education associations that had indicated their support of the bill. One of the groups listed was the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, which was listed, because of an earlier assurance of support by the Washington representative of this association.

Subsequent to the mailing of our letter, we were informed by the association's Washington representative that the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities had "reluctantly decided" that it would not endorse the conference report.

In light of this development, the four signatories of our May 31 letter sent a letter, on June 2, 1972, to each of tlie presidents of the institutions that make up the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities explaining the origin of our listing the association's support in our letter.

In our letter of June 2, we also commented on several points in the association's letter which we feel to be in error in the association's analysis of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, in order to dispel any misunderstanding about the position of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities that our letter may have created, and in order to make clear the reason for our having listed the association, I ask unanimous consent that our letter of May 31, 1972, to college and

university presidents in the United States; our letter of June 2, 1972, to college and university presidents of the institutions that make up the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities; and the letter of May 31, 1972, from the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities be included at this point in the RECORD.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that Members of the House, as they consider this crucial legislation, will also note the comments made on June 2, 1972, by Messrs. PERKINS, QUIE, DELLENBACK, and me in response to several of the points contained in the letter by the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.

In particular, I would like to note these two comments on our part:

First. The institutional aid provision in the conference report provides 4.7 percent more of the total institutional aid funds for small and middle-sized private colleges than would the so-called capitation approach.

Second. The new basic grant program is not limited to students from low-income families but is-and was specifically designed to be--open to students from both low- and middle-income families.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain further the provisions of this most important legislation.

The letters follow: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington D.O., May 31, 1972. DEAR FRIEND: As Chairman and Ranking

Minority Member, respectively, of the House Committee on Education and Labor, and members of the House-Senate Conference Committee on the omnibus education bill, we are writing to you concerning the conference report on which the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote next week.

As you know, the senate passed this bill on May 24, 1972 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 63 to 15.

We hope that the conference report will also be approved by the House, for we believe it contains the most significant advance in Federal support for higher education since passage of the Land Grant College Act over a century a.go.

The bill authorizes $18.5 billion for a variety of higher education programs, including an estimated $1 billion annually in institutional aid to colleges and universities, both public and private. Also included is a new program of Basic Educational Opportunity Grants for all students, from both low and middle income families.

The above mentioned items are just two of several important new programs included in a bill that also extends all existing Federal programs of student assistance and categorical aid to higher education institutions.

The measure is, of course, the product of compromise; none of the conferees was able to have his or her way in every regard. But the bipartisan compromise eventually reached is, we believe very strongly, an excellent one for higher education. Indeed, the bill has already won the support of the major higher education associations, including:

American Council on Education. National Association of State Universities

and Land Grant Colleges. American Association of Junior Colleges. American Association of State Colleges and

Universities. Association of American Universities. Association of Jesuit Colleges and Univer

sities. College Entrance Examination Board.

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 19675 Association of American Colleges. Our Committee, and the Labor and Pub

lic Welfare Committee of the Senate, have labored for two years to bring forth the measure that the House must now consider on an u p or down vote. You should know that u nder the rules, no amendments to the bill are possible.

It is our considered opinion that if the House does not pass this bill, the prospects of major new higher education programs being approved by Congress within the next few years will be very slight.

We have enclosed a brief fact sheet outlining t he major education provisions of the conference report.

Please be assured that we intend to do everything we can to see that the bill is approved and its many benefits made available n ow to the colleges and universities of our country and the students who attend them. We hope we shall have your support.

Sincerely, CARL D. PERKINS,

Chairman. JOHN BRADEMAS,

Conferee. ALBERT H. QUIE,

Ranking Minority Member. JOHN DELLENBACK,

Conferee.

ASSOCIATION OF JESUIT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES,

Washington, D.C., May 31, 1972. DEAR COLLEAGUE: The Association of

Jesuit Colleges and Universities has reluctantly decided that it cannot endorse the Conference Report on the proposed higher education bill. S. 659. The members of this Association feel strongly that the anti-busing provisions added to the original bill have no place in legislation affecting the future of our colleges and universities.

In addition, the Association ls grieved that many needs and wishes of our institutions and associations were ignored and deleted in the Conference, particularly in the matter of direct institutional aid. The small and middle-sized private college receives small comfort from this particular program as offered ln the Conference Report. It hopes that such actions do not augur a trend for future legislation.

Further, the Association remains convinced that there is little promise of equity in the future for students from middleincome America. It is also clear that there is no guarantee in S. 659 that the "national entitlement" promised to students from lowincome families will soon be sufficiently funded to provide all eligible students with support.

Finally, there has been no planning for or evaluation of the effect that the amounts of discretionary funds provided the omce of Education and HEW would have upon the present structure of higher education.

Rev. JoHN A. FITTERER, S.J., Mr. JOSEPH KANE.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, D.C., June 2, 1972.

DEAR PRESIDENT: We are writing to followup our earlier letter to you of May 31, 1972 concerning the education conference report on which the House of Representatives will vote next Thursday, June 8.

As you know, our letter listed the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities as among the several associations supporting the bill. We have, however, subsequently been advised that the Association has "reluctantly decided" t hat it cannot endorse the bill.

We na.t ura.lly regret this decision a.nd we want you to know we are taking steps to dispel any misunderstanding about the position of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities that our letter may have created.

We feel compelled, however, to advise you that, a t the time our let ter w.:i.s malled, we


listed t he Associa t ion in support of t he bill be:::::i.use of a prior assurance to that effect by the Association's Washington representative.

But beyond this matter, we write to express our concern that a letter of May 31, 1972, signed by officers of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, is in serious error on several points which appear to be the basis of the Association's decision to oppose the bill.

( 1) It is not accurate to describe the institutional aid provision as providing "small coinfort" to "the small and middle-sized private college".

The fact is the conference report not only provides substantial institutional aid to small and middle-sized private colleges, but actually provides 4.7% more of the total institutional aid funds for such institutions than would the so-called "capitation" approach.

Since there is essentially no difference in the total sum of money (approximately $1 billion) necessary to fund either formula, it is clearly not accurate to suggest that small and middle-sized private institutions will lose something as a result of the conference report. Indeed, they will gain I

(2) The Association's May 31, 1972 statement with respect to the student aid provision in S. 659 is also, unfortunately, not accurate.

The new basic grant program or "national entitlement" ls not limited to students from low income families but is-and was specifically designed to be-open to students from both low and middle income families.

The conference report, moreover, preserves participation by middle income students in this program, regardless of the level at which it is funded

The conference report does, indeed, provide that basic grants may not be paid until other student aid programs are funded at given levels. This provision was, however, included at the strong urging of associations of private institutions, including the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.

With respect to the inclusion in this bill of anti-busing provisions, we commend to your attention the enclosed editorials from the New York Times and Washington Post.

As we said in our letter of May 31, we believe the conference report marks "the most signifl.cant advance in Federal support for higher education since passage of the Land Grant College Act over a century ago." We reiterate further our view, notwithstanding reports to the contrary, that if the House does not pass this bill, the prospects of major new higher education programs being approved by Congress within the next few years wlll be very slight.

We therefore, intend to do everything we can to secure its passage now in order that its benefits might be made available now. We sincerely hope that the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities will reconsider its position and join us in this effort.

Sincerely, CARL PERKINS,

Chairman. ALBERT H. QUIE,

Ranking Minority Member. JOHN BRADEMAS,

Conferee. JOHN DELLENBACK,

aonferee.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT TAX MUSEUMS AND LIBRARIES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC (Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-

mission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill, H.R. 15337, to exempt privately endowed museums and libraries

open to the public from the 4 percent Federal tax placed on foundations by the Tax Reform Act of 1969.

There are a number of very fine museums and libraries serving the public in our country that are supported by private endowments. Presently, many of these institutions are being classified for tax purposes by the Internal Revenue Service as "public organizations" because of the services they provide the public; therefore they are not subject to the 4 percent tax on foundations. In April 1971, however, the ms issued regulations that proposed to establish a minimum :floor of 10 percent of public financial support-as a percentage of total income-for a private institution to qualify as a public organization. Effectively this would subject some of our finest museums and libraries to the 4-percent tax.

An example of such privately endowed institutions is found in New York Citythe Frick Collection which is renowned for its collection of paintings, sculpture, and decorative arts and is open to the general public. Admission is free to the gallery as well as its weekly lectures and numerous chamber music concerts. This museum is a great cultural resource to New York City-indeed to the countryand is providing a service to the public at no cost to the city or the Federal Government.

A tax on the Frick or any other museum or library serving the public is not in the public interest. The revenue of the 4 percent tax is negligible to the .Federal Government-the tax was enacted not for revenue but auditing purposes-and yet the cost of the tax to the community is incalculable. The tax will only mean a cutback in services, an admission charge, a solicitation of funds to pay the tax, or a city or Federal grant for its support-or a combination of all four.

Mr. Speaker, this country needs museums like the Frick Collection, the Gardner Museum in Boston, the Winterthur Museum in Delaware, and the Kimball Art Foundation in Texas, to name but a few. In a time of mounting operating costs, these museums, like all museums, are hard pressed to meet their current expenses. We should not jeopardize their ability to serve the public by imposing a tax on them.

In placing a 4 percent tax on foundations in 1969 the Congress did not limit the Internal Revenue Service's authority to continue to classify institutions like the Frick as public organizations free from taxation. Therefore, today I am writing to IRS Commissioner Johnnie Walters urging that the Service abandon the proposed 10 percent public financial support test and instead retain its current :flexibility in considering other f actors, such as public service and other forms of public support, in classifying a privately endowed museum or library. In the event that ms imposes a minimum 10 percent public support requirement for public organization eligibility, enactment of my bill would simply exempt all privately endowed museums and libraries providing services directly to the public from the 4 percent tax.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I should like to insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

my letter to Commissioner Walters.

19676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 197'2 WASHINGTON, D.C., June 5, 1972.

Hon. JOHNNIE WALTERS, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service,

Washington, D.O. DEAR COMMISSIONER: I a.m writing to you

with regard to the proposed regulations, first issued in April 1971 but yet to be finalized, to set a. 10% floor of public fina.ncla.l support in addition to the so-called "facts and circumstances" test for qualification as a. public organization under section 170(b) (1) (A) (vi). My own view is that the implementation of such a. mechanical test in effectively determining what organizations will have to pay the 4% tax on foundations will not serve the public good. This will be particularly so in those cases in which the 10% test excludes privately endowed museums and libraries open to the public from the public organization classification. While the income of these organizations comes from private endowments, their services a.re directed to the public and enjoyed by the community.

It is my understanding that the Service currently applies a. "facts and circumstances" test for qualification as a "publicly supported" organization. Such fiexib111ty has enabled some of our finest privately endowed museums as the Frick Collection in New York City, the Gardner Museum in Boston, the Wlnterthur Museum in Delaware, and the Kimball Art Foundation in Texas, to name but a few, to qualify as "public organizations" for tax purposes. The same is true for many privately endowed libraries. No matter how good their services and how wide their support in the community, however, it ls not likely that these institutions, because of their relatively small demands for public financial support, will be able to meet the 10% test. Thus, they would be subject to a 4% federal tax on their income.

These museums and libraries are using their resources in providing services to the public. To tax their income wm only serve to diminish the benefits they are able to offer the public. One such museum, the Frick Collection, is located in my congressional district. This museum, renowned throughout the world for its collection of paintings, sculpture, and the decorative arts, is open to the general public. The museum has never charged an admission fee to the galleries of the collection nor has it charged a fee for the lectures and concerts it presents. The Frick, like all museums, ls hard pressed to meet its current expenses.

A 4% tax on the lnvest.ment income of suoh orga.nizaitlons will ultimately be borne by the public-in a cutbs.ck in services, an admission charge, a solicita.tion of funds to pay the tax, or a city or federal grant for its support, or a combination of all four. Thus, a tax on museums and libraries serving iJhe public is not in the public interest.

I would urge that the service abandon the proposed 10 % public financial support test and instead retain the current flexlblllty it now has in considering other factors, such as public services and other forms of public support, in classifying a privately endowed museum or library.

Sincerely, EDWARD I. KOCH.

PRESIDENT NIXON'S TRIP TO MOSCOW

<Mr. MONAGAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Speaker, the verdict on Pr~sident Nixon's trip to Moscow must be a mixed one. Its greatest achievement was the demonstration that the superpowers could sit down together and talk about controlling nuclear weapons. At the same time, the manner in

which the Moscow agreements in many particulars permit preponderance to the Russians must give one pause. The results from bargaining on Southeast Asia and the Middle East have apparently been minuscule and with the reservation of the right to expand their fieets and heavy weapons, the Soviets indicate no abatement in their push for a worldwide presence. At the same time, their moderate response to the mining of Haiphong Harbor has shown that the desire to settle matters favorably in Europe and gain prestige at the bargaining table with the United States has thus far outweighed immediate claims of socialist fraternalism. No change is forecast in the character of the controlling Russian regime nor the operation of its economy. Here the claims of political conformity outweigh the opportunities in economic liberation.

It may be hoped that wide-ranging press conferences and considerations of future trade and increased contacts will have a liberalizing influence, but it must not be forgotten that such liberalization might carry the seeds of the dissolution of the present regime and its manner of control, and the ruling caste could not permit any such steps beyond the point of danger to itself.

The President should be complimented for efforts to encourage the moderates in the Kremlin. One must hope that the concessions to Soviet military expansion will be outweighed by the willingness of the Kremlin in the future to move further toward weapons control and reduction of its aggressive armament and expansion. There should be no euphoria about the modest gains achieved.

BANKS GEAR UP FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGN

<Mr. PATMAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is the political season and the commercial banks are gearing up for another massive effort to influence the elections.

The Banking Profession Political Action Committee-BankP AC-has moved it3 offices into the Washington area as part of this stepped-up campaign. BankPAC is currently collecting funds from banks all over the Nation with an announced goal of a half a million dollars. In addition to the efforts of BankPAC it is well known that a number of in~ dividual banks are also raising slush funds for the election.

In fact, this is admitted by the director of BankPAC, who is quoted in last Friday's edition of the American Banker as stating:

. . . Some of the larger banking institutions have been operating their own volun-teer political fund-raising campaigns over the years and are inclined to continue them.

Mr. Speaker, BankPAC's blatant activities in the 1970 campaign raised a lot of eyebrows around Washington and created headlines in some of the Nation's major newspapers. This did not bring any reform of the bankers' efforts to influence elections but it apparently

has brought about a new scheme to make this year's contributions supersecret.

Again, ref erring to Friday's edition of the American Banker, let me quote:

It seems reasonable . . . to expect that in view of the unfavorable publicity two years a.go, many of the BankPAC beneficiaries will request the checks be routed anonymously to them.

Mr. Speaker, I place in the RECORD a copy of the article with the headline "Bank.PAC Readies Election Drive, Hopes To Avoid 1970 Mistakes."

The articie follows: BANKPAC READIES ELECTION DRIVE; HOPES

To AVOID 1970 MISTAKES (By Joseph D. Hutnyan)

WASHINGTON .-BANKPAC ls preparing for its second general election campaign this year with high hopes of raising more money and a.voiding the mistakes that embarrassed the banking industry two years ago.

BANKPAC is short for the Banking Profession Political Action Committee. It is the political fund-raising apparatus for the banking industry, patterned after similar efforts sponsored by labor, thrift, medical and other special-interest gorups.

BANKPAC opened for business in the spring of 1970-a.nd almost closed the same year. Its contributions came under fire not only from the usual banking industry critics, but also from some of its friends.

A few candidates for Congress in 1970 actually returned BANKP AC checks after deciding that bankers' campaign contributions would hinder rather than help their chances of getting elected.

But BANKPAC has a new, professional look now. Earlier this year, BANKPAC opened a permanent office in nearby Arlington, with a full-time executive director, William A. Glassford, former lobbyist for United Air Lines.

Mr. Glassford has spent the last five months addressing banker meetings throughout the nation, trying to sell the BANKPAC concept. He plans to continue on the circuit during the summer.

BANKPAC has targeted a goal of $500,000 to be raised to contribute to House and Senate campaigns this year. It aimed for the same amount in 1970, but raised only half.

As of April 30, BANKPAC had a. mere $42,500 ln its kitty-some of this left over from the previous campaigns. But Mr. Glassford is not concerned as yet.

He said the experience of other political fund-raising projects is that the checks do not begin rolling in until mid- or late summer.

"Nobody gets too interested until after the primaries," he said in an interview.

Mr. Glassford also pointed out that under the BANKPAC structure, the voluntary contributions are collected locally before being funneled to Washington.

"There may be a lot of money sitting out there waiting to be shipped," he added. "The inclination of people is not to send It in piecemeal but to keep it until they get their quotas.

Mr. Glassford emphasized that this year, BANKPAC will follow a strict set of rules in channeling funds to favored candidates.

First, BANKPAC's executive committee will decide which candidates it would like to help. Second, ea.ch candidate wlll be approached and asked whether he would like a. BANKP AC contribution, and how he would like the payments made.

Consulting the candidate before malling the check is intended to prevent a mistake which resulted in unfavorable BANKPAC headlines two years ago.

Some candidates for Congress in 1970 did not know they were receiving C9,mpaign contributions from the banking industry until they read their names in newspaper stories

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19677 based on BANKPAC reports which the law requires to be filed with Congress.

Several were members of the House and Senate banking commission which at that time were considering the heavily lobbied bill to tighten government regulation of holding companies with one bank.

These candidates were not happy with newspaper headlines reporting they were getting money from the banking industry at such a sensitive time. One or two angrily returned their BANKPAC checks.

Mr. Glassford also said that BANKPAC was more likely this year to route checks through Republican and Democratic party campaign committees rather than sending them directly to the candidates.

This is a device used by many lobbies to disguise the source of campaign contributions-a procedure that is still legal under the new law which this year tightened somewhat reporting of financial gifts to political candidates.

It works this way: A fund-raising organization decides that

it wants to contribute $2,000 to each of 10 Democratic candidates. Instead of sending checks separately to the candidates, the organization sends a single $20,000 check to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Along with the check, the fund-raising organization includes a list of the party's 10 candidates who are to be given the $2,000 disbursements. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee then sends the checks to the designated candidates.

When the fund-raising organization files its report with Congress, it shows only a $20,-000 payment to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Mr. Glassford stressed that the manner in which the payment is made will be decided by the candidate. It seems reasonable, however, to expect that, in view of the unfavorable publicity two years a.go, many of the BANKPAC beneficiaries will request the checks be routed anonymously to them through the national party organization.

The criticism of BANKPAC fund-raising efforts two years a.go caused some bankers to conclude that the banking industry was so politically vulnerable that it could not employ the same political fund-raising methods available to other special-interest groups.

Mr. Glassford was asked whether this feeling may be hindering BANKPAC fund-raising among bankers this year.

"This is hard to measure," he said. "There has been some hesitation, particularly from those getting into it for the first time. But, at the same time, the experience of two years ago has had an opposite effect. It has stiffened a few backs-people who say, 'We have as much right to get into this as anybody else.'"

A more difficult assignment, Mr. Glassford said, is convincing some bankers that they should be contributing to Congressional candidates located outside of their own areas.

He said in some cases, BANKPAC solicitors must deliver an orientation lecture on how Congress operates, with emphasis on the fact that a Congressman from a state thousands of miles a.way has much more influence over banking legislation than does the hometown Congressman.

"We have to convince bankers that the local Congressman may not be the person who can help them or hurt them." Mr. Glassford said.

"We try to explain how the Congressional committees system operates, emphasizing that the system is made up of specialists and that only a few fight for or against a given bill. Most depend on the people in committees to make these decisions on the technical issues. These are the guys that the bankers have to watch.''

Mr. Glassford said the fund-raising campaign this year had several new objectives. One of them is to increase the number of

contributions, not necessarily the size of the average check.

The $250,000 raised by BANKPAC during the 1970 Congressional elections came from slightly more than 8,000 contributions which averaged out to about $28 each.

He said the primary goal was to reach many more than the 8,000 who responded two years ago. The BANKPAC director said the fund-raising effort was aimed at 250,000 officers in the nation's commercial banks.

Mr. Glassford pointed out that if each gave only $2, BANKPAC would achieve its $500,000 quota for the current campaign.

He said based on the expenditures of other lobbies-both liberal e.nd conservative-he did not feel it was a good idea for BANKPAC to spend more than $500,000 in the 1972 campaign.

Mr. Glassford said that an expenditure over that a.moun.t could backfire on the industry which might be charged with injecting excessive amounts of money into the political races.

The BANKPAC director stressed in the interview, as he he.s in his speeches before bankers, that the contributions are not intended to buy votes for favorable banking legislation.

He said that some of the candidates who receive BANKPAC checks have not always voted in the past the way the industry would like.

For instance, he noted tha.t BANKPAC contributed $2,000 to the recent successful primary campaign of Sen. Edward W. Brooke, R., Mass., a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Mr. Brooke voted with Sen W1111am Proxmire, D., Wis., in a losing effort to pass a Fair Credit Reporting bill which the banking industry vehemently opposed.

"We're not trying to buy anybody," Mr. Glassford said. "All we ask is that he be honest, tough and willing to listen to the bankers' point of view. That's all you can a.sk."

The BANKPAC director said that the pattern of contributions so far suggests that the industry fund-raising effort is getting more support among the smaller banks.

"Most of those involved so far have been in the smaller banks," he added. "I don't think BANKPAC has yet established itself with the super-banks."

He said one reason for this could be that some of the larger banking institutions have been opera.ting their own volunteer political fund raising campaigns over the years, and are inclined to continue them.

OUTSTANDING JURIST SPEAKS OUT AGAINST LEGALIZED GAMBLING

<Mr. PATMAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, the spreading crisis of gambling is a menace for the entire Nation.

Often, those of us who speak out against this menace are criticized and I have been pictured as spreading "East Texas hillbilly morality" by daring to oppose schemes to raise public funds by tricking people into legalized gambling. But I am convinced that a substantial majority of the American people are against running our Government by lottery and a number of outstanding citizens are beginning to voice strong opinions against these ill-conceived concepts.

I was particularly pleased to receive a letter from Federal Judge Joe J. Fisher, chief judge for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I place in the RECORD a copy of Judge

Fisher's letter expressing his opposition to the efforts to legalize gambling across the Nation.

The letter follows: U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, Beaumont, Tex., May 18, 1972.

Hon. WRIGHT PATMAN, Member of Congress, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.a.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I thoroughly concur with your opinion expressed in your Weekly Letter of May 18th concerning the effect of gambling in our society, and I commend you for speaking out in opposition to legallzlng this activity.

It has always been a great irritation to me, because of the moral principle involved as well as being inconsistent, for the Federal Government to collect taxes for gambling permits and equipment in states in which gambling is prohibited. On this subject I might also mention that it is also definitely reprehensible and a reflection on our Government, from the standpoint of weakening the confidence of the people, to permit legalized gambling in only one state in the union.

Congressman Patman, we need more Statesmen like yourself, and I am proud to be serving as one Of the judges in your district.

With best wishes and warmest personal regards, I am,

Sincerely yours, JOE J. FISHER.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER <Mr. CASEY of Texas asked and was

given permission to extend his remarks at this Point in the RECORD and to include an article.)

Mr. CASEY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the term "technology transfer" is often used to describe what happens when a new development in one area is put to work solving problems in another. It is a natural and necessary thing as our scientists and engineers continue to work on the problems around us.

As useful as it is, technology transfer does not come automatically nor easily in many instances. People wurking in one discipline often do not understand the needs or even the vocabulary of others who desperately want their inputs. This is particularly true when the scientists and engineers venture into areas of social planning or health care.

Thus, I am pleased to call to the attention of the House an instance of where some of the people involved have taken a commendable initiative in trying to make a useful connection between scientific and engineering developments for space exploration and the urgent needs of medical scientists. I refer to a conference last February at Albuquerque, N. Mex. sponsored by the American College of Radiology with the cooperation and SUPPort of the Technology Utilization Otnce of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Radiologists, of all physicians, are particularly dependent upon the physical sciences to undergird their efforts to produce better diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to their tasks. Many of them were aware in general of some of the breakthroughs achieved by NASA and its contractors in instrumentation, image enhancement, and computer uses. But most radiologists lacked a handle for get-

19678 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 5, 1972 ting at the people and data they need to try the NASA developments in clinical situations. This conference was a bridgebuilding effort. An exhaustive transcript of the sessions will be produced for the use of the experts. However, I offer below an article and an editorial from the May 17 issue of the Medical Tribune, by Wallace K. Waterfall, which describes the conference and its main concerns. "SPACE SPINOFF" MAY BE A HELP TO RADIOL

OGISTS

ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX.-The nation's aerospace research program undoubtedly has produced equipment and ideas that can be "spun off" to the radiologist, an exploratory conference here agreed.

But, in many instances, the spinning ls going to require more money for further development, some conferees reported. And in certain aspects of radiology the physicians do not believe the space effort can make a contribution.

These and other summary observations emerged from a pioneering effort by the American College of Radiology and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to assay the broad possibllities of "technology transfer" from the laboratories of the space agency to the research and practice of the radiologist.

over a long holiday weekend about 35 investigators from each side of the technologic fence met in workshop, plenary, hallway, poolside, and three-meals-a-day sessions that ranged from highly structured report giving to the informal badinage of men with their foot on a brass rail. Unlike many scientific gatherings, the sessions here were composed of scientists who did not necessarily know almost exactly what another was going to say before he said it.

The potential admixture of space technology and radiology was explored in four areas-instrumentation, imaging, computers, and therapy--0n the basis of some developments that NASA already has used in automated and manned space exploration, and others that its scientists have been pursuing in the more direct hope of finding earthbound application.

PARTICLE BEAMS DISCUSSED

The therapy workshop centered all of its discussions on particle beams (neutrons, protons, alpha particles, pi mesons, and heavier ions), most forms of which are not yet available for cancer management. Within a few years, however, they Will be available from such spectacular machines as the Los Ala.mos Meson Physics Facility near here. In the meantime, the therapists agreed that they have a full schedule of research to do in beam localization and radiobiology before clinical trials can begin. And when therapeutic work does get under way, they said, it must be done in a limited number of programs "to get away from anecdotal experience." Top investigators, in nearly constant communication about their results, will first "have to establish the realities of the initial advance" before a proliferation of particlebeam facilities is justified, the summary report cautioned.

LITl'LE KNOWN ABOUT ULTRASOUND

New techniques with ultrasound were interesting to both the instrument and imaging participants, who at the same time ma.de the observation that very little is known about the biophysics of ultrasound. However, it appears to be relatively nondestructive and could "free us from radiation" as a physiologic probe, a summary report said. Biggest interest centered on work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which ls using a. low-power continuous tone to make a shad.owgraph of energy that passes through an object at any precise moment.

The image workshoppers, who found a !easibllity in satellite transmission, also

thought it would be worth while to develop holography for three-dimensional x-ray displays. And they urged radiologists to help evaluate developments in solid-state electro-1 uminescent storage panels that could replace film in some applications. Also asked were developments in microfocus x-ray tubes and monochromatic x-ray sources, both of which are being worked on by NASA.

The computer group discovered that a considerable amount of technology exists in NASA that radiologists could take advantage of if they only knew about it. To correct that omission the group recommended the establishment of a "visiting radiologist" program like the one that now gives other scientists three months or more at NASA installations to watch and help the space agency at work. Also recommended were cooperative projects between NASA and the American College of Radiology to do a feasibility study on image storage and retrieval and to design a "total radiologic information system" such as a large hospital might want to handle its data and planning in both diagnosis and therapy.

Some of the observations that emerged in the give-and-take of workshops were surprising to clinicians and technologists whose research has necessarily been limiited to small areas of big problems. For example, when it comes to remote transmission of radiographs, such as would be desirable in the expansion of medical services to rural areas, it may be more accurate and cheaper to send the data by way of satellite than try to use telephone lines. The reasons are that satellites offer wider bands for electromagnetic communication and, as one speaker pointed out, are "getting to be more dependable than the phone service in the boondocks."

COMPUTERS TRICKY WITH IMAGES

But computer technology, which already has found considerable application in radiology (MEDICAL TRIBUNE, January 26), ls just as tricky for NASA to use when it comes to storing and retrieving images as it is for anyone else. A space agency contract scientist acknowledged that NASA has had its problems with computer handling of ima.ges and is now in the throes of a big improvement effort demanded by the glut of multispectral photographs expected from the first Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS), which ls supposed to help survey mundane matters ranging from corn blight to water pollution.

By the time the workshops were over, however, a sizable list of recommendations had been assembled for presentation to the plenary body and its cocha.irmen, Dr. Robert D. Moseley, Jr., of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and Dr. Louis B. Arnoldi, director of NASA's Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health Division, Washington, D.C.

In instrumentation., the conferees found no particular role for NASA now in either patient-handling equipment or devices to inject contra.st media. But they did see consider81ble potential in the various NASA research projects that have to do with catheters-heparin coatings for anti-thrombogenesis, miniaturized transducers that could be incorporated in a tip to measure blood flow, pressure, and acoustic signals all at once, and an endoscopic device for visualization of vessel walls.

NASA AND MEDICINE

So far as we know, when blood pressure readings are taken 1n a space capsule on its way to the moon, a sphygmomanometer is inflated. on the a.rm of an astronaut by a comrade and the Korotkoff sounds are auscultated. Use of this relatively primitive technique within the confines of the most sophisticated electronic and mechanical marvel produced by man illustrates the disparity between the achievements of the Na-

tional Aeronautic and Space Administration in bursting the bonds of earth's gravity and the promised spinoffs in other fields, particularly in the area. of the medical sciences.

It is true that medicine has aways been a borrower and has never exceeded the developments in the basic sciences, such as physics and chemistry, but has depended on prior discoveries within these disciplines. The medicine of any era ls no better than the state of the sciences of that age and usually lags behind. How long the lag lasts depends on the interests of biophysicists and biochemists and cross-fertilization, which more commonly ls unidirectional, from the nonbiologic to biologic spheres.

The pioneering effort by the American College o'f Radiology and NASA as reported in this issue of MEDICAL TRIBUNE (see page 1) to look into the potentials of "technologic transfer" from the ''laboratories and minds of the space agency to the research and practice of the radiologist" is of enormous interest. What the radiologists and the space agency are seeking, in effect, ls to eliminate or reduce the lag in time of medical application of NASA scientific discoveries and advances.

According to the report, four areas were explored by 35 radiologists and 35 NASA investigators: instrumentation, imaging, computers, and therapy. It is significant that those looking into computer developments "discovered that a considerable amount of technology exists in NASA that radiologists could take advantage of if they only knew about lt." The recommendation that a "visiting radiologist" program be instituted at NASA ls obviously a useful concept.

So far as the field of medicine is concerned, there should be more than a "visiting radiologist" program going on at NASA. Without information in depth it is difilcult to visualize just which subdivisions of medical science should be represented at NASA, but surely more than benefits to radiology are possible.

It seems to us that this ls precisely the sort of problem that the newly constituted national Institute of Medicine, a subclivlsion of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, ought to address itself to. Which of the medical disciplines ought to be in close communication with NASA? What advances can be utilized in the various fields of medicine? What medical problems, as such, should be directed to the attention of NASA scientists?

Cross-fertilization should be bidirectional, not undirectional. Who knows, perhaps a device can be constructed that, applied over the brachia.I artery, can supply systolic and diastolic pressure readings without the intervention of a stethoscope.

THE HIGHER EDUCATION BilL <Mr. PERKINS asked and was given

permission to extend bis remarks at this point in the Record and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, during the last few weeks, the Committee on Education and Labor has received hundreds of letters and telegrams with regard to the conference report on S. 659. Many of the letters we have received are in response to a letter I mailed to all higher education institutions containing a fact sheet on the higher education bill, and asking for the comments of college presidents and other administrators.

Many of the subsequent responses to my letter have been most detailed in their analysis. I should like to share with my colleagues today an analysis we have of the more than 300 letters and telegrams we have received. I can report to

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19679 you that 88 percent of the responses have been favorable. Let me begin by sharing with my colleagues the letter I received from the Association of American Universities. William C. Friday, president of the University of North Carolina, on behalf of the Association wrote:

On behalf of the 46 universities which are members of the Association of American Universities, I want to thank you for your efforts toward producing a higher education bill which would provide substantial programs of much-needed a.id to higher education.

On the basis of the fact that a majority of this association's individual members have expressed support for the bill, the Association of American Universities endorses passage of the Education Amendments of 1972 as reported out by your conference committee. While many members have serious reservations about the stringent anti-busing provisions included in the bill, most are actively and publicly supporting the compromise education proposals. The attached letters and telegrams provide a. fair sample of their views. In the judgment of these presidents the proposed programs of student aid and the initial steps toward general federal institutional support represent signUicant advances. They also support the wide range of other higher education provisions embodied in the bill, while recognizing that the scope and complexity of the measure wm necessitate amendments as experience is accumulated.

The attached letters and telegrams to which President Friday refers are from institutions in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, California, New Jersey, and Louisiana.

John E. Corbally, Jr., president of the University of Illinois, commented on the fandmark implications of the legislation and advised-

The approaching vote on the omnibus higher education bill is of crucial importance to the University of Illinois and to all similar institutions in the United States, public and private.

The presidents of Vincennes, Purdue, Ball State, Indiana State, and Indiana University signed a telegram advising that the present conference committee report will provide "essential support of the higher education needs of Indiana and the Nation."

Novice G. Fawcett, president of Ohio State University, wrote:

The hopes of many Ohio young people will be riding on the House vote on S . 659. The hopes of all Ohio higher education institutions for significant financial assistance are also at stake. And for some of our smaller private colleges in Ohio, the passage of S. 659 may well mean survival.

Dr. John R. Hubbard, president of the University of Southern California, states that--

With all the necessities for compromise, we think this is an excellent bill that merits the support of us all.

And President Longenecker of Tulane University, commented:

The Con'ference Committee ironed out the questions at issue to a considerable degree and, in our judgment, this legislation now authorizes both the continuation of proven programs and the establishment of promising new approaches to the support of both individuals and institutions.

The legislation has been referred to as one of the most important pieces of legis-

latlon relating the Federal Government to the institutions of higher education. I believe that it will be proven in the future to be just that.

Turning now to the responses to my letter asking college presidents to give me their reactions, Kingman Brewster, president of Yale, wrote:

I am very enthusiastic about the higher education provisions of the bill. The busing rider bothers me, but I am not qualified to judge how it appears in the light of alternatives. However I did want you to know my view that the provisions relating to student and institutional support would go a long way toward helping all universities Without imposing a heavy hand of uniformity on higher education. Best of all, the bill Will mean real help to the students-and their parents-who need it most, while still allowlng them to choose the institutions they most want to attend.

Edwin L. Skiles, president of HardinSimmons University in Texas commented:

In my opinion, if the amendments stated in your report become law and are fully funded, a bright new day will come in higher education. It will allow no student to be turned away for lack of .financial resources. It will give the institutions which handle the task of higher education a broad financial base and will sustain a. dual system of education Within our country. It wm also give the financial support needed to raise the academic standards required by a maturing nation which must advance or decay. This is a bill which recognlzes the needs of higher education and applies the greatest amount of funds to the area of the greatest need.

The alternative to such a bill is very bleak indeed. Private schools are closing while state supported schools take up the slack in some measure at a much higher ratio of cost to the taxpayer. The broad base of academic fiexlbllity afforded by private institutions is the very foundation of our democracy. Our way of life would be in jeopardy if we were to continue the present erosion of private education because of lack of adequate financing.

I believe that your conference committee has taken the best of the House and Senate bills and reduced them to a very workable bill which can be justifiably funded.

Henry King Stanford, president of the University of Miami, wired:

The University of Miami, an institution private and independent in character and international 1n scope, endorses with reservations the final conference committee version of the Higher Education Bill of 1972. We are both troubled and disappointed that the irrelevant issue of busing ls attended in this bill, for we are convinced that singular attention to the needs of both college students and institutions of higher education is mandated in this time of financial crisis. But we underscore our support for the continuance and expansion of Federal commitments to needy students toward the end of equal access through higher education for all those who can benefit from it. Further, we endorse the establishment of the principle of direct Federal aid to institutions as a dimension critical to the fiscal salvation of many. We regret that full funding of all programs ls not now assured, for the attainment of no less a goal than this 1s required if higher education is to continue to realize its full potential for leadership in meeting the needs of society. We offer both our gratitude and our compliments to the members of the conference committee for their devoted efforts in behalf of the needs of higher education.

One of president Stanford's colleagues from Florida, Thomas W. Fryer, Jr.,

president of the Florida Association of Community Colleges, endorses the conference report with the following comments:

This extremely important legislation will be of immense benefit to all higher education in this country, including Florida's 28 community colleges.

Let me share with you three brief comments I have received from institutions in Massachusetts:

We support S659 the Higher Education Act. WILBERT E. LOCKLIN,

President, Springfield College, Springfield, Mass.

ASSUMPTION COLLEGE,

Worcester, Mass. We urge your support in the passing of

the Higher Education Act bill, S659. We also hope that you Will lend your infiuence and support to the adequate funding of this bill.

Thank you for your continued interest in higher education.

Sincerely, Very Rev. WILFRED J. DUFAULT A.A.,

Acting President.

MOUNT !DA JUNIOR COLLEGE, Newton, Mass.

Form of Higher Education Bill is excellent. However, the need is excessive. Bill Will have to be funded almost in total to avert a national disaster for students and institutions.

F. ROY CARLSON,

President.

Many of the letters I have received are from student :financial aid officers. Clare Davies, director of :financial aid at Newark State College in New Jersey, stated:

We are pleased that the Conference Committee has supported the principles of basic grants to students and institutional aid as well as continuation of the three major student aid programs. We urge continued Congressional effort to pass this bill, and to support the appropriations that must be approved to make it effective. The combination of rising college costs and inadequate aid funds, especially in the initial EOG program, Will make next year and subsequent yea.rs very difficult without increased funding, The bill has raised the hopes of students that increased aid will become available to them. Please continue to do all you can to see that these hopes are realized.

C. Dean Dalton, director of student :financial aid at Georgia State University, had similar comments as follows:

As an experienced financial aid officer, my reaction to the amendments is that these should make the final bill, even with the inevitable compromises, a landmark in the history of Federal Support for Higher Education and our students.

I particularly want to commend the Committee for the amendment requiring the educational institutions to recommend the amount of a subsidized loan to the lender. The creation of a Student Loan Marketing Association should also have a benefiical impact on the avalla.bllity of such loans.

May I take this opportunity to thank the Committee members; not only as a. student financial aid administrator, but also as a citizen and taxpayer; for their labors in this field. It appears that the final bill should be a long step down the road to our mutual goal of removing economic barriers to the opportunity for post secondary education so that every qualified young person will have the education he wants and can absorb.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue to analyze and tabulate the many letters we are receiving, I will keep my colleagues advised.

19680 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE June 5, 1972 PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT

<Mr. MIKVA asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.)

Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that my absence on Thursday caused me to miss seven rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

"Aye" on rollcall No. 182, final passage of the Public Broadcasting Act, H.R. 13918;

"No" on rollcall No. 177, amending H.R. 13918 to limit salaries paid by public broadcasting stations;

"No" on rollcall 178, amending H.R. 13918 to reduce amount of fiscal year 1973 authorization and to authorize funds for only 1 year;

"No" on roll call No. 179, amending H.R. 13918 to prohibit public broadcasting stations from conducting opinion polls;

"No" on rollcalls Nos. 180 and 181, amending H.R. 13918 to condition fiscal year 1973 authorization on GAO audit; and

"Aye" on rollcall No. 183, final passage of House Resolution 965, travel funds for Education and Labor Committee.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE C-5 FROM ONE WHO OPERATES IT

<Mr. PRICE of Illinois asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the commander of the Air Force's Military Airlift Command, Gen. Jack J. Catton, recently spoke to a group of aviation writers in New York concerning the accomplishments of Lockheed's C-5 Galaxy. General Catton said that with a weapon system so complex, so costly, so controversial and so vitally a part of this Nation's strategy that it might be a good idea to hear from the man who operates them for the people of the United States. I agree with his logic completely. No one is in a better position to comment on the operation of this machine than he is. What he said about the airplane, what it has done what it does in Southeast Asia impressed me and I know it will impress you, therefore, I would like to read it into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

REMARKS BY GENERAL JACK J. CA'ITON

About 30 years ago, when the American: public, bombarded on all sides by conflicting advertising claims, was considering buying an expensive automobile, they were encouraged to "ask the man who owns one." The inferen:ce was that no one knew better than the operator-the man who used the machine, day-in and day-out-if it did the job. We have a similar circumstance today. The American people have purchased this C-5 machine and have been told a great deal about it. There is a lot of con!usion-many d11f erent opinions, pro and con!-and it's hard for the public to separate fact from fiction concerning the C-5. So perhaps that 1s a good time to ask the man who owns them-or at least operates them for the Air Force and the Department of Defense-for the American public.

Before I give you that opportunity to "ask the operator," I want you to all realize the C-5 was developed to do a particular job in support of this n·ations• military strategy,

I mention this simply because that statement of fact gives us some key ideas to consider-ideas such as the C-5 itself-its procurement--the job it does-the strategy it supports.

First, the airplane. The C-5 is unique. I•m sure you're all impressed with its size. I suppose you've already heard the obvious comparisons-sit it on a football field with its tall on the goal line and its nose is inside the other twenty-its wings are way beyond both benches. Or, its tall is six stories high.

However, you might not know that we're operating the airplane daily at over 712,000 pounds gross weight--with a payload of 175,-000 pounds. When we have to-and the pa.st few weeks we've had to-we go to 728,000, with just under 200,000 pounds of payload. The airplane gives us great capabllityunique to the mil1tary needs we have.

For example, you've heard a lot about our gear problems-we have a complicated gear system-but it allows us to decouple our fleet from the JFK-type, sophisticated air terminals which might not be avallable when and where we need them-permits very rapid on- and off-loading.

We cruise at .767 MACH-which is moving out--but still somewhat slower than our civilian counterparts. But we traded off those few knots of speed for the shorter on-load/ off-load times. To get the drive-on/drive-off capabil1ty which helps make this a combat airplane, we had to go to the high lift rather than the high speed position on the win'gbut shortened ground times are important to us in a. combat situation.

Two weeks ago, the C-5s recorded ground times of 32, 30 and 27 minutes at DaNang. You know what they were carrying? Three M-41 tanks-and those times I gave you were from touchdown: to takeoff. There-on the ground-when we are vulnerable and the cargo is vulnerable--is where and when we need the speed most--a design factor peculiar to our basic role of combat a.irlift.

The fact that we're carrying vehicles on those misions sets this airplane apart from our commercial counterparts whose aircraft are stressed for palletized loads. We have the ability to airdrop from this aircraft. Although we've never used that particular strategy in combat--we have tested \it with some very plausible scenarios-like Freedom Vault where we flew troops and equipment from stateside bases to Korea and airdropped them. With the current pressure toward more stateside basing of our forces, the ability to rapidly move the troops from home to battlefield becomes increasingly important-whether they be airdropped or air landed in the assault.

I could go on and on with the unique features of the aircraft, but I hope you understand-the primary need this airplane was designed to meet is the outsized cargo requirements-and we can meet them. We can move every piece of equipment in an Army infantry division in this airplanerlght up to the M-60, main battle tank-and we can maintain combat integrity by ta.king the personnel associated right along with the equipment. This airplane is one of a kind-nothing in the air can match it--and, teamed with the C-141, we can deliver balanced integral air and ground fighting forces anywhere in the world they are needed.

Not too long ago, when I spoke to one of our professional military schools, I was asked whether in hindsight I'd rather have had the 747 freighter, I had to answer "no," just because of the features I just mentioned.

The 747 doesn't have the dr1ve-on/drive-o1f capability. It needs sophisticated runways and special handling equipment, whlle the C-5 is truck-bed high to begin with and can kneel. The 747 can't airdrop-it can't lift anything the C-141 can't. What it all boils down to is-the C-5 is different from every other kind of aircraft--because it was designed to do a particular m111tary job. It

required-and has-characteristics that no civil carrier would find a market for. And that brings me back to my framework sta.tement--"The C-5 was developed for a special job in support of this nation's military strategy."

Having talked about the airplane itself, let me address its acqu.lBition just briefly. We're all aware of the many procurement problems which have been aired relative to the 0-0. But it's been more than seven years since the Department of Defense chose the "total package procurement" method of doing business for this aircraft. Sttll we hea.r about cost overruns-the financial position of the prime contractor-mismanagement of contracts-the Lockheed loan guarantee. How or why these problems exist has a multitude of answers---many of which depend upon one's point of view-much of it is Monday-morning quarterbacking.

Let me emphasize, however, that today I'm talking as an operator-and none of these problems associated with the C-5 can overshadow the true accomplishments of performance and fiexib111ty offered by this weapons system.

Too often, the negative aspects of the aircraft's performance are stressed. I think this is because one of the least understood facts of the C-5 is that it was purchased under a concurrent testing and production concept. Many of the alleged deficiencies of the C-5 are a result of operational aircraft being delivered while development testing was stlll in progress. Two years ago, when we received our first operational aircraft, testing was barely 50 percent complete. Today, testing is roughly 95 percent complete. The contractor has completed all development tests and is continuing the fatigue test which wm determine aircraft service life.

We're finding some problems such as structural diffi.culties. You're all familiar with the pylon problem-well, that's fixed. We'd had some problems with kneeling-and we're fixing them. We may well expect to have other problems too-for, after all, the C-5 is a substantial jump in the state of the art. And, when we have them, we'll fix them.

About one year of Air Force tests remain for the avionics systems and, as these systems become qualified, we-the operatorswm perform small scale suitab111ty tests.

In spite of the problems, I hope you understand we have-e.nd wlll continue-to perform the mission, right along with our testing. It simply means that sometimes the crews must operate certain systems manually rather than being able to rely on automatic features.

But one thing all this testing has proventhe C-5 wm fulfill the strategic airlift mission for which it was designed-that is, the rapid deployment of outsized Army equipment and the troops necessary to operate that equipment.

So, the ultimate yardstick is not in the first part of our basic statement--"the C-5 was developed"-but. rather, in the second part-"for a particular job in support of this nation's military strategy." And, the airplane is doing the job all over the world.

Last March, one of the airplanes lifted three large helicopters to Vietnam and returned with three other battle-damaged ones in a 72-hour round trip. Because the C-5 makes disassembly unnecessary, the choppers were flying missions in Vietnam within 10 hours of arrival. It used to take three C-133s, eight days and an extensive assembly time to get them in the air. In a single mission, one C-5 delivered 22 of the Army's light observation helicopters.

Elsewhere, the Republic of China had an urgent need for a turbine generator located in England. Surface transportation wasn't responsive enough. This was the only airplane in the world that could do the joband the C-5 did it at the request of the State Department in 30 hours--London to Taiwan.

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 19681 We used three C-5s to transport an air

borne helicopter mine-sweeping unit from Norfolk to the Sixth Fleet. That entailed moving four CH-53 choppers, mine-sweeping devices and the people to use them.

One of our aircraft picked up a complete RAPCON, mobile radar approach control unit, in California. and delivered it to Tempelhof Airport, West Berlin. Before the C- 5, we would have needed two airplanes and considerable disassembly.

Frequently, we fly cargo too large for other aircraft. We h ave even flown cargo t oo large for other modes of transportation. We hauled a Navy sonar dome from Akron, Ohio, to California., because it was too large for truck or rail transport and th e boat trip down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers could h a ve taken two months, as well as posing road closing problems.

So, it's been doing a great job for the Department of Defense in carrying the outsized cargo-but its primary m ission is combat airlift. You can believe it's been tested ha.rd on that point in the last month-and has performed in a superior manner. When the Communist offensive began early last month, the C-5 was called on to do the job it was designed to do-provide direct support to the military forces. In less than six weeks, we have flown over one hundred C-5 missions into the war zone-and we're doing what we were expected to do. For the most part, we're delivering outsized, heavy equipment that only the C-5 can carry.

For example, C-5s have moved two M-48 battle tanks into South Vietnam-that's 96 tons of tanks, plus associated gear, in each airplane. I mentioned the super off-load times of the birds carrying the slightly smaller M-41 medium tanks.

Add to those several hundred tons of mixed loads of trucks, artillery pieces, vans and the ever present choppers-and you have some idea of the magnitude of the job we're doing with this airplane.

But let me superimpose another task on the already sizeable operation I just described. Our plans call for us to be able to deploy our land and air forces rapidly throughout the world. In the past, we have exercised and worked hard to achieve a high level of proficiency gettin g ready to respond. We had a chance to show our stuff when the decision was made to move the 49th Tactical Fighter Wing from Holloman AFB, New Mexico, to Takhli, Thailand-four fighter squadrons plus a SAC tanker squadron. We put together the team-the C-5 and the C-141-and the commercial carriers who handle most of our passenger requirementsand in nine days we had moved over 4,000 tons-an entire wing of people and equipment from the States to Southeast Asia.

In contrast--remember Korea in 1951-when it took 56 days to get the first ground forces from the United States into the conflict. Even today, a shipload of tanks has a steaming time from our West Coast to Vietnam in excess of 25 days-and that is port to port, not Army camp to battlefield.

While the magnitude of this entire Southeast Asia operation is starting to sink in, let me tell you we kept our commitment s to our other forces around the world. The C-5 has a role in that, too-albeit a minor one.

So, the airplane has been doing the kind of job lt was procured to do-lt's doing it today, not some time in the future. To understand fully just what this means to our nation, not only in Southeast Asia, but all over the world, ts to understand what the airplane means for strategic moblllty-a.nd what strategic moblllty means for national policy and national security.

President Nixon provides us with a starting point. You may recall his words before Congress la.st September when he spoke to the challenges of peace which need to be addressed as the challenges of war a.re diminishing. No question as to how important our alrll!t force ls to the successful meeting

of the challenges of war, that's what I've been telling you about.

The President indicates the chips a.re also down in a different way-the challenge of peace. We, in the mllitary, have the same responsibillty-stay geared for the possible contingency. That's our responsibility. But our national leadership also has a responsibility-to take a deep look at our nation's priorities--where the nation ts heading-the best way to get there.

We understand the reordering of prioritie&--the distribution of our national resource&--more to the solution of domestic problems--less to defense. Our challenge is great. We must enhance the quality, responsiveness and the power of the military forces we retain. The evolving military strategy places great dependence upon mobility~the right kind of mobility-rapid, reliable, responsive.

At this point, let me remind you that weAmerica.n cltizens--have invested in military aircraft required to do only the airlift tasks our commercial carriers cannot practicably perform. They-who comprise the unmatched American civil air industry-are our partners in peace and war through the Civil Reserve Air Fleet--CRAF. Our relationship makes efficient and effective use of a national resource.

Our flexible response strategy would not be practical if it were necessary to station large garrisons of American fighting forces all over the world. Strategic airlift can give us the means to find the best mix of overseas garrisons--prepositioning-and mobility, enabling us to reduce our overseas forces to a level we can better support--and still meet our commitments. Whereas, in the past, airlift forces were geared to support policy and strategy already in effect, our partnership now provides an airlift capability that gives our planners and strategists new optionsoptions that can have a growing influence on the development of policy and strategy.

So, you can see-and, even more important, a potential adversary can see-how we are able to exploit the speed and reliabllity of airlift to reduce the national investment in defense-and still strike faster-hit harderand keep the peace through balanced deterrence. We couldn't do this without the C-5. That makes it quite a ma.chine. If you don't believe it, ask the man who owns one I

LEA VE OF ABSENCE (The following Members Cat the re

quest of Mr. GERALD R. FORD): ) Mr. ESHLEMAN, for today and the bal

ance of the week, on account of continued recuperation.

Mr. ROBINSON of Virginia, for an indefinite period, on account of illness.

Mr. CAMP, from June 1 for an indefinite period, on account of official business.

Mr. MCCLORY, for today through June 15, on account of official business.

Mr. GUDE, for the week of June 5. on account of official business. ·

Mr. HALPERN, for today through June 17, on account of official business.

Mr. PRICE of Texas, for June 7 and 8, on account of official business.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. BOGGS) : )

Mr. SHIPLEY, for today, on account of official business.

Mr. McMILLAN, for today, on account of official business.

Mr. PEPPER, for today, on account of official business.

Mr. HELSTOSKI, for today, on account of official business.

Mr. ROYBAL <at the request of Mr. TEAGUE of Texas), for June 5, 6, and 7, on account of official business.

Mr. HAGAN <at the request of Mr. STEED), for today, on account of official business.

Mr. BURTON (at the request of Mr. McFALL), for today, on account of official business.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED By unanimous consent, permission to

address the House, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to:

CThe following Members Cat the request of Mr. FRENZEL) to address the House and to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter:)

Mr. CONTE, for 10 minutes, today. (The following Members <at the re

quest of Mr. DENHOLM) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)

Mr. AsPIN, for 20 minutes, today. Mrs. AazuG, for 10 minutes, today. Mr. GONZALEZ, for 10 minutes, today. Mr. FuQUA, for 10 minutes, today. Mr. MATSUNAGA, for 60 minutes,

June 29. Mr. MILLER of California, for 60 min

utes, June 29. Mr. HOLIFIELD, for 60 minutes, June 29.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission to revise and extend remarks was granted to:

Mr. GAYDOS during his 1-minute speech, notwithstanding it exceeds two pages of the printed RECORD and estimated by the Public Printer to cost $350.

(The following Members (at the request of Mr. FRENZEL) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. HORTON in two instances. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. SCHERLE in 11 instances. Mr. DERWINSKI in three instances. Mr. HOSMER in three instances. Mr. HALL in two instances. Mr. WYMAN in two instances. Mr. BRAY in three instances. Mr. CRANE in five instances. Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. PELLY. Mr. COLLINS of Texas in two instances. (The following Members Cat the re-

quest of Mr. DENHOLM) and to include extraneous material: )

Mr. MATSUNAGA in 10 instances. Mr. BEGICH in three instances. Mr. MA.zzoLI. Mr. Evrns of Tennessee in four in-

stances. Mr. GONZALEZ in three instances. Mr. ROGERS in five instances. Mr. RARICK in 10 instances. Mr. PucmSKI in six instances. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. PREYER of North Carolina. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. STOKES in three instances. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. CABELL. Mr. HUNGATE in two instances. Mr. MONAGAN in two instances.

19682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 5, 197.~

Mr. RYAN in two instances. Mr. Nix in two instances. Mr. ABOUREZK in two instances. Mr. BOLLING in two instances. Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. ANNUNZIO in two instances. Mr. TEAGUE of Texas in six instances. Mr. REES. Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. RODINO in two instances. Mr. DINGELL in three instances. Mr. MORGAN in two instances.

BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Mr. HAYS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee did on June 2, 1972, present to the President, for his approval, a bill of the House of the following title:

H.R. 13150. An act to provide that t he Federal Government shall assume the risks of its fidelity losses, and for other purposes.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. DENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accordingly

<at 4 o'clock and 37 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 6, 1972, at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive

communications were taken from the Speaker's table and ref erred as follows:

2048. A letter from the Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting a supplemental summary of the budget for fiscal year 1973, reflecting changes since the 1973 budget was submitted to Congress and estimates of future outlays required under existing law, pursuant to section 221 (b) of Public Law 91-510 (H. Doc. No. 92- 306) ; to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed.

2049. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), transmitting a report of various transfers of amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense, pursuant to section 736 of the Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 1972; to the Committee on Appropriations.

2050. A letter from the Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, transmitting the sixth annual report of the Commission, covering fiscal year 1971 , pursuant to section 705 (e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as am1mded (H. Doc. No. 92-288); to the Committee on Education and Labor and ordered to be printed with illustrations.

2051. A letter from the Executive Director, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting a report on the backlog of pending applications and hearing cases in the Commission as of April 30, 1972, pursuant to section 5 ( e) of the Communications Act, as amended; to the Commit t ee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

2052. A letter from the Commissioner, Im-migration and Naturalizat ion Service, Department of Just ice , transmit ting reports concerning visa petitions approved according certain beneficia ries t hird and sixth preference classification, pursuant to sect ion 204 (d) of the Immigrat ion and Nationality Act, as amended; to the Committee on t he Judiciary.

2053 . A letter f rom t he Commission er, Immigration a nd Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmittin g copies of orders suspendin g deport ation, together with

a list of the persons involved, pursua n t to section 244 (a ) (1) of t he Immigration an d Nation alit y Act, as amended; to the Committee on the Judiciar y.

2054. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation, transmitting a set of tables showing the apportionment of funds r ecommended by the Department of Transportation under the Federal Aid Highway and Mass Tran sportation Act of 1972 proposed by the administration, to accompany the 1972 National Highway Needs Report (H. Doc. No. 92-266-Part 4) ; to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed.

2055. A letter from the Acting Administrator of General Services, transmittin g a prospectus proposing the construction of a Federal office building in Oklahoma City, Okla. under the purchase contract provisions of the proposed Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 at such time as those amendments are enacted into law; to the Committee on Public Works.

RECEIVED FROM THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL

2056. A letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting a report on the cost-benefit analysis used in support of the space shuttle program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; to the Committee on Government Operations.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally ref erred as follows:

By Mrs. ABZUG: H.R. 15320. A bill to promote homeowner

ship by low- and moderate-income families by assisting them in acquiring, rehabilitating, and improving the structures in which they are tenants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

H.R. 15321. A bill to insure congressional review of tax preferences and other items which narrow the income tax base, by providing now for the termination over a 3-year period of existing provisions of these types; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ANDERSON of California: H.R. 15322. A bill to establish within the

Department of the Interior the Indian business development program to stimulate Indian entrepreneurship and employment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. BENNETT: H.R. 15323. A bill to amend the Occupa

tional Safety and Health Act of 1970 to require the Secretary of Labor to recognize the difference in hazards to employees between the heavy construction industry and the light residential construction industry; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

By Mr. BURLESON of Texas: H.R. 15324. A bill to decrease the duty im

posed on artificial flowers and foliage wholly or almost wholly of plastics, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. CLEVELAND: H.R 15325. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 to allow a credit against the individual income tax for tuition paid for the element ary or secondary education of dependents; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. CULVER: H.R. 15326. A bill to insure congressional

review of tax preferences, and other it ems which narrow t he income t ax base, b y providing now for the termination over a 3-year period of exist ing provisions of t hese t ypes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. DOWNING: H.R. 15327. A bill t o amend t he Comm·.i

nications Act of 1934 to establish orderly procedures for the consideration of applications for renewal of broadcast licenses; to

the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

H.R. 15328. :\ bill to amend the Int ernal Revenue Code of 1954 to allow a credit against the individual income tax for tuition paid for the elementary or secondary education of dependents; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr.ESCH: H .R. 15329. A bill to provide for paper

money of the United States to carry a d esignation in braille indicating the denomination; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

H.R. 15330. A bill to amend title 5 of the United States Gode with respect to the observance of Veterans Day; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FRASER: H.R. 15331. A bill to amend the Social Se

curity Act to increase benefits and improve ellgibillty and computation methods under the OASDI program, to make improvements in the medicare, medicaid, and maternal and child health programs with emphasis on improvements in their operating effectiveness, to replace the existing Federal-State public assistance programs with a Federal program of adult assistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. FULTON: H.R. 15332. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that the requirement of filing certain returns and the tax on unrelated. business income shall not apply to certain nonprofit social clubs, domestic fraternal societies, and veterans• organizations; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H.R. 15333. A bill to protect the orderly marketing of cattle hides, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. GOLDWATER: H.R. 15334. A bill to amend the Communi

cations Act of 1934 to establish orderly procedures for the consideration of X applications for renewal of broadcast licenses; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mrs. HECKLER of Massachusetts: H.R. 15335. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 to allow a credit against the individual income tax for tuition paid for the elementary or secondary education of dependents; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. HORTON: H.R. 15336. A bill to establish a Federal

program to encourage the voluntary donat ion of pure and safe blood, to require licensing an d inspection of all blood banks, and to establish a national registry of blood donors; to t he Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. KOCH: H .R. 15337. A bill to amend the In ternal

Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that the 4 percent excise tax on the net investment income of a private foundation shall not apply to a private foundation organized and operated exclusively as a library or museum; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. McCORMACK (for himself and Mr. SEIBERLING ) :

H .R. 15338. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to prohibit the transmission of electric energy into any State which enacts a law or regulation prohibiting the production of electric energy or atomic energy in such State, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. PATMAN: H.R. 15339. A bill t o amend the Defense

Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Curren cy.

By Mr.REID : H.R. 15340. A bill to amend the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide a system for the redress of law enforcement officers' grievances and to es-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 19683 tablish a law enforcement officers' bill of rights in each of the several States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. RODINO: H.R. 15341. A bill to insure congressional

review of tax preferences, and other items which narrow the income tax base, by providing now for the termination over a 3-year period of existing provisions of these types; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ANDERSON of California: H.J. Res. 1216. Joint resolution to author

ize and request the President to proclaim the week beginning October 15, 1972, as "National Drug Abuse Prevention Week"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr.PATMAN: H. Con. Res. 627. Concurrent resolution to

provide for the printing of the book "Our American Government and How It works"; to the Committee on House Administration.

By Mrs. ABZUG: H. Res. 1009. Resolution establishing the

Special Committee on the Termination o:f the National Emergency and authorizing ex-

pendit ures thereby; to the Committee on Rules.

MEMORIALS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as follows:

396. By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legislature of the State of California, relative to family planning research and services; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

397. Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana, relative to FederalState revenue sharing; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. BOGGS : H.R. 1534:2. A bill for the relief of Airlift

Int ernational, Inc., and Slick Corp.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CORMAN: H.R. 15343. A bill for the relief of Alfredo

Angulo-Rocha; to t he Committ ee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. PATMAN: H.R. 15344. A bill for t he relief of Robert J.

Coar; to the Commit tee on the Judiciary. By Mr. STEIGER of Arizona:

H.R. 15345. A bill for the relief of Armen Sah akian; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, 246. The SPEAKER presented a petition of

Dick Watkins, Kountze, Tex., et al., relative to the proposed Big Thicket National Park, which was referred to the Comm.ittee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

SENATE-Monday, June 5, 1972 The Senate met in executive session at

12 noon and was called to order by the President pro tempore <Mr. ELLENDER).

PRAYER The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward

L. R. Elson, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Eternal Father, whose Word declares that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein," help us, the tenants of this good earth, to be faithful stewards of Thy gracious gift. Give us wisdom and grace to make this earth a better place for Thy children. Lift our vision from the flatlands of life as it is to the shining splendor of life that is yet to be, when Thou dost live in all men's hearts and direct their destiny. Guide the President, all Members of the Congress, and all others in positions of trust in their daily tasks, that they may uphold what is right and seek what is true. Send Thy light and Thy truth upon this land and its people.

We pray in the name of the Great Redeemer. Amen.

ORDER OF BUSINESS The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Senate adjourned in executive session last Friday, June 2, 1972; hence, it is convening in executive session today. However, under the unanimous-consent agreement, the following business will be transacted as in legislative session.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the President of the United States, submitting a nomination, was communicated to the Senate by Mr. Leonard, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED

As in executive session, the President pro tempore laid before the Senate a


message from the President of the United States submitting the nomination of Andrew E. Gibson, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, which was ref erred to the Committee on Commerce.

THE JOURNAL

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, June 2, 1972, be dispensed with.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

WAIVER OF THE CALL OF THE CALENDAR

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the legislative calendar, under rule VIII, be dispensed with.


COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all committees may be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar Nos. 790 and 792.


TINICUM NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, PA.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill <H.R. 7088) to provide for the establishment of the Tinicum National Environmental Center in the Common-

wealth of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce with amendments on page 4, after line 5, insert a new section, as follows:

SEc. 6. (a) Each party with whom a cooperative agreement ls entered into under this Act shall keep such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition of any funds received under the cooperative agreement, the total cost of any project or undertaking in connection with the cooperative agreement entered into, and the amount and nature of that portion o:f the cost o:f the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facllltate an effective audit.

(b) The Secretary and the Comptroller General o:f the United States, or any o:f their duly authorized representatives, shall have access :for the purpose o:f audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and records o:f the party to the cooperative agreement that are pertinent to the cooperative agreements entered into under this Act.

And, at the beginning of line 21, change the section number from "6" to "7".

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I am delighted to indicate my strong support for H.R. 7088, a bill establishing the Tinicum Environmental Center in Delaware County, near Philadelphia and Chester, Pa. This legislation is nearly identical to S. 1841 which Senator SCHWEIKER and I introduced over 1 year ago.

The purpose of this measure is to preserve the last true tidal marshland in Pennsylvania. To this end, the Secretary of Interior would acquire the necessary lands in Tinicum Marsh to establish the environmental center. After these land acquisitions take place, the marsh area could encompass approXimately 1,000 acres.

I think that this is a great day for those of us who feel strongly about preserving what is left of our natural environmental resources, especially in the great urban areas like the Delaware Valley. Not only will thousands of people be able to view nature's wonders at close range, but they will also be able to learn

19684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE June 5, 1972

how marshlands go through their own "recycling" process. For example, the marsh improves the quality of water as it alternately is flooded anci then exposed by the tides. One study indicated that the marsh added 20 tons of oxygen to the water each day ana removed nearly 10 tons of waste materials.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to consider favorably this important legislation so that it may reach the President's desk for his early approval.

The amendments were agreed to. The amendments were ordered to be

engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MANSFmLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report <No. 92-824), explaining the purposes of the measure.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

The purpose of the legislation is to preserve the la.st true tidal marshland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

In achieving this purpose, the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized and directed to acquire such lands in Tinicum Marsh as may be necessary, not to exceed 1,200 acres, for the purpose of establishing the Tinicum National Environmental Center. There would be authorized to be appropriated $2,250,000 to carry out the provisions of this Act.

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

H.R. 7088 passed the House on February 7, 1972, and was referred to the Senate ComInittee on Commerce the following day. There is a companion Senate proposal, S. 1841, which was introduced on May 12, 1971, by Senators Scott and Schweiker.

In their reports on S. 1841, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Army (on behalf of the Department of Defense) , and the Justice Department deferred to the views of the Department of the Interior, the agency having primary interest in the legislation. The Comptroller General made no recommendation with respect to enactment but did suggest an amendment allowing the Comptroller General access to records if the General Accounting Office should ever have to examine the cooperative agreements which are authorized by this legislation. The Department of the Interior recommended passage of H.R. 7088 as passed by the House.

THE AMENDMENTS

The Committee amendments are in response to the Comptroller General's suggestion. The first merely renumbers sections 6 and 7. The second requires the keeping of such records as the Secretary of the Interior may specify concerning cooperative agreements and gives the Secretary and the Comptroller General access to them. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Tinicum Marsh is located in the megalopolitan region of the Eastern United States. More specifically, it lies immediately west of the International Airport at the southwest edge of the city of Philadelphia. Most of the region is situated in Delaware County. However, a portion of it 1s located in Philadelphia. County.

Tinicum Marsh originally was a part of the Tennakon-Minques Island Marshes that occupies 5,700 acres at the time of the first settlement in 1643. The early settlers diked and drained parts of the marsh for grazing land. Similar modification of the wetlands

occurred piecemeal during the next two and a half centuries. Then, more rapid and drastic changes began to take place during the late 19th century.

Since World War I, more than 5,000 acres of tidal wetlands have been deeply covered with fill to construct railroads, highways, boatyards, the International Airport, disposal sites, and residential and industrial sites. By 1968, the last tidal wetland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had been reduced to 523 acres.

In early 1968, the Conservation Foundation (Washington, D.C.), under a grant from the Ford Foundation, selected Tinicum Marsh as a classic example of prime urban open space threatened by numerous development pressures. The foundation requested Dr. Jack McCormick and Dr. Ruth Patrick to carry out a study of the area. Dr. McCormick, who testified at the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee hearings on this blll, summarized the results of the study as follows:

"My study revealed that slightly more than a fourth of the tidal marsh was covered by wild rice. This grass, which reaches 11 feet in height, produces seeds that are of outstanding value as waterfowl food. Other major vegetation types of the marsh included spatterdock, cattail, giant ragweed, and a mixture of several species. Common reed.grass covered more than 200 acres of filled lands. Marshmallow, purple loosestrife, and spatterdock were the most common plants in diked marshlands.

"We found that thousands of migratory waterfowl and shore birds-sometimes tens of thousands-pause on the Tinicum Marshes to rest and feed. In all, at least 119 kinds of waterfowl and shore birds and 177 species of land birds are known to occur at Tinicum.

"The native mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects also were surveyed. No unusual, rare, or endangered species were noted. It was found, however, that carp have usurped the water and Norway rats now rule the land.

"The dominance of these introduced, undesirable species 1s a reflection of intolerable pollution of the water and of the existence of rich supplies of garbage in the nearby "sanitary landfill." As a result of decisive State and interstate action, the water quality wlll improve substantially during the next decade as sewage treatment plants that discharge into the marsh are phased out. Rat populations should decline rapidly as a result of the termination of the landfill by order of the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

"Dr. Patrick's study indicated that the marsh improves the quality of the water as it alternately is flooded and then exposed by the tides. The marsh added 20 tons of oxygen to the water each day, and removed 4.9 tons of phosphate phosphorus and 4.3 tons of nitrate nitrogen."

As of today, more than half of the remaining 1968 tidal marsh acreage (consisting of 523 acres) has been destroyed. The construction of a 2.5 mile long section of Interstate Highway I-95 occupies 60 acres of the 1968 marsh; at least another 80 acres o! the marsh have been dredged; an additional 130 acres have been filled with removal spoil; and about 20 acres ahve been covered with refuse. Consequently, there is now remaining about 200 acres of the original pristine tidal marsh.

Testimony before the House Committee indicated that some of the marsh can be restored. In addition to the 200 acres which remain of the original marsh, 80 acres of marsh where a contractor left deep holes can be restored, as can 50 acres of land shallowly covered with spoils by the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the Tinicum National Environmental Center that would be established under this legislation could encompass about 330 acres of marsh and about 600 to 800

acres of contiguous upland that is currently free from development.

In early 1970, another study was set up to study the problem of preserving the last remaining acreage of Tinicum Marsh. This study was set up by the Department of the Interior and was carried out by a group called the Tinicum Marsh Task Force. Included in the group were representatives from all of the surrounding local communities. The conclusion that was reached by the task force was that Tinicum Marsh should be acquired and preserved.

In addition to the recommendations of these two studies, there were numerous resolutions from organizations in the Tinicum area in support of preserving the marsh. Testimony at the House hearing indicated that the city of Philadelphia, Delaware and Philadelphia. Counties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and all Federal and State agencies concerned were fully cooperating in an effort to preserve and maintain this remaining tidal marsh.

Of the area described in the blll for inclusion within the Tinicum National Environmental Center, approximately 292 acres--35 percent of the total acreage-are currently owned by the city of Philadelphia or the Federal Government. The remainder of the acreage-approximately 65 percent---is owned by private sources. Congressman Williams testified before the House committee that he had met with all the private owners of the desired land and that their full cooperation in the establishment of the Center could be expected. The committee hopes that the land surrounding the Tinicum National Environmental Center and the waters running into it will be used in a manner which is compatible with the wildlife refuge.

AMENDMENT OF THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING ACT

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill <S. 3384) to amend the Water Resources Planning Act to authorize increased appropriations which had been reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amendments on page 2, line 8, after "$3,500,-000", strike out "annually" and insert "in fiscal year 1973 and such annual amounts as may be authorized by subsequent Acts"; and, in line 15, after "$2,-500,000", strike out "annually"; so as to make the bill read:

s. 3384 Be it enacted by the Senate and House o/

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Water Resources Planning Act (79 Stat. 244, 42 U.S.C. 1962 et seq.) is amended by striking out the present section 401 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"SEC. 401. There are authorized to be appropriated to the Water Resources Council:

"(a) not to exceed $6,000,000 annually for the Federal share of the expenses of administration and operation of river basin commissions, including salaries and expenses of the chairmen, but not including funds authorized by subsection ( c) below: Provided, That not more than $750,000 annually shall be available under this subsection for any single river basin commission;

"(b) not to exceed $1,500,000 annually for the expenses of the Water Resources Council in administering this Act, not including funds authorized by subsection (c) below;

"(c) not to exceed $3,500,000 in fiscal year 1973 and such annual amounts as may be authorized by subsequent Acts for preparation of assessments, and for directing and coordinating the preparation of such regional or river basin plans as the Council determines are necessary and desirable in carry-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 19685 ing out the policy of this Act: Provided, That not more than $2,500,000 shall be avanable under this subsection for the preparation of assessments: Provided further, That the Councll may transfer funds authorized by this subsection to river basin commissions and to Federal and State agencies upon such terms and conditions as it determines are necessary and desirable to carry out the above functions in an economical, efficient, and timely manner, and that such commissions and agencies are hereby authorized to receive and expend such funds pursuant to this subsection."

The amendments were agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed

for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report <No. 92-826), explaining the purposes of the measure.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of S. 3384, which was recommended by the Water Resources Council, is to increase the amounts of the appropriations authorized for the Council to carry out certain functions assigned to it under the provisions of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 244, as amended). The additional amounts recommended would total $3,500,000 annually.

BACKGROUND

The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 has the following general provisions:

Title I established the Water Resources Council. The Council is composed of the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, the Army, HEW, Transportation, and the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission. It is supported by an executive director and staff which constitute a separate agency. The Council has important administrative duties to maintain an assessment of the Nation's water resources, review and establish standards and procedures for Federal water resources development, and review comprehensive river basin plans.

Title II authorizes the establishment of joint Federal-State river basin commissions to perform comprehensive water resource planning for various regions and to coordinate water resource development activities in the regions. Each such commission shall have a chairman appointed by the President as Federal representative, and a representative from each State and each Federal agency represented and from each interstate agency created by compact. (River basin commissions have been established in five basins thus far. In the other basins ad hoc committees are performing the function.)

Title III provides for a program of grants to the States amounting to $5 million annually to finance not more than 50 percent of each State's comprehensive water resource planning program.

Title IV of the act includes miscellaneous provision including the a'IJ.thorlzation of appropriations. The existing limitations are

$1,500,000 annually to carry out the Council's general administrative duties under titles I and II; and

$6,000,000 annually to carry out title II, further limited to not more than $750,000 for any single river basin commission. These limitations would not be changed by S. 3384.

PROPOSED LEGZSLATXON

S. 3384 would amend the authorization of appropriations for the operation of the Water Resources Council to provide funds for two functions which the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 directs the Council to perform but which are presently funded through

the appropriations of the member agencies of the Council.

As proposed to be amended by S. 3384, subsections 401(a) and 401(b) of the Water Resources Planning Act would restate the limitations on appropriations in the amounts established by existing law.

The new subsection 401(c) as proposed in S. 3384 would authorize additional appropriations to the Council totaling $3,500,000 annually. Of this amount, not more than $2,500,000 would be available to fund work on the assessm~nt of national water resources supplies and demands required by section 101 (c) of the Planning Act. The first of such assessments was completed in 1968. Work on this assessment was supported by the member agencies of the Council through contri~ buttons of personnel and services funded by their appropriations.

No subsequent assessments have since been made. The 1968 report remains the principal source document for water resources planning at all levels of government. A second assessment 1s badly needed to profit from the experience gained in performing the first, largely experimental effort; to reflect the extensive public attitude and policy changes, particularly in environmental demands on water resources management, which have evolved since 1968; and to incorporate new data which has become available in the intervening years.

The remaining $1 million provided would enable the Council or the existing River Basin Commissions to provide direction and coordination in regional comprehensive water resource planning. This role is now taken by one or the other of the member agencies which obtains funds through its own appropriations process. The assumption of direction and coordination in comprehensive planning by the Commissions and the Council is expected to improve the multiobjective approach to such planning and enhance the infiuence of the State participants.

The fiscal year 1973 budget now pending before the Congress includes $531,000 for comprehensive planning not authorized by existing law. A fiscal year 1973 supplemental appropriation request for $1 million to initiate the assessment ls also expected to be submitted later.

COST

The funds provided under this authorization are necessary to carry out existing duties assigned to the water Resources Council by law. Funding of the costs of these duties· through appropriations to the Council will be balanced by reductions in the expend1tures of the various member agencies which have formerly supported the work.

COMMrrTEE AMENDMENT

The committee has amended S. 3384 to limit the authority for the additional amounts to fiscal year 1973. The committee recognizes that these amounts also wlll be required in subsequent years. The committee has notified the chairman of the Council, however, that it intends to review the Council's recently proposed "Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources ... This review will provide an opportunity for in depth legislative oversight consideration of the Council's full range of activities and their interrelat1onships.

The authority granted by S. 3384 is necessary to permit the fiscal year 1973 budget process to be completed, and there is insufficient time for a general review which would not delay consideration of the Council's budget request. Future fiscal year authorizations for the national assessment and for the Council's role in comprehensive planning, however, can be considered with the benefit of the pending general review.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs by unanimous vote in executive session on June 1, 1972, recommends that S. 3384, as amended, be enacted.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ABM TREATY ON MONTANA

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I have just read an interesting article by David P. Johnson in the National Observer for the week ending June 10, written from Conrad, Mont., entitled, "ABM 'Carpetbaggers' Begin Leaving Montana."

Conrad is a town of less than 3,000 permanent residents located only 10 miles from the ABM site which was canceled last week.

The people of Conrad and the surrounding towns did not ask for the Safeguard system. It was planned there in the national interest by the Federal Government.

As Steve Henderson is quoted: This community has been nothing more

than a poker chip on the table of international negotiation. This is a magnificent treaty with the Russians and a great step toward peace, but how can the U.S. Government expect a very few people in Conrad, Mont., to pay the high price of this agreement?

I am hopeful, Mr. President, that the Department of Defense and all Federal departments and agencies will do everything possible to ease the adverse economic impact being felt by these small towns in my State. One beneficial step could be for the administration to release funds for badly needed public works projects and highway construction in that area.

I ask unanimous consent that the article by Mr. Johnson be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: VISIONS OF FEDERAL CASH VANISH: ABM "CARPETBAGGERS" BEGIN LEAVING MONTANA

(By David P. Johnson) The Target ls a night club that stands

alone by a country road 10 miles from here in the rolling wheatland of north central Montana. Plush on the inside and sporting a price tag of about $125,000, it was to be for all those workers due here to bulld and run a billion-dollar Safeguard antiballisticmisslle (ABM) installation. Now a town wag ventures that the fancy night spot "will make a heluva hay barn."

The arms-limitation pact between the United States and the Soviet Union spelled bad news for Conrad: cancellation of construction on the ABM site, and the end of the boom that was to come with it.

TOO MANY TEACHERS

Chester and Bonnie Ferris, who moved here to start a motel and rental-housing business and make a fortune for their retirement, expect to go broke. Developers who paid $1,500 an acre for homesite land may be lucky to sell it for $250 an acre as farmland.

In Conrad last week some persons were plunged into a businessman's nightmare: canceled orders, overstocked inventories, and costly expansion for a population increase that won't be occurring after all.

School Supt. Robert W. Singleton, planning on a doubled enrollment this fall, now has 13 teachers too many under contract. "Some of them will find other jobs," he says, "but we may have a teacher-pupil ratio that is out of this world next year."

The arms agreement limits each country to two ABM sites. America's ABMs are to protect Minuteman missiles. It was decided that one ABM complex should be near the nation's capital. One in North Dakota is

19686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 a.bout 80 percent finished. So because the installation in the Conrad area was only 10 per cent completed, it was scrapped.

"I quit a good job to come out here,'' said a construction worker last week. "I leased my house for a year so I can't go back. Montana is already a depressed area so I don't know where I'll go for work. But the people who have investments here are really stuck."

Among the hardest hit are the Ferrises, who estimate they invested some $330,000, about half of it borrowed, in a 25-unit motel, 11 pieces of residential property on which they have placed rental mobile homes, and three blocks of land at the outskirts of town earmarked for 27 more rental units. Ferris also sells mobile homes, and when the missile project was canceled he had just received three mobile office units, valued at $6,000 each for delivery to a contractor. Contractors quickly canceled all purchases not delivered.

Ferris, a native of Canada, says: "My biggest mistake was not financing more of this deal. But Conrad is a farming center and the bankers here were not prepared to loan large sums of money for land development or business expansion based on anticipated future growth. They'll make loans on anything that has four hoofs, grows horns, and goes 'moo,' but a business speculation 1s something else."

UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY

There are several new businesses in town and some of the old companies expanded and have new store fronts. A new shipping center is under construction and $2,000,000 in Federal-impact funds has been spent or allocated for expansion of utilities and s<:hools in anticipation of a peak influx of 3,000 workers later this year. The present population 1s estimated to be about double the 1970 census figure of 2,770. The town was antic1pating a growth to 7,000 by 1980.

Persons facing the greatest financial crisis are those who bought and developed property for housing. Real-estate officials here say undeveloped property doubled in price in the past two years after the Safeguard project was announced. Most of the housing boom came after publlcation of Impact studies prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers, which forecast a critical housing shortage.

WITH ONLY HIS SHIRT

Bob Kalbfleisch, 49, a native Montanan who owns fartning land, grain elevators, and other property in nearby Shelby, also in the boom zone, put in a 16-space trailer court in Shelby and 40 rental mobile-home units in Conrad. It cost him about $250,000. He also purchased 135 acres for residential development near the golf course at the greatly inflated price of $1,500 per acre.

"Now the whole thing is worth only what it will bring as farmland-about $250 an acre,'' says the former Navy carrier pilot. "I'll get out with my shirt but nothing else."

Ferris and Kalbfleisch feel they should get some form of Government help because they were encouraged to developed housing to help meet a burgeoning need.

Ferris notes that the Defense Department's contracts contain discontinuance clauses providing for cancellation on notice, with ctrtaln forfeitures and indemnities to the contractors. Next door to the Ferris property, Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc., which holds the prime contract on the Montana construction in a joint venture with the Morrison-Knudson Co., was developing an eightblock housing tract for 189 mobile homes. About half the homes had been placed on the property when the shut-down order came. Ferris thinks the Government will pay Kiewit for its losses on the housing project. He believes, he too, should be helped.

IMPLIED ENCOURAGEMENT? "Safeguard personnel have encouraged

people to make investments in housing to

take care of the demands," says Kalbfleisch. "Federal impact funds were spent for installation of sewers and water lines to private land so property could be developed. Except for two mobile-home sites, where the Government guaranteed development costs, the private sector was told it would have responsibility for furnishing the housing."

The Corps of Engineers, which came on the scene two years ago and serves as the Defense Department supervisor here, contends that no private individuals or businesses were requested or encouraged to make investments in housing. However, Safeguard people met with leaders of communities in the area on many occasions and presented hefty volumes of impact report s that forecast the anticipated needs, which some interpret as implied encouragement.

The bus1nessman who was probably hurt worst in downtown Conrad ls Harold Holtz, 56, who bought the old Conrad Hotel three years ago. After paying for the hotel he laid out some $250,000 expanding and improving the property, including a posh two-level supper club completed last year "for the new trade."

Holtz says 80 per cent of his business in the new cocktail lounge and restaurant is from missile-connected people. Home folks go to his old bar next door, where drinks are a dime cheaper. He is certain the new supper club won't make it now. Says Holtz: "This will be one of the biggest ghost areas in the U.S.A.

A PERIOD OF ADJUSTMENT

Most merchants a.nd businessmen in Conrad do not agree. They say the strong agriculture economy, cattle ranching and grain -<farming, w:ill sustain a prosperous community. But they say the period of adjustment will be painful.

Some residents, mostly retired persons and farmers wlll be glad to see the boom end. Some farmers are disgruntled at prices they received for missile-site land and w:ith Government red tape. The boom has inflated prices, cut the labor supply, and pinched the tight housing market.

Robert G. Arnot, a spry man of 63, has been mayor of Conrad for 20 years and he says the municipality has always been in good financial condition. He has seen economic ups and downs in a lifetime spent here, and as owner of a furniture-and-appliance store since 1940.

In 1966 Conrad experienced the boom of Minuteman-missile construction. But the 50 or more underground silos where located over a w:ide area of northern Montana, and the economic impact was spread among a number of communities. It was viewed as a. temporary boom because after construction the antiballlstic missiles were to be controlled from Malmstrom Air Force Base, near Great Falls.

"We went into the Minuteman boom with the attitude that we'd take whatever we could get out of it," Mayor Arnot recalls. "We <Mdn't build our future a.round it, like ma.ny have done on the Safeguard system, and nobody got hurt.

"Sure, a lot of people didn't like the ABM impact here. But we got 35 miles of the best farm-to-market road in the country out of it, a.11 financed with Federal funds. We've got more than $1,000,000 in impact funds for utiUties, and the schools have been allocated about $800,000 for new construction. The Government built a six-inch water line from the Tiber Dam to the closest missile site, and I hope that will be turned to a co-operative to supply water to farmers. I'd like to see it extended another 10 miles into town."

ARE SOME EXPENDABLE?

"We're stunned and it will be a while before the real damage can be assessed," says bank President Steve Henderson, 44. "This community has been nothing more than a poker chip on the table of international negotiation. This ls a magnificent treaty with

the Russians and a great st ep toward peace, but how can the U.S. Government expect a very few people in Conrad, Montana, to pay the high price of this agreement? The only answer is that the Government considers some people expendable.

"Our bank went into this thing with eyes wide open. So we're going to survive, but a lot of individuals will not. Some workers who have invested money in residential property here won't have enough money to get out of town."

Montana's Senators Mike Mansfield and Lee Metcalf had opposed the ABM system and have said they are pleased with the treaty limiting ABM systems. Both have pledged efforts to provide Governmental relief to overcome the serious economic jolt.

"I hope there will be some help for those who have been hurt, but I know of nothing at this time," Col. Thomas A. Duke, siteactivatlon commander, told members of the Cha.rn.ber of Commerce here last week. "I'm sure the Defense Department wants to leave here with a good a feeling as possible."

Says Chester Ferris, facing business ruin: "If they want to leave with a good feeling,

maybe they can help people like me."

A RANDOM THOUGHT ON THE WEATHER

Mr. SCOT'r. Mr. President, this is the day that the Lord hath made, and I hope that we will all, therefore, make the best use of it.

I have a random thought that it is fortunate for the people of this country the weather is the product of natural forces or sublime direction, rather than the work of a committee or of Congress, because I am sure that if the weather were up to Congress, this body would be engaged in arguments over whether we should have clear or partly cloudy weather. The other body would then opt for showers-especially the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, or the committee interested in irrigation, livestock, and so forth. And then, from time to time, over here we would have one of those familiar reversals where someone would filibuster in order to get rain on this side of the Capitol as well. Then there would be a spate of press releases to the public claiming credit for the rain which had fallen on the just and unjust alike.

Then the populace would be claiming that while the rain falls alike upon the just and the unjust fellow, it falls more often on the just because the unjust have the just's umbrella.

ORDER OF BUSINESS The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under

the previous order, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia <Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD) is now recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield 10 minutes of my time to the distinguished majority leader.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) is recognized for 10 minutes.

CRIME CONTROL

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, sometime ago, I requested the Department of Justice to report on the experience obtained thus far under the so-called man-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19687 datory sentencing provisions that became part of Public Law 91-644, the 1970 amendments to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and the District of Columbia Crime Control law also enacted in 1970. Both provisions, I might say, were based upon S. 849, a mandatory sentencing bill that I introduced at the outset of the 91st Congress.

It was my intention then, as it is now, to make the use or mere possession of a weapon itself in the commission of a crime a separate and distinct crime for which would be imposed a separate and distinct penalty.

It was my intention then, as it is now, to make the criminal pay doubly for his choice of resorting to a weapon of violence. For such an invidious act he would not only suffer prison confinement for the underlying crime, he would suffer a second and separate term for the mere act of resorting to a gun.

That is what I proposed in 1970 and it has been 2 years since this law became a part of the criminal code. It was to review the use and effect of the law that I wrote the Acting Attorney General on March 3, 1972, for a report. It was out of a congressional responsibility to review all laws that I sought to determine how the tool provided by this proposal was working in the fight against crime and violence.

In response, I have just received a letter from Assistant Attorney General Petersen, Chief of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.

In his letter, Mr. Petersen advises me that the Justice Department is unable to furnish any information concerning the use and effect of the so-called mandatory sentencing law; or to use his words:

The sta.tistica.l data you requested could not be retrieved from records of the Department of Justice or the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

That is most unfortunate, Mr. President. It seems to me to be fundamental that effective and efficient law enforcement requires that individual crimes, penalties imposed therefor, effect on the criminal involved, and all such information be readily available. How else, I ask, is this Nation going to deal effectively with the problem of crime? In this era of sophisticated computer systems, it is inconceivable that crime, criminal penalties, criminal justice, and all such related matters cannot be adequately monitored. The crime rate continues to soar. But the U.S. Senate is unable to be informed adequately about fundamental information concerning the enforcement of 2-year-old laws--designed expressly to curtail that rate of crime.

I do not blame Mr. Petersen. As the Criminal Division Chief, he undoubtedly is beset with enomous responsibilities that transcend a mere recordkeeping function.

Indeed, I am somewhat encouraged by the fact that-as Mr. Petersen points out in his letter-the Department of Justice information system is under alternation and to use his words-

That information such as you requested will be available when the planned modifications have been completed.

I certainly am pleased that something is being done.

I am pleased, as well, that the socalled mandatory sentencing provision is in fact being employed. In this regard it should be noted that Governor Wallace's alleged assailant was indicted in part on his violation of section 924(C) of title 18 of the Criminal Code. That section is the one that was based largely on the original Mansfield bill in the 91st Congress. I hope it serves as a warning to other would-be gun criminals, that in addition to the penalty imposed for his crime, he will be made to suffer a second, separate penalty for resorting to firearms.

I intend to study further Mr. Petersen's report to me with a view to updating and improving the law that is now on the books. In the meantime, I wish to make public his full response and ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the RECORD along with my original request.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

MARCH 3, 1972. Hon. RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST, Acting Attorney General of the United States,

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C.

DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: On January 2, 1971, the President signed into law PL 91-644, an act to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and for other purposes. Prior thereto, on July 29, 1970, the President signed PL 91-358, dealing with crime and the court system within the District of Columbia.

Title II of the former law (PL 91-644) contains a provision that imposes stricter sentences against felons carrying firearms during the commission of crimes for which prosecution lies in any court of the United States. Specifically it imposes a separate and additional penalty for the act of carrying a firearm-separate from and in addition to the underlying crime itself. It imposes as well a mandatory sentence. In the case of second offenders, the sentence for using or carrying the firearm runs up to 25 years and cannot be suspended by the court; nor can probation be granted nor can the sentence run concurrently with the sentence for the underlying crime. Similarly Section 205 of PL 91-358, establishes for the District of Columbia certain additional and mandatory sentencing procedures for crimes committed With or while carrying firearms.

Since both laws have been in effect in excess of a year, it would be most helpful to undertake a review of the experiences under them. I would thus appreciate your full report concerning the courts' compliance with these sentencing procedures, including the number of first and subsequent offenders sentenced thereunder, terms of sentences, courts involved, nature and type of underlying crime in which the firearm was carried or used and any other pertinent data the Department may have at its disposal on this question.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your report in this matter at your earliest convenience.

Yours very truly,

Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

--- ---. . MAY 26, 1972.

DEAR SENATOR: This is In further response to your letter of March 3, 1972, requesting certain information regarding the extent to which P.L. 91-358 (18 U.S.C. 924(c)) and

P.L. 91-644 (22 D.C. Code 3202) have been used.

We advised you in our interim response of March 21, 1972, that preliminary contacts with our statistical sources indicated that we might be unable to provide all of the information you requested. We have now exhausted all of our sources and find that, as we suspected, that statistical data you requested could not be retrieved from records of the Department of Justice or the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. We are informed, however, that the Department of Justice information system is under alteration and that information such as you requested will be available when the planned modifications have been completed.

While available statistical data does not permit us to respond fully to your inquiry there have been some recent developments regarding interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) which may be of interest to you. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered combined appeals in the case of United States v. Suddath, and United States v. Vigil. In the Suddath case the trial court had dismissed a count of the indictment charging violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) holding that this statute is merely a penalty provision and does not create a separate crime. The Appeals Court reversed and held that the statute does create a separate offense rather than merely an enhancement of the penalty of the underlying offense. However, dictum in the Tenth Circuit opinion suggested that the sentence for a first offense under 924(c) may be concurrent with instead of consecutive to the sentence for the underlying felony. Essentially the same thing happened in the Vigil case. In that case the trial court dismissed the 924(c) count and the government appealed. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings under the rationale of Suddath.

The effect of the decisions in Suddath and Vigil is that the government has sustained its position that section 924(c) creates a separate crime and does not merely enhance the penalty for an underlying crime. However, as noted above, some of the court's language foretells possible future trouble with regard to whether a concurrent sentence is permissible or consecutive sentence is required for a first conviction under 924 ( c) and whether the unlawful carrying of a firearm relates to a state or local violation.

Two pending bills, H.R. 13788 and s. 3238 which would seek to strengthen and clarify 18 U.S.C. 924(c) have been referred to the Department of Justice for comment. We are presently developing responses and expect to propose some amendments to the statute.

Please be assured that the statutes under discussion receive full attention by United States Attorneys and federal investigative agencies. An analysis of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) was published in the United States Attorneys' Bulletin very soon after the statute was enacted. Further, during instruction which Criminal Division attorneys provide for agents of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the Treasury Department the provisions of these statutes are discussed so that in the preparation of reports investigative agents may identify violations of these statutes and assure their consideration by the United States Attorneys who receive and review their reports. Thus, the offenses proscribed by the statute are fully known to the federal prosecutors and investigators and are being prosecuted in appropriate cases.

It may be of further interest to you to know that Governor George Wallace's accused assailant was indicted for violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), among other federal violations.

I trust that the information provided will be of assistance. I regret that we are unable to provide the precise information which

19688 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 5, 1.972 you requested. Your continuing interest and concern in these matters is r..ppreciated.

Sincerely, HENRY E. PETERSEN,

Assistant Attorney General.

EXPENDITURE OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR EXCESSIVE TROOP DEPLOYMENT IN EUROPE Mr. MANSFIELD. I am going to read

into the RECORD, without reference to the names of the writers, a letter which I received recently from a group of servicemen in Germany. Its tone has the clear ring of an honest and well-founded anger at the operations of an indifferent bureaucracy. These men have suffered a personal wrong but, in writing of it, they have also cast additional light on what is a national wrong-what ~mounts to an unconscionable milking of the Treasury of the United States of billions of dollars for excessive troop deployment in Europe.

The letter comes from a headquarters of the 4th Army Infantry in Germany. It is signed by 14 servicemen and noncommissioned officers. It reads as follows:

DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: We, the undersigned are currently serving with the United States Army in Germany. Earlier this week we were all under the impression that we would soon be home with our families. However, without any prior notice, we were told that our military obligation had been extended. The reason? Permit us to quote the Stars and Stripes: "This action is being taken because the strength reductions imposed by Congress have been accomplished and the retention of these members is necessary to meet the current manpower requirements and to assure combat readiness." The irony of the situation is that we were given reductions in our service obligations because of this Congressional action. Now, because the Pentagon did not accurately estimate the reaction to its own program ("early-out"), we a.re being made to stay an additional 90 days-minimum. What do we tell our wives, fiancees, girlfriends, employers, and families? They expected us home in May-not August.

Wearisome, bureaucratic bungling is something we are used to in the Army. Sometimes it seems to be the rule rather than the exception. We are resigned to seeing memos, DF's, letters, etc. which repeat and rehash old subjects. But why do our families now have to suffer because of this mistake. We have many questions on our minds. Why were RA (Regular Army Enlisted) personnel permitted to leave the service ahead of draftees? What will we do about the wives we sent home in April, thinking that we would be joining them shortly? What about the ' baggage we shipped back to the United States (at government expense)? What about the plans we have made for school, jobs, etc.? Many of us would have gotten early-outs through school "drops" or seasonal job "drops", but we did not apply for them because the Army was letting us return to civilian life without the need !or such paperwork. We would not have to do anything. We were so "short" that most of us already had orders cut to return home on a guaranteed fiight.

We a.re writing this letter to protest the arbitrary action of the Pentagon. We hope that something can be done to help us. We would like you to know that there are 30,000 servicemen in the same situation who a.re probably as disgruntled as we a.re. If the Pentagon seriously thinks that extending 30,000 "short-timers" is going to "assure combat readiness" then we think that the Pentagon's reasoning is archaic and mis-

guided. This extension will increase, not decrease, tension in the military. It is a shortsighted remedy which leaves us wondering about the competency of our leaders.

We are currently at a major training area in Europe. Infantry units come to such areas to fire their organic weapons and do infantry-type training. Because we were so "short" we did not have to fire our weapons or actively participate in Army Company Proficiency Tests. We were "detail" personnel. We pulled KP, guard duty, latrine cleanup, and various other minor jobs. And now the Pentagon tells us that our extension makes the United Stat es Army combat ready. P~rhaps if we had to clean Europe we would be ready. It is such thinking that leads to "credibility gaps" a nd disenchantment with all aspects of government. All we ask is t hat the Pentagon be made to keep its word.

Sincerely yours,

I make this letter public in the hope that it will spur the Department of Defense to look into this snafu, as this sort of thing used to be labeled. I do so, too, because it underscores a reality which has become increasingly evident over the past 2 or 3 years. The reality is that if there are going to be reductions in the wasteful, largely irrelevant deployment of hundreds of thousands of servicemen and dependents in Europe a quarter-ofa-century after World War II they are going to have to be brought about by action and pressure of the Congress. The White House has been unwilling to order reductions. The Department of Defense has fought them. The Department of State has deplored them. What hope there is for action lies in the Congress.

For a decade or more, some of us have tried to induce the executive branch to approach the question of force reductions in Europe in a rational fashion. All of these efforts have been rebuffed by a strident resistence which has invented reason after reason, dug up cause after cause, rescusitated voice after voice from the past in order to reject each effort as inopportune.

Notwithstanding, some small reductions have recently been made. However, these reductions have been brought about not as the result of rational forethought and planning in the executive branch, but because of actions of Congress in restricting overall appropriations. The cuts have been too few and too slow, but they have been better than nothing. Since this is the only way action apparently can be obtained, then I trust that the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee will cut deeper this year. The time for tokenism in the reduction in the U.S. troop deployment in Europe is long since past.

ORDER OF BUSINESS The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Senator from West Virginia is recognized under the previous order.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, the senior Sena-tor from West Virginia.

SUBSTITUTION OF CONFEREE ON s. 2770

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator

from California (Mr. TuNNEY) be substituted for the Senator from Indiana <Mr. BAYH) as a Senate conferee on S. 2770, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.


VACATION OF ORDER RECOGNIZING SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time under the order recognizing me be vacated.


TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order the Senate will now proceed to the transaction of routine morning business for not to exceed 30 minutes, with each Senator being limited to 3 minutes.

Is there morning business?

ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SENATOR JAVITS TOMORROW

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow, after the two leaders have been recognized under the standing order, the distinguished senior Senator from New York <Mr. JAV1Ts) be recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes.


QUORUM CALL Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempare. The

clerk will call the roll. The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll. Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


RELATIONSIIlP OF CRIME AND DRUGS

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I was not in the Chamber for all the comments by the distinguished majority leader, but I shall read with interest the report by Mr. Petersen of the Justice Department, which has been printed in the RECORD. I would like to comment on some factors effecting the field of crime that have come to my attention recently.

First, it has been proven without any doubt at all that a majority of the street crime in most of our urban areas is caused by drug abuse, people who are drug ~ffenders, who have a habit that is costing them $75 to $100 a day, and the only way they can get that kind of money is to commit a crime.

Until recently it was felt that there were a quarter of a million hard drug users in the United States. Recently I discovered the number is double that, or an estimated 560,000 people who are drug

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19689 abusers, people who have gone to the use of drugs such as heroin.

The second factor is that crime is increasing very rapidly in suburban areas, and this goes along with an increase in drug usage in the suburbs.

The third factor is that in urban areas the Government has in many respects brought about the high centers of crime by the benevolence of public housing, where high-rise buildings have been constructed, concentrating a greater number of low-income people into heavily congested areas. Statistics I have recently received show that the chances for a person being murdered, raped, or robbed are 40 times greater in the area of the Robert Taylor public housing project of Chicago than in the rest of America.

In a recent exhaustive survey I ha.ve had taken in Illinois asking people, in the matter of national priorities, where they would like to see the Government spend more money or less money, the No. 1 item for which people were willing to see an increase in Federal expenditures was the area of drug abuse.

I am delighted that the distinguished chairman of our Committee on Appropritaions is presiding today. The Senate passed unanimously the drug abuse bill that I introduced at the request of the administration, and it was steered through the Committee on Government Operations and through conferences with the House, and unanimously adopted by the Senate and the House in record time. In this bill we have authorizeC: about $800 million over 3 years in this area, and certainly every evidence indicates this is a matter of urgent national priority. I hope the Appropriations Committee will fund 100 percent of the authorization.


I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The


proceeded to call the roll. Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I ask



Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Senator is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield my time to

the Senator from Illinois. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Senator from Illinois is recognized.

THE POPULATION INCREASE Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I thank my

distinguished colleague for yielding his time to me. I just noticed in the RECORD of last Friday that the distinguished Senator inserted material in the RECORD to show that an increase in population in the Nation had occurred since May 1, equivalent to the population of the entire city of Scranton, Pa., as I recall.

I certainly commend for everyone's reading the summary of reasons that was printed recently in the New York Times

in a special Sunday supplement, as a result of the study of the Presidential Committee on Population Control and America's Future on which the distinguished Senator from the State of Oregon served. The Senator from Oregon has served with great distinction in that capacity, and I do believe the work of that Commission and its recommendations are among the most fundamental studies ever made in this area.

PRESIDENT NIXON HAS REMADE THE WORLD-AN EDITORIAL

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I wish to comment very briefly on an editorial that was published in the Christian Science Monitor of June 3, 1972 entitled "Mr. Nixon Has Remade the World" and a companion article by Roscoe Drummond entitled "Summits and the Election." I ask unanimous consent that both the editorial and the article may be printed in the RECORD with conclusion of my comments.


<See exhibit U Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, the Presi

dent in his comments before the joint session of Congress was very modest in the claims he made for his very historic and distinguished trip. But certainly all of us know that some 3% years of intensive work went into the summit meetings and probably it aptly could be said that a lifetime of work and experience by the President and his advisers went into making tI?s visit so successful. Certainly, the contmual newspaper reports that come from Pravda and other papers in the USSR indicate that optimism for the future as a result of these remarkable agreements is shared by both nations. Those of us who have watched carefully the making of these agreements recognize that no agreement can be expected to be adhered to unless there is a mutual advantage to each country. In my judgment a proper balance has been established, and all of us join in commending President Nixon for the remarkable, incisive way he went about creating these agreements in a number of important :fields. I commend also Secretary Rogers, He~ry Kissinger, Ambassador Gerard Smith and Ambassador Dobrynin for their invaluable contributions to the success of the summit.

We do not underestimate the differences in ideology, purpose, and direction we may have, but it is important that we continue the search for areas where a mutual interest in cooperating will bring us closer together.

(ExHIBIT 1) [From the Christian Science Monitor, June 3,

1972) MR. NIXON HAS REMADE THE WORLD

President Nixon came home to a wellearned triumph in the halls of the American Congress. It was the denouement of a most remarkable chapter in the affairs of the nations of this world. Back in 1826 British Foreign Minister George Canning said: "I called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the old." President Nixon would have been entitled to repeat that phrase on his return and apply it to the work he has done over the past 10 months.

It was on July 1 of last year that the capitals of the world gasped at the news that Richard Nixon would go to Peking. That was the "impossible" beginning of all the "impossible" things which Richard Nixon has in fact done from that beginning.

The net of it all 1s that he has converted a two-power world in which Russia had the decided advantage (due to the American embogment in Vietnam) into a three-power world in which, for the moment at least, the United States has the advantage of more flexibility and room for maneuver.

The best measure of what he has done is that the United States is today on equally easy and "correct" terms with both Russia and China whereas Russia is on such terms only With the United States. In addition, the United States is repairing its once damaged relation with the emerging West European coalition and retains something of its old closeness to Japan. Under Lyndon Johnson the United States was rapidly becoming the pariah of the world. Under Richard Nixon it is now the least isolated of the Big Three.

We will discuss in detail the military, economic, and other aspects of the work done by the American President on his trip at other times. Today we wish to stress here the very real importance of the whole work and our approval of it. We cannot know that what comes after Will in all respects be desirable . Mr. Nixon quite properly compared his work to date only to the laying of foundations. The house remains to be built. It may or may not be worthy of the foundations.

The important thing is that these are the foundations for a world entirely diiferent from the one we have all been living in since Harry Truman picked up the Russian challenge over Greece and Turkey in 1946. That was the beginning of the "cold war." Mr. Nixon's Thursday evening report to Congress was the formal end of lit. In 1946 President Truman summoned his country to a struggle against communism. In 1972 President Nixon has summoned his country "to lead the world up out of the lowlands of constant war onto the high plateau of lasting peace."

There is still a rival and hostile ideology alive in the Communist countries. Mr. Nixon recognizes that. And the ideology of communism might still sweep the world, if rthe non-Communist countries went to sleep. Mr. Nixon recognized that. But the stress in the whole body of his new foreign policy is on the acceptance of Russia and China as power states with whom the United States can do practical and peacemaking business.

By calling China back into the world, he has redressed the balance just as much as Canning did in 1826. It is a safer, better balanced world.

SUMMITS AND THE ELECTION (By Roscoe Drummond)

WASHINGTON.-It does not demean the achievements of the Moscow and Peking summits to appraise them partly in terms o! domestic politics.

Every first-term president wants to be reelected and nearly everything he does bears upon whether he will be.

It would be naive to assume that Mr. Nixon gave no thought to the domestic political value of his trips to China and Russia when he began to plan them three years a.go. He certainly did not aim to delay them until after November, 1972.

NO POLITICAL GIMMICK

There's nothing wrong in that. The only thing that would be wrong would be for the President to do anything that would harm the nation in order to get some short-term results which might temporarily please voters.

Mr. Nixon did nothing like that in either Peking or Moscow.

19690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972

The Washington Post, which has found little to approve in most of the President's actions firmly dismisses the suggestion of cynics 'that Nixon might have "concocted" the Soviet summit "as an election-year extravaganza." It says the critics of the administration "will be confounded" if they seek to bellttle as a political g!mmlck what Nixon has accomplished in Moscow.

I would go further. I would say that the President would himself be confounded if he played politics with the peace an<l security of the nation.

The American people would detect it quickly if he did; they're bright.

FIRST STRIDE The two summits will yield a significant,

perhaps a decisive, political dividend to Nixon for these reasons:

1. The President has brought off what four American presidents sought but failed to get, thrat is, to limit the nuclear arms race. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson all tried and never succeeded. Nixon tried-and succeeded.

The capstone of the Moscow summit ts the U.S.-Soviet agreement to limit the number of defensive and offensive nuclear weapons. It isn't everything but it ls a great deal. It does not end the arms race, but it is the first measurable step toward controlling it. It oasts its glow ahead. Further strides are needed, but they would not be possible if the first stride had not been ta.ken.

2. The two superpowers whose post-World war II relations have been marked mostly by hostlUty and conflict, are undertakmg a series of cooperative, interlocked enterprises which seemed totally unattainable a few years ago--joint exploration in space, joint research in health and science, joint efforts to decrease pollution, joint nuclear arms control, and a joint commission to expand mutual trade. This doesn't mean that every aspect of the cold war is over, or that of future conflict is banished. But such working together could be wonderfully ha.bttforming.

3. The cold war is signiflcantly muted. It is not removed from all t: .S.-Soviet relations, but Nixon and Brezhnev did far more than just damp down some tensions; they resolved some basic causes of the cold war and that, too, casts its light ahead.

4. Every president stnce Truman wanted to establish better contact with mainland China. For different reasons no one was able to do it. Nixon did and both the U.S. and China are beneficiaries.

PEACE POLICY It ls true that foreign pollcy has rarely

been a determining factor in U.S. elections. Some of the experts contend that foreign policy is too dull and technical to impress voters.

Nixon's initiatives in China and Russia go beyond the confines of traditional foreign policy; they comprise a peace policy; they reach toward the goal of "a generation of peace in our time," and his initiatives are beginning to lay the building blocks of a more secure peace.

They don't guarantee the President's reelection, but they a.re a large plus.

QUORUM CALL Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I sug

gest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The


proceeded to call the roll. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON). Without objection, it is so ordered.

PERIOD FOR THE TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS TOMORROW Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi

dent, I ask unanimous consent that on tomorrow, after the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from New York (Mr. JAVITS) and the recognition of any other Senators under such 15-minute orders as may be entered in the meantime, all of which will be as in legislative session, there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, as in legislative session, of not to exceed 30 minutes, with statements therein limited to 3 minutes, fallowing which the Senate resume consideration, in executive session, of the nomination of Richard G. Kleindienst for the o:ffice of Attorney General of the United States.


PERIOD FOR THE TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi

dent, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, following the recognition of the two leaders under the standing order and any orders for recognition of Senators for not to exceed 15 minutes, if such there be, there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, and that such period be of sufficient length to accommodate the disposition of Calender Order No. 791, S. 3442-in accordance with the order previously entered-and that in addition thereto there be a period of not to exceed 30 minutes, with statements therein limited to 3 minutes, all of which will be as in legislative session, at the conclusion of which the Senate resume its consideration in executive session of the nomination of Mr. Richard G. Kleindienst for the o:ffice of Attorney General of the United States.



how much time remains for the transaction of morning business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes remains of the period designated for the transaction of routine morning business.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


COMMUNICATIONS FROM EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, ETC.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following letters, which were ref erred as indicated:

REP0RT ON LOANS FOR FINANCING OF A GENERATING UNIT

A letter from the Administrator, Rural Electrificat ion Administration, Department of Agriculture, report ing, pursuant to law, on the approval of loans for the financing in part of a 600-megawatt unit, 333 miles of 345-kilovolt transmission line, and related facilities (wit h accompanying papers ) ; to the Committee on Appropriations. REPORT OF TRANSFERS OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS

APPROPRIATED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE A lett er from the Assistant Secretary of

Defense, reporting, pursuant to law, on the transfer of certain amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense; to the Committee on Appropriations. SAMPLING PLAN FOR FLAMMABILITY STANDARDS

OF CARPETS AND RUGS A letter from the Assistant Secretary of

Commerce, transmitting, for the information of the Senate, a notice relating to sampling plan for flammability standards of certain carpets and rugs (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Commerce. SUPPLEMENTARY SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR

1973 BUDGET A letter from the Director, Office of Man

agement and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a supplemental summary of the fiscal year 1973 budget (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Government Operations.

SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS

A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders suspending deportation of certain aliens (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THIRD PREFERENCE AND SIXTH PREFERENCE CLASSIFICATION FOR CERTAIN ALIENS

A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, reports relating to third preference and sixth preference classification for certain aliens (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary. REPORT OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION A letter from the Chairman, Equal Employ

ment Opportunity Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of that Commission, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1971 (with a.n accompanying report); to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. PROSPECTUS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF A

FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA. A letter from the Acting Administ rator,

General Services Administration, transmit ting, pursuant to law, a prospectus which proposed the construction of a Federal office building in Oklahoma City, Okla. (with accompanyillg papers) : to t he Committee on Public Works.

PETITIONS Petitions were laid before the Senate

and referred as indicated: By the PRESIDENT pro tempore :

A concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs:

"SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO . 38 "A Concurrent Resolution to formally rec

ognize the Coushatta. Indian Tribe and to urge the government of the United States of America, particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs , to give assistance to said Tribe and to acknowledge their rights "Whereas, the Coushatta Indians are a.

small tribe of Indians which has lived in Louisiana since migrating from Alabama in

June 5, 1.972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 19691 1850, which tribe was known in Alabama as t h e Koasati (white reed brake) Tribe; and

"Whereas, the said Coushatta Indians not known ever to have signed a peace treaty with the United States of America and are not known ever to have received any formal recognition from any state in the Union, although they have endured from time immemorial as a definit e and recognizable et hnic group, with an informal internal organization of chief and Tribal Council and have been so acknowledged by their neighbors; and

"Whereas, it is fitting and proper that formal recognition of the Coushatta Indian Tribe be extended by this state and that assistance be given by the national government.

"Therefore, be it resolved by the Senate of the Legisla,ture of Louisiana, the House of Representatives thereof concurring, that the State of Louisiana hereby formally recognizes the Coushatta Indian Tribe.

"Be it further resolved that the Government of the United States of America, and particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is hereby memorialized, requested and urged to take such steps as are necessary to effect in the near future services to the Coushatta Indian Tribe, to acknowledge that t he rights of the Coushatta are no less, if not indeed greater, than that of other Indian Tribes in the United States, and thereupon to take appropriate executive and/or congressional action.

"Be it further resolved that copies of this Resolution shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of the Representatives of the Congress of the United States and the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior."

A resolution adopted by the Yukon Native Brotherhood, Whitehorse, Yukon, praying for the enactment of legislation to exempt Alaska natives from the prohibitions incorporated in the Sea Mammal legislation; to the Committee on Commerce.

REPORTS OF COMMI'ITEES The following reports of committees

were submitted: By Mr. ALLOTT, from the Committee on

Interior and Insular Affairs, with amendments:

S. 1198. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to review as to its suitability for preservation as wilderness the area commonly known as the Indian Peaks Area in the State of Colorado (Rept. No. 92-833).

By Mr. KENNEDY, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, with amendments:

S. 3419. A bill to protect consumers against unreasonable risk of injury from hazardous products, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 92-835) , together with supplemental views.

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

As in executive session, the following favorable reports on treaties were submitted:

By Mr. FULBRIGHT, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, without reservation:

Executive D, 84th Congress, second session, International Plant Protection Convention (Exec. Rept. No. 92-22);

Executive D, 92d Congress, first session, the Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related Extortion That are of International Significance, signed at Washington on February 2, 1971 (Exec. Rept. No. 92-23); and

Executive H, 92d Congress, second session,

the Treat y on the Swan Islands Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Honduras, signed at San Pedro Sula on November 22, 1971 (Exec. Rept. No. 92-24).

AMENDMENTS TO THE RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE ACT OF 1970-CONFERENCE REPORT-REPORT OF A COMMITI'EE <S. REPT. NO. 92-834)

Mr. MAGNUSON, from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill <H.R. 11417) to amend the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 to provide financial assistance to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for the purpose of purchasing railroad equipment, and for other purposes, submitted a report thereon, which was ordered to be printed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first time and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. BIBLE (for himself and Mr. CANNON):

S. 3667. A bill to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay judgments in favor of the Northern Paiute Nation by the Indian Claims Commission in docket No. 87, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. MAGNUSON) :

S. 3668. A bill to increase the annual appropriation authorization of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Referred to the Committee on Commerce.

By Mr. JACKSON: S. 3669. A bill to amend the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to require the prompt trial of defendants in criminal cases and provide grants to State and local governments for improving the administration of criminal justice, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BEALL (for himself and Mr. MATHIAS):

S. 3670. A b1ll to amend the Washington Area Transit Authority Compact to require the inclusion of rail commuter service in the mass transit plan, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. HRUSKA, Mr. COOK, Mr. HART, Mr. MATHIAS, and Mr. RmxcoFF) :

S. 3671. A bill to amend the Administrative Conference Act. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HANSEN: S. 3672. A bill to amend the Internal Reve

nue Code of 1954 to provide an exemption from the Federal estate tax for certain debt obligations of domestic corporations in cases where the interest on such obligations would be treated as income from foreign sources for purposes of the interest equalization tax. Referred to the Committee on Finance.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BIBLE (for himself and Mr. CANNON) :

S. 3667. A bill to provide for the disposition of funds appropriated to pay judgments in favor of the Northern

Paiute Nation by the Indian Claims Commission in docket No. 87, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague, Senator CANNON, I introduce, for proper reference, a bill to provide for the disposition of funds appropriat ed to pay judgments in favor of the Northern Paiute Nation by the Indian Claims Commission in docket No. 87, and for other purposes.

The satisfaction of the $21 million plus interest judgment awarded our Indian constituents in Nevada has been delayed for a long time-over 9 years to be exact-pending a determination by the tribes involved as to how best the judgment funds should be distributed.

I am well aware that there are still those who are not satisfied with the proposal submitted by a large majority of those who will be affected by the payment of this long delayed obligation of the United States to its Indian citizens. However, I am firmly of the belief that the only way this matter can be settled is through a proper presentation before the Congress, and it is my belief that this can best be accomplished by thorough consideration of our proposed bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated May 11, 1972, and signed by our good friend, Melvin D. Thom, chairman of the Walker River Paiute Tribe of Nevada, be included as a part of my remarks at this time.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE, WALKER RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION,

Schurz, Nev., May 11, 1972. Senator ALAN BIBLE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D .a.

DEAR SENATOR BmLE: Enclosed is a proposed legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to make final distribution to the beneficiaries of the judgment awards made in favor of the Northern Pa.lute Nation by the Indian Claims Commission in Docket 87 of Areas I, II, and III.

The subject legislation expresses the desire of a majority of the fifteen (15) organized Northern Paiute tribal groups. At the claims meeting on May 6, 1972, at the Nevada Indian Agency, Stewart, Nevada, at which twelve ( 12) tribes were represented, they authorized the Walker River Pa.lute Tribe to submit the legislation to the Nevada congressional delegation for appropriate action. We, therefore, respectfully request that you introduce this legislation in Congress on behalf of the Northern Pa.lute Nation.

The tribes further requested that they be I>:otifl.ed in ample time before the congressional subcommittee hearings on the bill in order that they may have an opportun ity to testify at such hearings.

Respectfully yours, MELVIN D. THOM,

Chairman, Walker River Paiute Tribe.

By Mr. JACKSON: S. 3669. A bill to amend the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to require the prompt trial of defendants in criminal cases and provide grants to State and local governments for improving the administration of criminal justice, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

19692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1972

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Criminal Justice Reform Act of 1972.

This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to include the reform of our criminal justice system as an essential element in the campaign against crime. It would restore the constitutional right to a speedy trial, using the requirement of prompt trial as a means to speed reform of the whole criminal court system.

This bill would require States and local governments to prepare plans for the prompt trial of criminal offenses in accordance with criteria established by the Law Enforcent Assistance Administration. These criteria would be designed to assure that defendants are tried within 60 days of the date of arrest or from the date they are charged, whichever occurs first.

States and local governments would not be eligible for LEAA grants unless they had a prompt trial plan approved by the LEAA. Continuing eligibility would depend on progress toward the prompt trial objective.

The bill authorizes a total of $750 million over the next 3 years for grants for criminal justice reform. I am convinced that we must commit new Federal resources if we are to make real progress toward rehabilitating our criminal courts.

Mr. President, my bill departs from the block grant approach of the Safe Streets Act. Instead, it would give the LEAA authority to make grants for criminal justice reform as it sees fit.

This change is dictated both by experience with the block grant approach and the urgent need to set priorities and make prompt progress in rehabilitating our criminal justice system. The fact is that almost nothing has been done by the States and local governments in this area with funds appropriated under the Safe Streets Act. We cannot hope to do the job unless we give one agency the mandate and the resources and the responsibility to get it done.

Four years ago, in the Safe Streets Act, Congress declared a national policy of Federal assistance to strengthen and improve law enforcement at every level of government. The primary emphasis of the Safe Streets Act was on the detection and apprehension of criminals. Whatever the merits of that approach, it seems clear that Congress should also have focused on the role of the criminal courts as an integral part of the crime control effort.

Mr. President, the condition of our criminal courts has been well summarized in a recent report by the American Bar Association's special committee on crime prevention and control. This distinguished group, chaired by Edward Bennett Williams, simply concluded that:

The growing backlogs in the Nation's courts have brought our judicial system close to paralysis and threaten to make a sham of our society's commitment to the fair and emcient administration of justice.

Endless delays in the judicial process deny justice to the criminal defendant, innocent or guilty, and deprive society of a necessary

deterrent to urban crime. If we are to avoid a total breakdown in the judicial process, immediate and comprehensive reform is essential.

Reviewing the war on crime in the 5 years since the report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration on Justice, of which he was executive director, Prof. James Vorenberg concludes that our criminal court system appears to have deteriorated during this period. In an article in the May Atlantic, he writes that:

Many lower courts look more like factories than halls of justice. More than half of the people in jail in this country are there because they are awaiting trial, not because they have been convicted. Whatever deterrence of crime the threat of penal sanctions might exercise is undermined as thousands of defendants go free , not because they have been acquitted but because courts and prosecutors are too overwhelmed by their workload to consider their cases.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Professor Vorenberg's frank summary of our progress in crime control be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that the important recommendations of the Williams' committee relating to criminal court reform be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.


<See exhibits 1 and 2.) Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, it is

hard to avoid concluding that the breakdown of the criminal justice system has a direct impact on the deterrent effect of our criminal laws. In a recent report the Criminal Justice Coordinating Coun~il of New York City pointed out that because the courts decide the fate of those arrested by the police, the operations of the courts determine the extent to which the criminal justice system is able to deter crime. If the courts are "overwhelmed and fail to function with optimum efficiency, no amount of police on the street can make deterrence a meaningful reality."

The other side of this coin is that a criminal justice system that functions effectively can have a real impact on crime rates. There is evidence, for example, that the recent decline in crime here in the District of Columbia may be attributed in part to a major court reorganization which produced a dramatic speedup in the judicial process. Because of this reorganization, and the resulting availability of more judges, the District of Columbia Superior Court is now able to try cases much faster than before. We are told that the chances of being tried for and punished for a felony charge have doubled since the reorganization took place.

The significance of prompt trials was recognized by the ABA Special Committee on Crime Prevention and Control. The committee recommended that:

Strict limitations must be placed upon the length of interval between the time a defendant is arrested or charged and the time his trial commences. Tolling exceptions for good cause may be a necessary adjunct of such provisions. However, exceptions should be few, clearly articulated, sparingly invoked and, once invoked, narrowly construed by the court.

And the committee also recognized that trial deadlines would, in many cases, be unworkable unless addit ional resources were made available. My bill would authorize the commitment of resources by the Federal Government for this purpose.

Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that criminal justice reform is not just a question of more prosecutors, more defense counsel, or more judges. It is a matter of instituting new management techniques to control criminal dockets. It is a matter of changing archaic courtroom and appeals procedures that shackle our criminal courts. It is facing up to the need for removing certain categories of crimes like alcoholism from our criminal justice system. My bill would encourage the States and local governments to explore and experiment with these and other alternatives to our present system.

I am convinced that Congress must take the initiative in establishing criminal justice reform as a major national goal. The responsibility for making our courts work belongs not just to judges or bar associations, it belongs to our elected political leadership as well.

Quite frankly, Mr. President, people in America have grave doubts about our criminal law. In the administration of criminal justice-from traffic court to death row-the effectiveness of the law and the fairness of the law, are open to serious question. We cannot expect people to respect a system that does not work. And the only way we can restore faith in our system of criminal justice is to build a better, more effective system. That is the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today.

EXHIBIT 1

THE WAR ON CRIME: THE FIRST 5 YEARS

(By James Vorenberg) Nixon and Mitchell vowed to turn the tide.

"Operation Intercept" and three years later it's their turn to face a fact of life: crime i~ rising, and law enforcement alone won't stop it.

Five years ago the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice-generally known as the Crime Commission-reported the results of it s twoyear examination of crime and made more than 200 specific recommendations to overhaul our system of criminal Justice.

The Commission, for which I served as executive director, had been appointed by President Johnson in 1965, partly in response to Senator Barry Goldwater's introduction of "crime in the streets" as an issue in the 1964 presidential election. But as we met in the White House to accept the President's thanks for our report, politics seemed remote. Tlie Commission, chaired by Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, included among its members Democrats and Republicans, prosecutors and academics, the executive director of the Urban League and the vice president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. It had, nonetheless, been able to reach agreement on what the President described as "the most comprehensive and detailed program for meeting the challenge of crime ever proposed in this country."

The President promptly submitted to Con· gress proposed legislation that would provide funds to states and cities to carry out the Commission's recommendations for change. Even those of us who had two years earlier been a bit cynical about the reasons for the Commission's creation and doubtful about what it would accomplish were optimistic.

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19693 Yet five years later crime is unquestionably

a fa.r worse problem for the country than it was then, and our system of criminal justice-the police, courts, and corrections agencies-seems less capable of coping with it. The Department of Justice consoles us with the assurance that although crime is still increasing, the rate of increase is slower. For former General John Mitchell, who made heavy use of crime statistics in the 1968 presidential campaign, the 30 percent increase in the reported crime rate during the first three years of the Nixon Administration must present a strategic puzzle as he plans the 1972 campaign.

In 1967 the Crime Oommission could review the FBI reports of the seven "index" crimes-homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny (over $50), and auto theft-for 1960-1965 and report increases for the five-year period of 36 percent in crimes against property and 25 percent in violent crime. This was troubling to be sure, but hardly the uncontrolled rampage about which Sena.tor Goldwater had warned in the 1964 campaign. The Commission noted that because Of the post-World War II "baby boom," an unusually large part of the population was between fifteen and twenty-five years of age. Since this group commits most of the serious crimes, about half of the 1960-1965 increase could be attributed to this temporary disproportion. The Commission also suggested that some of the increase in crime might be the result of better reporting by or to the police. Generally, it coun.seled against overreaction.

But the figures for the last five years of the sixties have convinced all but the most skeptical that something more ominous than population changes or reporting errors is involved. By 1970 the rate of crimes against property had increased 147 percent for the decade and the rate of crimes of violence had increased 126 percent. And the latest FBI figures show that d urtng the first nine months of 1971, there were further increases of 10 percent for violent crimes and 6 percent for property crimes compared with the same perlOd in 1970. In the past five years self-protection has become the dominant concern of thOSe in our cities and suburbs, evidenced by the rapid growth of a multibillion-dollar-a-year private security industry and the emergence of the German shepherd as the second most popular breed Of dog.

No one can say for sure what accounts for the enormous increase in the danger which Americans face from each other. We do know that those agencies on which we are accustomed to rely for crime controlpolice, courts, and corrections-seem less capable of that task today than they did five years ago, and many police chiefs, judges, and prison officials openly acknowledge that there ls nothing they can do to help. We also know that each year there are thousands of new drug addicts, most of whom are driven by t heir addiction and the nation's drug policy to prey on their fellow citizens in order to get money to buy heroin. And we have compelling evidence that during the past five years the frustration of poor people and minorities with continued denial of opportunities to improve their lives by lawful means has made reliance on crime an increasingly acceptable alternative. The fifth anniversary of the Crime Commission's report, coinciding as it does with the beginning Of a presidential election contest in which crime is once again certain to be a central issue, is an appropriate time to explore why we have done so poorly and what the prospects are for the years ahead.

The Crime Commission sought to show how police, courts, and correctional agencies could both reduce crime and treat people more decently. A review of where these criminal justice agencies stand today indicates virtually no progress on the first of these goals and only spotty progress on the second.

The Police. The principal gains by the police in the past five years have been in lowering the level of hostility between the police and young people, particularly blacks. This progress has taken place despite the fact that President Nixon came into office after a campaign that invited the police and the public generally to blame crime on Supreme Court decisions designed to curb police abuses. Improvement has been especially marked in cities such as Oakland and New York, where the chiefs have made it clear that decent treatment of citizens is a top priority and will be given weight in promotion and assignments of officers. Many police departments now have their own legal offices and are getting advice from the inside on how to respect due process. The Brandeis University Center for the Study of Violence cites better training in community relations as one reason for the decline in disorders in the past five years. Increases in the number of minority-group police officers have also helped, although here the record is mixed. The nation's five largest cities in total have shown a 23 percent increase in black officers in the past five years. Yet some departments, such as Cleveland's and Philadelphia's, have lost ground. Alabama and Mississippi still bar blacks from their state police, and Massachusetts has only two on its 870-man force.

Changes which seem to have improved relations between citizens and the police in many cities have not been matched by new crime-reduction methods. Much of the federal aid to police has gone for such flashy items a.<' helicopters, computerized communications systems, and new weaponry. Yet these have not produced a significant impact on crime. Little progress has been made on Commission proposals that police presence on the streets be increased by hiring civilians for clerical and administrative tasks. (New York City, with 32,000 policemen, has a maximum number of 3500 on the street at one time.) One discouraging indication of how little change has been made in five years is the striking similarity between the chapter on the police in the Crime Commission's 1967 report and the police section of "Planning Guidelines and Programs to Reduce Crime," just released by the Justice Department for use in its eight "high-impact" cities, where a special effort wlll be made to reduce crime.

The most promising "new" crime-control idea for the police is New York Commissioner Patrick Murphy's neighborhood team system, a blend of the Crime Commission's teams of policemen with the traditional "cop on the beat." Simply stated, Murphy wants to decentralize responsibility so that each neighborhood has its own team of officers who would come to know its crime patterns, its residents, and its potential offenders. The team would then be held responsible for reducing crime in the neighborhood. Murphy's crime prevention and anticorruption strategies overlap, since the team's commanding officer would also be fully accountable (Murphy's favorite word) for any corruption among his men.

Murphy instituted his system in Detroit but left to become commissioner in New York before its results could be tested. He is adopting the same approach in New York; and Chief Jerry Wilson in Washington, D.C., Murphys protege, believes his own form of this plan is responsible for some reductions in street crime in the nation's capital.

The neighborhood team has probably improved police-community relations in the cities where it is being used. It remains to be seen whether it will also result in signlftcant reductions 1n crime or whether it will simply provide pressure for incomplete reporting of crimes to central headquarters, a time-honored practice 1n earller days when a precinct captain's job depended on keeping a "clean beat."

Corrections. The same two goals it set for the police---crime reduction and humane treatment--also ran through the Commission's 1967 report on corrections, where, as with the police, it believed that the goals were not inconsistent and could, in fact, reinforce ea.ch other. To achieve these goals, the Commission urged a shift from the use of prisons to community treatment of offenders. Its reasoning can be simply summarized: if we take a person whose criminal conduct shows he cannot manage his life, lock him up with others like himself, increase his frustrations and anger, and take away from him any responsibility for planning hiS life, he is almost certain to be more dangerous when he gets out than when he went in. On this basis, the Commission urged that only the very dangerous should be held in prison. It called for development of halfway houses, programs to send offenders home under intensive supervision, special school and employment programs, and other forms of nonprison treatment.

In a few places there has been progress in carrying out these recommendations. caufornia has developed an extensive work-furlough program for prisoners and also offers a subsidy to counties, which helps keep the state prison population low by putting more offenders on probation. The number of state prisoners has declined from 28,000 to 21,000 in the past three years. Plans for new prisons have been scrapped and some of the existing ones are being closed.

The boldest approach is that of Jerome M1ller, Massachusetts Commissioner of Youth Services. Mr. Miller concluded that his institutions were doing juvenile offenders more harm than good at a per capita cost to the state of $10,000 a year, enough, tn his words, "to send a child to Harvard with a $100-aweek allowance, a summer vacation in Europe and once-a-week psychotherapy." Within the next few months he plans to close all his institutions for committed offenders and move the inmates to community-based work and education programs. He estimates tha.t only 30 of the 800 juveniles now incarcerated are dangerous enough to be locked up, and he eventually hopes to get these into private psychiatric facilities.

A few other states are moving cautiously in the same direction.

But as a whole the country has continued to place heavy emphasis on prisons. A recent survey by the Center for Criminal Justice at Harvard Law School showed that there are residential facllities outside the walls of traditional prisons for less than 2 percent of adult offenders-and that most of these fac111ties were set up in the first two years after the Crime Commission's report.

Ironically, the best hope for a move away from incarceration may lie in the system's reaction to the slaughter at Attica. In much the same way that the fear of city riots prodded police chiefs to develop community relations programs in the late sixties, the fear of prison uprisings has forced officials to confront such questions as how many of the 1200 inmates at Attica really had to be in prison.

It is sad but probably true that the fear of riots and the fiscal squeeze on the states ara more likely to close down prisons than either a sense of humanity or a desire to prevent crime.

The Courts. While there has been some overall improvement in the police in the past five years, and perhaps corrections has held its own, the quality of the adjudication process-the responsibllity of the courts--seems clearly to have deteriorated over the same period. Many lower criminal courts look more like factories than halls of justice. More than half of the people in jail in this country are there because they are awaiting trial, not because they have been convicted. Whatever deterrence of crime the threat of penal sanctions might exercise is undermined as

19694 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 5, 1972 thousands of defendan t s go free , not because they have beer. acquitted but because courts and prosecutors are too overwhelmed by their work load to consider their cases.

The total number of arrests, the source of the court's busin3ss, increases about 5 percent a year. More defendants are represented by lawyers who are asserting their rights in court , including rights relating to confessions and police searches spelled out by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1960's.

The result is that a cumbersome process, whicl... had managed to keep moving by herding large numbers of defendants through the courts on guilty pleas without consideration of possible defenses, has been further slowed. And delay begets delay. The only way prosecutors and judges caL. keep the glacierlike process moving at all is to drop cases or offer concessions to defendants who will agree not to assert their rights. Often .the best way for defense counsel to get these concessions is to make repeated motions, seek adjournments, and generally try to drag out the process as long as possible. Even lawyers who do not deliberately seek delay achieve the same result owing to their own overloaded schedules and the courts' inefficiency. The rewar<lll to defendants from this delay are enormous. Ninety-four thousands felony arrests in New York City last year resulted in only 550 trials. The other cases were dismissed or reduced to misdemeanors in return for a guilty plea.

To blame the Supreme Court or defense lawyers who seek their clients' best interests is rather like blaming highway congestion on those who set speed limits and on drivers themselves. If we want the criminal system to be able to handle the present volume of traffic, we must double and triple the number of courtrooms, judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel-and be ready to keep on increasing the number in the future. And even with such increases the system will depend heavily on bargaining for pleas of guilty.

Five years ago the Crime Commission called for resources to enable courts to handle increased traffic, but it also outlined two possible approaches to reducing the traffic. First, most cases involving drunks, first offenders, persons in need of psychiatric or medical treatmen.t, and nondangerous offenders should be handled outside the criminal system. Prosecutors and defense counsel were encouraged to agree on alternative forms of treatment before such cases get to court, thus avoiding court congestion and the destructive effects of pretrial stays in jail. In fa.ct, most of these cases now are disposed of without a formal court decision, but usually only after they have added to the jam in the courts.

Second, for those cases that remain, the Commission urged the courts to adopt modern administrative and business management methods that would avoid repeated appearances and continuances. This recommendation has been ignored, although adopting it would help not only the courts but also the police, since prosecuting witnesses, including policemen, often are required to come to court on five or more separate occasions for a single case. Our society surely has the technology to schedule its judicial business to eliminate repeated appearances, continuances, and delay. The only way to keep delay from being manipulated as pa.rt of the bargaining process ls to have a. system that gives the pal'ttes their "day in court"-but not a day every week.

For the past five yea.rs crime has been a major national issue. More than. $1.5 blllion in new federal money has been appropriated !or the nation's criminal justice system. One may fairly ask why there has been so little progress.

Much of the answer lies in the inevitable host111ty to change in any large bureaucracy. Proposals to substitute halfway houses !or high-security prisons and computers for

court docket clerks, or to establish new educat ional requirements for p olice officers, t hreaten job security and challenge the propriety and worth of what is being done. When Commissioner Miller in Massachusett s abolished punishment cells for juvenile offenders and allowed them to have long hair, some staff members permitted a series of escapes designed to discredit his administration. Two comments by employees suggest their frustration with the changes: "Years ago you could flatten the kids out and that would be the end of it." "You wonder who's in jail, us or the kids."

City dwellers have learned recently a.bout the "blue fiu" that often affiicts police officers who are suspicious of proposed changes. Commissioner Russell Oswald's apparent sense he had to cater to the views of the guards at Attica-even at the risk of scores of deaths-suggests how powerfully existing values now hold those working in the system. Strong and militant police and correctional officers' unions in the pa.st few years have provided an organization which can mobilize this opposition to change.

Not all of the opposition to reform comes from within the bureaucracy. Many state and city legislative bodies tend to be wary of changes, particularly those that may seem "soft" on criminals or that cost money. And some changes-such as attempts to establish halfway houses or drug-treatment centers in residential neighborhoods-have evoked enormous hostility from private citizens.

Notwithstanding these inherent pressures against change, there was a strong sense of optimism in the mid-sixties that something could be done a.bout crime. For the first time the federal government had acknowledged a responsibility to help the cities and states. Local police chiefs, prosecutors, and correctional administrators worked with the Crime Commission from 1965 to 1967, and with the prospect of federal financial aid, began the arduous task of overhauling their agencies.

The year 1968 was a bad one for criminal justice. During the 1968 presidential campaign, Mr. Nixon repeatedly cited decisions of the United States Supreme Court as being the major cause of crime. The result was to provide police officials, prosecutors, legislators, and the general public with an easy explanation for the enormous increases in crime in the late sixties. This relieved some of the pressure for change, a process which criminal justice officials were finding more painful and difficult than expected.

It was also in 1968 that the Congress, after a delay of more than a year, finally passed the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act to provide aid to cities and states. As originally proposed, the Act would have given the Just ice Department the power to dispense funds directly to criminal justice agencies which carried out the changes such as those recommended by the Crime Commission. But Attorney General Ramsey Clark became embroiled with Congress over Senator John McClellan's Insistence that the Act provide authorization for wiretapping and bugging. Clark and President Johnson were strongly opposed to electronic surveillance.• However, Johnson's relations with Congress had deteriorated over the Vietnam War, and

•Johnson felt so strongly on this subject that when he heard a mistaken rumor that the Commission had voted an endorsement of electronic surveillance, he told his staff he did not want the Commission's report delivered to the White House. Before I had to resort to the alternative, suggested by Elizabeth Drew in her May, 1968 article in The AtlanUc ("On Giving Oneself a Hotfoot, Government by Commission") , of "tossing the report over the White House fence," the President's staff agreed to receive the Report.

Clark had emerged as the Republicans' whipping boy in preparation for t he 1968 presidential campaign. When the smoke had cleared, the Administration had settled for legislation which not only authorized electronic surveillance but which also substituted "block grants" of federal funds t o the states for the broad grantmaking authority in the Justice Department.

The seriousness of this legislative defeat soon became clear. The principal justification for federal aid was that it would provide an incentive for cities and states to make changes in criminal justice agencies. But with block grants the federal government cannot directly push for reform. It simply gives a lump sum to each state to be distributed in accordance with the state's own written plan. These plans are the products of large new state bureaucracies, many of which are controlled by old-line representatives of the state and local police departments, courts, prosecutors, and correctional agencies that need to be changed. Since the state plans are rather general and require only superficial changes in the agencies, much of the money has been spent to preserve the status quo.

Thus, except for a few states where the planning agencies have insisted on substantial change as a condition of funding, there is little to show for the almost one billion dollars that has been spent. Some of the early funds were wasted on military equipment for riot control. In. one state a congressional committee found federal funds had been used to send families of law-enforcement officials to college. At a hearing last fall, the Conference of Mayors charged that "there is a wide-spread failure to comply with the spirit of the law as it relates to distributing funds to cities to fight crime." And the former administrator of the Act, Charles Rogovin, has made the drastic suggestion that the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration's funds "be frozen until its house is in shape."

Unquestionably some of the problems are those attendant on any new federal grant program. Some result from the highly political nature of the crime issue. It has been suggested that the eight "high-impact" cities, ea.ch of which will receive $25 million in the next two and one half years, were picked with at lea.st one eye on the 1972 election. Perhaps the most fundamental defect in terms of crime control is the la.ck of research. Largely because Congressman John Rooney of Brooklyn, the chairman of the key subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, is suspicious of research, there has been a five-year drought in funds for the research authorized by the original Act. Thus, not much more is known about specific techniques of crime prevention today than was known five years ago, and the prospect for new answers in the next few years is bleak.

Even if every change the Commission called for in police, courts, and correctional agencies had been made, resulting reduction in crime would probably have been more than offset by increases resulting from the enormous spread of drug addiction. The best present estimate ls that there are 250,000 addicts in the United States, of whom between one third and one h91! live in New York City. Research has shown that the same young people at the bottom of the social and economic ladder who commit the bulk of predatory crime are most likely to become addicts. (Five out of every six addicts in New York City are black; about half are under twenty-two years of age.) Their addiction adds to the already great likellhood of their committing crimes the need to raise $25 to $100 each day to buy heroin. The results have been explosive. Some cities are reporting that almost half of those in jail are addicts. One judge in Washington found that 75 percent of the defendants

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 19695 brought into court on felony charges were addicts.

Five years ago, the Crime Commission recognized addiction as a major source of crime, but as four dissenting members of the Commission noted, the majority was unwilling even to explore alternatives to the present drug enforcement policy, which, by requiring addicts to get their heroin lllicitly, puts enormous pressure on them to rob, steal, prostitute themselves, or sell drugs to raise money. Recently, as an extension of this policy, we have negotiated with Turkey, France, and Mexico and other drug-producing countries in an attempt to cut off the supply at the source. This has been combined with attempts to stop drugs at the borders of the United States. The most dramatic example was "Operation Intercept," aimed at persons bringing marijuana across the Mexican border, and some experts think that the only result was a temporary increase in the price of marijuana in the United States and a switch by thousands of marijuana users to heroin. In any event, it is perfectly clear that heroin and other drugs are still plentiful and that federal law enforcement has served primarily to keep the price at a high level, with the resultant pressure on addicts to commit crimes to support their habits.

The most significant change in drug policy in the past five years ls that at the same time that several agencies of the federal government are devoting enormous resources to the apparently futile effort to stop heroin traffic, the country has moved quietly to a policy of dispensing another addictive drug-methadon~n a maintenance basis. Labeled as "experimental," methadone projects now exist in cities and towns all over the country. Many such projects are funded by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and all require a federal permit.

It was originally thought that methadone in some mysterious way provided a "blockade" to the effects of heroin, but it is now clear that many addicts take heroin and methadone (and other drugs) interchangeably. Both drugs are addictive; both can give a "high" if taken in large doses; and both can probably be given at sustaining dosages that would permit most addicts to lead more or less normal lives. Many doctors prefer methadone as a sustaining drug because they believe it is easier to stabilize doses; some would prefer heroin because they think it has a better effect on the patient's emotional state. The biggest difference between heroin and methadone is probably political rather than pharmacological-methadone does not have the history and the connotations that make it so difficult for heroin to be considered as a form of medical treatment.

Partly for the same reason, among addicts heroin is still clearly the "drug of choice." As long as it is available it is unlikely that even a massive methadone maintenance program open to all addicts would dramatically reduce the number of heroin users.

Concern about crime by heroin addicts has resulted in support for experimental heroinmaintenance programs from unexpected sources. In recent weeks a special committee of the staid American Bar Association has called for such experiments. So have United States Attorney Whitney North Seymour, Jr., and Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy in New York City and Sheriff John Buckley in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Mayor Lindsay would almost certainly have set up such a program already but for the strong opposition of Congressman Rangel and several other black leaders. They see this approach as "writing off" their people and fear that whatever deterrent effect the possib111ty of addiction might have on marginal drug users might be undermined if the worst they faced by becoming addicted was a daily trip to a government dispensary.

Another factor that has discouraged such

programs is a prevailing misconception in this country that the British system of making heroin available to addicts at govvernment-regulated clinics has resulted in a large increase in addiction. While this was true when individual doctors were permitted to prescribe heroin freely, two years ago the British began controlling distribution by individual doctors and now make drugs available through government-sponsored clin1cs. The result is that the number of addicts in England has stabilized at less than 3000. (A recent study counted six times that number in one forty-block area in New York City.) There appears to be little crime committed in England today by addicts seeking money for drugs, because addicts pay either nothing or 2 cents per dose for their heroin.

It would be a mistake to expect that most addicts will give up crime altogether once they can get free heroin from clinics. A prostitute in the Addiction Research and Treatment Corporation Center in Bedford-Stuyvesant explained it clearly: "Now that I'm on methadone, I feel like a human being for the first time. I want some nice clothes and the only thing I'm good enough at is boosting [shoplifting] and turning tricks. But I don't have to do as much as long as I ca.n get my drugs here."

Just as methadone is turning out to be no "magic bullet," so we would have to anticipate that many heroin addiots maintained at clinics would commit crimes. But controlling crime is not finding one total answer; it is chipping away with a. number of partial answers. By relieving the enormous economic pressure of addiction, it may be possible to offset partially the enormcus increase in criminality accounted for by addiction.

Unless researchers find a nonaddictive substitute for heroin, we will probably soon see a few government-sponsored heroin maintenance experiments in the United States. And if the experience with methadone is any guide, it seems a fair, if somewhat gloomy, guess that five years from now public pressure to reduce crime will have forced acceptance of heroin maintenance as a generally available form of treatment.

Neither improving the criminal justice system nor relieving addicts of the additional economic pressure to commit crimes that their addiction imposes on them is likely to make much difference in crime rates if millions of people believe crime is their best route to a decent life. We rely for self-protection more than we usually recognize on moral restraints based on a sense that each member of society has a stake in obeying the law. The sense of belonging to a commun1ty that underlies much of this moral restraint is undermined if the conduct of the rich and the powerful is characterized by selfishness, and if the government appears to have little concern for the plight of those for whom life is difficult.

Continuing denial of opportunity, combined with the anonymity of city life, is destroying the social pressure to abstain from crime. The riots of the mid-sixties showed one possible outlet for the deep frustration and hatred felt by young blacks in the cities-the same group that is already responsible for a large proportion of serious crime. In New York City predatory "ra.t packs" of juveniles roam the city. They justify what they do as "getting even," and the thought that their victims are human beings with lives and feelings of their own seems foreign to them.

It would be a tragic mistake to assume that we can look to the law-enforcement system to control crime if other restraints disappear. To understand this we need only look at the situation from the point of view of the potential criminal. The odds against the police catching the average burglar-either at the scene or later-are probably no better than 50 to 1. And if he is arrested, he has a good chance of having his case dropped or of being

put on probation. A middle-class citizen with a reasonably comfortable life may be deterred by these odds; he has too much to lose. But 25 million people in the United States live below the officially defined poverty line. In a society where television commercials are constantly reminding us that every self-respecting American should be driving a new car and flying off for a Caribbean vacation, crime may seem like the only good bet for those whose lives are little more than a struggle to survive.

Even if we double or quadruple the effectiveness of law enforcement (and there is no reason to think we can) and reduce the odds proportionately, it may still be a good bet. Crime wlll be a worse gamble only when people have decent enough lives on the outside so they are unwilling to risk arrest and conviction.

The view that the level of crime is deter_ mined less by law enforcement than by the extent to which we make life worthwhile for those at the bottom of the economic and social ladder is not a partisan one. Five years ago the Crime Commission, which included such staunch conservatives as William Rogers, currently Secretary of State, and Lewis Powell, one of President Nixon's most recent appointees to the Supreme Court, unanimously reported that the Commission:

" ... has no doubt whatever that the most significant action that can be ta.ken against crime ls action designed to eliminate slums and ghettos, to improve education, to provide jobs, to make sure that every American is given the opportunities and freedoms that will enable him to assume his responsibilities."

The country seems to be proceeding on the contrary assumption. In a two-year period when federal appropriations for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration program increased from $270 milllon to $700 million, funds for the federal juvenile-delinquency programs were cut from $15 to $10 million. Against the background of the tremendous increase in crime committed by blacks, whatever notions of fiscal soundness or social justice are thought to underlie the Administration's apparent acceptance of Daniel B. Moynihan's proposal for "benign neglect" of blacks, that pollcy seems almost certain to have disastrous effects on crime.

The Crime Commission's final conclusion was that "controlling crime in America is an endeavor that will be slow and hard and costly. But America. can control crime if it will." At that time I thought there was hope for changes that would both strengthen the agencies of criminal administration and reduce the injustices that underlle much crime. I stlll do not beUve that we have to settle for a society where we live in fear of ea.ch other. But today, I find it hard to point to anything that ls being done that is likely to reduce crime even to the level of five years ago.

EXHIBIT 2 EXCERPTS FROM RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON CRIME PREVENTION AND CONTROL

THE COURTS

1. Regulation of various types of conduct which harm no one other than those involved (e.g., public drunkenness, narcotics addiction, vagrancy, and deviant sexual behavior) should be taken out of the courts. The handling of these matters should be transferred to non-judicial entitles, such as detoxification centers, narcotics treatment centers and social service agencies. The handling of other non-serious offenses, such as housing code and traffic violations, should be transferred to specialized administrative bodies.

2. Through the careful use of prosecutorial discretion and dispositions such as probation without conviction, many cases should be screened out before they reach the court or at least before they occupy any appreciable court time.

19696 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 3. The use of money bail as a means of

obtaining pretrial release should be deemphasized. Ball agencies or probation offices should be funded at a level to enable thorough pretrial screening so that more defendants can be released on recognizance, often with appropriate conditions attached. Programs should be developed to make these conditions beneficial to the released defendant and to society where possible.

4. Probation offices must be given the funds necessary to increase their staffing to the extent needed to permit careful screening of defendants to determine those meriting pretrial release, to provide close supervision for those who are released, and to assure the early preparation of presentence reports.

5. To pinpoint responsibility for each case, the assignment of cases should be made on an individual calendaring basis. For this system to work, however, the court must work closely with the prosecutor's office and the defense bar to obtain their cooperation and their commitment to supply adequate manpower.

6. Computers should be utillzed to assist the court in scheduling, doing routine paperwork, avoiding confiicts, equalizing work loads, analyzing backlogs, and providing various types of judicial statistics needed for effective court operation and planning.

7. Strict limitations must be placed upon the length of interval between the time a defendant is arrested or charged and the time his trial commences. To111ng exceptions for good cause may be a necessary adjunct of such provisions. However, exceptions should be few, clearly articulated, sparingly invoked and, once invoked, narrowly construed by the court. In many jurisdictions it will be necessary for the legislature to authorize appropriations for additional resources if such deadlines are to be workable.

8. Criminal discovery should be expanded within constitutional bounds to eliminate competition in criminal proceedings and to increase the likelihood of pretrial disposition.

9. An omnibus hearing procedure should be used to consolidate pretrial motions and written motions outside this procedure should be severely cur.tailed if not eliminated.

10. The mandatory use of the grand jury should be abolished. Instead, defendants generally should be charged by means of an information. Some jurisdictions may choose to preserve the grand jury, making its use optional at the request of the prosecutor or defendant.

11. In many jurisdictions throughout the United States, the time consumed in jury selection in cases involving the kinds of crime with which this report is concerned is wholly inordinate. Individual interrogation of jurors is rarely necessary and generally voir dire examination of the panel should be conducted en bane.

12. In almost every case the examination of the prospective jurors can be most expeditiously conducted by the judge with supplementary examination by counsel in the discretion of the judge.

13. Jury selection in all oases should consume but a minimal percentage of overall trial time.

14. Written briefs should be eliminated unless specifically requested by the court. Instead, designations of error should be used to apprise the appellate court of the nature of the appeal.

15. Technological alternatives to manual preparation of transcripts (e.g., computeraided produotlon, sound recording and videotaping) should be explored thoroughly and, where feasible, should be introduced on a widespread basis.

16. Unless a novel point of law is involved, appellate courts should use unsigned memorandum opinions, rather than writing fulllength signed opinions.

17. Appella.te courts slwuld establish a central hearing staff to analyze oases coming before the court, verify allegations ma.de,

recommend appropriate dispositions, and draft a possible memorandum opinion in suitable cases.

18. Trained court administrators should be employed to bring specialized management skllls to the courts and to allow judges to concentrate on hearing and deciding cases.

19. Law schools and bar associations must enlarge their efforts to prepare lawyers for trial work and thus enable them to handle a case a.t both the trial and appeal level.

20. Intensive statistical research must be carried out to discover precisely where and why cases are being backed up in the judicial process. The current lack of such elementary data makes close analysis of court problems extremely difficult.

By Mr. BEALL (for himself and Mr. MATHIAS) :

S. 3670. A bill to amend the Washington Area Transit Authority Compact to require the inclusion of rail commuter service in the mass transit plan, and for other purposes. Ref erred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator MATHIAS and myself I send to the desk a bill designed to expedite the implementation of an efficient rail commuter service for the WashingtonBaltimore metropolitan areas. The legislation amends the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact, by requiring the inclusion of rail commuter service in the mass transit plans. Specifically, the bill directs that within 180 days after enactment, the board of directors of the authority "shall adopt a program for the development of rail commuter service" as part of its mass transit plan. "Upon adoption of such a program, the board shall immediately take appropriate steps to secure the implementation thereof including the securing of funds therefor as appropriated under the provisions of the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, as amended." The Urban Mass Transit Act provides for capital grants for transportation facilities and equipment.

The compact is an agreement between Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia for which Congress gave consent in Public Law 89-774. Congress, of course, cannot unilaterally amend this compact, but Congress as the "legislature" of the District of Columbia can adopt an amendment on behalf of the District of Columbia which subsequently must be concurred in by both the Legislatures of the States of Maryland and Virginia.

The Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority has the authority to acquire or develop rail commuter service within the transit zone, but they have shown little interest or inclination to do so thus far. Paragraph 13 of the compact directs the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority to develop a mass transit plan which shall designate the transit facility to be provided by the authority,

My bill would amend· this paragraph to specifically direct the inclusion of rail commuter facilities in the transit plan and to require the authority board to carry out this aspect of the plan.

Mr. President, the Englund Report of May 1971 concluded that potential for rail commuter operations exists in the

Washington metropolitan area. It concluded that an estimated 12,000 to 14,200 trips per weekday could be achieved in the first year of rail commuter operations and that the future growth potential was good. It found that improved rail service would help "materially in reducing pressures on highways access routes from farther out points, particularly at the most critical rush hour times,'' would "materially ease the rate of increase of automobile parking requirements v..ithin the central business district," and would be an "important element toward the creation of a balanced transit-transportation complex within the region."

There has been a considerable interest in realizing the potential of rail commuter service but as of this date, the necessary parts of a program to bring about improved rail commuter service have not been assembled.

No railroad possesses the capability of arranging the interline operation essential to an efficient rail commuter operations and to the development of the latent commuter potential. Furthermore, railroads, which are having difficulty in generating capital for equipment and facilities for profitable operations are both unlikely and unable to channel resources to improve commuter operations. For example, Englund report found B. & O.'s net deficit for commuter service operations was $813,959 or a loss of approximately $2 for each dollar of revenue received. Thus, a major obstacle has been the establishment of an appropriate authority charged with the management of all rail commuter services. This bill would remove that impediment to improved rail commuter service.

Mr. President, the important value of mass transportation and the commuter train is becoming increasingly evident. Pollution, congested highways, not to mention the wear and tear on individuals as they crawl through tra:mc to their employment, all combine and cogently make the case for steps and for action now to help alleviate the present situation. The pollution problem is particularly serious in the Washington area. Recent articles have pointed out the alarmingly high level of carbon monoxide in the Washington area. Washington is one of the seven cities that the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded will be unable to meet the carbon monoxide standards by 1975 as required by the Clean Air Act. Utilizing rail service for commuters, while not solving the pollution problem, will nevertheless contribute to a reduction of the pollution level.

Mr. President, I urge early and favorable action by the Congress on this proposal. The State of Maryland has shown considerable interest in the problem, and is weighing various alternatives. The June 2 edition of the Evening Star contained a story which described quite well the work that has been going on in Maryland, and I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.


<See exhibit 1J Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I also would

like to call attention to the significance

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 19697 of a recent development involving the long-awaited visitor center at Union Station. The National Association of Railroad Passengers pointed out the additional benefits of this facility in a June 2 press release entitled, "Commuter Train Prospects Surge as Visitors Center Progresses." The statement includes the following passages:

Area commuters should rejoice because a new passenger terminal will be constructed directly above the tracks beneath the parking garage. This program will reduce by approximately 25 per cent the staggering cost of opera.ting commuter trains in the Washington area.

This breakthrough makes 1972 the ideal time for local authorities to implement an area-wide commuter rail system from distant Maryland and Virginia points.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this statement be printed at the conclusion of my reremarks.


<See exhibit 2.) Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, whatever

approach is decided upon for solving Washington's commuter problems, an authority to oversee the operations, which will involve a number of jurisdictions, will be needed. An authority is, thus, essential and passage of this act will provide that authority. If we do not act, we may see, as the Englund report warned, a complete disappearance of the rail commuter operations from this area. At a time when it is important that all alternatives to the automobile be utilized to enable the District of Columbia to meet air pollution standards, and to ease the plight of the commuter, this would be a tragedy. I am also convinced that a healthy commuter rail service will subsequently contribute to the establishment of a balanced transit-transportation complex with the region.

Metro is on its way and I certainly welcome it, but the urgency of the problem demands that we take those steps that we can to ease the situation as quickly as we can, particularly when those actions will complement the Metro System when it becomes operational. The Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority should have been doing this in the first place. This bill would require that they do it. I urge enactment of this measure.

ExHmIT 1

MARYLAND WEIGHING RAIL COMMUTER PLAN

(By stephen M. Aug) The Maryland Department of Transporta

tion is considering two staff proposals seeking state aid to upgrade and expand railroad. commuter service to Washington's Maryland suburbs.

One proposal-that said to be favored by the staff-would have the state contract with the Penn Central Transportation Co. and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. to operate trains on behalf of the state.

The other, somewhat more modest, would have the state purchase and renovate a.ddi· tional equipment and rent it at nominal fees to the two railroads. The hope is that with additional equipment. the railroads could attract more passengers and possibly run their commuter service at a profit.

The more modest plan would also provide for increased service on the Penn Central commuter lines between Washington and

Baltimore--to three trains daily from the present two.

At present Penn Central carries about 375 commuters to Washington in the morning and back in the afternoon. The B&O carries about 1,100 each way.

Harry R. Hughes, Maryland's new secretary of transportation, briefed the Maryland congressional delegation yesterday afternoon on transportation problems, but a source present at the meeting said the staff proposals did not come up. He indicated Hughes did not seem optimistic a.bout improving Washington's rail commuter system.

According to at least one source, the staff's present timetable--admittedly optimisticcalls for Maryland to make contract proposals to the railroads by July 1. Operations under the contracts would begin Sept. 1.

The lines that would be improved include the Penn Central Washington-Baltimore line; B&O between Washington and Brunswick, and B&O between Washington and Laurel. The B&O line north of Laurel would not be included.

It is understood that during the first six months of operation, under either plan, the state would acquire and renovate additional equipment, principally for the B&O. The Penn Central would continue to use existing equipment.

Then, for five years or more, the renovated equipment would be operated while the department undertakes evaluations of longterm needs and feasibility of such programs involving purchases of new equipment, building new stations and running additional routes.

A spokesman for Hughes declined to comment on any of the proposals, saying only, "The secretary has not ma.de a final decision on what plan he will implement." He said that what is under study is primarily "preliminary staff work."

Asked about the program's financing, the spokesman said that beginning July 1, it will be legally possible for the department to make grants to private carriers. He added that revenues for the state's transportation trust fund-presumably the principal source of money to be spent on the program-will total a.bout $340 million during 1973.

The spokesman explained the department will have authority next year to issue up to $950 mlllion in bonds.

The operating subsidy alternative under study would be similar to programs operating elsewhere. The two railroads involved would sign contracts with the state to operate commuter rail service. The state would then collect the revenues, paying the railroads the actual costs of running the trains, plus a small management fee.

A plan to improve the Washington-area commuter service was disclosed a.bout a year ago by an engineering consultant under contract with the U.S. Department of Transportation. It recommended upgrading the Penn Central Washington-Baltimore line and B&O Washington-Brunswick line and the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad line in Virginia currently providing no commuter service.

Since then, a modified version of the planincluding the B&O Washington-to-Laurel line-has been pushed by the National Association of Railroad Passengers, a nonprofit District-based organization.

One problem facing the Maryland staff proposals is the high cost of operating trains through Washington's Union Station. The terminal company-owned jointly by B&O and Penn Central--charges about $40 for each car handled in and out of the terminal to defray the expenses of operating the huge building and track system.

The construction of a visitors' center, however, is expected to reduce these costs by about 25 percent, according to the railroad passenger association. The DOT consultant-Carl R. Englund--called the station, with op-

era.ting costs of $14 million a year, "probably the most costly operation of its type in the nation."

A story in yesterday's Star pointed out that the B&O has recently reached agreement with two New York City banks to obtain the $16 mlllion necessary to convert the station into a visitors' center for lease by the Department of the Interior.

ExHIBIT2 COMMUTER TRAIN PROSPECTS SURGE AS VISI

TORS CENTER PROGRESSES

(The following statement was released today by Joseph Vranich, executive director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers:)

According to the June 1 edition of the Washington Evennig Star, "An agreement to provide financing for the long-delayed Union Station visitor center project has reporteclly been reached between the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and two New York banks."

Under the agreement, the Federal government will provide $16 million for the repair and renovation of the terminal and construction of a massive parking garage.

Area commuters should rejoice because a. new passenger terminal will be constructed directly above the tracks beneath the parking garage. This program will reduce by approximately 25% the staggering cost of operating commuter trains in the Washington area.

The station-with operating costs approximately $14 million annually-has been described as "probably the most costly operation of its type in the nation" by Carl R. Englund, a consultant to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

This breakthrough makes 1972 the ideal time for local authorities to implement an area-wide commuter rail system from distant Maryland and Virginia points. No longer can excessive costs be used as a crutch by those interests opposed to commuter rail service.

A commuter rail system could also meaningfully reduce vehicular traffic in the Nation's Capital, thereby enhancing it's image among all visiting Americans.

Representative Kenneth J. Gray (D-Ill.) is to be commended for his persistance-without his dedication there would be no National Visitors Center.

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. HRUSKA, Mr. COOK, Mr. HART, Mr. MATHIAS. and Mr. Rm1coFF):

S. 3671. A bill to amend the Administrative Conference Act. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing with the cosponsorship of Senators HRUSKA, RIBICOFF, COOK, HART, and MATHIAS a bill to provide greater support for the Administrative Conference of the United States. This relatively new permanent agency of the Federal Government is ms.king significant contributions towards improving the procedures by which programs affecting millions of Americans are administered. This bill would give the Administrative Conference the opportunity for even greater service in the future.

The various agencies of the Federal Government are today under attack, because they have failed to develop policies and procedures that are fully responsive to public needs and public interests. Many agencies have become bogged down in time-consuming and expensive proceedings which plague private citizens with delay and expense. Other

19698 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, L972

agencies exercise powers of enormous significance to private citizens without providing even the minimal safeguards of notice, opportunity for hearing, and public statement of reasons in support of a decision.

Our Nation is deeply and rightly concerned about the chaotic problems which plague the administration of justice in our courts. Yet few people are aware that Federal administrative agencies issue more decisions affecting more people, more directly, than cto decisions of the Federal courts.

The administrative process is growing at an explosive rate-much faster than the growth in the population or the economy. The need for new regulatory activities and for the extension of social rights and benefits leads to the creation of new agencies every year and the expansion of old ones. This proliferation of agencies and programs has sorely taxed our ability to process fairly and expeditiously the ever-increasing number of grievances and complaints that modem government produces. The Administrative Conference is the only Federal agency that is equipped to study and recommend needed changes in the administrative machinery that will maintain and improve the quality of administrativ.e justice meted out by Federal agencies.

The Administrative Conference, with limited staff and resources, has already demonstrated that it is a vital force in improving the machinery of government. Since its establishment in 1968, it has adopted formal recommendations, many of which have already been fully or partially implemented. These involve such matters as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, adequate representation of the p00r in agency proceedings, minimum procedural safeguards for grant-in-aid programs, broadened public participation in agency proceedings, the elimination of duplicative and unnecessary procedures, and strengthening the role of hearing examiners.

The Conference has concerned itself with the informal discretionary procedures of such agencies as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Parole Board, as well as with the more formal procedures of the Food and Drug Administration and the Social Security Administration.

It is currently studying such vital matters as the procedures used in the licensing of nuclear powerplants by Atomic Energy Commission; those of the Civil Service Commission in adverse actions against Federal employees; the procedural rights of Indian tribes; the coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act; and the procedures for the resolution of property disputes between the United States and private persons.

There is a great need for dispassionate, scholarly, and detailed studies of other programs and procedures which are beyond the present means of the Administrative Conference. The Administrative Procedures Act, for example, has been in effect for more than a quarter century. It has been a most effective law, but its provisions should be examined to determine whether it could be better adapted to current conditions and problems.

Improvement of administrative procedures and increased understanding of official behavior will lead to greater citizen confidence in the integrity and legitimacy of Government action. Exploration of the administrative process by the Administrative Conference on a larger and deeper scale should contribute substantially to those ends. Its demonstrated capabilities to conduct impartial, professional studies, and to propose sound remedial measures have convinced me and those who have followed its work that the Conference should now be given the opportunity to expand its activities.

The bill I introduce today will authorize the Conference to seek a level of funding to expand its activities. It would also permit it to enter into supporting research arrangements and to receive grants from private nonprofit institutions. I urge the Members of the Senate to familiarize themselves with the work of the Administrative Conference and to join me in supporting this worthwhile program.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to introduce S. 3671 to amend the Administrative Conference Act.

The Administrative Conference of the United States was created in 1964 to insure that Federal agencies "may cooperatively study mutual problems, exchange information, and develop recommendations for action by proper authorities to the end that private rights may be fully protected and regulatory activities and other Federal responsibilities may be carried out expeditiously in the public interest."

Since the conference was activated in 1968 it has studied in detail a number of matters relating to the functioning of the Federal Government. Six plenary sessions have been held during the past 4 years which have resulted in the adoption of 31 formal recommendations. These have included:

Compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Improving Government publications and public information about Government activities.

Streamlining judicial review of agency decisions.

Elimination of duplicative and unnecessary procedures.

Minimum procedural safeguards for Federal grant-in-aid programs and enforcement of conditions included in such grants.

Strengthening the role of hearing examiners.

Broadened public participation in rulemaking and other administrative proceedings, including greater representation of the poor.

Requiring agencies to articulate their policies in general rules.

Expediting trial-type proceedings through such devices as the use of summary procedures, broadened discovery and reduction of interlocutory appeals.

In addition to these general topics, a number of important reports and recommendations are devoted to the handling by particular agencies of one or more functions. Reeent examples are:

Exercise of discretion in change-of-

status cases by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Procedures of the Food and Drug Administration for the formulation of food and drug standards.

Availability to the public of "noaction" letters issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Practices and procedures of the Renegotiation Board. Committees of the Conference are engaged in a wide variety of studies on additional subjects at the present time.

In a letter from the Acting Attorney General to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee indicating the support of the Justice Department for H.R. 13644, which is identical to the bill we introduce today, Mr. Kleindienst said:

The work of the Conference in improving administrative procedures of Federal agencies is of great importance in assisting agencies to more effectively perform their functions and in assuring fairness to the affected public. The Department of Justice has observed that the scholarship of the Conference has invariably been excellent, its research wellconsldered, and its workproduct most useful. A number of the Conference's studies and recommendatons have been of special value to the Department. For example, a Conference study of the Department's procedures for the remission and mitlgratlon of forfeitures led to our adoption of new regulations with respect to such procedures 28 C.F.R. Part 9. As a result of the Conference's recent recommendations respecting procedures of the Immigration and Naturallza.tion Service in change-of-status cases, the Service has already adopted some of the suggested changes and ls giving careful consideration to others. The recommendatons of the Conference establishing guidelines for implementation of the Freedom of Information Act are of particular interest to the Department in view of our responsiblllty to defend the United States in suits brought under the Act.

This bill would make several changes, mostly of a technical nature, in the statutory authorization for the Conference. These technical changes include such items as authority to, first, contract for services with outside bodies and persons; second, increase the per diem for experts and consultants; and third, accept gifts and bequests. The principal purpose of the bill, however, is to eliminate the present appropriation ceiling of up to $450,000 annually. The fiscal year 1972 budget for the Conference is $408,000 and the fiscal year 1973 request is for the full $450,000. It is certain that within a short time, therefore, the present ceiling if not altered will require the Conference to curtail some of its activities. For a permanent body such as this an appropriation ceiling is not only unusual but unnecessary; it makes advance planning difficult and cumbersome.

Because of the obvious excellence and value of the work of the Administrative Conference, this Senator is pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 3671. It is my hope tbat the bill can be quickly and favorably considered by the Senate so that the work of the Conference can go !~-rward as effectively as possible.

By Mr. HANSEN: S. 3672. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 to provide an exemption from the Federal estate tax for certain debt obligations of domestic cor-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 19699 porations in cases where the interest on such obligations would be treated as income from foreign sources for purposes of the interest equalization tax. Ref erred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, as a part of the Interest Equalization Tax Extension Act of 1971, provision was made for the direct issuance of debt obligations by domestic corporations to foreign lenders without the need to withhold U.S. income tax from interest paid to the foreign lenders so long as acquisition of those debt obligations were made subject to the interest equalization tax. This provision was placed in the law to facilitate foreign borrowings by domestic corporations in assistance to the balance-ofpayments program under the Foreign Direct Investment Regulations. So far the intent of this legislation has been frustrated by the fact that a foreign lender would be subject to U.S. estate taxes if he were to die while holding securities of a domestic corporation. As a result, potential foreign lenders will not loan money to domestic corporations attempting to avail themselves of the new rules. To eliminate the frustration of the intent of Congress and to facilitate these foreign borrowings, revision should be made to the estate tax so that such securities would be exempt.

H.R. 9040, which was introduced by Congressmen CONABLE and CAREY of New York, and which was reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee this year accomplishes the intended result.

In its committee report on H.R. 9040-House Report No. 92-793-the Ways and Means Committee stated:

Committee estimates that this bill will have no effect, or at most a negligible effect, on the revenues. The Treasury Department agrees with this statement.

The committee report also states the Treasury Department has recommended enactment of this bill.

I concur in the objective sought to be achieved by this House bill and for this reason I am today introducing a companion bill in the Senate. It is my hope that this legislation can be acted on at an early time to eliminate what is generally agreed to be an unintended result preventing the 1971 amendment from having the effect Congress intended.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

s. 3070

At his own request, Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD was added as a cosponsor of S. 3070, a bill to amend chapter 15 of title 38, United States Code, to provide for the payment of pensions to World War I veterans and their widows, subject to $3,000 and $4,200 annual income limitations; to provide for such veterans a certain priority in entitlement to hospitalization and medical care; and for other pur-poses.

s. 3639

At the request of Mr. CRANSTON, the Senator from Minnesota <Mr. HUMPHREY) was aded as a cosponsor of S. 3639, a bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964 to authorize the use of food stamps by elderly persons to purchase

meals prepared and served by certain institutions.

SENATE RESOLUTION 313--SUBMISSION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING OF THE REPORT ENTITLED "THE ECONOMICS OF CLEAN WATER, SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS" (Referred to the Committee on Rules

and Administration.) Mr. RANDOLPH submitted the follow

ing resolution: S. RES. 313

Resolved, That the annual report of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Congress of the United States (in compliance with section 26(a.) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as a.mended) entitled "The Economics of Clean Water, Summary of Analysts," be printed with lllustrations as a. Senate Document.

SEC. 2. There shall be printed one thousand five hundred additional copies of such document for the use of the Committee on Public Works.

SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1972-AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT NO. 1211

<Ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Finance.)

Mr. RANDOLPH, for himself and Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them jointly to the bill <H.R. 1) to amend the Social Security Act to increase benefits and improve eligibility and computation methods under the OASDI program, to make improvements in the medicare, medicaid, and maternal and child health programs with emphasis on improvements in their operating effectiveness, to replace the existing Federal-State public assistance programs with a Federal program of adult assistance and a Federal program of benefits to low-income families with children with incentives and requirements for employment and training to improve the capacity for employment of members of such families. and for other purposes.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF AN AMENDMENT

AMENDMENT NO. 1204

At the request of Mr. DOMINICK, the Senator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1204, intended to be proposed to the bill CS. 1861) the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1972.

NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON BARBITURATE ABUSE

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement by the distinguished Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered:

STATEMENT BY SENATOR BAYH

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, as part of its continuing investigation of the

problem of barbiturate abuse, has scheduled hearings on two legislative measures, S. 3538 and S. 3539, on June 12 and 13, 1972.

S. 3538 would require all manufacturers of solid oral form barbiturates to place identifying marks or symbols on their products. S. 3539 would provide for the rescheduling of four shorter-acting barbiturates from Schedule ill to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act.

During these hearings we will hear testimony from several manufacturers and distributors of barbiturates. They will focus on the diversion of barbiturates from legal channels to illegal channels, the extent of diversion, what is currently being done to prevent it, and what can be done to inhibit this illicit traffic.

The hearings will begin at 10 :00 a.m., June 12 and 13, in Room 2228 New Senate Office Building. Any person who wishes to submit a statement for the record should notify Mathes Falco, Staff Director and Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee a.t 225-2951.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

THE STATE OF SMALL BUSINESS IN 1972

Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, during the period May 14 to May 20, Small Business Week has been observed in the Capital and throughout the Nation. The event was so declared in a proclamation issued from the White House by President Nixon, who was following the practice of his predecessor since 1965. I ask unanimous consent that the proclamation be reprinted in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

Many fine meetings have been held to advance the aims of Small Business Week, and it has been my privilege to attend a number of these in Washington. For example, on May 16 the fifth annual SBA subcontracting conference was convened at the Kennedy Cultural Center, drawing the participation of 350 major contractors and subcontractors, the largest turnout yet. On that occasion, awards were presented to H. J. Riblet, president of Microwave Development Laboratories, Inc., of Needham Heights, Mass., as Subcontractor of the Year and Henry Marcheschi, of American Telecommunications Corp., El Monte, Calif., as Small Businessman of the Year.

On May 17, three regional small business groups, led by the Smaller Business Association of New England under its able president, Roland L. Sutton, and executive vice president, Lewis A. Shattuck, made a combined legislative presentation in the U.S. Capitol. On Friday, Mr. Herman Williams, president of one of these groups, the Independent Business Association of Wisconsin, was interviewed on the nationally televised program Today in New York City. This week, National Small Business Association president, Harry E. Brinkman, and the chairman of the National Committee on Small Business Tax Reform, Edward Larson, presented certificates of appreciation to 154 Congressmen and 34 Senators for their support of tax simplification and reform and other small business legislation. The National Federation of Independent Business gave similar citations. Also during this time, several other small business organizations were holding directors

19700 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 5, 1972

and trustees meetings here in Washington.

These are gratifying developments, and they underscore the fact that although institutions for fostering smaller enterprises have grown slowly in this country, they may at last be coming into their own.

Many of the national and regional small business organizations had their origins about 30 to 35 years ago, although some go back even further than that. The National Federation of Independent Business was founded in 1943, the National Small Business Association was created in 1937, and the National Business League dates from all the way back to 1900. The National Association of Small Business Investment Companies came about at the time of the enactment of SBIC legislation in 1958. On the regional level, the Smaller Business Association of New England acquired its charter in 1938, and the Smaller Manufacturers' Council of Pittsburgh was founded in 1945. These groups have been making their voices heard in the Capital, constructively and consistently, in behalf of the small business community and the free enterprise system.

Over the years, and especially this year, it has been gratifying to see other small business groups such as the Independent Business Association of Wisconsin and the Independent Broker-Dealers Trade Association joining the ranks of the small business advocates. Still more associations have shown heightened small business consciousness over the past few years.

Actions in the public sector followed and were undoubtedly influenced by these initiatives. The Small Business Committee of the Senate became a standing committee just over two decades ago, in 1950, but it was only in 1971 that this status was achieved by the House Select Small Business Committee.

The Small Business Administration was established permanently in 1953 as successor to the temporary activities of the Small Defense Plants Administration and the Smaller War Plants Corporation of the 1950's and 1940's. It was 14 years ago, in 1958, that the Small Business Investment Act laid down the foundation for small business investment company

rventure capital financing. However, I want to emphasize that, in

my opinion, it is these private independent business organizations and their day-to-day work that are not only a convenience to small business but an absolute necessity if individual small :firms and small business values are to survive in this country.

The pressures on new, local and independent business are tremendous and increasing every year. Not only are costs, competition, and business problems mounting inexorably, but the Government itself is piling burdens on smaller firms. For instance, we have a complex tax system that is slanted in favor of larger firms. Federal and State governments are requiring mandatory compliance with proliferating health, safety, sanitary, and environmental standards. There is also a tendency in government to relegate smaller business interests to the bottom of any list of priorities when government policy is formulated.

Therefore, in my judgment, small firms must fight for everything they hope to gain or hope to save in 1972 and in every future year. Experience suggests that the Federal Government will do nothing for them simply because it is good for employment, or for their communities, or for the national economy. There are other larger claimants for the benefits of public Policy.

Thus, effective national and regional small business organizations seem to me to be the best hope of convincing people in Washington that what is sensible economically is also sustainable politically.

It is, therefore, my wish that the small business organizations of this country will prosper so that they will be stronger in Small Business Week 1973 than they are now. I hope that many more groups will be added to this distingished list in the yea.rs to come. Their constituency is potentially mighty: All of America's entrepreneurs--5 % million small business firms, 3 million farmer-businessmen, and about 1% million professional and selfemployed persons, for a total of about 10 million. These units account for more than 95 percent of the number of businesses nationwide and about three-quarters of all the employment in the country.

Effective organization will determine whether this latent political muscle will be felt as it properly should be in the Halls of Congress, in the executive and regulatory agencies, in the State houses, and in local· governments throughout the country.

There being no objection, the proclamation was ordered to be printed 1n the RECORD, as follows:

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK, 1972 A PROCLAMATION

It is no curious accident that from earliest times, the expansion of America's frontiers was closely paralleled by the robust growth of our Nation's free enterprise system. In the footprints of Boone and Carson came a different but no less courageous breed of pioneer; the tradesman and peddler, miller and merchant. As their cabins and trading posts have become towns and cities, their wilderness commerce has become the foundation for the most extraordinary economic force in the history of mankind.

It is a force that leaves no idea unexplored, no promise unpursued, no citizen of this land unenriched. Today, we call it small business.

There are now more than 8 million small businesses in this country. An unprecedented. 287,000 new companies were incorporated just last year. Nineteen out of every twenty firms are considered small business, and they provide more than 35 million jobs, and contribute more than $370 billion to the gross national product.

Small business is the corridor of progress and change for Americans of every nationality and color. It is an arena where the sheer power of individual initiative and self-determination can exact the rewards of participation, achievement and success. Small, free, independent enterprise is the heritage of our past and the lifeblood of our future, providing each of our citizens with life's most prized gift: opportunity.

Now, Therefore, I Richard NiXon, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate the week beginning May 14, 1972, as Sm.all Business Week. I ask all Americans to share with me during this week a great feeling of pride in the accomplishments of these small businessmen and women, and in their continued commitment to success.

In Witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-sixth.

RICHARD NIXON.

A CHUCK WAGON IN CHEYENNE Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, there are

not many cities where visitors can get a free breakfast, but you can in Cheyenne, Wyo., any morning during the annual Frontier Days celebration the last week of July.

Frontier Days, as most know, is the world's biggest rodeo and is known by cowboys and fans alike as "The Daddy of 'EmAll.0

The Kiwanis magazine of June contains an excellent article by Wayne Aune, entitled "A Chuck Wagon in Cheyenne." It relates how the breakfasts are sponsored and served by the Frontier Days Committee and the Cheyenne Kiwanis, of which I am proud to have honorary membership.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

A CHUCK WAGON IN CHEYENNE

(By Wayne Aune) On a cold, clear morning in July 1970 my

wife, two daughters, and I were driving down the deserted main street of Cheyenne, Wyoming. The time :flashed 4: 22 over a storefront. Neon "no vacancy" signs had greeted us all the way from Rawlins and so, except for a three-hour rest stop along the Medicine Bow River, we had driven through the night to Cheyenne and its famous Frontier Days, the daddy of all western rodeos.

We stopped for the light at 16th and Warren, and there out of the night loomed the familiar Kiwanis emblem on what appeared to be a chuck wagon. Men were scurrying about in the dark, so I pulled over and asked, "What's going on at 4:30 in the morning?"

"Making breakfast," came the reply. Well, I guess I had that answer coming, but I tried again.

"I'm from Kiwanis International. I saw the emblem, and I was wondering ... .''

Before I could finish another man walked over and asked, "You here to cover our chuck wagon breakfast?"

"No, but ... .'' "Well, let me tell you a little about it,"

said Earl Crittenden, then general chairman of the breakfast. He did, and as a result we returned last year to see it for ourselves on the 75th anniversary of Frontier Days, the oldest and biggest rodeo in the United States, which now boasts the biggest chuck wagon breakfast too.

Last year's breakfast was prepared and served on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning by more than a hundred members of the Kiwanis Club of Cheyenne and some fifty Boy Scouts whose service earned them their community service merit badges. On Monday 3600 cowboys and cowgirls, townspeople and visitors enjoyed the free feed, a.nd by Friday well over 15,000 persons had consumed some 45,000 pancakes and 1500 pounds of ham. Not surprisingly, the Kiwanians regard their Frontier Days breakfasts a.s civil defense exercises in ma.ss feeding.

It all started five years ago when the Frontier Days Committee approached the Kiwanis club with the idea. of giving visitors something extra With the celebration, specifically an old-fashioned chuck wagon break-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 19701 fast. Fortunately, the Kiwanis club had the equipment (previously used for their annual club clambake) suitable for such an ambitious project. The Kiwanians at first envisioned the breakfast as a fund raising project, but later decided that the Frontier Days Committee would provide the food, the Kiwanians would supply the equipment, manpower, and service, and they would give everyone a free breakfast. It started small-by Frontier Days Standards-and the first year a mere 300 persons were served, but by the second year 7000 hungry patrons were holding out their plates and by the third year, 9000.

As the crowds grew the club added equipment, until today, under the direction of Richard M. "Hutch" Hutchinson, club quartermaster and past lieutenant governor of the Rocky Mountain District, the Kiwanians operate twenty-one gas-fueled grills for pancakes and ten field ranges, six for ham, three for the 340 gallons of coffee that's kept steaming each morning, and one in reserve. A home-made batter mixing machine measures out the precise amounts of pancake mix needed and does everything but crack the eggs that are added to the mix. I asked Hutch how many cups of coffee 340 gallons would make. With a wide grin he brushed his cowboy hat back on the top of his solid sixfoot-four frame and replied, "Enough to keep the cobwebs out of your head for a long, long time."

Last year, along with the pancakes, ham, coffee, 120 gallons of milk, and 1512 24-oz. bottles of syrup the Kiwanians also provided 496 bales of hay where sm111ng Frontier Days guests with heaping plates could take a seat while digging into their man-sized breakfasts. A truck arrived from a nearby ranch with the hay at 5 AM, and with the help of the more muscular Kiwanians it was unloaded. "How many bales are on this truck?" I asked.

"Four hundred and ninety-six," came the answer from a young man silhouetted against the brightening sky.

"Five hundred bales, huh?" I replied. "No,'' he said as he plunged his hook into

another 70-pound bale, "four hundred and ninety-six." Then everyone broke up laughing and some one explained: "He ought to know; he loaded every single one of them!'

It isn't easy to smile that early in the morning, but !t's remarkable how the folks ln Cheyenne pitch in during Frontier Days. They've got a saying there to the effect that "there's winter and there's Frontier Days," and this was Frontier Days, the biggest time of the year in Cheyenne, winter notwithstanding. Frontier Days is the richest rodeo In the history of the Rodeo Cowboys Association, with $98,700 in prize money and four days of parades, some lasting as long as an hour and a half and including over a thousand horses. The Kiwanians' breakfast guests are treated to some of this entertainment and pageantry while they eat, with a live show including musical groups, clowns, and Ogala Sioux, the tribe whose famous fathers include Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull.

The chuck wagon breakfast plays a very important part in the success of Frontier Days,'' says E. 0. Davis, last year's Frontier Days Committee chairman and a Kiwanian himself (as are most Frontier Days chairmen). And, as one of the committeemen commented. "This breakfast ls worth more than a $35,000 ad in one of those eastern big-city newspapers." Chuck Anderson, now president of the Cheyenne club, told me: "We've received hundreds of letters from all over the United States thanking us for such fine western hospitality and a great breakfast. We had a Kiwanian from a California club ask if he could be of help after he finished his breakfast. We said 'sure.' That was on Monday morning, and would you believe it, he was stlll here when we had our inter-club with over 250 Kiwanlans in attendance the following Thursday afternoon.

He was really helping us and enjoying himself too."

Considering the thousands of people who are served each morning it's fantastic how the Kiwanians manage to serve a person starting at the back of a block-and-a-half line in just eight minutes. "That's real coordination on the part of our Kiwanians and Boy Scouts," says Jimmy Vises., last year's club president. "But we don't want any of the hungry men, women, and especially kids to wait more than fifteen minutes for their first big meal of the day." With their equipment and know-how the Kiwanis Club of Cheyenne could feed 5500 people in just two hours under emergency conditions, such as a person lost in the wilderness or a natural calamity. "We're always ready to move out with the Civil Defense unit and set up in case of a disaster," Jimmy says.

So if, come the last week of July, you have a hankering for a real western rodeo and an appetite for a mansized breakfast under the perfect blue skies of Wyoming, then Cheyenne is the place to be. And who knows, you may find yourself staying the whole week to help out like that Kiwanian from California. In any event, each year the breakfasts served by the Kiwanis Club of Cheyenne are telling people face-to-face what a great service organization Kiwanis is-and that is better than any $35,000 newspaper ad.

POPULATION PRESSURE DIMINISHES CHINESE THREAT

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, on releasing a new study on the Chinese economy, "People's Republic of China: An Economic Assessment,'' the Joint Economic Committee noted that the economic basis of the military threat of China was not such as to cause us undue concern. Subsequent reactions to the study in a New York Times editoriad of May 26 and an article in the Washington Post by Stanley Karnow on May 21 indicate their general agreement with this assessment-highlighting in each case China's population problems. I ask unanimous consent that these reports be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial and article were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New York Times, May 26, 1972]

ONE BILLION CHINESE

The specter of "a bllllon Chinese on the mainland," raised by former Secretary of State Dean Rusk five years ago in connection with the Vietnam war, has emerged again-but in a strikingly different context.

A study prepared for the Congressional Joint Economic Committee predicts there will be 1.3 billion mainland Chinese by 1990. But, instead of being a threat to the United States in these staggering numbers, the study concludes that because of its population problem Peking is not likely to pose a "serious military danger" within the foreseeable future.

That is because in China, as in other developing countries, rapid population growth will exert heavy pressure on scarce economic resources, inhibiting the industrial growth that is the foundation of modern milltary power.

Although orthodox Marxists have generally frowned on family planning, there 1s evidence that China's Communist leaders recognize the gravity of their population problem and a.re trying to do something about it. The late Edgar Snow reported from Peking last year that "fa.mlly planning has been legalized and advocated by political, social and medical authorities in China with varying degrees of emphasis for

about fifteen years .... Developments within the pa.st two or three years have been fairly dramatic."

Nevertheless, as others have learned, it is not easy to check population growth in in a large and predominantly rural society like China's. Furthermore, in China as elsewhere the same extended health programs that fac111tate family planning also tend to prolong life, thus giving an offsetting spurt to population growth.

China's efforts to control the world's largest population problem undoubtedly hold useful lessons for others, just as others have much to teach it. The United Nations, where intensive efforts to defuse a worldwide population explosion are just gathering momentum, offers a forum for two-way exchange of data on birth control. All nations have a stake in helping to make information available to Peking for, even if one blllion Chinese pose no foreseeable mllitary threat, the social and political upheavals that could result from unchecked population growth on the Chinese mainland would be pro!undly destabilizing throughout Asia and beyond. [From the Washington Post, May 21, 1972] CHINA'S POPULATION WOES SEEN CURBING

ARMED THREAT TO UNXTED STATES

(By Stanley Karnow) Ofilcial U.S. experts estimate that the Peo

ple's Republic of China faces a gigantic population explosion in the next two decades that will exert heavy pressure on its scarce economic resources.

As a consequence, these experts predict, the likelihood that the Peking regime will have the strength to pose a "serious military danger" to the United States is improbable within the foreseeable future.

This evaluation is contained in an extensive study of the Chinese economy released yesterday by Sen. Wllliam Proxmire (D-Wis.), chairman of the congressional Joint Economic Committee.

The 382-page study, which brings up to date a similar survey issued by the committee in 1967, was prepared by China specialists in the Central Intelligence Agency, the Library of Congress, and the State and Commerce departments.

Basing his calculations on four different satistical models, John S. Aird forecasts that the Chinese population will be no less than 1,301,260,000 by 1990 and may go as high as 1,333,128,000 making projections from the only official Chinese census, ma.de in 1953, Aird puts the present population of China at more than 875 million.

Aird, a Commerce Department expert, describes in detail the considerable attempts by the Communist Chinese government to curb China's population through various family planning efforts.

But he suggests that these efforts will not lead to any substantial change in China's demographic prospects because the programs designed to cut down births also tend to reduce deaths.

"Circumstances favorable to a general acceptance of family limitation ... also result in improvement of general health and a lowering of mortality," Aird says, since Chinese family planning campaigns are usually combined with drives for "better medical care and sanitation throughout the countryside."

In Aird's view, only "catastrophe or spectacular changes in contraceptive techology and in the means of political coercion" can relieve Chinese population pressure. Under present conditions, he estimates, this pressure will confront China with severe longterm problems.

Another contributor to the study, Arthur G. Ashbrook Jr., points out that the Chinese government itself has no exact figures on China's population. Ashbrook quotes Chinese Vice Premier Li Hsien-nien a.s telling an Egyptian reporter last November that present population estimates very from 750 mllllon

19702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 to 830 million, depending on the requirements of different government department:3.

"The Ministry of Commerce insists on the bigger number in order to be able to provide goods in large quantities," Li said. "The planning men reduce the figure in order to strike a balance in the plans of the various state departments."

Despite China's potential population problem, the contributors to the study agree, the Chinese economy has shown remarkable resilience and current policies are guiding the country toward a strong, short-range economic position.

"The image of China as a desperately poor nation with most of its people living in misery and degradation is an image of the past," asserts Ashbrook, noting that the Peking regime has fed and clothed an immense Chinese population, detonated 13 nuclear devices, constructed a sizable military machine and is, among other things, running a foreign aid program.

China. has made these achievements with its own resources, Ashbrook adds, and has therefore "skillfully a.voided the primrose path of large-scale foreign borrowing which has left India, Pakistan, Indonesia. and Egypt with a crushing burden of external debt."

Moreover, Ashbrook says, these attainments have been made even though China has undergone serious political and economic disruptions in such episodes as the 1958 Great Leap Forward and Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-tung's Cultural Revolution, which began in late 1965.

Ashbrook estimates the Chinese industrial production dropped by 15 per cent to 20 per cent from 1966 to 1967 and remained depressed in 1968 as a result of the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution. But the episode, which mostly hit China's cities, barely affected agricultural output.

Industrial construction also continued "at a high rate" during the Cultural Revolution, Ashbrook says, since new projects "were normally located far away from the most severe of the urban disturbances."

In 1970, however, Chinese industrial production rose 17 per cent. Agricultural output, being increased annually with growing use of fertilizer and equipment, is expected to be adequate for the next three years.

The Chinese also sustained a serious blow when the Soviet Union, irritated by its dispute with Peking, discontinued its aid and withdrew its technicians from China. But the Chinese turned to Western nations and Japan for imports of technology.

According to Philip D. Reichers, another contributor to the study, the Chinese imported more than $200 milllon in advanced electronic production equipment from nonCommunist countries in the decade prior to 1970.

This selective import program, Reichers says, enabled China to "forego the lengthy and expensive process of prototype development" and thereby expand the number of its major electronic plants from 60 in 1960 to 200 in 1971.

Thus the Chinese recovered quickly from their loss of Soviet help. In addition, they were apparently unaffected by the total U.S. embargo on trade with their country that was only recently revised by President Nixon.

Although the study sees progress in Chinese milltary modernization, the study anticipates that the Peking leaders "may face a much tighter squeeze on resources needed for growth" as the cost of manufacturing and large-scale deployment of sophisticated weapons rises sharply in the decade ahead.

Returning to China's basic problem the study adds that "this squeeze would be compounded by the insistent pressure from the population to raise the level of consumption."

For all its economic success, the study says,

China's Gross National Product remains far behind that of the United States and other major nations, and is likely to remain at a relatively low level.

The estimates that China's 1970 Gross National Product was $120 billion, compared to $974 billion for the United States and about $245 billion for Japan. More strikingly, Chinese per capita income was only 3 per cent of that of the United States, and 6 per cent of Japan's.

The relative poverty of the Chinese, says the study, means that "they are much too weak economically to pose any serious military danger to the United States. And this situation inevitably will continue for some time."

INTERNATIONAL TRANSFER OF CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on May 31, the Senate adopted amendment No. 1202 to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The amendment requires the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in cooperation with other interested departments to prepare a comprehensive report on the international transfer of conventional weapons. The report should cover a number of important and germane topics including the nature of the tramc in conventional arms, the major participants in this tramc, the policies of the supplier countries toward transfer, the economic impact of transfer, the impact of transfer on international order, the history of any international negotiations seeking to limit transfer, negotiating obstacles, and recommendations for future U.S. policy.

I have received letters from the Secretary of Defense, Hon. Melvin R. Laird, and the Acting Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Mr. Philip J. Farley, in reply to my requests for their comments on the amendment. Although these letters were not available at the time of the vote, I consider them important expressions of the desire of the executive departments to cooperate fully with Congress in preparing a good report, and I should like now to make them available for the public record.

Both Secretary Laird and Mr. Farley indicated that their departments would give their best efforts toward preparing a comprehensive report on conventional arms transfer. Mr. Farley noted that ACDA has devoted considerable effort to this subject in the past and believes it can do much "to bring together available relevant facts and set forth possible courses of action."

I particularly wish to commend the Secretary of Defense for his endorsement of the amendment. In his forthright letter, Secretary Laird also elaborated upon his Department's policies and the diffi.culties of international negotiations. The Secretary appealed for congressional understanding and support for our desire to limit the supply of arms to smaller countries as well as for prudent military assistance programs where necessary to help these countries def end themselves. I also hope that the report required by the amendment will facilitate better understanding and cooperation between the Congress and the executive departments on these delicate issues.

Mr. Farley, in a separate earlier communication, and Secretary Laird have alluded to the dimculties of obtaining and releasing information that touches upon the sensitive security policies of other governments. I find their concern understandable, but I do not believe that this should be an insurmountable problem in preparing a useful report. The report does not necessarily require exact and detailed information on the security problems of specific governments although it should make use of such information where it is germane and publicly available. The report could also note where this information is not available and make use of independent estimates of the arms tramc such as those provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. What we in the Congress are most interested in, of course, are the general policy outlines that inhibit or otherwise effect the PoSsibilities of agreement.

Most of all, I hope the report will facilitate the adoption by this country of a coherent set of policy guidelines toward the supplying of arms to other countries and concrete proposals for mutual and balanced restraint. I believe that we should present such praposals even if other countries might initially refuse to accept them. At the very least, such proposals will help to force other countries to respond and hence make clear their own positions on these issues. They would also demonstrate that this country is serious about conventional arms restraints.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of Secretary of Defense Laird and Acting Director Farley be printed in the RECORD.


THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, D.a., May 31, 1972.

Hon. WILLIAM v. ROTH, JR., U.S. Senate, Washington, D.a.

DEAR SENATOR ROTH: I am pleased to give you my views, as you requested in your letter of May 17, on your proposed amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requiring an annual report on International conventional arms transfers.

I heartily endorse your proposal. This Administration, with the full support of the Department of Defense, has long advocated that the major arms producing nations exercise restraint in supplying arms to others.

In my Annual Defense Department Report to the Congress this year I said, with reference to the President's call for an end to East-West confrontation and a beginning of cooperation:

"One element of that change could be the exercise of mutual restraint in military assistance programs. No nation can, in the long run, be served by adding to instability or increasing the risks of violence which could escalate into great power confronta-tions. Military assistance programs should strengthen rather than weaken regional balances and national development; they should respect the needs and national pride of the recipients, rather than make of them pawns in a. greater international contest; they should, above all, reflect a genuine intent among major arms suppliers to bring conventional as well as nuclear weapons under control."

The Nixon Doctrine and our Strategy of Realistic Deterrence are the principal guides

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19703 to our decisions on grants and sales of arms to friends and allies. We seek to enhance the &ecurity and stability of friendly and allied nations-and to reduce the danger of great power confrontation-by an approach to deterrence that emphasizes increased national self-reliance in defense. We provide arms to our friends and allies under the Total Force concept not for conquest or intimidation, but so that they may defend themselves against attempts at conquest or intimidation by others.

At the same time, in our own national interest and the interest of peace and regional stability, we continue to support efforts to achieve practical agreements to limit the transfer of arms. Regrettably, the principal obstacle to achievement of such mutual restraint has been the willlingness of Communist states to supply arms for offensive purposes or to upset delicate regional military balances, as in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Nonetheless, it ls my conviction that we must persevere in our efforts to gain international recognition of the dangers of such a course.

If these efforts are to succeed, we will need the understanding and support of the Congress-not only for a policy of restraint, but also for such prudent assistance programs as may be required to make it possible for others to defend themselves. The Report your amendment calls for could facilitate this understanding and support.

Since the information on arms transfers and evaluation of sensitive security policy objectives of other governments would constitute an important element of the report, the task set by your amendment would be a. difficult one to fulfill. However, if the amendment is enacted, this Department will do all it can to assure a. positive, comprehensive report.

Sincerely, MELVIN R. LAmD.

U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY,

Washington, D .C., May 31, 1972. Hon. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., U.S. Senate.

DEAR SENATOR ROTH: I have followed with keen interest the progress of your amendment to our authorization requiring a report to Congress on conventional arms transfers. I was pleased to learn today that the amendment was adopted by the Senate.

This is indeed an important and complex subject deserving of the widest possible understanding. This Agency has over the p-a.st years devoted considerable effort to studying the underlying factors involved in developing controls over international transfers of arms and to seeking to devise workable approaches to negotiation and application of such controls. I believe that there is much that we can do to bring together available relevant facts and set forth possible courses of action. Upon enactment, this Agency, in cooperation with other interested agencies, will give its best efforts to the preparation of the report called for.

Thank you again for your constructive interest in arms control.

Sincerely yours, PHILIP J. FARLEY,

Acting Director

THE ISOLATION OF CUBA Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I in

vite the attention of Senators to the decision taken this week by the Organization of American States to reexamine the 10-year-old policy of isolating Cuba.

The decision in favor of review represents an acknowledgment that conditions in the hemisphere have changed since action was taken to exclude the Government of Cuba 10 years ago.

Recently, I joined with several other Senators to conduct a seminar into current United States-CUba relations. I believe there was a consensus expressed that a review of that policy is fully in order.

I would have hoped that the United States, instead of abstaining, would have taken a leading role in urging a reexamination of the policy toward Cuba. The trip to China and the trip to Moscow represent compelling evidence that the climate of international relations has changed considerably in the past decade so that a review of our own policy toward Cuba is in order.

Clearly, the most overwhelming consequence of the policy to isolate Cuba has been to impel that nation into a heavy and undesirable dependence, economically, politically, and militarily on the Soviet Union.

Surely, it is not in our interest to continue a policy whose major impact has been to stimulate the military presence of the Soviet Union in the Caribbean.

Therefore, I believe it is noteworthy that the OAS by a 14 to 1 vote, with eight absentations, agreed to officially reexamine policies toward Cuba. I would urge now that the United States do the same.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article written by Marilyn Berger and published ir. the Washington Post.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: OAS DECIDES To REVIEW ITS POLICY ON CUBA

(By Marilyn Berger) For the first time since Cuba was ex

cluded from the Organization of American States 10 years a.go, a majority of the members voted yesterday to reexamine the diplomatic and economic ostracism of the Castro regime.

The decision was made in a. meeting of the OAS permanent council by a vote of 14 to 1 with 8 abstentions. The United 8tates, which continues to take the position that sanctions against Cuba should be maintained, abstained. A State Department official said later that the U.S. government did n•Jt want to prevent discussion of the matter.

There was little indication, however, that the OAS would vote to drop sanctions against Cuba despite the decision to reexamine the issue. Any change would require a. two-thirds vote. A meeting was scheduled for Friday. It will be closed to the public.

Peru sent a special emissary to yesterday's council meeting to introduce a resolution that would allow "any member state that deems it advisable to normalize its relations with the Republic of Cuba." at whatever level considered appropriate.

The Vice Foreign Minister for Foreign Relations, Carlos Garcia Bedoya, told the 23-member council of "the profound changes ... in the world's power relations." Referring to the recent Moscow and Peking summits, Garcia. said: "Dialogue overcomes distrust and leads even old adversaries to communicate with each other even at the highest level. ... " He said the expulsion of Cuba in 1962 and the sanctions imposed in 1964 should be reviewed in the light of the new situation in the world. Such a review, he said, would revitalize the OAS.

Joseph John Jova, the U.S. delegate to the OAS, said that it takes two sides to have a summit and that Castro had ridiculed the idea of such a meeting with the United States. He said that because Cuba. continues to support revolution in other states of the

hemisphere, "even if on a different sea.le than in the past," sanctions should continue.

"The whole concept of collective security requires solidarity with those countries suffering intervention through Castro subversion," Jova said. It would be "politically unwise and juridically unsound to lift the sanctions at this time, he added.

Only Bolivia voted against the proposal to discuss the Cuban issue. It was in Bolivia. that Che Guevara, the revolutionary Latin leader, was captured and killed in 1967.

Since the expulsion of Cuba and the imposition of sanctions on the Castro regime, only Mexico and Chile have maintained full diplomatic relations with that country. Jamaica maintains consular relations.

The OAS voted on July 26, 1964, to impose punitive sanctions on Cuba by a. 15 to 4 majority. At that time Bolivia, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay opposed the resolution, which also branded Cuba an aggressor against Venezuela. The sanctions barred OAS members from maintaining diplomatic relations with Cuba. and required suspension of all trade except food and medicine needed for humanitarian purposes.

The 1962 resolution excluded Cuba from the OAS because as "a Marxist-Leninist government" it was said to be "incompatible with the principles and objectiv 1s of the inter-American system."

IS THERE A GAS SHORTAGE? Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, it is now

common knowledge that U.S. companies have signed agreements with foreign nations such as Algeria, Libya, and Venezuela for buying liquefied natural gas and importing it into the United States at delivered prices much higher than the price of domestically produced natural gas.

Also, it is no secret that U.S. companies have the blessing of the U.S. Government in negotiating with the Soviet Union for not only the purchases of huge amounts of liquefied natural gas but also for the financing and construction of the facilities to transport the gas to a Russian port, liquefaction plants, and the ships necessary to bring the gas to this country.

These same companies and others are also planning to build multimillion-dollar plants to produce synthetic gas from naphtha and crude oil and also coal gasification plants that will require huge capital outlays. The cost of this gas will be four or :five times the present cost of natural gas.

All of these plans are intended to supplement a dwindling supply of the cleanest and most convenient-and underpriced---of all fuels, natural gas.

For the past several years, the Nation's use of natural gas has far outrun additions to reserves through new discoveries and we are now faced with the grim prospects of actual shortages and shutdowns in some of the most populous areas of the country, including Washington, D.C.

The Federal Power Commission, in long overdue action to establish more realistic wellhead pricing policies for natural gas, has been questioned as to whether there is actually a gas shortage by Members of both bodies of Congress and, in fact, another Agency, the Federal Trade Commission last year began its own investigation of the gas shortage at the insistence of a congressional committee.


In the meantime, the gas shortage and the impending energy crisis are, as one writer put it, being "studied to death."

Even the Ford Foundation is now in the act with a $2 million grant for an energy policy project.

Last year a group representing the American Association of Petroleum Geologist's 15,000 members came to Washington in an effort to alert Congress and Federal officials to the seriousness of the oil and gas shortage. In that group was Dr. Sherman A. Wengerd, professor of geology at the University of New Mexico and now president of AAPG.

They came to Washington because they were concerned with what they termed the looming specter of dropping from an energy "have" to a "have less" Nation

They told me dw·ing their visit: It seemed to be almost beyond the com

prehension of the people we conferred with that the U.S. could soon experience a real energy crisis.

Dr. Wengerd only a few days ago issued another statement that was published by the Oil Daily which was highly critical of some who have questioned the FPC's findings of a gas shortage.

I would not subscribe to Dr. Wengerd's charges of demogoguery to those who questioned the FPC but I do believe his remarks, in view of the seriousness of the gas situation, are worthy of attention by all Senators.

Men like Dr. Wengerd and other members of AAPG know the facts of the vil and gas supply situation and understandably are distressed by the actions or inactions at the Federal level that delay any real solutions to our worsening energy problems.

Wengerd said: The nations most competent experts on

gas exploration and production, including many members of AAPG, have cooperated with FPC and with industry groups.

They are in agreement that known gas reserves are insufficient to meet the growing market demands for gas.

I agree with Dr. Wengerd. If we do not get on with some policy changes that will substantially increase the incentives for exploration and development of domestic oil and gas, we could and probably will very soon be facing serious shortages of both and, consequently be paying much higher prices for imported or synthetic oil and gas.

The utter folly of our growing dependence on imported oil-or gas-is well illustrated by the recent Iraqi seizure of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Co. and the embargo of oil shipments to nonArab countries.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the articles from the Oil Daily be printed in the RECORD.


SENATORS CRITICIZING FPC CHARGED WITH DEMAGOGUERY

TuLsA.-A group of U.S. senators was charged with "shameful demagoguery and ignorance of regulatory procedures" by Sherman A. Wengerd, president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Wengerd's statement ca.me in response to a. letter the senators sent to the Federal

Power Commission criticizing FPC for saying there is a shortage of natural gas without having made its own investigation of reserves.

"For many months," said Wengerd, "FPO, in the course of its routine regulatory duties, has been struggling with the problem. It has been denying utilities the right to connect new gas customers and has been granting interstate pipelines various forms of permission to obtain additional supplies of gas. Certainly it ought to know whether or not there is a ga.s shortage.

"FPO is the body created by Congress to regulate the activities of the natural gas industry, and it is staffed with geologists, engineers, and economists whose major duty is to supervise the activities of gas companies and the nation's gas supply. It is highly presumptuous of these senators to claim that they know more about gas supplies than a federal agency assigned to that duty," Wengerd declared.

The letter from the senators was prompted by an FPC announcement that it is considering the issuance of a rule under which interstate pipelines could pay gas producers more than the area ceiling price if bidding against intrastate consumers offering higher prices.

Wengerd explained that AAPG is an internationally oriented association of professional geologists which keeps close watch on oil and gas reserves, drilling statistics, and similar data.

"The nation's most competent experts on gas exploration and production, including many members of AAPG, have cooperated with FPO and with industry study groups," Wengerd continued. "They are in agreement that known gas reserves a.re insufficient to meet the growing market demands for gas.

"In every gas-producing state, intrastate customers are buying virtually all the new gas reserves that a.re being discovered by bidding higher than the prices interstate lines are allowed to pay.

"At the same time, these interstate pipelines are making plans to import liquefied natural gas from overseas and to manufacture synthetic gas from oil or coal at prices five to eight times higher than the prices FPO permits them to pay producers for domestic supplies.

"This is a ridiculous situation which FPC is attempting to remedy in part with its proposed rule. The senators who criticize this ought to look at the economic facts before making demagogic attacks on the agency Congress created to deal with this situation," Wengerd concluded.

THE ENQUffiER INQUIRES Mr. PROXMffiE. Mr. President, the

Enquirer of Cincinnati in an editorial of May 23 both agrees with me and takes me to task. I do not argue with the paper's right to state its opinions. I am gratified, of course, with its agreement; I would wish to briefly explain my side on the editorial's disagreement with me.

In pointing out waste by the Pentagon my intention is to inform the Congress so that it might take appropriate action. I do not advocate national weakness, but rather believe that this country's defenses must be as great as is its heritage of freedom. But we cannot be No. 1 in military power by buying excessively costly weapons that do not live up to their specifications.

Mr. President, if others choose to turn this vital information on waste into an argument for national weakness I cannot be responsible for their actions. It was not unknown in times past-and perhaps even today-for messengers bearing un-

favorable news to suffer the wrath of their superiors. But the bad news must be carried as well as the good. When I have had such news to bring to the Congresswhether it be in the Pentagon or in other agencies-I have not hesitated to deliver it; I hope I shall not hesitate in the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SENATOR PROXMIRE AND THE PENTAGON

Stung by allegations that his campaign against waste in the Defense Department is evidence of a desire to sap the nation's defensive posture, Sen. William Proxmire (DWis.) has responded with a statement that "this senator thinks we should have the strongest military force in the world."

In a Senate floor speech in response to a letter from hypercomba.tive New Hampshire Publisher William Loeb, Sena.tor Proxmire added: "The illusion is that those of us who have been raising hell about military waste are a btunch of unilateral disarmers, that we want to starve and enfeeble our m11itary force, that we have tossed in the sponge on the nuclear age and would tremble and run in the face of Communist aggression.

"Those of us who criticize and, yes, harass the military do so from a variety of views. but some of us-and this senator in particular-carry on this way, because we believe that it is a.bout time that someone stand up to the weakness that is developing in this great military force of ours and tell some blunt and painful truths.

"This senator is not criticizing our military primarily because of the cost and waste of our money in military hardware. I am criticizing it because after spending billions and billions, the weapons do not work."

It is indeed comforting that Senator Proxmire's concern is for a strong military force, and we are in total agreement with the Senator's contention that wasteful spendingparticularly on weapons that fall to function--does our national miU.tary posture no good but plenty of harm.

A look at Senator Proxmire's own record in the Senate indicates that he is an independent-minded man who has been severely critical of wasteful spending by the federal bureaucracy under the administrations of both parties. Moreover, his concern for more efficiency in government spendingespecia.lly in procurement practices-has not been limited to the military.

Indeed, his only rival as a watchdog of the federal coffers has been the now-retired John Williams (R-Del.), whose reputation as a fiscal curmudgeon was legendary on Capitol Hill.

Senator Proxmire's indignation a.ta memorandum by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, chief of naval operations, calling on his subordinates to spend their funds quickly in order to maintain the credibility of the Navy's budget requests was very much in character and not an indication of any antimllita.ry vendetta on the part of Senator Proxmire.

One major e1Iect of Senator Proxmire's revelations has been quite salutary. There is a growing concern in Congress now for tighter, more etficient defense spending, Even such champions of the military as Sens. John C. Stennis (D-Miss.) and Barry M. Goldwater (Hr-Ariz.) are taking long, hard looks at the Pentagon budget. The Senate will, we hope, also be looking for a better system for the Defense Department's procurement-contracting procedures.

All this having been said, however, it is undeniable that Sena.tor Proxmire's actions, despite the purity of his intentions, have

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19705 also had a detrimental effect on the military. His revelations have served as grist for the mills of those who really do want to sap the defense posture of this country. In the rhetoric of other men, Senator Proxmire's rightful criticisms of inept and sometimes unethical dealings between Pentagon bureaucrats and defense contractors become evidence of a dark conspiracy by the "milita.rylndustrial complex." There is no need for a strong defense, they argue; the expansionist ambitions of world communism are but a myth conjured by this conspiracy for its own nefarious ends. With the evidence provided by Senator Proxmire's committee, the apostles of national weakness are having a field day.

The problem is that Sena.tor Proxmire has far too seldom balanced his attacks with expressions of concern about the need for a strong U.S. military force. (Or at least, the news media have seldom reported such expressions; in fairness, the fault may possibly lie in poor reporting by the Washington press corps rather than in Mr. Proxmire's own words and actions.)

Moreover, in recent years, Senator Proxmire has been concentrating his fire almost exclusively on the Defense Department. As the agency that buys the most hardware, the Pentagon may be the biggest offender, but it is by no means the only one. All government agencies have great layers of fat that could stand trimming. The impression left by Senator Proxmire is that waste can only be found in the Defense Department.

Wasteful Pentagon spending ls a major problem that does indeed weaken our defensive posture. But so is the decline of public confidence in our armed forces; so is a decline in military morale. In fact, these may be even more destructive.

Senator Proxmire would be well advised, we believe, to give a greater balance to his statements about the military and about federal spending. Otherwise, he may find that his surgical knife, intended only to trim the fat, has cut too deeply and killed the patient.

WMAR-TV CONDUCTS COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, earlier this year W~TV asked 600 Maryland leaders to evaluate the issues which they encounter as they discharge their duties. The purpose of WMAR's questionnaire was to gain independent opinion of the challenges facing the community.

While the Senate schedule does not permit too much television time, I have had the opportunity to see a number of WMAR-TV documentaries. I particularly recall a public affairs program on corrections which WMAR produced, aired, and made available to community groups. This show was replayed at a League of Women Voters seminar on corrections in Montgomery County earlier this year. The program was an excellent discussion of the problems that face the jailers and the jailed. It was timely and balanced and reflected the WMAR survey which indicated that crime was the top concern of those polled.

It is a tribute to the insight of the station and its public affairs director, Dave Stickle, that WMAR cameras were sent behind the bars of our prisons and jails to talk with convicted prisoners as well as those awaiting trial. The cameras showed the overcrowded, understaffed institutions which lack adequate re-

habilitation programs, and have virtually no means of placing an inmate in a job when his term has been served.

Mr. President, I commend WMAR-TV for taking the time, the energy and funds to survey community leaders in Maryland in an effort to determine what the station ought to present en the air. This is a progressive practice and one which I hope will be continued in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the survey results and a comparison of them with the results of WMAR's 1970 survey be printed in the RECORD.

There bP-ing no objection. the items were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BALTIMORE, MD., May 1, 1972. Hon. CHARLES Mee. MATHIAS, JR., U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Wash

ington, D .c. DEAR MR. MATHIAS: Some little time ago we

sent to you and other community leaders across the State a questionnaire asking for your evaluation of issues which confront us in a period of social trauma..

It is from a consensus of such opinions, and other measurements we conduct, we are guided, in large measure, in the framing of public service programs.

Implicit in our letter to you was a promise to let you know the results from this questionnaire which went to 594 community leaders. The results are attached.

We conducted a similar survey two yea.rs ago and the comparison of the results of the two surveys also is reported in the attached chart.

This is meant to say thank you for participating. We seek to reflect your opinions in programing on WMAR-TV and we will.

Sincerely yours, D. P. CAMPBELL,

Vice President and General Manager.

TABULATION OF SURVEY OF OPINION LEADERS, RANKING BY NUMBER OF GROSS MENTIONS (l-5)

Percent of replies mention· Change

Number Percent ing th is in rank of gross of gross 1~2~~~t.~ fro111 1970

Category mentions ment ions survey

Crime_- -- --- - - -- 160 13.43 74.41 0 Drugs_ - --- -- ---- 139 11.67 64.65 + 4 Economy ____ • ____ 120 10.07 55. 81 +1 Government_ __ ___ 108 9.06 50. 23 +5 Education _____ __ _ 102 8. 56 47. 44 -2 Jobs __ _____ -- ---- 92 7. 72 42. 29 +1 Poverty __ ________ 88 7.38 40.93 -5 Health ______ _____ 71 5. 96 33.02 0 Race_------- - --- 52 4.36 24.18 (l) Population

control_ ____ ___ 52 4. 36 24.18 (1)

War__----- -- ---_ 52 4. 36 24.18 --4 Pollution ____ _____ 50 4.19 23. 25 0 Religion/

morality ___ ___ 43 3.61 20.00 + 1 Communication ___ 35 2. 93 16. 27 -1 Transportation ___ 27 2. 26 12. 55 0

1 New category.

COST OF CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a letter which I have received from the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission relating to the civil service retirement and disability fund and the cost of the sys-tem which provides retirement, disability, and survivor protection for about 2.5 million Federal employees and their

families, and some 1 million retired employees and their survivors.

There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., May 25, 1972.

Hon. GALE McGEE,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: A year ago I reported to you the current status of the Civil Service Retirement System with respect to its financing and with particular emphasis on the effect of Public Law 91-93 enacted October 20, 1969. As indicated then, the improved retirement system financing established by Public Law 91-93 continues to work well and the system ls in a sound financial position. I believe it is important now that we maintain this condition. Events of the pa.st year have had their effect on the system, and I want to give you an updated report on the retirement program and some insights on what the future holds in store.

The 1969 law fixed employee deductions and agency contributions at 7% each. This income, totaling 14 % of payroll, approximated the then estimated normal cost of the retirement system. The Board of Actuaries has since completed a valuation of the system as of June 30, 1970 which resulted in an updated calculation of normal cost. In its recent report to us, copies of which were forwarded to the Congress on May 3 , 1972 the Board calculated normal cost at 12.95 % . The reduction in normal cost of slightly more than 1 % results primarily from an anticipated higher rate of return from retirement system investments in Government securities. The assumed interest rate is now 5 % , in contrast to the formerly assumed 3.5% rate.

Under this latest valuation at a 5 % interest rate, the unfunded liability was approximately $53 blllion as of June 30, 1970. Under the previous 37'2 percent rate of interest, the unfunded liability had been $64.6 billion at the end of Fiscal Year 1970. This liab111ty is subject to periodic increase, however, because Public Law 91-93 requires amortization only of new liability resulting from subsequent legislation. Continued increase in unfunded liability will come because of commitments authorized by earlier laws. Examples of this are the wage increases resulting from wage surveys, a process authorized by an earlier law. Another example ls periodic cost-of-living increases for annuitants, each 1 % of which adds $350 million to the unfun ded liability, which also stems from an earlier law.

One major purpose of Public Law 91-93 was to spread out the impact of a more adequate financing basis for the retirement program to avoid the necessity of sudden heavy payments to the retirement fund. Consequently the law provided that beginning in fiscal year 1971, 10% of the annual interest payment on unfunded liability would be ma.de, with progressively larger payments of an additional 10 % increment per year to be ma.de until we reach 100% of the annual interest payments needed each year beginning in 1980. The following statistics may be helpful in understanding the effect of this provision:

$277 million was transferred from the Treasury to the Fund in 1971 as first payment (10% of a full annual payment.)

$3.65 billion would be transferred to the Fund in 1980 and subsequent years, tf one assumes no changes in unfunded liablllty beyond 1971 (representing 100% of the annual interest payment achieved by adding 10% increments ea.ch year after 1971).

$4.90 billion would be transferred in 1980 if one assumes continuation of the same rate

19706 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 5, 1972 of increase in cost-of-living and wages as occurred in calendar year 1971, and the payments would continue to rise in each year beyond 1980.

Interest payments would stabilize in 1980 only if the static assumption of the second illustration above proves correct; otherwise payments will increase each year though the impact will be particularly heavy in the period up to 1980 at which point each payment will represent a full payment of annual interest on unfunded liability.

Government payments to the fund will also increase to the extent that additional legislation grants benefits which add to the liabilities of the retirement system. Added liabilities are created by benefit liberalization, by extending coverage to additional persons, or by pay increases. For example, every $1 of pay increase creates an additional $1.95 liability to the retirement fund. Public Law 91-93 requires that any new liabilities be amortized by equal annual payments over a 30 year period. Since our report to you last year, a postal salary increase has been negotiated, and a general schedule salary increase was provided by Public Law 91-210 effective January 1, 1972. These, together with the earlier liberalizing laws referred to in our previous report will result in substantial Government payments to the retirement fund over the next 30 years:

Existing liabilties will require a total payment of $610 million in Fiscal Year 1972.

A $665 million yearly payment will be required by fl.seal year 1973.

Payments at this level will be required through fl.seal year 1999.

Further salary increases or enactment of program changes which create new liabilities would add to the size of these annual payments. For example, if one assumes the same degree of salary and benefit increases each year as occurred in calendar year 1971, then the required yearly payment would increase to about $1.04 billion by fl.seal year 1973, and about $3.72 billion by fl.seal year 1980.

The rate of increase in required payments is of concern because of the rapid build-up which has occµrred just in the few years since passage of Public Law 91-93:

$215 million payment required in fl.seal year 1970.

$437 million payment required in fl.seal year 1971.

$610 million payment required in fiscal year 1972.

A third source of Government payments to the retirement fund is the 7% of payroll contributions made by each employing agency. These also involve substantial sums, as the following statistics show:

Agency contributions totaled $1.72 billion in fl.seal year 1970, and $1.89 billion in fl.seal year 1971.

By way of illustration, assuming static conditions, (no further increase in work force or cost of living, and no salary increases beyond those already enacted or agreed to) agency contributions would peak at $1.93 billion in fl.seal year 1973 and remain constant thereafter.

If one assumes a continuation each year of the conditions which prevailed in calendar year 1971 with respect to increases in work force, salary levels, and cost-of-living, then agency contributions will increase each year to:

$2.62 billion by fiscal year 1975. $3.70 billion by fl.seal year 1980. $3.96 billion by fiscal year 1981. Perhaps a better appreciation of the Gov

ernment's commitment to the retirement fund can be obtained if all three of these types of Government contributions are added together.

If one assumes no further increases in cost-of-living, salary levels, or work force, and no additional benefit liberalizations beyond 1971, the total Government contributions to the retirement fund would be as follows:

$1.95 billion in Fiscal Year 1970. $4.30 billion in Fiscal Year 1975. $6.25 billion in Fiscal Year 1980. By way of contrast, assuming a continua

tion each year of the same degree of increase in work force, salary levels, and cost of living, and the same extent of benefit liberalization as occurred in calendar year 1971, total Government contributions to the retiremerut fund would be about as follows:

$1.95 billion in Fiscal Year 1970. $6.71 billion in Fiscal Year 1975. $12.32 billion in Fiscal Year 1980. Employees have an interest in the system

because of the substantial total of their contributions, as well as the extent of benefits they will receive. Employees contributed $1.74 billion in Fiscal Year 1970 and $1.92 billion in Fiscal Year 1971. These contributions will rise to the same degree as agency contributions, the amount of increase depending upon the extent to which we experience further increases in salaries, work force, or cost-of-living.

Annuity payments, which constitute outgo from the retirement fund, will continue to increase for over 40 years as more and more employees are added to the annuitant rolls. An increase will occur even though no increases are made in work force level, as present employees become eligible for retirement benefits. Growth in the total of annuity payments under the retirement system is illustrated by these statistics:

Payments in Fiscal Year 1960 totaled $893 mill1on.

Payments in Fiscal Year 1970 totaled $2.74 billion.

RETIREMENT FINANCING

(In millions of dollars]

Assuming static conditions beyond 1971 (no further growth in work force, salary levels, or cost-of-living, and no further retirement program liberalization) payments in Fiscal Year 1980 would total about $6.1 billion.

If one assumes a continuation ea.ch year of the conditions which prevailed in calendar 1971 with respect to increases in work force, salary levels, cost of living, and the same degree of program liberalizations, then by Fiscal Year 1980 annuity payments would total about $9.5 billion.

In summary, in each category of funds associated with the retirement system-Government contributions, employee contributions, and benefit payments, we are dealing with large sums of money. A more comprehensive picture of retirement system financing may be gained by reference to the table in Attachment A. The size of these sums wm grow substantially even under static employment conditions because of commitments provided by existing laws. We are concerned, as I am sure you and your fellow Committee members are, that any further proposals for retirement program changes be considered in the light of policy in all other areas of compensation for Federal employees, and with full recognition of the burden being placed on the budget and the taxpayer.

In short, we believe that total compensation should be considered before making a decision to change any part of it, including the retirement program. In comparing the components offered by different employers, it is apparent that the individual parts of the compensation package will vary from one employer to another. This is illustrated in the recent comparison of supplementary compensation (see Attachment B) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In this comparison, for example, considerable variation in retirement, health, and leave benefits exists between practices in Government and those of private industry. We believe such variations should be expected as a natural outgrowth of the process of gearing benefits to the needs of a particular work force.

More significant, in our judgment, is the degree to which the total compensation package compares with the total package of other employers. In this respect the Government has achieved approximate comparability with industry. By carefully considering such overall comparisons, we can better assure that the cost of a proposed change is worthy of public support.

Sincerely yours, ROBERT E. HAMPTON,

Chairman.

Projected 1 Projected 2 Projected t Projected a

Treasury transfers for interest on unfunded liability and for military

Actual fiscal year

1971

service credits___ _____ ____ _______ __ 277 30-year amortization payments_________ 4 37 Agency contributions__________________ 1, 890

Fiscal Fiscal year 1975

rar 980

1, 706 665

3,654 665

l, 930 l, 930

Fiscal Fiscal Actual year year risca•mr 1975 1980

Total Government cost_ _______________ 2, 604 Employee contributions ___ ____________ 1, 920

1, 880 4, 903 Annuity payments __ ------------- _____ 3, 024 2, 210 3, 718 Retirement fund, June 30_ ------------ 25, 018 2, 624 3,697 Unfunded liability, June 30 ____________ 58, 616

1 Assuming no changes beyond fiscal year 1971 in work force, pay, benefits, and cost of living. 2 Assuming changes each year in work force, pay, benefits, and cost of living at the same rate experienced in calendar year 1970.

Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal ~ear 975

~ear 980

year year 1975 1980

4,301 6, 249 6, 714 12, 318 1, 960 1, 960 2,654 3, 727 4,485 6, 100 9, 300 9, 500

37, 430 57, 690 42, 500 121, 500 65, 550 67,601 76, 100 97 , 800

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 19707 BASIC WAGES AND SALAR IES, COMPARISON FRAME OF PRIVATE NON FARM ECONOMY AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

1970

Compensation practice

Total , all supplements except pay for overtime, weekend, and holiday work, and premium pay for shift work ______ _________ _____ _

Pay for leave time (except sick leave) _______________ ______ ___ _ Vacations and holidays _________ _ Payments to funds _____________ _

Payments to workers _____________ _ Vacations _____________________ _ Holidays _______________ ___ -- - - -

Civic and personal leave __________ _ Health and insurance programs& ___ _

Workmen's compensation _______ _ Sick leave ________________ __ __ _ life, accident, and health insurance __ __ ___ ____________ _

Retirement programs _____ ________ _ Social security and railroad

retirement_ _________ ---------Private pension and retirement

plans ______________ - - - - - - - - - -Unemployment programs _________ _

Legally requ ired programs __ ____ _ Payments to employees _________ _ Payments to funds _____________ _

Nonproduction bonuses (including awards) ______________ --- ------

Savings and thrift plans __ ________ _

Expenditures as a percent of basic wages and salaries

Comparison Federa l frame 1 Government 2

January to July 1970 December to June

1970 1971

26. 6 27. 8

8. 8 11. 6 8. 5 11. 0 (3) ( i)

8. 5 11. 0 5. 3 8. 1 3.2 2.9 .3 .6

6. 3 5.6 .8 . 5

1.1 3.3

4. 4 1.8 9. 1 10. 0

4. 3 .2

4.9 9.8 1.1 • 5 .8 .4 .1 .1 .1 (4)

.9 .1

.4 (4)

1 Data relate to establishments in the United States , except Alaska and Hawaii, having the indicated mini11_1um employmef!t size in the following industries : manufactunng (250); retail trade (250); . transportation, comi:nunication , electric, gas, and sanitary services (100); commercial research and development laboratories (100) ; finance, insurance, and real estate (50).

2 Data provided by the Civil Service Commission and Office of Management and Budget.

3 Less than 0.05 percent. 4 No such program in the Federal Government. & Includes items in addition to those shown separately. Note: Because of round ing sums of individual items may not

equal totals. Published by Bureau of labor Statistics.

Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the essence of Mr. Hampton's letter is that an enormous amount of money is involved in this system, and that Congress, which is responsible for the liquidity of the fund as well as for the maintenance of a sound and beneficial retirement program for Federal employees, must weigh carefully the long-range implications of legislation affecting the status of the fund. I noticed in our committee calendar yesterday that 33 bills relating to retirement are pending before the committee, almost all of which would increase past, present, or future benefits, and all of which would cost many, many millions of dollars. As a politician, I favor them all; as a Senator, I recognize that we must act with care and foresight.

PROPOSED OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL

Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I invite the attention of my Senators to an interesting proposal by chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency.

He would create an Office of Consumer Cou.1sel at the Pay Board and the Price Committee. Its job would be to represent consumers in those Pay Board and Price Commission activities which could be construed as being anticonsumer.

I agree with the spirit of this proposal. There is no more anticonsumer


activity than excessive wage demands and settlements which exceed gains in productivity by manifold and obviously result in higher prices.

However, I do see this proposal as yet another example of a special interest seeking special powers to challenge what has previously been determined to be the public interest.

There seems to be in this proposal a great deal of similartty to S. 1177 pending before the Government Operations Committee, on which I serve, to create an independent Federal Consumer Protection Agency-CPA. This bill (S. 1177) would empower a Federal Consumer Protection Agency to do essentially what Congressman PATMAN's proposal would do.

If this Consumer Protection Agency were in existence today, it would be able to intervene or otherwise participate in the formal and informal activities of the Pay Board, the NLRB, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and a host of other Federal agencies which relate to wage settlements. In addition, the CPA would be able to appeal to the courts agency decisions which it considered inimical to the interests of consumers, such as excessive wage settlements.

Mr. President, as one who has for a long time, advocated a new labor policy for this Nation, I suggest that while both Representative PATMAN's proposal and S. 1177 do intend to meet legitimate ends, both employ excessive means in order tc do so.

I hope that Senators will profit from our experience of giving a narrow environmental viewpoint the power to impose its will on the overall public interest. In Tennessee, for example, we have found that the Tennessee Valley Authority, a prime source of low cost electrical power, would virtually have to double its rates in order to comply with the maximum environmental requirements-some of which have no relevance or even benefits.

It would be a tragic mistake if the Congress did not learn from such experience. To continue to grant important special interests--including those interests which would limit wage settlements--the power to impose their will upon the overall public interest is dangerous. If such a trend continues, I can foresee the day in the very near future when special interests will bring to a halt the activities of the Federal Government which today carefully weigh a..11 interests before acting in a manner beneficial to the majority interest of the public at large.

WILL THE SALT AGREEMENT RAISE MILITARY COSTS?

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, if the movers and shakers of the military industrial complex have their way, the military savings from the strategic arms limitation agreement-SALT-will be as fleeting as the peace dividend.

The Pentagon and their allies are already insisting that the SALT Pact will raise rather than lower U.S. strategic

costs. They are pressing for a crash program for ULMS, pushing the antiquated B-1 bomber, pressing for hard-site Minutemen, and a ste:p-up in our massive strategic deterrent.

The opponents of SALT are already falsely claiming that it provides for U.S. inferiority to the Soviets. This is a myth and entirely untrue. But it is based on the simplistic view that because the pact freezes our land-based missiles at 1,054 and the Soviets at 1,618, and allows us 710 sub missiles compared with the Soviets 950, the United States will soon fall behind. Using those facts the big military spenders will insist that we step up U.S. strategic spending instead of working to reduce it as our superiority justifies.

While the figures for missiles, or launchers, are correct, they are nonetheless highly misleading in depicting the balance of United States and Soviet nuclear weaponry. They overlook a host of factors, all of which are highly favorable to the United States. Among them are these:

As of June 30, 1972, the United States will have 5,700 force loadings--which is a targeted nuclear weapon-while the Soviets have only 2,500. In the last year we have 1,000 while the Soviets have added only 400.

Our missiles are MffiVed. The Soviets have not even tested a MffiV'd missile. Thus some 550 of our 1,054 land based missiles carry three independently targeted nuclear weapons, each of which is 10 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Under the agreement we could MffiV the remaining 450.

Soon 31 of our Poseidon subs will carry 16 launchers each with 10 independently targeted weapons. This will give us 4,960 such weapons on our Poseidon submartnes alone in the near future. At least another 10 boats could also be converted.

We have 531 heavy bombers-not counted in the equation-to the Soviets 130. Our bombers can carry an average of three warheads each and can carry up to a 20-megaton weapon.

In addition we have 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear weapons which can be delivered on the Soviet Union by tactical aircraft. The Russians have no comparable capability.

Like our land-based missiles, our sub missiles are far more accurate than the Soviets. In addition our subs have longer on-station time, are quieter, more sophisticated, have longer range missiles, have better trained crews, have fewer geographical operating restrictions, and unlike the Soviet subs, have never been tracked by the enemy.

The Russians do not have and will not have in the foreseeable future a "first strike capability." Our deterrent is secure. Only by failing to acknowledge our invulnerable submartne deterrent can the denigra tors of American strength even suggest that our deterrent is vulnerable.

For all these reasons, the SALT agreement is in our vital interests and should make is possible for the United States to make considerable savings in our strategic arsenal.

But those intent on downgrading the strength and power of the United States are already at work crying "wolf" and


insisting that we rush ahead to spend tens of billions of dollars based on omissions of fact and misleading interpretations of our power

PROPOSED NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING BY AMERICANS OF LITHUANIAN BACKGROUND Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, lest we

forget the nature of the regime we have been dealing with at the summit, I invite the attention of the Senate to a call issued last week by Vytautas Voltertas, president of the National Executive Committee of the Lithuanian-American Community of the U.S.A.

Mr. Voltertas has proposed a national day of mourning and prayer for Americans of Lithuanian background as a show of support for those who have been risking their lives in the Lithuanian city of Kaunas. There rioting has been taking place to protest the continuing Soviet suppression of religious and political freedom.

Mr. President, 2 million LithuanianAmericans are expected to recognize June 15 as a day of mourning and prayer for those who cannot escape the brutal reality of life in the Soviet Union.

THE GENOCIDE TREATY AND AMERICAN POW'S

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the United States continues to stand apart from the 75 nations who have adopted the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Many of those who oppose this treaty do so not from fear that the United States will violate it, but from fear that we will be wrongly accused of violation. It has been suggested, for example, that American prisoners of war would be charged by the North Vietnamese with acts of genocide, and put to trial. Such charges would, of course, be grossly and transparently false. Genocide is carefully defined in the treaty and includes only specified acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in ::;>art, a national, ethical, racial, or religious group, as such." America's involvement in Vietnam, however regrettable, is clearly not subject to the Genocide Convention.

Even so, what worries some opponents of this treaty is the possibility that it would be falsely construed and applied unjustly to American prisoners of war. But, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report last year concluded:

Ratification of the Geru:>cide Convention would not alter the situation of American mllltary forces in peace or war in any way or create any new hazard for them. It is reality that American prisoners of war in North Vietnam could be charged by the Hanoi government for war crimes or genocidal acts or whatever other trumped-up charges Hanoi wishes to make. Their perll will not be increased by approval of this convention while peril ma.y be a.voided for tens of millions by ratification of the convention.

The United States has nothing to fear from the provisions of this treaty. The possibility that the treaty would be wrongly invoked adds no danger to the

ever-present possibility that existing treaties and laws will be wrongly invoked. With this treaty or without it, there is no airtight guarantee that all nations will show a perfect regard for justice in their dealings with other nations. But our adoption of the Genovide Convention would contribute much to a world order based on a universally accepted and legally recognized respect for human rights.

I urge the Senate to take up the question of the Genocide Convention and ratify the treaty without further delay.

NATIONAL CHAMBER SUPPORTS NEW DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I am

pleased to invite to the attention of Senators the strong support being given the proposed Department of Community Development by the National Chamber of Commerce in its May 4 Congressional Action Bulletin. The national chamber's support comes at a key moment. The House Committee on Government Operations has reported an excellent Department of Community Development bill, and under the strong leadershp of its chairman, Representative CHET HOLIFIELD, the committee plans for floor action on the bill during June. I look forward to companion action by the Senate this year as well; and the chamber's support, along with the support of many other organizations, will be vital.

I ask unanimous consent that the material to which I have referred be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bulletin was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

What's at issue: The immediate issue is whether to create a new Department of Community Development. The basic issue is whether to increase the effectiveness of Executive Branch management of Federal programs by improving the organizational structure of departments and agencies . . . or to continue present obsolescent organization of some departments with accumulated overlap, duplication, and frictions of competing programs.

Why important: Sometimes as many as 10 Cabinet-level departments and 15 or more agencies have programs devoted essentially to the same general area of activity, but there is no coordination and over-all management of related activities. Result: failure to solve priority problems even though aggregate of Federal spending in some areas is enormous . .. slow action resulting from attempts at coordination among departments and agencies ... confusion among State and local governments as to the relative merits of available Federal programs ... waste of scarce tax dollars.

Major proposal: H .R. 6962 is one of four major proposals

to create new departments organized along functional lines, and is the first one, apparently, that will come to the House floor for a vote. It would consolidate in one Cabinet-level department logical groupings of existing urban and rural development programs. Programs providing assistance to State and local governments and private institutions would constitute one group. Federal grants for planning and manage-

ment .... programs to assist community development ... aids to the poor and minority groups .. . Model Cities ... and disaster assistance would be included in this ca-tegory.

A second group would consist of assistance for community physical development .. . including programs for urban renewal .. . water and waste disposal, open space .. . regional economic development ... and rural electric and telephone facilities. Community transportation programs, including mass transportation and highway development, would be linked to focus on providing balanced community and areawide ground transportation . . . Housing loans, housing grants, mortgage insurance, and subsidy contracting would be more closely related to the mangement and disposition of existing Federal housing facilities.

The Department would be organized to provide national-level leadership, coordination through administrators who head groupings of related functions ... to provide local-level program leadership, coordination through decentralization of operations to regional directors.

Chamber position: Supports H.R. 6962, to create a Depart

ment of Community Development. A need exists for thoroughgoing reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government in the interest of economy and efficiency, and to improve service in the transaction of Federal business. Eliminating duplication and overlapping of services and activities, and the consolidation of functions contribute to improved management and efficient conduct of the Federal Government.

Congressional status: H.R. 6962 could be reported to the House

floor in mid-May. Comprehensive hearings by the Subcommittee on Legislation and Military Operations of the House Government Operations Committee were conducted during March and April. Senate hearings are being held on a companion bill, S. 1430. SUPPORT BY SECRETARY ROMNEY-HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Population growth, and social and economic change have combined to place heavy strain on existing public institutions. The response of the Federal government to these developments has been haphazard. Departments and agencies have been organized around service to special interests and narrow constituencies. Program administration has been fragmented, and few effective coordinating mechanisms below the President and outside the White House have been created. New Federal re;;;ponsibilities have been tacked on to the old Federal structure, and new special purpose agencies created to fill in the cracks or even to compete with existing agencies.

For example: There are four major Federal programs of assistance for water and sewer facilities and eight smaller programs, divided among seven different agencies. Communities are frequently eligible for two or more of these water and sewer programs. Projectby-project joint funding arrangements and multiple applications for single projects are common.

The present structure of the Federal government makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the President and the Congress to address the major problems of the nation.

The problem, I believe, is not caused by the size of existing Federal departments. As former HEW Secretary John Gardner pointed out, "We are stuck with bigness .... The crucial question is how we manage bigness, how we devolve authority to lower levels, how we force our big institutions to remain responsive, how we prevent them from smothering individuality and creativity."

This consolidation would draw together, under one roof and under one Secretary, similar programs, so that related programs

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19709 could function jointly in planning and execution. Such a restructuring would simplify program coordination and make it possible to establish clear points of authority and accountability-below the President, himsel.f-in program management.

The new Department of Community Development would have the tools to respondin a coordinated manner-to comprehensive community improvement programs, based on local needs and priorities. A single Federal department would administer the major Federal programs of assistance for the physical and institutional development of States and local communities. A single Federal department would administer assistance for strengthening State and local governmental processes.

SUPPORT BY SECRETARY VOLPE

TR..o\NSPORTATION

Many of the officials and employees of the Department of Transportation have participated in the studies and the preparation of the materials submitted to the Congress on the President's proposals. We believe that the Program presents a unique opportunity to make a substantial improvement in the operation of the domestic side of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and we support it wholeheartedly.

The disposition of Federal transportation functions under the President's Departmental Reorganization Program can best be understood by keeping in Inind the overall purposes of the reorganization; to overcome the increasing fragmentation of related Federal programs among the various departments and agencies, and to organize these programs around their essential objectives and goals.

We are confident that the proposed transfers . . . place transportation programs where they can most effectively contribute to the resolution of the serious problems facing our communities-both urban and rural-today. To those who ask why, when only a shor., time ago we were urging the consolidation of transportation resources into a single department, we now urge their division, I would make three points:

(1) The establishment of the Department of Transportation was a wise and necessary move, taking into account the dispersion of transportation programs and the departmental structure which prevailed in 1966. Even though the Department did not, and still does not, include all of the transportation agencies it should, it has made substantial gains in developing an intelligent and consistent Federal policy regarding all modes of transportation.

(2) In recommending the division of the functions of the present Department, I am not advocating a return to the situation that existed before the Department was established, when the functions were distributed among agencies and departments without any consistency or overall purpose. I am supporting a division of transportation functions essentially between two departments based on their primarily national versus predominantly local orientations ....

(3) When the Department of Transportation was established the President's Departmental Reorganization Program, was not available. If it had been, I believe the consolidation and disposition of transportation functions would be essentially as we now recommend.

SUPPORT BY SECRETARY BUTZ-AGRICULTURE

I fully support the President's Reorganization Plan, particularly the realignment of the Department of Agricultural programs which have only indirect bearing on the needs of the farmer.

The new Department of Agriculture as proposed by the President will be a viable organization, able to concentrate its total

resources on improving the income of our farmers and assuring a continuing abundance of food for the American people.

Establishing a department of Community Development will perinit the development of rural communities and bringing social and economic opportunities to Rural Americans at a faster pace than has been possible under the present Federal departmental structure.

The present alignment of Departments and agencies in the Federal organizational structure is antiquated. It encourages wasteful duplication of services, and competition among bureaucracies. It results in confusion among those individuals and communities seeking assistance from the Federal government.

The clearest example of this state of affairs is perhaps my job, as Secretary of Agriculture. When I was sworn in by the President my principal charge was to serve the needs of American agriculture, specifically ... to insure that farm income improves and .. . that food production is adequate to serve the needs of the American people.

Yet under the present adininistration structure, the Secretary of Agriculture has responsibility for a variety of programs that have nearly parallel counterparts in other departments of government. The Secretary is, among other things, responsible for:

managing programs directed at developing rural communities, including those of the Rural Electrification Administration and the Farmers Home Adininistration, programs which have their counterparts among those in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and othersmore effective in a Department of Community Development.

managing the national resource utilization and conservation programs of the Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service-organizations that parallel those in the Department of Interior, the Corps of Engineers, and the AEC-more appropriate for a Department of National Resources.

managing the varied and very extensive food assistance programs-activities which are intended to help persons in need, as are the programs of HEW, OEO, and other social welfare agencieE-more in keeping with a Department of Human Resources. SUPPORT BY SECRETARY CONNALLY--TREASURY

It was my privilege to serve as a member of the President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization, which intensively studied the organization of the domestic departments and made the recommendations on which much of the current reorganization plan is based. We found, in our review, as has other commissions and task forces which had preceded us, that our departments were simply not organized or equipped to deal effectively with the problems before us. Nowhere was this clearer than in the vital area of assisting communities-urban, suburban and rural-in their development as wholesome, viable places in which to work and live. The existing picture is one of a number of departments providing piecemeal, overlapping, poorly coordinated support to physical and institutional development within our communities. The origins of this situation go back to the way our departments have evolved over the past century, with their concern over clientele, over means instead of ends, and over jurisdiction in the face of competing agencies. We have learned the hard way, and the case for reorganization can no longer be ignored.

We cannot charge one department with housing and community planning and another with highway programs. We cannot organize around arbitrary distinctions between large and small towns. And we cannot expect three or four agencies to be effective in providing virtually the same assistance

for sewage treatment and other community facilities.

As a former Governor, I can assure you that we have done poorly in helping State and local governments improve their capability for planning and management because of the Federal disarray. Agencies at the State and local level now have to work with too many Federal agencies, and it is often close to impossible for them to secure prompt ... action in meeting their needs.

Virtually every significant event involving highways in the past year has served to make clear the jeopardy in which our highway programs have been placed as a result of the rising concern with their impact on communities and their environment. I am surprised that their are still t hose who contend t hat we can build highways and then let communities emerge willy-nilly around them. This is thinking out of the past. If we are to continue to provide needed highways, future progress must take place within the department best able to assure that Federal highway programs contribute to balanced, attractive and coordinated community development.

THE UNITED STATES-SOVIET SPACE AGREEMENT

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, with the enactment of Public Law 85-568, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created in 1958. In a short span of 14 years this agency has effected great changes in the field of science and technology and has advanced this Nation to a position of superiority in that area. Besides the well-known fact that the United States has sent men to the moon. there have been numerous other accomplishments made by NASA in fields unrelated, or only slightly related, to the space industry.

Let me just highlight a few. In the field of medicine alone, a prime

beneficiary, NASA has been able to lend to that science information from its data bank of great significance and help to new born infants; quadriplegics; stroke victims; the deaf and blind; those who are paralyzed; have ulcers, those with kidney and bladder difficulties; burn victims, and more. These people have been aided by highly scientific devices which can monitor and detect brain waves, temperature, fluid levels, air flow, movement, pulse, and light. With this type of information a doctor or attendant can know when breathing ceases in a patient in another room, or the blind can turn off lights with the help of an acoustic signal which alerts that person to the light. Heart transplant patients can be monitored by an instrument which relays heart reaction to a normal day's activities, and the paralyzed can summon a nurse with the assistance of an electrooptical system which determines :fluid levels in the eye. New lightweight materials have been developed to replace steel used in leg braces, and brain waves can be monitored to determine hearing disabilities in small children. In addition to the obvious medical benefits of these NASA contributions, the economic advantages have been great.

But, there is more. With technology acquired through the

space program thousands of lives have been saved thanks to the early detec-

19710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 tion of hurricanes. We also have equipment which can recognize and predict earthquakes, volcanic activity, mineral deposits, and weather changes up to 48 hours in advance.

The business and industrial community has also benefited by making use of NASA's data bank which is made available to them by NASA through informal and formal procedures.

For the agricultural community NASA has developed the earth resources satellite program which, by continuous surveillance, can inform a farmer about the condition of his crop and, therefore, assess its probable yield. The satellite can also detect plant disease which is of considerable destruction to the farmer. This program is expected to produce similar results for the U.S. forest service.

In the area of communications NASA has supplied us with the satellite which allows us to view live broadcasts from foreign countries. This is how we were able to follow the µp-to-the-minute activities of President and Mrs. Nixon in both China and on their recent trip to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

New fabrics for the consumer have been made available which include lightweight blankets, sleeping bags, sportsmen's apparel, and other applications are being made for the development of such products as bedcovers, draperies, tents, and awnings. With knowledge acquired from the principles of heat transfer, NASA has originated a cooking pin which permits the highly efficient cooking of roasts arid other meats by heating from the inside out. Nutritional research has been expanded so that quick energy foods and

-highly nutritional foodstuffs have been devised.

In the area of environmental control, besides the aforementioned weather predicting expansion, NASA projects have made achievements in the control of airplane engine emissions and aircraft noise. Underwater cameras have been invented which are capable of clicking off one frame an hour for more than 10 days unattended to take pictures of algae. This, of course, is a program which has been and can be expanded to bring about other beneficial results. Means for detecting the size of oil slicks via sensing tools is another accomplishment of the NASA research program.

In the future the NASA data bank will no doubt provide additional worthwhile information for the American people and the world.

Last week the President announced the formation of a joint agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States whereby our two countries will cooperate to achieve improvements in the existing exchange of weather satellite data; cooperation to advance weather research from space; the development of a global meteorological sounding rocket network with the collaboration of other countries; efforts to advance the techniques of surveying the natural environment from space; exchanges on data and future scientific objectives for near-earth, lunar and planetary exploration; and ex-

changes on space biology and medicine. In addition, plans have been made to launch a two-stage Apollo Saturn rocket from Cape Kennedy in 1975. The essential purpose of this mission will be to develop rescue capability in the future.

At this point the United States is far ahead of other nations in its space efforts and this superiority is only tentative. We must look to the future when our dependence upon and cooperation with nations will be necessary and more productive. At present we are working with more than 70 other countries in our space program and it is only natural that the United States and the Soviet Union, leaders in the field, should unite in order to coordinate knowledge, resources, and talent. The cost of the mission described earlier could run as high as $300 million for one country, but with a combined effort costs will be significantly reduced. This is the only hope for the future of the space program.

I congratulate NASA and the President on the decision for a new partnership in space exploration with the Soviet Union and am hopeful that our two nations can begin to develop greater understanding and a more cooperative disposition. Nations everywhere must begin to recognize that it is only through mutual interdependence that this world can exist peacefully for many tomorrows to come. Our goals must be to work for the benefit of man on earth.

As Jawaharlal Nehru said: The law of life should not be the competi

tion of acquisitiveness, but the cooperation, the good of each contributing to the good of all.

PRESERVATION OF LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held a hearing on S. 1928, the bill the Senator from Minnesota <Mr. MONDALE) and I introduced to preserve the Lower St. Croix River as a national scenic and recreational riverway.

Minnesota and Wisconsin witnesses who appeared at the hearing unanimously urged Congress to pass S. 1928, and thereby protect the Lower St. Croix from the impending danger of uncontrolled commercial development. Testimony was offered in support of the bill by representatives of both State Governors, local government officials, property owners, and conservation groups.

In speaking before the subcommittee, Senator MONDALE presented an excellent summary of the many reasons why Federal protection is essential for the Lower St. Croix River to retain its unspoiled natural character. The Minnesota Senator also explained the strong Federal interest in saving this nationally important scenic and recreational asset.

I believe it is absolutely clear that the Senate should move swiftly to approve s. 1928. Upon reading Senator MONDALE'S testimony, I believe that Senators will reach the same conclusion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-

sent that Senator MONDALE'S statement be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

REMARKS BY SENATOR WALTER F. MONDALE

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to express the deep gratitude

felt by people from Stillwater, Marine and every Minnesota community for your concern to preserve the Lower St. Croix River. I am delighted that the Committee had an opportunity to visit the river valley last fall and to gain assurance that your efforts to save it are fully deserved.

The qualifications of the Lower St. Croix for addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system are undisputed. At the hearing last October you heard local residents, government officials and conservation groups repeatly call for Federal action to protect the river.

Perhaps an incident, recently described to me by a longtime valley resident, would help the Committee understand the immediate danger posed by commercial exploitation to the natural integrity of the Lower St. Croix.

It is an account of what happened to a Minnesotan who owns a 300 acre farm along the river's edge. The land he farms was first cleared by his father, who built, with his father, who built, with his own hands, the home in which his son and family still live. Not long ago, the farmer was visited by a speculator, eager to purchase choice riverfront acreage. Naturally, the farmer did not want to sell his home or the land where his children can swim and fish without fear of pollutants, restrictions and other hazards of congested urban life.

When the speculator inquired about the price of the property, the farmer replied he would never sell at any price. Pushing for an opening, the speculator insisted there must be some figure the farmer would accept.

"How about a million dollars?" the farmer answered jokingly.

"The speculator paused for a minute, then said, "I'll talk with my acountant tomorrow."

Mr. Chairman, we have seen uncontrolled development destroy every other scenic river near metropolitan areas in this country. After the first quick profits, the attraction of unspoiled natural beauty fades with each new high-rise development. Ultimately, both the original natural values and the inflated speculative prices bottom out. Almost overnight a breathtaking scenic attraction is transformed into a polluted, over-crowded, and painful reminder of our misplaced values and our lack of foresight.

Incredibly, the farmer in the story I just described to you did not sell for a million dollar profit. I think his determination ls a concrete indication of just how priceless the Lower St. Croix is to the people who have known and loved it.

The Senate recognized the remarkable character of the Lower St. Croix eight years ago, when we passed a bill to create the st. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Again in 1967, protection for the Lower St. Croix was provided under the Senate-passed version of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Unfortunately, the House had not had an opportunity to become fully acquainted with the Lower St. Croix, but in conference committee on the Wild and Scenic Rivers bill, the House a.nd Senate agreed to provide for a detailed study of the suitability of the Lower St. Croix for addition to the system.

The study required by the 1968 law was completed last October. Its major findings were that the Lower St. Croix meets every criteria for designation as a National Scenic and Recreational Riverway, and that it

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 19711 should be protected for future generations by the National Park Service in the Department of Interior.

Abundant evidence has been supplied to the Committee of how perfectly the Lower St. Croix meets the criteria for recognition spelled out in the 1968 Act. There are outstanding geologic formations like the Dalles and nearby unique rock configurations. Spectacular, richly varied scenery extends from Taylor's Falls downstream to Prescott. Ancient Indian cultures . · .. legendary voyageurs ... sawmills ... paddle-wheelers ... the birth of Minne3ota as a State, all are intimately bound in the history of this magnificent river.

Today, the Lowe.r St. Croix is best known as the la.st remaining unspoiled recreational river near a major metropolitan area. Its popularity among vacationers has grown steadily and continues to climb past the peak 1.7 million visitor days recorded in 1970. Boating enthusiasts are drawn by the pleasant, natural setting. Sportsmen are drawn by the abundance of fish and game. Hikers, campers . . . millions are drawn by the unsurpassed beauty of the valley. They come from Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Iowa. Many come from more distant parts of the United States.

Remarkably, this river has maintained its natural character despite its proximity to the more than two million residents of the Twin Cities and surrounding region. But with visitor use increasing each year, and with mounting pressure for commercial development, local residents and public officials are convinced of the immediate need to protect the river-before it is too late.

The alternative is all too familiar-water fouled by sewage, air blackened by industrial fumes, a countryside violated with concrete, asphalt and neon.

Plans for commercial development of the Lower St. Croix are now on the drawing boards. In some cases, only swift Congressional action will prevent plan implementation by late spring or early summer.

Multi-mi111on dollar housing complexes . . . thousands of cliff-dwelling units along the river's edge ... these are not pipe dreams. Architectural designs already exist, and developers await only a sign that Washington doesn't care. Let's take a closer look at some of these developments . . .

One, called Sunnyside-on-the-St. Croix, costing roughly $3.5 million, would be comprised of 160 townhouses and apartments right on the riverfront. This proposal is now pending before the Oak Park Heights village council. Another, a $50 million housing complex promoted by Ca.Ider Corporation, would construct bluff top terraced apartments and twelve story high-rises at Hudson, Wisconsin. If plans are approved, developers contemplate a population of 3,000 people.

Yet another proposal has just come to the attention of public officials in the valley. This project involves 200 acres of land just north of Stillwater lining a spectacular gorge carved by the river. Developers are plotting the area into a subdivision of houses which would be built right on top or into the side of the bluff.

But the project with the greatest potential impact on the river is sponsored by the Cottonwood Land Company. A recent newspaper account of this project drives home the acute dilemma facing the Lower St. Croix:

"David H. Preuss's 1,300 acres along the Lower St. Croix River include choice wooded bluff land just south of Osceola, Wisconsin."

"Tumbling down to the broad, beautiful stream, the expanse might be ideal for a golf-course, ski resort and marina-near the Twin Cities, yet with a naturalness rare in any metropolitan area."

"But, 'we are in a kind of limbo now', said Preuss, a Minneapolis lawyer."

"While his Cottonwood Land Co., would make more money with such a development, he'd rather see the river preserved as a federal scenic and recreational waterway."

"Bills to do just that have been pending in one form or another for eight years."

"The question then becomes how longwith rising taxes and burgeoning demand for housing and recreation-can potential developers wait for Federal action?"

Against this formidible pressure, individuals and communities cannot hold out much longer. That is why the hearing today is so critical, and why we can risk no delay in Federal action.

The purpose of the bill Senator Nelson and I introduced is not to turn back the clock and return the river to its pristine condition. Rather, it is an effort to maintain the status quo-to assure that future development along the Lower St. Croix will be planned, orderly, and consistent with the public's right to use and enjoy the river.

Fortunately, in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, we have a mechanism specifically designed to preserve rivers like the Lower St. Croix. In fact, for a number of reasons, National Park Service management pursuant to the 1968 Act is essential to any plan for protecting the river. Permit me to explain those reasons.

First, the Lower St. Croix is an interstate waterway. There is a uniquely Federal interest in this river. Other than the Federal government, no ot.her structure exists with the authority or the ability to regulate development along the river's interstate boundaries.

Second, in the two states currently there are some 37 separate local government jurisdiotions--each of which retains zoning and other powers relating to use of land in the riverbed vicinity. For these 37 jurisdictions to arrive at a unanimous agreement on land use and planning would be a virtual impossibility-yet without such a plan the mistake of any one could jeopardize the success of all the rest .

We have witnessed the practice of economic blackmail over environmental decisions by state and local governments. Faced with the threat of losing a major revenue producing project to rival jurisdictions, communities have frequently been pressured into relaxing standards for the protection of treasured natural resources.

No community in the St. Croix valley wants this to happen. But Without Federal muscle to back them up, it would be inevitable.

Fourth, even assuming that the two States and 37 separate local governments could agree to adopt and enforce identical ordinances to preserve the river, they have neither the expertise nor the resources to develop and administer such a plan.

The National Park Service has this expertise. It has the resources. The Interior Department has been in the business of protecting rivers like the Lower St. Croix for five years and could easily prefect and carry out a plan to safeguard the river while permitting development which is consistent with the plan.

There is broad agreement among local residents, representatives, and state officials that Park Service administration ls the only logical, sensible way to achieve the goal of preserving the Lower St. Croix.

In the joint Federal-State-Local task force report we have the preliminary recommendations for the type of management the Park Service might provide.

I would like to stress my view-shared by Senator Nelson and local residents of the valley-that wherever possible protection ought to be accomplished through zoning

and easements rather than fee simple acquisition. As I pointed out earlier, local property owners have done an outstanding job of preserving the river--even when this has meant substantial personal economic losses. I feel strongly that they should be able to continue to own and maintain their property so long as their stewardship remains consistent With the long-standing tradition of wise and thoughtful uses of this important national asset.

I also think concerned residents and groups are entitled to a public hearing on the "master plan" for the Lower St. Croix prior to implementation by the Park Service. This hearing would ensure maximum citizen participation in the program for protection. Sena.tor Nelson and I, with the help of this Committee, have tried to build extensive local participation into the legislative process. I think this approach should be continued by the National Park Service, once Congressional action is complete.

The bill before the Committee today presents a rare opportunity for concerned action to preserve America's last remaining unspoiled river near a great metropolitan center. It is consistent With the President's publicly announced intention to protect exactly this type of area. According to a Presidential message on this subject:

"The demand for urban open space, recreation, wilderness and other natural areas continues to accelerate. In the face of rapid urban development, the acquisition and development of open space, recreation lands, and natural areas accessible to urban centers is often thwarted by escalating land values and development pressures."

And in President Nixon's 1972 Environmental Program we find the following declaration of policy, "The need to provide breathing space and recreational opportunities in our major urban centers is a major concern of this Administration."

I know assuring this vital space is a major concern of this Committee, of myself, and Senator Nelson, and of the countless individuals and local groups in Minnesota who have urged prompt enactment of S. 1928.

Last fall, the Committee had an opportunity to hear from local residents directly in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. You heard warm endorsements of S. 1928, from the St. Croix River Association, the St. Croix River Intergovernmental Planning Conference and the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission. We also have favorable resolutions passed by the Washington County Board of Commissioners, the Minnesota Resources Commission representing State legislators, and the City of Stillwater. I don't believe I need to list the scores of mayors, environmental groups and local residents, who have also spoken out in support of the bill. Later today, you will be hearing from representatives of the two governors.

I am profoundly grateful for the tremendous help and encouragement these people have provided to me in working toward Senate approval of this legislation. Never before in my public career have I seen such widespread agreement and deep personal commitment on the part of private citizens and groups as I have witnessed with this piece of legislation.

At a time when public disillusion with government tops every opinion poll in the country, two states, dozens of communities, and how many individuals are looking to Washington-for a commitment to save natural values, and to stop short-sighted, wasteful exploitation.

In the Lower St. Croix, we have a chance to break the chain of destruction that has claimed other urban rivers. We should make our commitment, ... protect the river . . ., and . . . for once, take heart in the saying

19712 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 • . . how we care for our natural treasures wlll someday determine our worth as a nation.

GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS INTO HOUSING FRAUDS IN CHICAGO Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I have

spoken out recently about the well documented abuses in certain housing programs administered by the Federal Housing Administration.

Grand jury investigations into charges of fraud and corruption in the operation of such mortgage insurance programs as 203, 221 (d} (2), and 235 are proceeding in several cities, including Chicago.

Every effort must be made to root out the unscrupulous operators and fast-buck artists who are defrauding the low-income family and robbing the public Treasury. Those guilty of wrongdoing, be they public officials or private businessmen, must be identified and, where appropriate, brought to trial.

I recently wrote to both the acting Attorney General and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development urging that they attach the highest priority possible to the ongoing investigation in IDinois. I have received assurances from both that all the resources of the Departments of Justice, and Housing and Urban Development are at the disposal of the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Mr. James P. Thompson.

I trust that this coordinated effort to rid these valuable housing programs of all vestiges of fraud and corruption will soon reach a successful conclusion.

I ask unanimous consent that my exchange of correspondence with the Departments of Justice, and Housing and Urban Development be printed in the RECORD.


APRIL 23, 1972. Hon. GEORGE ROMNEY' Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop

ment, Washington, D .C. DEAR GEORGE: I know you share my deep

concern about the problems plaguing the operation of the Section 235 home ownership program and the Section 236 rental and cooperative housing program. Your words and actions over the last few months indicate you are dedicated to ridding these programs of their obvious faults so that the Congress's original and still worthwhile goals may be achieved.

You are no doubt aware of the investigation of these programs now being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago. I know that you, George Vavoulis, John Waner and all the employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development are cooperating in every possible way in this investigation. We must identify and prosecute any public official or private citizen, be he builder, developer, real estate broker, or mortgage banker, who may have been involved in a conspiracy to defraud the poor and to misuse Federal funds.

I can assure you of my own cooperation in every effort to end the infiltration of these valuable programs by those interested only in quick profits at the expense of the poor.

Sincerely, CHARLES H. PERCY,

U.S. Senator.

THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

Washington, D .C., May 16, 1972. Hon. CHARLES H. PERCY, U.S. Senator, Wash·ington, D.C.

DEAR CHUCK: In reference to your letter of April 27, 1972 regarding the pending investigation by the U.S. Attorney in Chicago into the operation of HUD programs, let me assure you of my desire to cooperate fully. As you may know, we are presently working very closely with the Justice Department and grand juries in five cities. Our cooperation, without question, has contributed to the indictment of numerous individuals, including several FHA employees in these cities.

To indicate the seriousness with which I view this matter I recently wrote Acting Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst and indicated that I thought criminal matters referred to the Justice Department by HUD should receive top priority. When it is justified I intend to immediately suspend employees, lenders and contractors who cannot be relied upon to observe the law and whose future misdeeds may cause injury to individual citizens as well as the Government and the public in general.

Thank you for your interest and support. Sincerely,

GEORGE ROMNEY.

Hon. RICHARD KLEINDIENST, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

APRIL 27, 1972.

DEAR MR. 'KLEINDIENST: The U.S. Attorney in Chica.go, James R. Thompson, is moving ahead rapidly with his investigation of irregularities in various Federal housing programs, most notably the 235 and 236 programs. I know you have been as shocked as I have been by the revelations of widespread corruption in these programs, designed to provide low-income families with adequate housing. I know you feel as I do that those public employees and private citizens-the speculators, the brokers, the builders, the mortgage bankers, whomever they may be-who have conspired to defraud the poor as well as to misuse Federal funds must be rapidly identified and prosecuted.

I trust that the investigation in Chicago will be given the highest priority by the Department of Justice. I hope you will commit whatever resources are necessary to rid Illinois of the unscrupulous operators and "fast buck" artists as they have been called by George Romney, who are reaping illegitimate profits at the expense of the poor. We cannot tolerate this scandalous situation involving our housing programs to persist any longer, no matter who may be judged responsible.

I am sure you share my deep concern about this investigation. I hope that you will personally convey a sense of urgency to all those who a.re involved in the Chicago investigation and indicate your personal support of Mr. Thompson's investigation and urge him to conduct the resources available to him for a complete and thorough investigation.

Sincerely, CHARLES H. PERCY,

U.S. Senator.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.O., May 12, 1972.

Hon. CHARLES H. PERCY' U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your letter dated April 27, 1972, addressed to the Acting Attorney General concerning the investigations of Federal housing programs 1n

Chica.go, which was referred to the Criminal Division for consideration.

Thiis investigation in Chica.go was inaugurated through the personal efforts of Mr. Kleindienst. Chica.go was one of the first cities in which a task force consisting of Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Internal Revenue Service personnel was constituted to assist the United States Attorney in investigating these matters. It is contemplated that similar actions will be instituted in other troubled areas in the country and these investigations will continue to receive the highest priority.

On May 2, 1972, I appeared before the Legal and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee which was considering inner city housing problems. A copy of my testimony at that hearing is enclosed for your information.

Sincerely, HENRY E. PETERSEN,

Assistant Attorney General.

ADDRESS BY GEN. HAIM LASKOV AT ISRAEL DINNER OF STATE

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, on April 30, I attended the Israel dinner of state in honor of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M. Mazer and Mr. and Mrs. Maxwell M. Rabb in New York. At that time Gen. Haim Laskov, former Director General of Israel's Port Authority and former Chief of the Israeli Army, delivered a thoughtful analysis of Israel's problems and opportunities.

I ask unanimous consent that his address be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. The general's speech eloquently describes the fragile nature of the present cease fire and discusses many of the obstacles which continue to thwart our efforts for peace. In light of last week's vicious attack on innocent civilians in the Tel Aviv airport, I believe that General Laskov's thoughts are particularly helpful.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

ADDRESS BY GEN. HAIM LASKOV Ladies and Gentlemen, it is indeed an

honor to address the members of the Israeli Bond Community on the 24th independence year of the State of Israel. It is a pleasure yet a demanding duty. As a son of a small nation, pregnant with history, I learned that there is always a lower or a higher place awaiting you from the one on which you actually stand on now, and where as a nation we shall eventually land depends on what as a nation we choose to do now.

The spheres of activity include our security, our industrialization, our husbandry of human material resources, our social development, the creation of meaningful jobs for the new comers-quite a tall order for any nation.

The last time that I addressed a bonds gathering was May 1967 when we had the enemy camp fires bent on the final solution. Now I can speak of a different experience. We are bent on achieving peace, a secure peace.

Our aspirations for peace cannot be severed from the particular memories still with us, memories that no other people can fully share, memories of horror so vast and too bloody for words. It is those who refuse to negotiate, those who use peace against itself that bar the opening of the road to peace so that jointly we can overcome the hurdles to achieve the Peace propheslsed by Isaiah.

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 19713 Talking about borders, did the Soviets go

back to their 3rd September 1939 borders before they jointly, with the Nazis, stabbed Poland in the back? These were the Soviets who spoke first in terms of "secure borders"-such that it wlll never pay anybody again to attack her! Why is this to be denied to Israel, just because we are Jews or small?

What peace do the Arabs want? Those who care say! "Peace, any peace, is a danger to the Arabs, to Palestine, to the future of the Arab people. We must refuse peace. We must gather forces to conduct a war that is inevitable."

When it concerns us they speak of the sanctity of cease-fire and armistice agreements, doctrines, guarantees and U.N. observer forces. We bear evidence, by the lives of our kith and kin-how and who violated the mixed armistice and cease-fire agreements; who rendered doctrines, guarantees and U .N. observer forces void.

Is it sheer obstinacy to insist on an adequate supply of arms, or on secure frontiers 24 years after signing the armistice agreement? We ask that question 5 years after agreeing to a cease fire that has been constantly violated by our neighbors mounting economic blockades, denial of international waterways, launching marauders from all neighboring countries? Having turned the war of attrition on them-since August 1971, the cease fire is maintained.

Inter-Arab relations, the great powers• involvement in the Middle East, the effort to survive-create conditions of uncertainty in which we must live and ride all waves. This means to stand firm. This means steadfastness of purpose. Whatever we may face it may be the beginning of the second promise in Psalm 29, last verse:

"The Lord will give strength unto his people. The Lord bless his people with peace."

It was Ben-Gurion, this great captain of Israel-this year 85-who for the word "strength" substituted zahal. May be through this strength we shall eventually start this much hoped-for process that will through strength lead us to peace. The second promise. In war we operated in conditions of risk. Now, as you know, since the 6-Day war we face new conditions of uncertainty. We are in the midst a new experience where we must st9.nd firm against the whittling down of our basic security and maintain steadfastness of purpose.

We face a new experience of uncertainty and its demands in order to succeed. If under these conditions of uncertainty you double, nay-treble your target for Bonds purchases, you will be vaguely right. But if you don't-you will be precisely wrong! These are your guidelines.

So choose for yourselves! Standing here in front of you, viewing the

activity of the Bond community and with all humility-looking back at our history, for centuries we were a people to whom things happened. Some of us watched the things that happened to us, others did not even know that things were happening to them. Now, however, we have a new experience. We make things happen.

From certain quarters, one hears that the unrest in the Middle East ls all due to little Israel who in the Six-Day war overcame a threat the likes of which it had not faced before. Is it true? Let us examine inter-Arab relations. (a) North Africa, the Middle East-since 1948-37 political assassination attempts of which 13 failed, 51 coup d'etats, 19 police actions against opposition. 9 border wars, and what with public incitement to rebel-poisonous gas in Egypt-Yemen War. (b) Fata.h Saboteurs fled King Hussein's marauding soldiers to Israel while Syria and Iraq sealed their frontiers to them and Sadat scotched a coup d'etat in Egypt on taking over power.

It was King Hussein who declared that

the marauders reached the end of their road. Those who fled to us said: "The Jordanian army slaughtered us." It is early to write them off as a source of trouble but interArab enmity has many lessons to teach, and for us to learn. The new emerging regimes in the countries that border Israel started with the slogan of Union, later reverted to unity, recently unity of action against Israel and now as it burned out against each other.

The true picture of the Middle East reemerge&-a region with multiple communities that differ from each other and wish to maintain their differences. These relations to us are a timely warning ... Even an Arab asks: "These explosions, explosives and blood-baths that failed or succeeded, where are they leading us?" This is their problem, but to us this means that vigilance ls vital. As if local turmoil that may develop into a threat is not enough, Soviet weaponry, presence and intrigue are ever active.

I cannot understand why the Soviet Union, in spite of her great power and wealth, is still obsessed by a sense of insecurity! The old bogey of encirclement ls stlll there! But can sanity indicate to her a threat from little independent Israel or if the Russian Jew will come to Israel?

I wonder if her sense of being encircle has now become an overt act of encircling of others.

"The policy of the Russian Government has always been to push forward its encroachments as fast and as far as the apathy or want of firmness of other governments would allow it to go, but always stop and retire when it was met with decided resistance and then wait for the next favorable opportunity to make another spring on the intended victim"-quite accurate!

This was written in 1863. Things have not changed much these 120 years. The blind are to be found in every camp-even in our own.

Soviet sophisticated weaponry t1.nd intrigue are completely exposed even to 'the blind. The situation is clear and sinister. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, the marauders must be freely armed with sophisticated weapons. Israel should be deprived of weapons, put its trust in these neighbors, and world power guarantees instead.

The childhood fable is appropriate: "The wolves offer the sheep peace if they do away with fences and send away their watch dogs." Poor Sheep!

No wonder that in addition to the no-recognition, no-negotiation, no-peace of Khartoum 1967 reaffirmed recently in Damascus, there is no common denominator. We talk of peace; Egypt of unilateral withdrawal. We talk of secured borders; Egypt--of 4th of June 67 and the Palestine problem. However, given time and patience we may still find a distant common ground. The opening of unconditional Suez Canal negotiations may serve as an indicator.

To those who cannot see through the Soviet-Egyptian game, Haykal explains: Israel to go back to the 4th June 67 lines-so Egypt with Russia can again increase a. threat and then free the so-called Arab soil in Palestine:

Phase I-ba.ck to 4th June 67 lines. Phase II-do a.way with the State of Israel. Sub phase A-back to 1947-(to this border

the Russians are a party.) Sub phase B-back to Pre-Balfour Declara

tions, 1917-this is the Arab final solution. The fact that the Soviets could do what

they did in Hungary or in Czechoslovakia is enough for us to do everything possible; that they should not do it from any Arab country to Israel. No wonder that we Israelis tend to view everything in terms of what helps or hinders our security and survival, the very freedom that every Jew has in establishing his home in Israel .. .

I do not know if the Soviets will al wa.ys win the chess games but one thing--chess characteristics become to them second nature--they do not mind how long the game lasts. Well, we have lasted longer and will last longer!

Others, those that attained independence before we did, and others that achieved it after, strike a negative balance of democracy. For all intents and purposes, we are the sole champions of democracy in the Middle East.

Yet, when the Western democracies are weighing the situation while the soviet Union is penetrating all land, sea and air areas vacated by Britain and France--there is al ways this smug attitude fortified by "conventional wisdom" saying, "Let us not do anything that may court the Soviets' displeasure or the Egyptian dictators' blackmailing whip".

For freedom to be secure, it must be established and defended-just like other free nations do, and we do not have the benefit of collective security arrangement.s to meet the threat against us. We realize that only in the establishment of a just and secure peace can the deepest aspirations of a free people be realized. Would the harnessing of the moral, intellectual and material strength of the Jewish people to create conditions of such a peace amount to an act of war or expansion?

The issue before you is not to measure the material and moral resources of the Jewish people. The issue is how purposefully to employ it instead of frittering it away on trivial demands, by being afraid to sustain a great ca.use, or enable Jews to start the type of life you enjoy here and they want in Israel! And Now!

We have another experience and an additional demand on the Bonds Communityto purchase more bonds. We see the beginning of the exodus from the Soviet Union. Decades of pent-up craving to be a free Jew in a sovereign Jewish state is breaking through the highest walls that a totalitarian regime has ever built. What we see ls but a trickle that will become a rivulet and that in the end will pecome a torrential river of human life.

The six-day war let burst open the pentup will to live in the hearts of Soviet Jewry, depressed and threatened these last fifty years. The result.s of the six-day war are too early to sum up. This was an act for survival for Israel, but for Soviet Jewry the fire sparked off by it is still glowing in Russian Jewish hearts. The Jewish people in Russia face a threat of anti-semitism-the country where programs are not unknown, and Israel faces a Soviet threat ~n the Middle East. Quite a threat for any nation, never mind a. small one like ours. But on the Soviet front our brethren have no co:mmanders, no formal organization. Yet this spiritual movement is powerful despite fifty years of Russian nationalist education system, and powerful and ugly antisemitism.

Of two acts the Soviet.s a.re afraid-publicity of how roughly they handle this Jewish exodus; the other-lest we successfully receive and absorb each man, woman and child in Israel.

You all know of our effort to achieve our goals and an economic policy for full employment through export.s. To those tha.t say this is impossible we say: impossible ls not a Hebrew word. And why do you think we got our name Israel? "For as a prince hast thou power with God and with men and ha.st prevailed." So let us be true to this.

It will be only fair to tell you a.bout our effort at home. In 1969 Israeli citizens paid, by direct and indirect taxes, 4000 million pounds. In 1971 the figure was doubled. In 1972 even higher. These figures speak for themselves. But that is not all-3-year national service, 50 days a year reserve service. Our aims are clear-defense of Israel, absorp-

19714 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 5, 1972 tion of newcomers, industrialization of the country to make our economy more viable, improved standard of living for lower income groups-this is no light burden by any standard, and the task of absorption-the end product of the melting pot is not as simple as it sounds.

Our success in industrialization of, and urbanization of, the Negev and other undeveloped areas depend in large measure on a national water scheme, the harnessing of solar energy, water desalination, water research and conservation, and the education of our heterogeneous population. Lacking raw material we must rely on brains only.

What we are doing in Israel is building our third temple. What we are actually doing to second-class citizens, or worse, to Jews who were deprived of elementary freedom, is the creation of a pioneer, nation builder and after thousands of years a defender of Jewish sovereignty, dignity and life: Is there a mystique about it? No! Just what free men can do. For us faith is a premise, a sense of identity and individuality coupled with humility and respect for the integrity of man. These are real things, not just verbosity.

Wherever we establish a settlement-a township (we are short of these)-and they strike roots; with every additional newcomer who settles, with every industry or service and export that enables us to say "We want trade not aid'', we are building our third temple.

We realize that as long as our neighbors have their policy in the future of arms and promise us sooner or later with a "final solution," our national defense must be second to none.

Our history taught us a lesson never to be weak, because weakness may invite the aggressor and the end of our third temple. We know that our strength does not depend solely on men under arms and our weaponry. It depends on our social development, economic growth and, above all, the character of our people. We should never lose our educational priorities.

Ladies and Gentlemen! When we talk about our duty to Israel, it does not mean only duty to the past or only duty to the present. It means also duty to the future, as this duty is all-embracing and indivisible.

What you must ask yourselves is how are you in relation to this duty. Remember that lt is by lagging behind, by giving in to the daily trivial demands, to inertia or by being bored or afraid to act in a great cause that we fail.

Ladies and Gentlemen! Act now, for us success is vital and we must succeed.

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the transaction of routine morning business has expired.

NOMINATION OF RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON). Under the previous order, the Senate, in executive session, will now resume the debate on the nomination of Richard G. Kleindienst for the office of Attorney General of the United States. The question is on the confirmation of the nomination.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.



·1

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, months ago-on February 15, to be exact-the Senate began the process of confirming Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General. The confirmation hearings la.sted longer, I am told, than any in the Senate·s history-24 days. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I watched those hearings turn away from their proper course during the first several days. Entire days of hearings were conducted without mention of Mr. Kleindienst's name.

The committee spent weeks investigating the settlement of three Government suits against ITT. Several days were spent on an examination of the Harry Steward matter. In spite of what Mr. Kleindienst's opponents have suggested, these two matters were thoroughly reviewed, and the committee voted overwhelmingly to endorse the nominee for the position of Attorney General.

There is absolutely no proof of any link between the ITT antitrust settlement and ITT's contribution to the city of San Diego for the Republican National Convention, now is there any reason to believe that any linkage existed. The committee could have conducted hearings indefinitely and still would have unearthed nothing because no deal was there to be found. The committee had come to know Richard McLaren well since he came to Washington in 1969. We all knew Judge McLaren to be a man of honesty and integrity. He was the head of the Antitrust Division; he testified that he was solely responsible for the settlement. I think that every Member of Congress who ever had any dealings with the Antitrust Division under Judge McLaren knew him to be a very strict and a very conscientious administrator; and if any criticism was heard on the Hill, it was that he was unnecessarily strict and unnecessarily rigid in the enforcement of the Antitrust Division's cases.

The committee could and should have concluded the hearings after hearing the following from Judge McLaren in regard to a question concerning the memorandum allegedly written by an ITT lobbyist:

I am completely at a loss to account for it, Senator. I know none of the people involved and as I testified before, I had absolutely no discussions with the Attorney General on this whole matter. As far as I am concerned, I was the one that negotiated this thing, it had absolutely 100 percent nothing to do with Republican Party politics or San Diego or any other lobbyist. I am completely at a loss to account for that ridiculous memorandum.

Henry Petersen, the head of the Criminal Division at the Justice Department, spent an entire day testifying on the Harry Steward matter. He told the committee:

I am convinced there is absolutely nothing in this record that would reflect adversely on Dick Kleindienst, absolutely nothing.

Repeatedly, he said it would have been "grossly unfair" to dismiss Steward. He

also agreed with the decision to issue the press release after the Justice Department had concluded its investigation of Steward. I find the following colloquy between Senator HART and Mr. Petersen illuminating on this point:

Senator HART. But, in that situation again. and I think I am suggesting this may be basic, if you handle it the only other way, dismissal, presumably without explanation, you lend credibility to all o! the charges that have surfaced?

Mr. PETERSEN. That is the reason I say it would have been grossly unfair, Senator.

Senator HART. And you ruin a man who used bad judgment?

Mr. PETERSEN. That's right.

In regard to the ITI' settlement, the supplemental report of the committee contains the following sentence:

The committee concludes that Mr. Kleindienst aated properly in the conduct of his office in the matter of the settlement of these cases.

Likewise, the committee found no impropriety in Mr. Kleindienst's handling of the Harry Steward matter.

Where does this leave Mr. Kleindienst's opponents? It leaves them in the cold. Unable to point to impropriety in the record of 24 days of hearings, Mr. Kleindienst's opponents now argue that the Senate needs to know much more. Let me emphasize that again: Those who oppose this nomination cannot point to anything in the hearing record that would disqualify Richard Kleindienst, but seek to fores tall a vote by insisting that the committee should receive more evidence. That is the posture of the debate now. The opponents have lost on the ITT issue; they have lost on the Steward issue. Recognizing that they cannot win on this record, they are casting about for new issues or for new tactics to delay a vote.

During the last hour of the last day of 24 days of hearings on this nomination, one member of the Judiciary Committee introduced an entirely new issue which had been utterly ignored by him and the other opponents since the President nominated Mr. Kleindienst on February 15. The new issue involved the Carson case, which is now on appeal and at the trial of which Mr. Kleindienst appeared as a witness.

Mr. Kleindienst's opponents insist that the nominee is not fit to be Attorney General on the basis of facts in the Carson case they were all aware of long before the nomination was submitted to the Senate. Incredible as it may seem, the same Senators voted on February 24 to report Mr. Kleindienst's nomination favorably, even though they knew then everything they knew on the last day of hearings when the issue first came up. I say this is incredible. The same Senators who refused to bring up the issue during the hearings before the first committee vote on February 24 and who voted to report the nominee, now rise on this ftoor in apparent outrage and indignation. We hear expressions such as "obviously improper," "clearly recognizable," and "easily recognizable." If it is so obvious, why did we wait so long to hear about it? If it is disqualifying now, why was it not disqualifying on February 24? I

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19715 suggest that the attempt to provide answers to those questions by the Senator who first raised the Carson issue are entirely unsatisfactory.

Mr. President, the longest confirmation hearings in the Senate's history have produced no evidence that would disqualify Mr. Kleindienst. In fact, I think the nominee's patience throughout and his ability to direct the Department while being involved in these hearings indicate that he is a man of great character and ability. He did not shrink from the battle and conducted himself with distinction over the past few months.

The Senate can go on with this extended discussion, listening to the same statements again and again, or it can vote on the nomination. There is no excuse for not voting promptly. The fishing expedition is over. Everyone seems to know it but the fishermen.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak today on the subject of the now famous Beard memorandum.

It was Jack Anderson's publication last February of the contents of this fascinating confidential ITT document which was the first step in the chain of events leading to the reopening of the Kleindienst confirmation hearings.

Of course, the publication of the Beard memorandum was not the first time susp1c1ons were raised about whether there might be some connection between ITT's substantial Republican convention pledge, and the administration's complete turnaround on its tough antitrust conglomerate policy.

Dick Dudman of the St. Louis Post Dispatch had raised questions about the settlement itself the day it was announced at the end of July of last year;

Ralph Nader's people had specifically asked the no~inee about a possible connection last September;

Bob Walters of the Washington Star had written an extensive piece on the same subject last November; and

The national chairman of the Democratic Party had raised the possibility last December.

But all of these people-well-intentioned and incisive as they were-lacked the one essential ingredient that would make the puzzle complete. And that was inside information from someone at ITT who really knew the facts.

That ingredient was supplied to the public by Jack Anderson on February 29, when he published the contents of the Beard memorandum which revealed that in the opinion of ITT's only registered lobbyist-who had worked on both the convention arrangements and the antitrust settlement-the convention pledge was, in fact, having a positive effect on the outcome of the cases, and that then Attorney General Mitchell, as well as President Nixon, was helping to arrange the settlement.

The Beard memorandum was dated June 25, 1971-

Just about one week after the Justice Department-in fact Mr. Kleindienst him.self-had told ITT that a settlement could be arranged;

Just 1 day after Bob Wilson, the Republican Party's principal convention fundraiser, discussed convention financ-


ing with ITT's president Harold Geneen; and ·

Just 1 day before Wilson assured the mayor of San Diego that he had a commitment of $400,000 to finance the convention, which, of course, included the previously-tendered ITT pledge;

The memorandum was on ITT stationery;

It was labelled "personal and confidential";

It was addressed to William Merriam, the head of ITT's Washington Office;

It was from Dita Beard; Its subject line was entitled "San Di

ego Convention"; And here is what it said: I just had a long talk with EJG. I'm so sorry

that we got that call from the White House. I thought you and I had agreed very thoroughly that under no circumstances would anyone in this office discuss with anyone our participation in the convention, including me. Other than permitting John Mitchell, Ed Reinecke, Bob Haldeman and Nixon (besides Wilson, of course) no one has known from whom that 400 thousand commitment had come. You can't imagine how many queries I've had from "friends" about this situation and I have in each and every case denied knowledge of any kind. It would be wise for all of us here to continue to do that, regardless of from whom any questions come; White House or whoever. John Mitchell has certainly kept it on the higher level only, we should be able to do the same.

I was afraid the discussion about the three hundred/four hundred thousand commitment would come up soon. If you remember, I suggested that we all stay out of that, other than the fact that I told you I had heard Hal up the original amount.

Now I understand from Ned that both he and you are upset about the decision to make it four hundred in services. Believe me, this is not what Hal said. Just after I talked with Ned, Wilson called me, to report on his meeting with Hal. Hal at no time told Wilson that our donation would be in services only. In fact, quite the contrary. There would be very little cash involved, but certainly some. I am convinced, because of several conversations with Louie re Mitchell, that our noble commitment has gone a long way toward our negotiations on the mergers eventually coming out as Hal wants them. Certainly the President has told Mitchell to see that things are worked out fairly. It is still only McClaren's Mickey Mouse we are suffering.

We all know Hal and his big mouth! But this is one time he cannot tell you and Ned one thing and Wilson (and me) another!

I hope, dear Bill, that all of this can be reconciled-between Hal and Wilson-if all of us in this office remain totally ignorant of any commitment rrr has made to anyone. If it gets too much publicity, you can believe our negotiations With justice will wind up shot down. Mitchell is definitely helping us, but cannot let it be known. Please destroy this, huh?

Of course after Jack Anderson's people had obtained a copy of the memoranum they learned a good deal more about why Mrs. Beard had written it, and how she happened to be in a position to know the things she claimed.

I think it is worthwhile to focus our attention on the investigation conducted by Anderson's staff. Challenges have been made to the integrity of Anderson's ITT columns, and efforts were made by some of the committee members to discredit those columns.

But this was not a situation where an irresponsible newsman ran into print with a cold unauthenticated piece of paper within minutes after receiving it.

Quite to the contrary, we have learned of the painstaking work of an experienced investigative reporter named Brit Hume who left no stone unturned in his effort to insure that what Jack Anderson would ultimately publish would be in the highest traditions of his profession.

Let us look at exactly what Hume did do, and what he discovered-

The first thing Hume did was to try to contact Mrs. Beard directly. He told her secretary that he wanted to talk to her about a piece of paper which seemed to involve her and which appeared to have come from ITT's files.

ITT obviously realized they were faced with a potentially very explosive problem. When Hume arrived at Mrs. Beard's office, he was not allowed to meet with Mrs. Beard alone, but had to have this initial personal contact in the presence of not just one, but two ITT "PR" menMr. Bernie Goodrich and Mr. Jack Horner.

When Hume pulled out the memorandum and showed it to Mrs. Beard, she was nervous and very, very flustered. She acknowledged that it was her memorandum-even more specifically, she noticed that the memorandum had her written first initial "D" on it, and she confirmed that the initial was hers-"my own little 'D' ", as she put it.

Mrs. Beard then went to her files, saying that she wanted to look for "surrounding correspondence that might bear on" the memorandum. When she came back, she said she could not find anything and she asked Hume what he wanted to know about it.

Realizing that the presence of ITT's two "PR" men was creating anything but a favorable atmosphere for a friendly and candid chat with Mrs. Beard, Hume withheld his more detailed questioning for a more opportune occasion.

And how right he was. For as Mrs. Beard later told Hume privately, everytime she had tried to tell him something at this first meeting, Goodrich and Horner would start to cough loudly or kick her under the table to stop her from talking.

The day after this initial meeting, Mrs. Beard called Hume's office. She was quite upset and left word that she wanted to talk to Hume to tell him the truth about the whole matter.

When Hume arrived at Mrs. Beard's home that evening, there was an atmosphere of crisis. It was, Hume said, as if there had been a death in the family. Mrs. Beard was extremely distraught and looked as if she had been crying. She said that Hume's possession of the memorandum was one of the worst things that had ever happened t.o her, that it had dire implications for ITT and for the Republican Party.

For the first hour or so, Mrs. Beard gave Hume a biography of her life and talked about her children.

When they finally got around to discussing the memorandum, Mrs. Beard


again admitted that she had written it. She said that ITT's officials had tried to persuade her to claim she had made it up, but that she had decided she could not do that. She said:

I wrote this memo. You know I wrote the memo. There is no use trying to pretend otherwise.

She again promised to tell Hume the truth.

Mrs. Beard then told Hume that she first thought of having the GOP convention in San Diego during a conversation she had with California Lt. Governor Ed Reinecke--a close friend of hers--sometime in January of last year. She said that thereafter she and Reinecke were in frequent contact and they cooperated in an effort "to swing the GOP convention to San Diego."

Mrs. Beard told Hume that following her initial conversation with Reinecke she went to San Diego to see if the city's hotel facilities could house a convention. She also checked to see if ITT's new Sheraton Hotel in San Diego would be ready in time for the convention.

She said that "the first real step" toward getting the convention to San Diego came in May of 1971 at a dinner following ITT's annual spring meeting in San Diego. Present at the dinner, in addition to Mrs. Beard were:

Harold Geneen, the president of I'IT; Bud James, the head of ITT-Shera

ton's new San Diego hotel; and San Diego Congressman Bob Wilson,

who was head of the Republican congressional campaign committee and a close friend of Mrs. Beard.

Mrs. Beard told Hume that at this dinner she brought up the subject of bringing the convention to San Diego, and Geneen told Wilson that ITT would underwrite it by putting up the "seed money."

She then explained that there were two reasons why she had written the memorandum.

First, to clear up some confusion which had developed over whether Geneen's commitment had involved cash or services; and

Second, because her boss Mr. Merriam- to whom the Beard memorandum was addressed-had committed an indiscretion by letting the facts about this secret commitment leak out to some lower-level staff member in the White House. Mrs. Beard said she wrote the memorandum to impress Merriam with the need to exercise greater discretion in the future.

Finally, Hume began to press Mrs. Beard about the references in the Memorandum to Attorney General Mitchell.

Here is Hume's precise recollection of what happened then:

I kept pressing her. She said things like, 'If I tell you the truth will you use it to destroy me?' She was becoming increasingly emotional. I tried, gently, to continue to press. I asked her 1f there was a way she could tell me the facts and we could keep her name out of it. She shook her head. She was really upset at this point. I recited my surmise about what had occurred. Namely, tha.t the fix, 1f there was one, took place before the settlement propose.I was drafted and before the negotiations began. I S81id I thought the influence must have come while the matter was still in danger of going to trial.

I :finally began to press her to tell me if there had been an agreement of this kind. She was weeping now. She nodded yes. I asked her if it was negotiated by her. Again, a yes nod. With Mitchell? Again, yes, nodding. She was broken down now, her head in her hands and she darted into the bathroom just behind the stool where I sat. I paced the kitchen while she was in there. It was just about 11 o'clock.

When she came out, she again asked if we were going to ruin her. I said I didn't know, that I wouldn't know what we would do until we had the facts. She then told me this story. She was invited, as she had been in the past every year, to go to the Kentucky Derby. This year, her friend Gov. Nunn mentioned that John Mitchell would also be one of his guests at the Governor's mansion after the race. She said she mentioned this to E . J. Garrity, the New York Public Relations chief of !'IT in a memo. She said before she left, they talked by telephone and Garrity told her what the company wanted most if she and Mitchell should get onto the subje<:t of the merger cases then in court. She said thalt after the Derby, she went to the mansion for a buffet dinner and mentioned that Martha Mitchell was putting it on and she said some unkind things a.bout Mrs. Mitchell. She said this was her first meeting with John Mitchell. She said that as they were going in to get in the buffet line, Mitchell took her arm and took her aside. It was just the three of them then, she said, Mitchell, herself and Gov. Nunn.

She said that Mitchell proceeded to give her a scathing, hour-long scolding in the bluntest language for putting the pressure on the Justice Department on the mergers via Capitol Hill and other means instead of coming to see him. She said Mitchell said he had been told she was the "politician" in the company, and he had heard much about her long before coming to Washington. She said he knew about all the speeches she had written and gotten delivered by friendly members of Congress. She said Mitchell knew all about her, even asked about son Bull's grades. She said she had gotten speeches delivered in both houses of Congress. She estimated about a dozen. She said Mitchell told her he had gotten a call from Nixon saying "lay-off ITT." Later, she changed this to something, like Nixon saying "make areasonable settlement." She said M1tchell told her he was sympathetic but that his great problem was McLaren, whom she described as a [and she used profanity here]. She said she did what she could to fight back, but she was overwhelmed by Mitchell's diatribe. She blessed Louie Nunn for staying at her side during the whole thing. Finally, she said she asked him, "Well, do you want to work something out," or words to that effect. She said he replied in the affirmative. She said he said, "What do you want," meaning what companies did ITT wish to retain in the merger case settlement. She said she told him they had to have the Hartford Insurance Company "because of the economy." And she added that they also wanted "part of Grinnell." She said she couldn't remember what else she asked for, but it was exactly what the company got in the settlement.

She said the agreement was reached, actually, as they went through the buffet line and then sat down to eat.

All of that is what Mrs. Beard told Hume when he interviewed her at her home on February 24, plus more--

Mrs. Beard also told Hume that Attorney General Mitchell knew about ITT's $400,000 commitment to back the convention in San Diego. She said that Mitchell knew about it because Lieutenant Governor Reinecke had told him.

And she also told Hume that between their first and second conversations,

ITT's security men from New York had come down and had destroyed her files by putting them through a document shredder. She said they feared her files might be subpoenaed.

Even with all of these startling and alarming admissions by Mrs. Beard, Hume and Anderson still did not rush into print. They did substantially more-

Hume contacted Congressman Wilson who confirmed that Geneen had made a $400,000 commitment at the San Diego dinner on May 12, and that Merriam had been confused about the nature of the commitment.

He contacted an ITT consultant who confirmed that at Merriam's request he had been in contact with a White House aide about the ITT commitment-and that Mrs. Beard had been furious when she learned that the White House aide had been contacted.

Hume also contacted an aide to Lieutenant Governor Reinecke, who confirmed that Reinecke, in his presence, had told Attorney General Mitchell about the ITT convention commitment last May.

An Hume contacted or tried to contact virtually every other principal figure involved before the original column was printed, although none of these persons made the kind of damaging admissions he had obtained from Mrs. Beard.

So a substantial portion of the memorandum was corroborated even before the Committee's hearings were reopened.

But at the hearings of course we were ' able to learn much more about it.

First of all, Mr. Hume had an opportunity to detail his extensive investigative work under oath.

As for the memorandum-We learned that the memorandum was

an authentic ITT document-typed, in fact, on the same typewriter as at least one other document which was admittedly authored by Mrs. Beard. The FBI director told us that after an exhaustive laboratory analysis by the Bureau's experts.

Mr. Hoover's report showed that laboratory tests conducted by the FBI reflected that the typewriting ink and the margin and paragraph indentations on the Beard memorandum were substantially or closely similar to the ink and indentations contained on another docuby Mrs. Beard and typed for her in her ITT office at about the same time-June 25, 1971. The FBI further found nothing from their examinations "to suggest preparation at a time other than around June 25, 1971," the date contained on the Beard memorandum.

We learned of several other admissions by Mrs. Beard that she was the author of the memorandum. Representative Wilson said that she had admitted it t.o him.

On February 24, Mrs. Beard had contacted Congressman Wilson. Wilson recalled that Mrs. Beard called him first on the telephone and that she was very excited. She told Wilson:

Something terrible had happened and I must talk to you immediately.

When she arrived at Wilson's office she had with her one of the copies of the memorandum which had been Xeroxed

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19717

from Hume's original on the preceding day. Wilson subsequently told a newsman that Mrs. Beard admitted authoring the memorandum. "So there it is," added Wilson in a tape-recorded interview, "Jack Anderson had the original, not just a copy, but the original memo."

Mrs. Beard's personal physician, Dr. Victor Liszka, also said that Mrs. Beard had admitted to him that she was tne author of the memorandum. Dr. Liszka told the committee that he had seen Mrs. Beard on February 29, 1972-the day the first Anderson column was published-and that it was his impression that Mrs. Beard accepted the fact that "that was her memo." He claimed that Mrs. Beard had told him "I was mad and disturbed when I wrote it," and "I was angry, I was mad when I wrote the memo."

So we have Mr. Hume's sworn statement that Mrs. Beard told him that she had written it.

We have Dr. Lisz.ka, her physician and long-time friend, who testified before the committee that she had told him she had written it.

And we have Representative Wilson indicating in an interview that she had told him she had written it.

All of these facts were established in the course of our hearings.

We also learned that as of the date of the memorandum, the negotiations on the- merger were coming out the way "Hal" Geneen had wanted them to, just as the memorandum said.

Mr. McLaren, who had been pushing for 2 years to get a Supreme Court ruling on conglomerates, suddenly sent a memorandum to Mr. Kleindienst which included the fallowing paragraph:

We have had a study made by financial experts and they substantially confirm ITT's claiims as to the effects of a. divestiture order. Such being the case, I gather that we must also anticipate that the impa.ot upon !Tr would have a. ripple effect-in the stock market and in the economy.

Under the circumstances, I think we a.re compeHed to weigh the need for divestiture in this case-including its deterrent effect as well as the elimination of anticompetitive effects to be expeoted from divestiturea.gainst the damage which divestiture would occasion. Or, to refine the issue a. lit.tie more: Is a decree against ITT containing injunctive relief and a divestiture order wol'th enough more than a decree contailning only !injunctive relief to justify the projected adverse effect.s on ITT and its stockholders, and the risk of adverse effects on the stock market and the economy?

I come to the reluctant conclusion that the answer ls "no." I say reluctant because ITI''s management consummated the Hartford acquisition knowing it violated our antitrust policy; knowing we intended to sue; and in effeot representing to the court that he need not issue a preliminary injunction because ITT would hold Hartford separate and thus minimize any divestiture problem if violation were found.

About a week earlier, rrr had been told by Justice that the cases could be settled without a divestiture of Hartford, that is, the way "Hal" Geneen had wanted them to. That is pa.rt of the rec-ord. Here is Mr. Kleindienst's recollection at the hearings:

I believe that at that meeting Mr. McLaren was in there a.t his regularly scheduled 8: 15

meeting in the morning, so it would have been in the early part of the morning on June 17 that we called Mr. Rohatyn. Mr. McLaren then read to Mr. Rohatyn, over the telephone, his proposed settlement structure. And Mr. Rohatyn-and we used the telephone in a. conference phone so that both Mr. McLaren and I could listen to Mr. Roha.tyn, and he was also able to hear both of us speak-and Mr. Roha.tyn was making notes with respect to the matters given over the telephone, and he asked some questions a.bout it, which Mr. McLaren answered. I believe Mr. McLaren said that if your company is willing to approach this matter on this basis, that you can instruct your attorney to contact me in my office and we will commence set.tlement negotiations.

We learned that Mrs. Beard did have conversations with Governor Nunn or "Louie" about Mitchell, just as the memorandum stated. Mr. Nunn himself admitted knowing about the rrr antitrust cases and admitted talking to Mrs. Beard about Mitchell and the cases. Here are the exchanges on that point:

Senator HART. Did you ever have any conversations with her concerning the I.T. & T. cases?

Mr. NUNN. Nothing more than the next day. Mrs. Bea.rd ca.me ba~k to the mansion after the Attorney General had left and she was very disturbed for fear that her conduct and her behavior there might cost her her job. She seemed very obsessed about losing her job and she realized, evidently, that she had conducted herself in a. manner that she shouldn't.

Senator HART. She realized that or she told you that?

Mr. NuNN. Well, in any event, she told me that she was very concerned. I don't recall ever having any conversations with Mrs. Bea.rd specifically about that case: no, sir. She may have mentioned it at some time. As a matter of fa.ct, I guess she did at some of the Governor's conferences where I may have seen her. But I don't remember discussing any specific aspects of it.

Senator HART. Do you remember discussing the cases with her on occasions other than the one at the Derby and the following day?

Mr. NUNN. I did not discuss it with her at the time at the Derby, the cases. She was trying to talk a.bout it, but there was no discussion.

Senator HART. Your testimony is that the first time you discussed I.T. & T. with her was the following day?

Mr. NUNN. No; I didn't discuss it with her then. I said she might have made some mention of it at that time about what she was wanting or what she wasn't wanting, but I don't recall the specifics of it.

Sena.tor HART. To the best of your recollections, what did she say the next day at the mansion and what did she say, if anything, to you on other occasions a.bout I.T. & T.?

Mr. NUNN. Well, the next day I don't remember anything specific she said other than the fact that she would not want to discuss, would not want to prejudice any cases by her conduct, or she wouldn't want to lose her job by anything she might have done there.

Now, I don't know that I ever recall any specific instances. However, there may have been times when I saw Mrs. Beard at the Governor's conferences or there may have been some occasion when I saw her in Washington when she might have mentioned the IT!' occasion.

Senator HART. What discussions, if any, have you had with anybody at ITT?

Mr. NUNN. I don't recall any discussions that I have had with anyone at ITT about the convention at all. On one occasion when

I was coming to Washington at the Dulles Airport, there was someone--and I do not recall his name-that Mrs. Beard introduced me to as a. representative of ITT. At that time, Mrs. Beard was again talking a.bout being in Kentucky and did I think that! didn't think that Mitchell was upset with ITT because of what she had done. She did bring up what had happened there in Kentucky, because, obviously, she was concerned about her job throughout this whole thing.

Senator HART. I am not clear on that answer. Did you say that you told her you thought Mr. Mitchell was not upset by her discussions of ITT?

Mr. NuNN. I think that Mr. Mitchell was upset by her conduct, and the fact that she raised the issue, but I don't think that he would-I think he understood her condition and the circumstances under which it arose.

• • • Sena.tor HART. Well, in your conversation

with her at Dulles, what exactly did you tell her on this particular point?

Mr. NUNN. Well, I don't remember the exact words, but she introduced me to this man, said he was a. representative or associated with ITT, and did I think that Mitchell was upset or that he would be prejudiced in any way or would take any action against ITT or her because of her behavior there on that night.

Senator HART. Did you express that as your opinion?

Mr. NuNN. My opinion that he would not. because I think that he-

Senator HART. Based on what? The CHAIRMAN. Let him answer. Mr. NUNN. Based on the fact that he would

understand her condition at the time she was saying what she was saying and what she was doing in Kentucky on that given night.

Now, I never-Mr. Mitchell didn't tell me that he was upset or was not upset. Mine was purely from observation, which was quite obvious.

So this is some confirmation of that portion of the memorandum where Mrs. Beard indicated she had spoken to Governor Nunn about Mr. Mitchell and the antitrust cases. It is confirmed by a fair and reasonable reading of Governor Nunn's responses to questions by SenatorHART.

We have also learned that Mr. Geneen did raise the commitment, as the memorandum said. Representative WILSON has admitted that that is what happened at his San Diego meeting with Geneen on May 12. Congressman WILSON told the committee:

We kicked around the idea. of my going to lea.ding businessmen and getting commitments from them and putting together a bid package. He then suggested if I would take the lead he thought Shera.ton would underwrite up to $300,000 and would, of course, be willing to actually commit for their fair share of the total amount of money needed. I told him I thought it would not be difficult to put a. bid together quickly. He then told me he would see that they backed me persona.Uy for half the total amount needed, which would be $400,000.

According to the Beard memorandum, Mrs. Beard had indicated that the figures were "upped" from $300,000 to $400,000, and there we had Congressman WILSON confirming that in his testimony.

We learned that IT!' did get a call from the White House. That call from the White House was ref erred to in the early part of the Beard memorandum. Mrs. Beard herself not only told us about the call, but remembered that it involved

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 5, 1972

the question of whether $600,000 was going directly into President Nixon's campaign. That was in our meeting with Mrs. Beard in Denver. Here is what Mrs. Beard said in response to one of our questions:

I remember that Mr. Merriam told me one day, that he had gotten a call from somebody at the White House, wanting to know-on this commitment, underwriting commitment, which is all in the world it was, there in San Diego, and I never did know the exact amount because I didn't stay that long, had suddenly jumped. "Is this $600,000 going to Nixon's campaign," • . .

The significance of this, Mr. President, is that not only does this confirm the statement in the memorandum about the call from the White House but shows how, even when Mrs. Beard was later claiming that she had not written the entire memorandum, she still recalled that there had been this call from the White House raising the spectre of a $600,000 sum going into the Nixon campaign.

So we have confirmation of that part of the memoranda which talks about a call from the White House. We have confirmation that the commitment was upped from $300,000 to $400,000. We have confirmation that she talked to Gov. Louie Nunn about Mr. Mitchell and the antitrust cases.

We also learned that Mrs. Beard did understand that only Nixon, Mitchell, Haldemann, Reinecke, and WILSON would be the only ones who would know about ITT's participation in the convention. Mrs. Beard testified that it was Reinecke who had told her that.

Here is what she said: Senator KENNEDY. All right. Could I get

back to the first paragraph, Mrs. Beard, the mention in the third line there, "Other than permitting John Mitchell, Ed Reinecke, Bob Haldeman and Nixon (besides Wilson, of course) no one has known from whom that $400,000 commitment had come."

Mrs. BEARD. Now, that is a misleading sentence, which I shouldn't have written the way it is, because I did not know from the first time I talked to Ed Reinecke--! did not know to whom he had spoken, when, how or if. He had sitnply told me that these are the people, the only people who would be aware of our attempt to take the thing to San Diego until after the site selection committee met in Denver.

Senator KENNEDY. When did he tell you that?

Mrs. BEARD. On the first meeting. Senator KENNEDY. When was that? Mrs. BEARD. January or February. I don't

remember. He came in to Washington and said, "I need your help on something of the utmost confidence."

Senator KENNEDY. Did he say he was going to or that they had talked, that they were aware of these negotiations which you were involved in?

Mrs. BEARD. He told me only, "This ts very confidential. Nobody is discussing it. We know we can have faith in you. Do not talk to anybody about it. At some point eventually these wlll be the people who wlll be involved with it." But he did not say clearly or distinctly that he had spoken to any one of these people. In fact, I rather imagine he had not, but when he tells me it is in complete confidence, I don't ask questions I don't need to know answers to.

So there is another part of the Beard memorandum which was confirmed-the

part containing those names. When we finally had a limited opportunity to talk to Mrs. Beard, she herself told us that she had learned that from a con versation she had with Lieutenant Governor Reinecke.

We also learned that there was a great deal of I. T. & T. confusion over the nature of the commitment, just as the memorandums said. Both Merriam and WILSON told us all about that when they appeared before the committee. WILSON confirmed the following statement he had made to a newsman about Merriam:

WILSON. Yeah. He's a busybody little guy and he resents Dita very much because she could get to Geneen and he couldn't see? And he said, "Now, I want to talk to you." He said, "I'm up here for a birthday party for one of our retiring executives" or something and he said, "I've been talking with various people" and he said, "that 400,000 dollars is not going to be in cash, it's going to be in services like hotel rooms and that." I said, "Bill, look, you don't even know what you are talking about. In the first place it isn't 400,000 bucks. It's a lot less than that and it's going to be in cash. That was the agreement. We have to--San Diego has to come up with 800,000 bucks cash. We got all kinds of services that they'll pay for, or that they'll take in kind, but they need 800,000 bucks cash to put the convention on. That's what we agreed, and that's what your boss said that he would pledge a guarantee of 400,000."

That is Congressman WILSON talking about his conversation with Merriam, which confirms the confusion mentioned in the memorandum. It shows that Merriam was confused about the figures, whether they were for services or to be in cash. That confusion was pointed out very clearly in the Beard memorandum and we find it substantiated by Congressman WILSON.

And so it goes line by line. Gerrity told us he did have a talk with

Mrs. Beard about the convention just like the memorandum indicated. And Mrs. Beard said she did have inquiries from friends about the commitment, just as the memorandum said.

This is from her testimony: I was getting questions all over Washing

ton, from the national committee, the various people, "Well, ls this money going to National Committee, or just going to Nixon's campaign?"

So that substantiates the part of the memorandum where she indicated she was getting all kinds of questions about it. Here she is, before the committee, repeating once again, almost using the words that were typed in the memorandum, that she had been getting all kinds of inquiries.

I might say at this point, while we are talking about the meetings which took place with Representative WILSON and Mr. Geneen at which the commitment figure was first settled on, that one of the witnesses we wanted to call, who had been on our list as ''clearly necessary,'' was Mr. Bud James, the person who actually carried through ITT's pledge negotiations after that initial May 12 meeting. We could see how important he was, from our conversations with Dita Beard. She had told us that she was not involved in the detailed money negotiations after May 12, but that Bud

James was the one who carried through the negotiations and actually sent the check to the Visitors' Bureau in San Diego. It certainly would have been valuable for the committee to have Mr. James appear and give whatever testimony he has as to the circumstances surrounding those negotiations.

The information we have had from both Mrs. Beard and Representative WILSON quite clearly indicates that the $400,000 figure quoted in the memorandum was actually the figure talked about on May 12 in San Diego, although the figure was disputed by Mr. Geneen. We certainly could clear up that matter quite quickly, if we have testimony from Mr. James, who was the person responsible for sending the check to San Diego. We were unable to get Mr. James. He is certainly one of the witnesses we want who could clear up that kind of question, as well as the question of what promises the White House had made to use the Sheraton as headquarters.

And so we could go on, with virtually every line in the memorandum, showing an abundance of proof to establish almost every fact which Mrs. Beard asserted in that famous confidential note.

But most important of all, any of us, knowing the facts we know now-about the manner in which the decision was reached to settle the antitrust cases; and about the simultaneous San Diego convention arrangements which were being made-could ourselves have written the famous Beard line that--

Our noble commitment has gone a long way toward our negotiations on the mergers eventually coming out as Hal wants them.

I am sure that some of my colleagues will detail the meaning and interrelationship of those simultaneous happenings in the days ahead. Surely they will leave good and sufficient reason to believe that the contents of the memorandum are accurate.

At the very least, we will all have a basis for agreement with the committee's ranking minority member that we "would like to have an opportunity to question Mrs. Beard in greater detail concerning her knowledge of the memorandum and her participation if any in both the antitrust settlement and the underwriting offer to San Diego."

We questioned Mrs. Beard for just over 2 out of the scheduled 9 hours, and asked her only about a fourth of the questions which we were prepared to ask her.

I might mention at this point, Mr. President, the first consideration of the subcommittee that went out to Denver was the health, well-being, and welfare of Mrs. Beard. The members of the Judiciary Committee asked to have her health assessed by two independent medical doctors so that we could have additional information as to her condition, because there had been some ques-tions raised after her personal physician came down and testified when we found out later that he had been and his wife was still under investigation by the Justice Department. On the basis of these examinations it was determined that Mrs. Beard could respond to questions, but her testimony would have to be of limited duration. I might add that we

June 5, 197.~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 19719

were told testifying might actually improve her prospects by ending the constant anticipation of having to appear.

Then the subcommittee, following the procedures established on the advice of the doctors, went out there and proceeded to question Mrs. Beard. Before we really had a chance to get very far into the questions, that meeting was ininterrupted. The subcommittee then felt they rather than run any risk to the wellbeing or the health of Mrs. Beard, it should terminate its hearings. We were informed that she had suffered chest pains, and obviously we were not interested in causing any additional burden or stress to Mrs. Beard. I shall return to that in a moment, because there were some very peculiar circumstances that surrounded the interruption and the subsequent events. But the effect of such interruption was to preclude the Senate subcommittee from questioning Mrs. Beard further. Obviously the information we gained was of value to the committee, but the questioning was just getting well under way when we had to stop. So we were unable to gain the desired information, and it was the feeling of several members that if we could have questioned Mrs. Beard additionally, we would have been able to clear up a good many important questions. But again, her Denver doctor refused to indicate that she would be available; as I said, I shall come back to that.

There is no present inability to question her further, as one of my colleagues has described it. There was only an unwillingness to schedule a resumption of her appearance. When the full committee's hearings were abruptly terminated, weeks ago, Mrs. Beard was out of the hospital and had been the recent subject of extensive questioning on national television.

It is interesting to know that Mrs. Beard was prepared to go on national television and respond to the questions of an interviewer and it was not thought that that caused undue duress or stress to her, but that she was unable to appear further before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Surely there is no reason to rush forward on this matter until we are able to get her comments and her elaboration on her memorandum, and have that settled once and for all. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota (Mr. BURDICK) felt extremely strongly about this matter, and I think with justification. She was the apparent author of that memorandum, and certainly we, in fairness to Mr. Kleindienst and in fulfilling our responsibilities, ought to be able to talk with her at greater length about her memorandum and the implications of its contents. We have a responsibility to get into those ms.titers and explore them fully once and for all. Mrs. Beard is perhaps the one person who can help us most in completing these tasks. Let us not be sorry later we have not availed ourselves of this chance.

As I understand, Senator BURDICK is going to go into this matter in some detail on Wednesday.

I have discussed, Mr. President, the Beard memorandum itself, and I have reviewed that memorandum line by line.

When that is done, and the memorandum is compared with the other information available, it stands up very favorably. As a matter of fact, even though Mrs. Beard herself indicated she was not the author of the full Beard memorandum, she said she did author a memorandum which included the large majority of all the lines, and many of the crucial ones, on the "Anderson Beard Memorandum." In the Denver questioning she claimed she did not write some of the most compromising lines in the memo, but she did admit that she wrote a memorandum and that many points in the "Anderson-Beard" memorandum were accurate. Even those points, I think, raise some extremely damaging and incriminating questions.

So despite the premature closing of the hearings, we have been able to corroborate much of the Beard memorandum. And a number of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee agree that if we had had an opportunity to hear from the other witnesses who were agreed on as "clearly necessary,'' we would have been able to hear out the overwhelming majority of the information and evidence that was included in the Beard memorandum.

I have mentioned the need for further questioning of Mrs. Beard and the absence of Mr. James. Now I want to expand on some of the other gaps in our record.

Mr. President, it has been accurately observed by the minority leader that the hearings on the nomination of Mr. Kleindienst to be Attorney General were the longest in history. Some Members of this body have tried to convey the impression that there was an attempt on the part of some committee members to extend and prolong the hearings for political purposes. This, of course, is without justification and could not be further from the truth.

It is true that the hearings on the nomination of Mr. Kleindienst were long-too long. The supplemental hearings continued over a period of 2 months, with 22 days of formal testimony. Some members of the Judiciary Committee journeyed halfway across the country to take testimony from one witness in a hospital room. Many of our hearing days began early in the morning and lasted until early evening. Testimony and documentary material cover two large volumes, which each Senator has on his desk.

Why, then, do many of us feel that the hearings are incomplete? Why do we find it difficult to reach hard conclusions, even with the voluminous record, and why should the Senate defer determination of Mr. Kleindienst's nomination?

One of the answers to these questions is contained in the first finding contained in the separate views of Senator BAYH, Senator TuNNEY, and myself: The Judiciary Committee still has not heard from all the relevant witnesses and obtained all relevant evidence.

Among the witnesses from whom no testimony, or only incomplete testimony, has been taken are White House aides Mr. William Timmons and Mr. Peter

Flanigan. I think the Senate is fully aware of all the gymnastics that were required by the Judiciary Committee to finally obtain the testimony of Mr. Flanigan. His name was raised prominently in the course of the hearings as one who played a very key and important role in the ultimate settlement of this case. So it should not have been any real surprise that the Judiciary Committee would want to hear from Mr. Flanigan.

There were substantial questions whether, if we did call Mr. Flanigan, we could be infringing upon the traditional privileges that the executive has to withhold certain information that relates and pertains solely to the executive branch. Clearly, it was not the intention of any member of the Judiciary Committee to infringe upon the legitimate executive privilege of White House officials. But, equally clearly, the responsibilities of Mr. Flanigan in the selection and procurement of the outside financial consultant, Mr. Ramsden-who did the official report upon which Mr. McLaren relied to tu:rn around the 2Y2 -year antitrust anticonglomerate policy-should have been only a ministerial function and action which did not relate to his responsibilities to the President or to his executive power.

So it should be plain that the doctrine of executive privilege did not apply. It certainly seemed to those of us who were members of the committee that his statements, his comments, and his testimony would be invaluable. But we had to jockey around day after day until, finally, Mr. Flanigan agreed to come up, and even then he conditioned his appearance before the Judiciary Committee in an extremely limited way.

As the only member of the Judiciary Committee who voted in the negative upon the constraints that were placed upon the committee with regard to Mr. Flanigan's testimony, I feel reassured that I was completely justified in doing so. That justification was demonstrated the following day, when Mr. Flanigan refused to respond to very basic and fundamental questions that dealt with his relationship with the nominee. One would have thought that if Mr. Flanigan was going to come before the Judiciary Committee, he would have been prepared to talk about his relationship with the nominee and about the relationship he had with the Justice Department. Those were the two important questions we had in trying to find out whether there was any relationship between the antitrust settlement and the convention contribution made to the Republican Party through the San Diego Visitors' Bureau. Still, on those two matters Mr. Flanigan refused to comment.

Later, a procedure was worked out-from which I again dissented-to write out for Mr. Flanigan very carefully prepared questions and thereby, by receiving a written response, to refuse to permit any cross-examination. The response from Mr. Flanigan indicated clearly that he had had contact with Mr. Kleindienst on three separate occasions relating to the ITT settlement. Yet, we were unable to delve into that, to examine those contracts, any more than to read between

19720 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 5, 1972 the lines of the statement that Mr. Flanigan provided for the Judiciary Committee. Nonetheless, it was important that we at least have that information.

Now we also know that Mr. Timmons also had been involved; he was working on convention arrangements. His name was referred to on a number of occasions with respect to his involvement in getting the 1972 Republican convention to San Diego. He played a major role in behalf of the White House. We wanted to hear from him, directly. Still, those who support the nominee refused to provide us with the opportunity to talk with Mr. Timmons.

Mr. Flanigan's statements and comments and the material he provided for the Judiciary Committee had added an an entirely new dimension with respect to the relationship between the White House and Mr. Kleindienst and the Justice Department. Who among us can give assurance to the Senate that if we had had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Timmons, we would not find out some entirely new relevant information which we now do not have?

We hear from those who support Mr. Kleindienst that this is a fishing expedition. Was it fishing when we asked for Mr. Flanigan to appear? Was it fishing to ask Mr. Flanigan about his relationships with Mr. Kleindienst and the Justice Department? I would say, Mr. Presidient, that if it was, we could see, as a result of those questions, that it was successful. We obtained additional information, and we saw the tie between Mr. Flanigan and Mr. Kleindienst, even though Mr. Kleindienst to the end demonstrated little, if any, recollection of any of these contacts.

Now we want to have Mr. Timmons as well. Is it unreasonable? Are we providing undue delay by asking for Mr. Timmons? I do not believe so. In many respects his presence is as important as Mr. Flanigan's. If he were able to come up and respond to the committee's questions I am sure we could satisfy our responsibilities.

We are not able to hear from Mr. James, who negotiated the contribution. Mrs. Beard, who has made a miraculous recovery, was able to testify and present her views on nationwide television but was unable to present her views to the Senate committee.

I think these are the kinds of additional witnesses we are interested in having before the committee, and not witnesses that are either unnecessary or uninformed about matters. So I mention that at this point.

Then of course, there is Howard Aibel, the general counsel of rrr. We had the <>pportunity to listen to Mr. Gerrity, to Mr. Merriam, to Mr. John Ryan, and to Mr. Geneen. But, who was the quarteroack? Howard Aibel, the chief counsel of i;he ITT. Although we put his name down :as one we preferred to hear, so that we could have him testify and tie this matter together, in order to tell us where the re.sponsibility was on ITT's approach to the Federal Government, we were denied the opportunity to hear him.

We could hear about Mr. Geneen's going down and talking to a number of

Cabinet officials. We could hear about Mr. Merriam's and Mr. Gerrity's contacts when they went over to the White House and met with Mr. Dent and talked to Mr. Flanigan. But did we hear directly from the man who knew what Mr. Geneen was doing, who knew what Mr. Gerrity and Mr. Merriam were doing during that period? Did we hear Howard Aibel? Were we able to have him testify? No. We were unable to get his testimony because it was thought to be dilatory. It was thought to be unnecessary. It was thought to be consuming time.

There it is. We begin to get some kind of idea of the importance of these witnesses. Mr. Howard Aibel, the quarterback for ITT, who knew what was going on, who knew what the approach of ITT was, who knew what memoranda were up in the ITT offices in New York, and what information would have been invaluable to the committee, and what ITT was up to in this case. He knew what was in the ITT file, not the ones shredded in Washington-though perhaps he knew that, too-but he knew as well what was in the ITT offices in New York.

We asked the ITT representatives if they would give us copies of the memoranda that applied to antitrust policy that they had on file in New York. They indicated they had memoranda up there. In many instances, perhaps, they were duplicates of information that they had in Washington which was destroyed in the shredding. We asked for that. They indicated that they would provide it, that they would make it available for the Judiciary Committee. That would have been invaluable information.

One would have thought that ITT would have said to the committee, "Here it is. We have nothing to hide on this. We are out there doing business, trying to assure that we will have a prosperous business, and that we will be able to meet our responsibilities to our stockholders." Anyone would have understood and appreciated that. Every Member of the Senate would have respected it and every American would have appreciated it. But instead of making the information available to us, which we asked for and they indicated they would provide-any information they had on ITT antitrust policy up there, which would relate to this case in the Justice Department--they never did so after the hearings ended.

We asked for the Aibel testimony. We have not gotten it. Mrs. Beard is out of the hospital. But we cannot hear from her. We have not heard from Mr. Timmons. We heard from Mr. Flanigan-and there, only what Mr. Flanigan wanted to tell us according to his rules.

What member of the Judiciary Committee, or of any other committee in the Senate, is used to having a witness come on up and establish the criteria by which he will appear and testify before a Senate committee?

Mr. President, I have been here for only 10 years, but this is the first time I have heard of anyone telling us what he will testify to and what he will not testify to.

When this matter of the essential wit-

nesses came up before the committee there was an even split as to whether we should call the additional witnesses or should not continue the course of the hearings. The committee which would have been listening to that testimony was evenly divided on the subject of continuing the hearings. We were prepared to set a time, baning any unforeseen kind of information on additional material, for the conclusion of the hearings. But, oh no, this opportunity was denied to us.

Now I might mention that one of the interesting points about Mrs. Beard's medical problems came to light when we asked two independent medical doctors to advise the members of the Judiciary Committee about how sick she was. They said they could not find any objective signs of problems. We put their telegram in the RECORD. Yet we were denied the opportunity to take further testimony from her.

While I am on the questions about the information we need to make a fully informed judgment on the nominee, I would point out that the Committee asked for some additional kinds of information from the Justice Department which we never received. One of the things we would like to know is, did the White House receive information from the Justice Department about antitrust policy during or before the settlement period that might have been relevant to the ITT cases? That would have been helpful to us, but we were unable to get that information. We were unable to get any information about studies supposedly being taken by the interagency committees on antitrust policy that would have been relevant in answering some of the unresolved questions before us, especially relating to the delay of The Grinnell appeal.

We might find through materials on this interagency, intergovernmental committee study, that there were many departments of Government-Commerce, Treasury, Justice-even the White House--had already studied the economic implications of an anti-conglomerate policy.

But when we asked for that inf ormation and wanted to know if they could make that available to the committee, we were turned down.

Further, we asked if we could get some rather selective information from the SEC, who was doing its own investigation of ITT concerning the inside trading of stock. There were a number of stories that appeared in the Wall Street Journal and other publications that insider selling was taking place by ITT officials. I do not think that anyone here is prepared to say how legitimate those trades were. However, we cannot get away from the fact that there could have been a close relationship between the trading and the settlement negotiations with the Justice Department.

We were not asking the SEC for everything they had. It was a rather precise and selective number of areas. We asked if they could make a-vailable to us documents provided to them by ITT relating to antitrust. We asked to have that information made available to us be-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19721

cau5e the I'IT documents in their Washington office was shredded. This was a proper request, yet we were unable to get that kind of information. As a matter of fact, the Justice Department initially refused to provide us a GSA logbook. We had quite a time getting it. However, after the hearings were over we did :finally get it.

These are some of the kinds of records we asked that ITT produce, which they denied:

We asked for the memorandums or vouchers relating to Mrs. Beard's visits to the Kentucky Derby, including the memorandum stating that she would see Mitchell at the Derby. When Mrs. Beard indicated that she was going to the Kentucky Derby, it was quite possible that there was a memorandum that said, "When you go down there, talk to Mitchell about this." Or, there could be a memorandum saying, "When you go down there, don't talk to Mitchell about this." It could be either way. When she came back and indicated that she had talked to Mitchell there, there might be a memorandum about that. That would be helpful to the committee.

They could have said, "We don't have anything on that subject." However, they said they might have documents but then they refused to provide them.

We wanted to know about Mrs. Beard's conversations in 1971 with Mr. Mitchell or Governor Nunn or correspondence between them. I'IT counsel Gilbert said that at least in the Washington office "We have none." We have not heard back whether anything was found in the New York office.

We wanted to know about Mr. Merriam's contacts with Jack Gleason regarding the TIT support for the Republican convention.

We wanted to know about Mr. Geneen's contacts with 22 officials listed in the I'IT press release of March 13, 1972, and those listed in Mr. Geneen's submission to the committee.

I'IT put out different press releases indicating that they had talked to numerous administration officials. Perhaps they had memorandums in their files written after these meetings about the subjects covered and what they requested of high Government officials and what those officials said to them. This would be directly relevant to our inquiry. We asked if they would provide any inf ormation along those lines. ITT representatives indicated that they would, but never did.

Is that not a proper request for the Judiciary Committee in meeting its responsibilities?

Mr. Gilbert, who was ITT's counsel at the hearings, said under oath that when he got back to New York, he would see if he could find any of the materials requested there. That on page 1136 of the hearings. We never heard again from Mr. Gilbert.

We also asked for documents relating to Mrs. Beard's visits to San Diego in 1971, including memorandums reflecting the purpose and frequency of her visits. Mr. Gilbert said:

We have none, but we a.re checking for vouchers which probably do exist.

The vouchers were not provided to the committee.

We wanted information regarding contacts between I'IT officials and officials of the White House regarding the location of the 1972 Republican Convention or ITT support for the convention or the San Diego Tourist Bureau. Was that not a reasonable, relevant request? Yet it has gone unheeded.

We asked the I'IT officials in New York City if they had any information relating to the location of the 1972 Republican Convention or the I'IT support for the convention in San Diego.

We asked for any other materials relating to the convention. Mr. Gilbert testified:

We have none in the District of Columbia., but we think there may be some and we will try to get the material if it exists in New York.

That is on page 1136. However, none were provided.

We asked for material relating to the I'IT anticonglomerate task force or similarly named group. Mr. Gilbert said:

We aire checking for that and we may have some and we may have it today.

That was on April 14. The committee has not received it yet.

We asked for the original I'IT job description memorandums and Mrs. Beard's second memorandum which should be examined. These documents have never been forthcoming. They would be important for us to have.

These are the areas of the I'IT document requests that I have mentioned. Going back to some of the needed witnesses, let me review the list: Howard Aibel; Howard James; William Timmons; Harold Geneen, since got cut off from Mr. Geneen in midstream; Richard Herman, who made the convention arrangements for San Diego; Reuben Robertson, the associate of Mr. Nader who was involved intimately with the ITT antitrust matter; Denny Walsh, the author of Life pieces on the Stewart matter and who probably knows as much about that case as anyone else; and lastly, Mr. Flanigan, from whom we need more complete testimony. And last, of course, Mrs. Beard.

That is not a long list. We have not got an unlimited list.

Those were the things we wanted so that we could fulfill our responsibility. The ITT documents and the requests which we made are, I think, extremely important in :filling in some of the pieces here. Then there are the SEC document request, the Department of Justice document request, the Antitrust Division interrogatories.

These are some of the things that I think, would provide us with the kind of information so that we could fill the gaps, resolve the contradictions, and move expeditiously toward reaching a responsible conclusion.

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield. Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I

commend the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his fine leadership and for the reasonableness of his remarks and for his feeling that further

testimony is needed on the Kleindienst nomination.

Mr. President, it ~s with deep regret that I must rise today in opposition to Senate confirmation of the nomination of Richard Kleindienst to be Attorney General of the United States. I want it known at the outset that I do not oppose the nomination per se; but I strongly oppose confirmation now with so many issues of fact still in doubt.

I hope that the Senate will see clear to recommit this nomination to the committee with the clear understanding that hearings will be resumed until all relevant witnesses, all relevant and available documents, and all relevant questions are brought before the committee and analyZed. Such action would be clearly in the public interest and, hopefully, with some frank testimony and refreshed recollections, it may be possible to avoid denying the President his choice for Attorney General.

I point out to my colleagues that such action would be consistent with the wishes of the nominee himself and with those expressed by the President at the outset of the resumed hearings on the nomination. Let me quote from the nominee's statement to this effect when he requested that the committee "clear things up" in March:

The reason why I asked for this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, ts because charges have been made that I influenced the settlement of Government antitrust litigation for partisan polltical reasons. These are serious charges, and by virtue of the fact that the confirmation of my nomination as the Attorney Genera.I of the United States ls before the U.S. Senate, I would not want that confirmation to take place with a. cloud over my head, so to speak, nor would I want the U.S. Senate to a.ct upon my nomination if there was any substantial doubt in the minds of any Member of the U.S. Senate to the effect that while I performed my official duties on behalf of the U.S. Government in the pa.st three years as the Deputy Attorney Genera.I, that I engaged in any improper conduct that would go to or be relevant to the consideration of my confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

So spoke Richard Kleindienst at the outset of the resumed hearings on his confirmation. Should we take him at his word? My own feeling is that we would do him an injustice if we did not. The cloud remains, and it will never be dispelled unless and until all the facts are brought before the Senate. As Mr. Kleindienst himself has said:

Nor would I want the U.S. Senate to act upon my nomination lf there was any substantial doubt in the minds of any Member of the U.S. Senate ... that I engaged ... in any improper conduct that would go to or be relevant to the consideration of my confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

I know that I have suc}l doubts and I know that many other Members of this body have them, too. Should we not dispel them once and for all?

Now I am sure that we all want to accommodate the President in the confirmation of his nominees. But we also all feel that our required, and sometimes painful, duty under the Constitution is to "advise and consent" to these nominations. In the case at hand, the Pres-

19722 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 ident has given some guidance as to how he regards our duty to "advise and consent," and I take him at his word.

The President, in supporting his nominee in the request for additional hearings, made his feelings perfectly clear. On March 24, he said:

I would want to point out that Mr. Kleindienst asked for these hearings. We want the whole record brought out because as far as he is concerned, he wants to go in as Attorney Gener.al with no cloud over him.

Now it seems perfectly clear to me that the President himself agreed with the nominee's contention that the Senate should not be asked to confirm him until the cloud is dispelled-and it is not dispelled at this point. I also feel that the President, who is a man careful with his words, did not want anyone to doubt that he wanted the whole record brought out.

I do not pretend to believe that either the President or the nominee is very pleased with the way the hearings have gone so far. I do not think that they anticipated that the Senate would have access to so much information on the ITT transactions or that the witnesses would have such poor memories or be so often in confiict on material facts. The cloud remains.

I repeat my request that the Senate recommit this nomination for more hearings until this cloud is dispelled. I do not want to deny the President his nominee; but I do not want to shirk a clear duty on a matter of such vital importance.

And what is the importance of all this? It is precisely that a transaction, intimately involving the nominee in his official capacity, has been uncovered that directly relates to his suitability to be the Attorney General of the United States.

We do not have all the facts on this transaction; but we do have enough to know that there is a real possibility that something highly improper took place. And we also have enough to know that the nominee and his supporting witnesses have not done what was necessary to relieve the impression of high impropriety. Indeed, they have distinctly heightened that impression.

Now I ask myself, what is so important about all this that we should recommit the nomination and tie up the committee in what would be highly controversial and gruelling hearings? We all want to get on with other Senate business-the war in Vietnam, appropriations bills that cannot be delayed any longer, extremely complex military authorizations.

Well, what is so important here is that the public again is the victim of their Government. They do not know what happened any more than we do; but they want to know. And they have a right to know.

It is they, in the end, who have the most at stake. And it is to them that we owe an overriding duty to get at the facts and remove the cloud.

I think it important that we remember that this is no ordinary nomination. Mr. Kleindienst is nominated to be the next Attorney General of the United States. He is asked to be our chief law enforcement officer. And it is his enforcement of our laws that is at issue here.

The public has a lot more at stake than information, however, and this is what bothers me most. The transaction in question was no mere compromised suit. It was an antitrust action worth at least $6 billion-that is $6 billionAnd it was an antitrust action that could intimately affect one of the public's most common and essential interests-the price they pay and the conditions under which they buy life insurance.

I do not pretend to know that the Hartford-ITT merger would have had the effect of significantly reducing competition in the life insurance industry; or whether it would have affected the long term interests of Hartford policyholders; or that, together with the Grinnell and Canteen acquisitions, there would have been such a significant anticompetitive factor as to involve an overriding national interest.

I simply do not know whether any of these conditions existed at the time the Justice Department sought a preliminary injunction against these mergers. But I do know that someone with the eXPertise and responsibility to oversee this merger did think that one or more of these conditions existed. And I do know that he felt that the issue involved was of sufficient importance as to warrant Federal action in the national interest.

Yes, the public did have a great stake here. And it does have an interest of vital importance in seeing that the Government develops the means to contend with the mg_ssive conglomerate movement of the 1960's. I cannot see how we could deny this interest in view of the massive conglomerate failures of the late 1960's; failures that have cost small investors millions of hard-earned dollars.

I want to bring this up to add perspective to this debate. This is not merely an election year squabble, nor is it merely a debate over what we may think of Richard Kleindienst and a substantial campaign contribution. This is a debate affecting a vital public interest; and the people deserve to hear all the facts and all the witnesses. And they deserve to know what reason, other than high impropriety, could cause several Government agencies to withhold documentary evidence on this case; or what reason, other than high impropriety, could cause ITT to shred documents relating to the case. They deserve to know why it is that so many men in high positions can fail to remember material facts on a $6 billion case; or why they can blatantly contradict each other and themselves in sworn testimony before a congressional committee. And the public deserves to know why it is that ITT and its giant relatives in the brotherhood of major corporations can simply pick up the phone to the White House when a matter affecting their interests comes up, while the average taxpayer must spend months and a good deal of money in trying to resolve a simple tax dispute with the IRS.

Yes, the people deserve to know the answers to these questions. They can make their own judgment as to what it means to them. Just as we must make our own judgment here as to whether Richard Kleindienst should become the next Attorney General.

At this point, Mr. President, I would like to list the questions relating to the ITT merger-convention contribution that were compiled for the RECORD by Senator BAYH, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I ask unanimous consent that these questions appear in the RECORD at this point in my statement.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: QUESTIONS UNANSWERED AT SENATE JUDICIARY

COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON THE KLEINDIENST NOMINATION

1. Was the ITT settlement "handled and negotiated exclusively" by the Antitrust Division, as Mr. Kleindienst originally stated?

2. Wa.s the Justice Department justified in settling the ITT case because of "financial hardship" to ITT shareholders?

3. Was the Justice Department justified in settling the ITT cases because of some impact on the stock market or "ripple effect" on the economy?

4. Was the Justice Department justified in settling the ITT cases without requiring divestiture of Hartford Fire because of balance of payments problems?

5. Did Mr. Kleindienst fulfill his responsibilities as Acting Attorney General in the ITT case?

6. Why did Kleindienst play a significantly different role in the ITT case than in the Warner-Lambert case?

7. Why did the Justice Department feel it necessary to go outside the government to a private broker to obtain a financial analysis of the proposed divestiture?

8. If the Justice Department needed independent financial analysis in this case, why didn't they get it themselves rather than through the White House?

9. Might the conclusions of the independent financial analysis have been improperly influenced?

10. Was ITT attempting to influence the outcome of its anti-trust cases through Peter Flanigan of the White House staff?

11. Did Kleindienst ever talk to anyone at the White House about the ITT case?

12. Was the White House pressuring John Mitchell to settle the ITT case?

13. Did ITT order Mrs. Beard to discuss its Anti-Trust problem with the Attorney General?

14. Did Dita Beard and John Mitchell discuss settlement terms for the ITT case when they met in Lexington, Kentucky on May 1, 1971?

15. If John Mitchell really disqualified himself in the ITT case because of a conflict of interest, why did he meet with ITT President Harold Geneen on August 4, 1970?

16. Can we believe Dita Beard's denials thait she wrote the memorandum Jack Anderson presented to the Committee?

17. When was the Beard memorandum really written?

18. Did ITT order Dita Beard to deny that she wrote the memorandum?

19. Why did ITT shred documents in its Washington office?

20. Did ITT shred documents concerning the antitrust settlement or the San Diego convention?

21. Did Dita Beard write another-still missing-memorandum concerning ITT and the financing of the Republican convention in San Diego?

22. Can we rely on the testimony of Mrs. Beard's physicians when one of them-and the wife of the other-a.re currently under investigation for medicare 'fraud?

23. Why didn't the Justice Department inform the Judiciary Committee of the legal problems of Mrs. Beard's two physicians before the Judiciary Committee relied on their views?

24. What is Dita Beard's real physical and mental condition?

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 19723 25. Can it reaUy be, as John Mitchell

testified, that as late as March 14, 1972, he did "not as of this date know what arrangements, if any, exist between ITT or the Sheraton Hotel Corp. and the Republican National Committee, or between ITT or any of its subsidiaries and the city of San Diego or any agency thereof?"

26. Just how much money did ITT agree to contribute to the Republican Convention?

27. Can we believe that Reinecke and Gillenwaters briefed John Mitchell about the "progress" of their "efforts to have San Diego selected as host city" for the Republican Convention two months after San Diego had already been selected as host city for the Convention?

28. Was the amount of the ITT contribution a "normal promotional expense" as Mr. Geneen testified?

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, now each of these questions is of prime relevance to the qualifications of Mr. Kleindienst to be the Attorney General of the United States. And his own words, and those of the President, indicate that they agree.

But these questions have not been answered. In fact they arise solely from the testimony of the nominee, ITT officers, and administration personnel. I ask that Senators remember that only 2 months after the merger case was settled and the convention agreed upon, the Deputy Attorney General stated publicly that he was not involved in the merger case at all-never mind the convention contribution. So after many months of serious negotiation, White House involvement, and intense pressure, the Deputy Attorney General could state that he had nothing to do with a $6 billion merger.

But after hours and hours of testimony, the Deputy Attorney General was sufficiently refreshed to concede that he had, indeed, played a part in the merger case-a very large part. And it is this refreshed memory that can give us many of the answers to the remaining questions listed above.

As to these questions, I have no doubt that if the answer to many of them is adverse to the administration, then there can be no conclusion but that high impropriety took place. And the nomination must, then, be denied.

But, if the answers to some of these questions are not adverse, as the administration contends, why do they not come forward and "remove the cloud" as the President and the nominee originally wanted to do.

It is interesting to note what the source of that cloud is. First and foremost, the cloud comes from the nominee's and the administration's own statements. They have been contradictory, or vague, or evasive countless times. And these contradictions and vagaries have occurred on precisely the questions listed.

A second cloud is the fact that relevant documents relating to the case have been refused the committee. The Justice Department files on the case, the only real source for rebuttal now that the ITT files have been shredded, have been denied the committee and the Senate.

Beyond these gaps, however, gaps that, if filled, could help the nominee's case,

- there are more gaps. After weeks of ne-

gotiation, the White House finally agreed to let Peter Flanigan testify before the committee, but under extremely limiting terms-terms that in fact have precluded the committee from getting at the truly relevant aspects of his involvement in the transactions at issue.

Now why should this be so? It was not the Senate that asked to have these hearings reconvened. The committee had already unanimously approved the nominee. The administration asked for these hearings. But every time new facts came out which contradicted the statements of the nominee or his supporters, the administration has tightened up and denied the Senate those very documents or testimony that might rebut the very strong presumption that an impropriety existed. Now they expect the Senate to sit by and leave these questions hanging. And now they expect the public to simply sit by and feel good about the fact that they cannot know about how ITT got its way in a $6 billion deal affecting the public interest.

Well, I think we can rightfully expect more than this. We can expect frank testimony, the production of necessary documents, and a sincere attempt by the administration to clear up the clouds.

Again, it can only be reiterated that these doubts have not come from the Senate; they have come from the administration.

There is no way we can serve the public interest we are elected to serve unless we recommit this nomination and get the answers to these serious questions. There is no way that we serve the public interest if we simply bury our heads in the sand and ignore issues that can so seriously affect the economy as the future of Federal regulation of the conglomerate movement, competition in the life insurance and service industries, and the public's confidence in their government. There is simply no way that we can serve the public by confessing impotence when a nominee for the post of Attorney General of the United States can be confirmed with so much that is essential to his performance in office remaining in doubt.

In concluding, I would like to reiterate my feeling that I do not want to oppose this nominee; nor do I want to deny the President the choice of an Attorney General.

Indeed, I am sure that no Member of this body wants to frustrate the President's wishes just to be spitefully obstructionist.

The record clearly shows that the Senate has confirmed the overwhelming majority of Mr. Nixon's nominees.

In 1971, we approved 48,855 nominations. One hundred fifty-eight of those could be considered major appointments. All of the major nominees were confirmed.

I opposed only one, Earl Butz for Secretary of Agriculture, because I believed Mr. Butz' ties to giant agribusiness conflicted with my judgment that preservation of the small family farm was crucial to the redevelopment and revitalization of rural America.

In 1970, this body approved 61,162 Nixon appointees, 139 of whom could be considered important. In the latter

category, only one-Supreme Court nominee G. Harrold Carswell-was not confirmed.

Judge Carswell's record-which included a high rate of reversal on settled areas of law and the abuse of civil rights lawyers from the bench-was not convincing evidence that he should be confirmed, despite the dubious claim that "mediocrity needs representation on the bench."

In 1969, this body confirmed 72,635 Nixon appointP.es, 298 of whom were considered important, and denied confirmation to only one in the latter group-Supreme Court nominee Clement Haynsworth, because of evidence of conflict of interests while on the bench.

I voted against Judge Haynsworth, and I did it in good conscience.

I also voted against confirmation of Walter Hickel as Secretary of the Interior, because of the potential conflict of interest posed by his holding so much oil stock and his opposition to a free trade zone at Machiasport, Maine, a matter of importance to the oil consumers of my part of the country.

I came to regret that vote, because Mr. Hickel not only turned out to be a dedicated Secretary of the Interior, but, as events were to prove, a very sensitive and perceptive American.

In sum, however, the Senate confirmed a total of 182,652 nominees in the first 3 years of Mr. Nixon's Presidency, 595 of whom were considered major appointments, and rejected only two of those major nominations.

Is this a record of spiteful obstructionism--or is it a record of responsible cooperation?

And it is precisely because of this record of responsible cooperation with the Preside~t ~hat the doubts surrounding the Klemdienst case are so significant.

Much as I want to cooperate with the President-much as I want him to have his choice of appointees-I simply cannot ignore all that has transpired since the hearings on this nomination were reconvened, nor all the doubts the hearings have inspired.

I do not believe for a minute that any possible impropriety can be charged to the President.

If he knew about this case I can visualize the briefing he received as dealing only with the benefits or dangers to the economy that the merger presented-a legitimate concern for any President.

And I can understand why he might tell his underlings to see to it that everything possible was done to insure full consideration of any potential dangers to the economy.

The questions I raise today relate not to the President but to the performance and the integrity of his underlings. And those questions are of such crucial importance that they ought to be answered-and answered truthfully.

I ask that the Senate move to assure that those answers are forthcoming before we go further.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his comments here this afternoon. I think he has made a very eloquent statement on the matter, and I agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion.

19724 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 I want to indicate to my good friend

from New Hampshire that the interest of those of us in the Judiciary Committee in additional hearings is not just to have an open-ended, ad infinitum session, but to limit it to those witnesses whom I have mentioned here. The Senator from California, I believe, has two or three other witnesses he would like to have relating to the Harry Steward case. And, of course, we would like to obtain the other additional kinds of documentary materials we have already requested.

I want to indicate to the Senator that if we are success! ul here on the ftoor, we are certainly not going to be involved in a prolongation of hearings, but we do feel, as the Senator mentioned in his comments and in his statement, that we have a responsibility to fulfilJ. and the only way we can do so is by obtaining the additional information which I think I , the Senator from New Hampshire, and the other Members of the Senate need in fulfilling our responsibilities.

So I want to give assurances to the Senator from New Hampshire that in sending this nomination bacik to the committee, it is not just to put it in the position to have it killed there. We are not trying to do that. As one member of the committee, I can certainly give the Senator assurance that that would not be the case.

I wanted to mention that and to commend the Senator for his statement. I think he is correct in his observations and courageous in the position which he has taken.

Mr. McINTYRE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his kind remarks. I feel that those four .or five Senators, of which the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is one, on the Judiciary Committee trying to get additional hearings, because they are trying to get some of these answers and some of these doubts dispelled, is the proper thing to do.

As I indicated in my speech, I am very reluctant to try to deny the President the legal officer he wants. I cannot think of any more important position to have in his Cabinet than that of his chief legal officer, and that he be one of his choice.

I want to thank the Senator, along with his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, and hope we are successful in recommitting the nomination so that these answers can be found.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite right about our responsibility in assuring that the President may have the team he desires to carry forward his mandate. I for one voted for Mr. Kleindienst prior to the time this whole question was raised about the ITT case. All of the Members whose names are listed under "Separate Views" indicated without exception that they were prepared to support Mr. Kleindienst, even though his views on civil liberties and civil rights, and appar-1:lntly on antitrust, would not be the views that we would find most compatible. As a matter of fact, in an earlier report I had stated "The President must be able, within some broad limits, to choose the la WYer he wants at his side for the next 11 months,~· and I know my colleagues shared that opinion. But since

Mr. Kleindienst asked the Committee on the Judiciary to involve itself in this situation, and since even the President of the United States indicated that he wanted the Judiciary Committee to examine this in some detail, we feel we have a responsibilty to the nominee, to the President, to the committee, to the Senate, and to the American people to get to the bottom of things. We are certainly not interested in undue delay, but we are trying to fulfill that responsibility.

I thank the Senator again for his comments.

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me, and wish him well in his efforts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President-The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the

Senator from Massachusetts desire to be recognized?

Mr. KENNEDY. I think I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire without relinquishing my right to the ftoor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe that the Senator from Massachusetts did leave the ftoor. If the Senator wishes to be recognized, he will be recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I had indicated earlier, Mr. President,

the need for both the additional witnesses and the additional materials which we thought would be necessary. It seemed that every time the committee got close to obtaining the facts, some incident intervened to dampen the inquiry. Let me give a couple of examples.

Six members of the Judiciary Committee, constituting a special subcommittee, traveled over 1,700 miles to Denver to take testimony from a key figure in the hearings-Mrs. Dita Beard. Despite the question about the nature of Mrs. Beard's infirmity, according to doctors appointed by the committee, the committee-at considerable inconvenience and expense-directed this journey to attempt to get Mrs. Beard's views in evidence and scheduled 9 hours of hearings in Denver.

We were all quite concerned with not jeopardizing Mrs. Beard's health, but in fact Mrs. Beard had indicated that she wanted to get things "straightened out." Telegrams and telephone conversations were exchanged between the committee and her doctors, and arrangements proceeded consistent with Mrs. Beard's own wishes. The doctors even said that from a medical standpoint the hearing "would be of benefit" to her. Senator HART, chairing the special subcommittee, noted at the beginning that we were all conscious more of insuring "That our action would not disadvantage Mrs. Beard's physical" than of obtaining P, record of her testimony; but he also acknowledged that "Mrs. Beard wanted this over with."

I wish to add, Mr. President, that I was in attendance when the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. HART, carried on a number of conversations with the doctors in the presence of both the majority and minority members of the committee, to try to establish a procedure which could be followed. That small subcommittee considered a variety of different alternatives.

We thought that perhaps we could meet our responsibilities by sending maybe one or two staff members out to talk to Mrs. Beard, that they could get the information without subjecting her to the publicity and all the attendant activity which might cause her some distress. That was one thing considered by the members of the committee. But we were assured by the doctors in attendance on Mrs. Beard that she wanted to get these things off her chest and to have an opportunity to explain her views to the subcommittee, and as a matter of fact the doctors out there felt that she would recover her health more quickly if she had an opportunity to do so. So it was at their urging that the procedure was worked out with our chairman, Mr. HART, and a number of the members of the commit tee traveled out there over the course of a weekend, so that we would not interfere with Senate business, to talk with Mrs. Beard.

While I am sure all of the members of the special subcommittee were disappointed, we were forced to cut our inquiry short after only 2 % hours of hearing when Mrs. Beard showed signs of pain during the hearing. Many questions that all of us had went unanswered. To point up most cogently the incomplete nature of Mrs. Beard's testimony, I would like to direct attention to the matter being discussed when the hearing was terminated.

Mrs. Beard had been asked whether she knew Mr. Kleindienst, and she answered that she had met him once at a Governors' conference when he was with a friend of hers. She said that she doubted whether Kleindienst would even remember her; in fact, he had not, as he told the committee earlier that he had never met her. Let me read the final lines of testimony from the transcript of the Denver hearings; Senator GURNEY was questioning the witness:

Question. Mrs. Beard, did you ever discuss anything at any time with Mr. Kleindienst?

Mrs. BEARD. No, sir. Question. Do you know Mr. Kleindienst? Mrs. BEARD. I met Mr. Kleindienst once at

a Governor's Conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and that was when he happened to be with a friend of mine, and I doubt seriously that he would even remember me.

Question. And that was just a social gathering, no discussion of any sort?

Dr. RADETSKY (Mrs. Beard's attending physician). Let's recess for about 5 minutes, please.

The question was certainly an important and relevant one, and it was not answered. To this date the committee does not know when Mrs. Beard met Mr. Kleindienst, who was with them, or what they discussed. These questions were not asked Mrs. Beard when she appeared on national television for an extensive interview shortly after we left Denver.

Although committee-appointed doctors later informed the committee that they could find no objective indications of any physical infirmity of Mrs. Beard, she did not reappear to provide further testimony for our deliberations. There is a lot we did not find out from Mrs. Beard that we should know before the nominee is confirmed.

The same type of scene was repeated during the testimony of Peter Flanigan-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19725 whom the administration had originally tried to keep from appearing before the .Judiciary Committee at all. Although the White House ultimately decided that .Flanigan's physical appearance before the committee was the only way they might be able to salvage their nominee, we were confronted with a new kind of barrier when Mr. Flanigan finally appeared. Instead of medical problems, we were faced with Flanigan's narrowly construed agreement with the committee, conditioning his appearance on a strict limitation on the matters on which he would testify. To illustrate this let me repeat what I think we can all agree to be a central question in our determining Mr. Kleindienst's full role in the ITT matter: Flanigan was asked, "Could you tell us if you have ever talked to the Attorney General designate, Mr. Kleindienst, about the ITT matter?" Incredible as it may seem, this question went unanswered because of objections raised by minority members of the committee. The question is still not fully answered, for while Mr. Flanigan later wrote the committee that he had two telephone conversations and a meeting with Kleindienst relating to the ITT settlement, Mr. Kleindienst could not recall any details of any of these contacts. He did not bother to try to refresh his memory, and Mr. Flanigan never returned to be examined or cross-examined concerning those key contacts.

These are but a couple of examples where external situations-Mrs. Beard's heart condition and limitation on the scope of Mr. Flanigan's testimony-inter! ered with the JuC:iciary Committee's efforts to obtain a full picture of Kleindienst's involvement in the ITT matter.

As great an obstacle to our ascertaining all relevant facts, as these intervening external factors, have been the conflicts, contradictions, and inconsistencies in testimony of the witnesses who appeared before us, thus preventing the Senate and the public's discovering the full measure and nature of the nominee's involvement in the ITT settlement. Finding No. 7 of our "separate views" addresses itself to this issue:

The incompleteness of the hearings and of the memory of the nominee make difficult a determination of the precise nature and timing of his knowledge of the convention gift. What is clear is that the nominee played a determinative role in the events leading to the settlement of the !Tr cases, and that, beginning last December, for reasons yet unknown, he attempted to withhold from the public and the committee the full facts about his extensive participation.

In summary, the hearings might have been substantially shortened had the nominee and other witnesses come forward from the first with a full and accurate account of their activities and involvements and discussions rela,ting to the ITT-Justice Department antitrust litigation.

Mr. President, I would like to turn for a moment to the central issue of our hearings, the settling of ITI''s antitrust cases. During the course of our hearings we reviewed the antitrust policy of this administration since January of 1969. Unquestionably Assistant Attorney Gen-

eral McLaren had a distinguished reputation for scholarly achievement and integrity, and in his appearance before the committee he indicated that when he had accepted the job, he would be his own man. We saw from his statements, from his speeches, from his comments that he was fully committed to vigorous antitrust enforcement. As a matter of fact, in the memorandums which were provided for the Solicitor General, which were made available to the Members of the Senate, but Senators only, one thread that appears-and I certainly do not think I breach any confidence when I repeat it--is the very strong desire, commitment, and belief by Mr. McLaren that there ought to be full and complete prosecution of these cases in the Supreme Court of the United States; that if the keystone of the administration's antitrust policy were really going to be realized, it should be upheld by the Supreme Court; and that McLaren was prepared to see that the Supreme Court would have an opportunity to rule on these cases.

That is one of the great mysteries in this situation-what took place to change that whole approach of vigorous antitrust enforcement against conglomerates by this administration. That is one of the very important factors we were trying to understand. What were the reasons for the turnaround? What were the reasons for the change? There are those who say that the reason for the turnaround is that ITT made a good settlement, according to Mr. Griswold and .to other experts for the Government. But we cannot get away from the fact that it was the specific policy of this administration on the conglomerate cases not to make the settlement but to carry a test case through to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States could rule on the administration's interpretation of the law, which would have implications upon the conglomerates for a long period of time and would be the key factor and force of this administration's policy.

There are those on the other side who would say that the settlement itself has all the force of law quite effectively. But, quite clearly, that is not the case. If there is a settlement, it is just a settlement. The law remains open, ITT gets what it wanted, and conglomerates would know for some time in the future that this was an administration or antitrust division that was not ready to go to the wall on antitrust policy.

No matter how you analyze it, the settlement ITT got was the settlement they most wanted. The acquisition about which they felt most strongly, Hartford Fire, they were able to retain. Is it completely coincidental that this was the arrangement that Dita Beard spoke to Mr. Mitchell about in Kentucky at an earlier time? A Washington Post editorial perceptively discusses the Government's turnaround, and I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WHAT TuRNED MR. McLAREN AROUND?

When Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold says that the settlement of the !Tr antitrust case was a "very substantial victory for the government," he may be righit, if what he means is that there was a reasonable compromise which resulted in a sizable divestiture on the pa.rt of ITT; if you assume, a.s Mr. Griswold does, that the Justice Department was likely to lose the case in the end, leaving the ITT conglomerate intact, the settlement looks even more favorable to the government. And if that is so, then one may well ask why there would even be talk of a possible payoff by ITT in the form of a major contribution to the cost of this yea.r's Republican Convention in San Diego. Having lost, why would ITT pay off?. Without attempting to judge at this point whether, in fact, there is a connection between the COIIl

vention financing and the out-of-court settlement of the antitrust suit the explanation for why some people might suspect that there is one lies in the fact that the settlement was also favorable to ITT.

This, in short, is the crux of this affair: if the settlement can be said to have been 1ll the larger interests of the government, it was also, a.s is so often the case in these matters, in the i.DJterests of !Tr; the real loser, it becomes increasingly clear, was Mr. Richard McLaren, then head of the Justice Depa.rtmen t's antitrust division, and a.n understanding of the way in which he lost is crucial to the central issue of the ITT affair, which is whS/t, or who, caused Mr. McLa.ren to abandon his ma.in purpose in bringing action against ITT and to settle out of court. As the Wall Street Journal explained his ma.in purpose, in a.n excellent account of the background of the ITT case the other da_y, the three suits against ITT a.nd an earlier suit against Ling-Temoo-Vought, Inc. (also settled out of court, in 1970) "were to have been Mr. McLaren's vehicles for gaining from the Supreme Court a highly significant expansion of the Clayton Antitrust Act." The Journal analysis continues:

"When Mr. McLaren was named to head the antitrust division in 1969, his first priority was to halt the acquisition by huge conglomerates of leading companies in the steel industry a.net other industries. The campaign drew wide attention not only because of the magnitude of the ITT and LTV suits. but a.lso because Democra.tic heads of the Antitrust Division had insisted the Clayton Act didr.'t apply to such conglomerate mergers, prompting much talk about whether Congress should pass a new antitrust law. Mr. McLaren urged Congress not to do so, and it didn't, pending the determ.ina.tion of his lawsuits. The suit against ITT's acquisition of Grinnell (one of the three suits involving ITT) already was at the Supreme Court when the package settlement concluding all three suits against !Tr was signed."

So there was this Republican trust-buster, trying to get the Supreme Court to write new law against conglomerate mergers and what makes the history of his efforts With respect to ITT and LTV all the more intriguing is that, by his own account, both met almost precisely the same fate: in both cases, White House aide Peter Flanigan stepped in and produced a financial expert to argue against the divestitures which Mr. McLaren was trying to bring about by court action; in both cases the expert in question was Richard J. Ramsden, who recently spent a year as a White House fellow and now works for a. New York investment firm. That is to say that in both cases, Mr. McLaren somehow was persuaded to go beyond his own antitrust division, and outside the rest of the United States government, to seek the advice of a private expert, furnished by the White House--and then to abandon the main objective which had ca.used him to bring suit 1n the first place.

19726 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 This ls the heart of the ITT affair, rather

than the question of who won the case. Surely, the U.S. government gained something, if you believe, with Mr. Griswold, that the Supreme Court would have ruled against the government. But Mr. McLaren did not believe the case would have been lost; although he hedged on this point before the Judiciary Commit tee this week, la.st December he told this newspaper in a taped interview: "I think without question we'd have won them." Clearly ITT special counsel Lawrence Walsh also thought the government was going to win; he said as much in an April 16, 1971 letter to Richard Kleindienst, which urged that the Justice Department reconsider, with other government agencies, the economic consequences of a Supreme court ruling against ITT. It was this view of Mr. Walsh's, presumably, that encourag:d !TI' to seek an out-of-court settlement; in particular, ITT wanted to negotiate an agreement which would exclude the Hartford Fire Insurance co., the target of one of the three ITT suits, from divestiture. Or so it seemed to Mr. McLaren last December. In the same taped interview with this newspaper, he said "I think the defendants think we would have won them, too. Otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to the program of divestiture that they did agree to."

so the question isn't whether the ultimate program of divestiture was favorable to the government; it could have been, while at the same time being favorable to ITT. In any case, there is no doubt that ITT wanted an out-of-court settlement. And there can be no doubt that Mr. McLaren wanted a Supreme Court test.

Mr. KENNEDY. The editorial concludes:

so it comes down to the crucial question of what, or who, turned Mr. McLaren around? And bow? That is what the Senate is going to have to determine before it can confirm the nomination of Mr. Kleindienst. For it was Mr. Kleindienst, aft er all, who told us categorically that the ITT settlement was "handled and negotiated exclusively" by Mr. McLaren and the evidence ' is already persuasive that it was not.

Nonetheless, we see that this was going to be the key question and the key case, and it was turned around. So we are trying to find out the reasons for the turnaround.

During the hearings, some membe:s. of the committee were accused of repet1t1ve questioning. However, it appeared throughout to be necessary to bring to the surface the full and complete answers to the questions. Even this approach with some witne_sses f~iled _to bring resolution of the mcons1stenc1es and contradictions.

Let us turn back for a moment, Mr. President to shortly before the supplemental h~arings on the nomination of Mr. Kleindienst to be Attorney General began. A first set of confirmation hearings had been held and the nomination had been ordered reported to the full Senate. Even those members of the Judiciary Committee who disagreed with the nominee's views and philosophies in various areas had indicated that the President had sufficient latitude to choose such a man for his top legal advisor and the Government's top law enforcement officer. Mr. Kleindienst's confirmation appeared certain.

Then, on February 29, nationally syndicated columnist Jack Anderson dropped a bombshell. He revealed in his

column a confidential ITT internal memorandum linking the company's antitrust settlement with its contribution to the Republican national convention. The next day Anderson implicated the nominee by alleging that Kleindienst had lied when he denied 3 months earlier having had anything to do with the ITT antitrust settlement negotiations.

Mr. Kleindienst then, according to his opening statement before the Judiciary Committee on March 2, not surprisingly asked for the supplemental hearing to remove the cloud over his head cast by the Anderson columns and public reaction to them. The Judiciary Committee expected Mr. Kleindienst and the other witnesses to come forward fully and candidly with the details of their activities. The nominee specifically undertook to dispel the cloud of impropriety surrounding his actions on the ITT settlement. Mr. Kleindienst told the committee in his opening statement:

I would not want that confirmation to take place with a cloud over my head, so to speak, nor would I want the U.S. Senate to act upon my nomination if there was any substantial doubt in the minds of any of the Members of the U.S. Senate to the effect that while I performed my official duties on behalf of the U.S. Government in the past three years as the Deputy Attorney General, that I engaged in any improper conduct.

Thus assuming the burden of bringing forward to the committee the testimonial and documentary evidence by which his conduct could be judged, Kleindienst proceeded to deliver an opening statement to the committee. This opening statement set the stage for the ensuing hearings-a stage occupied by reluctant actors who tried continuously to keep the curtain drawn. By reviewing more closely-and in light of subsequent revelations-some of the testimony of Mr. Kleindienst during the hearings, the Senate should be able to get a better feel for why at least six members of the Judiciary Committee felt the hearings should continue.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that I may do so without losing my right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

The clerk will call the roll. The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask


The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BROCK). Without objection, it is so ordered.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed, without amendment, the bill <S. 1140) to authorize the sale of certain lands of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the

House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill CS. 1736) to amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, to provide for financing the acquisition, construction, alteration, maintenance, operation, and protection of public buildings, and for other purposes.

The message further announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7117) to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to expedite the reimbursement of United States vessel owners for charges paid by them for the release of vessels and crews illegally seized by foreign countries, to strengthen the provisions therein relating to the collection of claims against such foreign countries for amounts so reimbursed and for certain other amounts, and for other purposes; asked a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. GARMATZ, Mr. DINGELL, and Mr. PELLY were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

NOMINATION OF RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST

The Senate continued with the consideration of the nomination of Richard G. Kleindienst to be Attorney General.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon we took the time to review the Beard memorandum and the various corroborative evidence for the Beard memorandum brought out in the course of our hearings before the Judiciary Committee. I detailed why I thought it was essential to call other witnesses that could help resolve even some of the questions that were initially put forward in the Beard memorandum.

Then I reviewed for the Senate the range of the witnesses that I thought were clearly necessary to meet our responsibility, and the additional kinds of materials that were essential in order that we meet our responsibility.

I believe that if we had that information and that additional group of witnesses we would be able to report very clearly to the Senate on the results of these examinations.

Mr. Kleindienst had written back in December of 1971 that he was not involved in the ITT settlement, that the settlement was handled and negotiated exclusively by Mr. McLaren, who bore the entire responsibility for the settlement and the negotiations.

We found out in the course of our hearings, both in our examination of Mr. Kleindienst and from other witnesses, that a great many other contacts had been made by officials of ITT through a series of meetings, communications, and negotiations, if you will, with Mr. Kleindienst.

I think it is appropriate for us in this context, in trying to assess the relationship between the settlement of the rrr case and the role of the White House, to examine what, exactly, ITT was up to during this period. Was-it, as was sug-

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 19727 gested even by Mr. Kleindienst, only the ITT lawyers and the Department of Justice attempting, at arm's length, to reach some kind of equitable settlement? Or were there other contacts, involving Kleindienst, the White House, Cabinet officers, and other Federal officials that played the key role in the settlement of the ITT cases? We do not know the answers to that. As of now we do not know whether, from the results of the whole range of contacts, what the ITT was involved in, or what Mr. Geneen was involved in, or what Mr. Gerrity or Mr. Merriam were involved in, or what role they played in the eventual settlement of the case. Certainly those are legitimate questions for us to resolve.

So it is appropriate for us to wonder about the range of these contacts and what ITT was doing.

ITT, for example, in its news release on February 28, said that there was no kind of deal, and · that neither Mrs. Beard nor anyone else except counsel for the company was authorized to carry out negotiations. And yet about 2 weeks later, ITT put out another news release listing all the Government officials who were seen, not by counsel, but by Harold Geneen. At page 41 of our report, we list all the contacts we know of which were made by ITT representatives other than counsel.

Mr. President, during the course of our hearings we heard Mr. Geneen say time and time again, we heard Mr. Rohatyn say time and time again, and other officials of ITT say time and time again that the only purpose of their contacts with any administration official was not in connection with the settlement of any ITT case, but only in connection with the general anticonglomerate or antitrust policy of this administration.

With respect to Mr. Geneen and his visit to Mr. Mitchell, he said he did not go to see him about ITT, but only about antitrust policy. He said:

I know it might have incidentally affected ITT.

It affected ITT more than incidentally because there were only four cases involving anticonglomerates and three of them had to do with ITT, so it involved ITT very directly. When the president of ITT talks to these officials about only anticonglomerate policy, while three of the four pending administration cases involve ITT, Mr. President, you know that he is in effect talking about ITT.

It is interesting that when we asked if Mr. Geneen, or any of the range of other ITT officials-Dita Beard, Mr. Rohatyn, Mr. Gleason, Mr. Gerrity, Mr. Casey, or Judge Walsh-who were seeing the Attorney General, William Timmons, Peter Flanigan, Secretary of the Treasury David Kennedy, Chairman Paul McCracken of the Council of Economic Advisors, John Erlichman, Arthur Burns, Secretary of Commerce Maurice Stans, Harry Dent-even went back and talked to any of those men after the ITT cases had been settled. They said no, they did not.

So, once the settlement occurred, we did not see Mr. Geneen going back to the Justice Department and discussing

with Mr. Mitchell his concern about antitrust policy. We did not see Mr. Gerrity going back to discuss antitrust policy.

After the settlement of ITT, there was not one contact made. And so I think it certainly seems reasonable for us to assume that all those contacts were not made just to discuss general policy, but to influence the strategy and the movement of the administration with respect to the ITT cases.

I think in fairness to Mr. Geneen and Mr. Rohatyn that when they were in Washington also talking to Members of Congress about antitrust policy, that they were hopeful there would be some kind of change. I do not think any of us are trying to fault the fact that they were trying to press their position. We do not blame ITT's people for trying to get across their views. They are in business, representing their stockholders. The question is: Did they at some point bolster their presentation with a different kind of action, such as a large pledge for the Republican Convention? That is the key question and that is the question that still remains.

And what effect did all these contacts have? When they talked with high administration officials, what did they ask these Cabinet heads to do? Did they just brief them and ask them nothing? Did they simply wish to see some innocent change in policy? Were the White House officials who were going to San Diego aware of the ITT problems? If they were, did they do anything about them? If they did not, should not we know about it?

These questions take us back to the need for additional hearings. We have seen the range of different contacts that were made. One of the things denied to us as members of the Committee on the Judiciary was what came out of the other end. We know that they saw all of these high Government officials, but we do not know what effect they had. The only way we could know would be to get complete information from ITT or the various officials.

One significant fact is that the doors of the White House were always open to these officials from ITT. Mr. Gerrity and Mr. Merriam were able to see Harry Dent, Peter Flanigan, Charles Colson, and Herb Klein, about their problems.

I am sure there are many hundreds of millions of Americans who have problems and who would like to be able to get in to see Mr. Flanigan or Mr. Erlichman or Mr. Klein or Mr. Dent to ask them to work on their problems.

I am sure there are businessmen in my State of Massachusetts who have problems with the Government, who would like to be able to see these officials or to be able to come down and knock on the White House doors and have them open.

I am sure there are many senior citizens in this country who have problems with social security, small businessmen who have trouble getting loans, and returning veterans who have been held up on benefits who would like to have their problems resolved.

We see all these high ITT officials be-

ing able to come down and have someone listen to their problems. That must concern many Americans.

I do not blame ITT for trying to get across their views, but I do blame those who are willing to give them the extensive attention they apparently receivedalmost 3 dozen contacts between ITT and the highest officials of this administration.

If we knew that instead of these Cabinet officers and presidential aides that only the attorneys with the Justice Department had been involved, how much easier our task would have been. If, instead of having a list of 3 dozen contacts, we had only visits to three or four attorneys in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, and that the negotiations were carried on, not by lobbyistsnot by Dita Beard or Ned Gerrity or John Ryan-but by ITT's counsel, how much easier it would be for us to resolve this problem. But that is not the case, and we cannot ignore the contacts that were made. The real question is whether the ITT officials were effective in translating the contracts into administration action?

We do know that at least one White House aide was in direct contact with the nominee, although the nominee does not remember. What else happened that we do not know about?

It certainly seems appropriate at this point, now that we know of the range of contacts that were made by ITT, to examine the contacts that were made with the nominee himself, and see what we learned about his contacts with ITT. We certainly need to review those, because we know that, in response to the letter from Mr. O'Brien, he said that the matter had been "handled and negotiated exclusively" by Mr. McLaren. So, in view of that language, it is important for us to ask whether Mr. Kleindienst knew anything, and whether he was involved, and what contacts were made with him, and whether his actions did or did not consist of either handling or negotiating these settlements.

We asked Mr. Kleindienst about these various. contacts. The first contact we were able to find out about was a contact with Mr. John Ryan. Mr. Ryan is the deputy head of ITT's Washington office, and is also a neighbor of Mr. Kleindienst. Mr. Kleindienst first indicated that he had seen Mr. Ryan on a number of different occasions, but that the matter of ITT's cases had not really been raised. Later on in the hearings, Mr. Ryan testified and he told us that he had talked about the cases with Mr. Kleindienst.

Then Mr. Kleindienst testified again and indicated that he and Ryan might have talked about it. So Mr. Ryan was one contact. He saw Mr. Kleindienst at a number of social gatherings in their neighborhood, and it was Mr. Ryan who set up the appointment for Mr. Rohatyn to see Mr. Kleindienst.

We had wondered, in the course of our hearings, how Mr. Rohatyn could have been able merely to call Mr. Kleindienst on the phone and get an appointment with him. We asked Mr. Kleindienst this question, the first time we asked him about Mr. Rohatyn:

19728 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 5, 1972' Mr. Kleindienst, were you acquainted with

anyone from ITT before Mr. Rohatyn called in April?

That could be labeled as a fishing question. We have heard our friends from the other side of the aisle say that fishing was taking place. That could fall under the designation of a fishing expedition. Let us see what happened with that fishing:

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Was I acquainted with anybody?

Senator KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. KLEINDIENST. There 1s only one person

in ITT who I have ever been acquainted with, and that is a Mr. Ryan who is employed by that company in Washington, D.C., and he lives in my neighborhood in McLean.

Senator KENNEDY. Could you describe that relationship? Is it purely social, or is it a relationship--

Mr. KLEINDIENST. It is a very casual social relationship. Once or twice a year the neighborhood has a Christmas party or neighborhood party, and then I see Mr. Ryan.

Senator KENNEDY. But there has never been a professional relationship between you?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. None at all, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Had you ever heard of

Mr. Rohatyn before his call? Mr. KLEINDIENST. No, sir. Senator KENNEDY. He was not introduced to

you by anyone? Mr. KLEINDIENST. No, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Did he refer to anyone

in calling you? Mr. KLEINDIENST. No, sir. Senator KENNEDY. He just called you out of

the blue, and you took his call? Mr. KLEINDIENST. Well, he identified him

self as a representative of the company. I think he knew who I was, my responsibilities in the Department.

Senator KENNEDY. And you took his call, without knowing what he was calling about, just because he was a director of ITT?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Yes, sir, I did. Senator KENNEDY. Even though you did

not know him or had been unaware of him? Mr. KLEINDIENST. Yes, sir, based upon the

identification given, I did.

Later we returned to the subject. This time Mr. Kleindienst had something new:

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Senator Kennedy, you might have noticed that I have been talking to Mr. Rohatyn and I have he.d my recollection refreshed as to why he called me in the first place. I believe that Mr. Ryan, who lives out in my neighborhood, might have said at one of these parties that there would be an economic problem to ITT, and would I be willing to talk to somebody from the company, and I think I said yes, I would.

And then that precipitated Mr. Rohatyn to call. No one discussed with me who that would be, and that was several weeks later.

Senator KENNEDY. Was it Mr. Ryan? Could you give us his full name and where he lives?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. John Ryan, and I do not know what his title or position 1s in the company. He lives on or near Portland Place in McLean.

Senator KENNEDY. Is he-he works--or what is his work at ITT?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. I do not know what his job is.

Senator KENNEDY. But he was associated with ITT?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. I believe he is. Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Rohatyn, could you

tell me? Mr. RoHATYN. Sir, all I know 1s that he is

an employee of the company. Senator KENNEDY. You do not know in

what respect? Mr. ROHATYN. No. sir.

Senator KENNEDY. You do not know if he knows Mrs. Beard, or does not?

Mr. RoHATYN. I have no idea. Senator KENNEDY. But anyway, Mr. Klein

dienst, now you do remember having some conversation with Mr. Ryan?

. Mr. KLEINDIENST. Yes. I recall now that I have talked to Mr. Rohatyn that Mr. Ryan had, at one of these functions where there would have been 20 or 30 people-

Senator KENNEDY. This is the Christmas party?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. This was in the spring. It must have been a spring party. He raised the question whether I would be available to an officer of the company to discuss the economic aspects of it, and I must have said yes to him because I think that that is how Mr. Rohatyn was encouraged to call me. I never heard of Mr. Rohatyn until he called me, however.

So this is the kind of fishing we are talking about. We were trying to find out about Ryan and his role in trying to bring Kleindienst and Rohatyn together, and it was brought out by fishing and by repeated questioning. From that we were able to find out that he had talked to Mr. Ryan a number of times and that he talked to Mr. Ryan about the economic effects of the ITT case. Mr. Ryan turned out to be the fellow who set up Kleindienst's first meeting with Mr. Rohatyn. This is where it ended up, when Mr. Kleindienst testified:

Yes, I guess I set in motion a series of events by which Mr. McLaren became persuaded that, for the reasons heretofore discussed, he ought to come off his position with respect to a divestiture of Hartford by ITT. That's a fair statement.

Now the O'Brien matter. The quotation in Mr. Kleindienst's letter of December 13, 1971 to Lawrence O'Brien read:

The settlement between the Department of Justice and ITT was handled and negotiated. exclusively by Assist-ant Attorney General Richard W. McLaren.• • •

But then the nominee conceded at the hearings,

Yes, I guess I set in motion a series of events by which Mr. McLaren became persuaded that, for the reasons heretofore discussed, he ought to come off his position with respect to a divestitures of Hartford by ITT. That 1s a fair statement.

But the nominee stubbornly stuck to his pooition that his "handled and negotiated exclusively'' statement was accurate. The other party to Kleindienst's negotiations with ITT was more realistic when Felix Rohatyn testified, he spoke of how he "handled some of the negotiations and presentations to Kleindienst and McLaren." The kindest thing that can be said of Kleindienst's position on this point is that he has a bizarre sense of the meaning of words. Perhaps more accurately, he had to realize that, however technically defensible his statement to O'Brien might be, it would inevitably be totally misleading.

So I do feel that we certainly were able to bring out some extremely important and relevant facts which were unknown at the start of these hearings.

To get back to the ITT contacts with Kleindienst, then, first we have Ryan, who is Kleindienst's neighbor who

works in the rrr Washington office; he is its deputy director. We were able to. find out that he was what was called the "listening poot" for ITT antitrust matters. We tried to get some definition of what was meant by "listening post." We could only surmise that he was the agent who gathered all the material and passed it on up to his superior and to New York. We asked the New York ITT office if they could provide for us memorandums or other papers about the ITT matter, and of course we never received them. A very large fraction of all the material that ITT agreed to supply was subsequently denied. In fact even though ITT agreed to supply us with material which was in their New York headquarters, nearly every single item we received from ITT's files was from their Washington office. ITT broke almost every agreement its officers and counsel made under oath to provide material from its New York files.

Then we had the establishment of contract with Mr. Rohatyn, or the series of meetings with Rohatyn, of which eventually there were six plus at least two phone calls.

One of the interesting factors is that even though there were five private meetings, four of them were kept secret from Mr. McLaren. He knew of only one of those five meetings even though the matter was supposedly being handled and negotiated exclusively by Mr. McLaren. Mr. Kleindienst did not even take the opportunity of informing the one who had the prime responsibility. I do not know why he would not have done so. It certainly seems that he would have, just to keep him informed. It is understandable, perhaps, that under certain circumstances you would have these direct contacts between an rrr official and someone in the Justice Department, but it would appear that you would also invite the head of the Antitrust Division to such meetings, or if not that, certainly you would keep him informed.

So we had the contacts with Rohatyn. What was the next contact, still with the point in mind that Mr. Kleindienst indicated in his letter to Mr. O'Brien that this matter was handled and negotiated exclusively by Mr. McLaren?

We find Mr. Walsh appearing at this point. I can remember we asked Mr. Kleindienst why there was an extension of time for the filing of the Government's jurisdictional stat;ement in the ITT-Grinnell litigation in the Supreme Court. We were unable to gain any real kind of information about it, until we started with the Supreme Court records to try to track it down. Eventually we found out that the delay was a result of a request from IT!' in the form O'f a letter from Mr. Lawrence Walsh. Walsh is a close friend of Mr. Kleindienst. He had a distinguished career in public service in the Justice Department on another occasion when he was Deputy Attorney General. He is chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and is a very distinguished individual. He had been requested by ITT to contact Mr.

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19729 !Kleindienst about their antitrust litigation.

Getting back to the reason for the delay, here was the exchange.

Senator KENNEDY. Now, a.s I understand, on April 19, the Justice Department requested a last-minute delay for its filing of an appeal in Grinnell. This is the ITT case in the Supreme Court, ls that right, Mr. Kleindienst?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. I beg your pardon, Senator Kennedy?

Senator KENNEDY. That on April 19, this is the day after Mr. Rohatyn's phone call to you, the Justice Department requests a last minute delay for its filing of appeal in Grinnell, is that correct? I believe that---

Mr. KLEINDIENST. We requested a delay, but I do not remember the date, Senator Kennedy.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. McLaren, do you remember? I believe that is the date.

Mr. McLAREN. I could not place the date, Senator.

Well, in getting back and doing some more fishing, we found out that the delay was a result of contacts that were made in behalf of ITT by Mr. Walsh, specifically a communication to Mr. Kleindienst in a long letter that was, I believe, hand delivered and three telephone calls with Mr. Kleindienst, one the day the letter was delivered and two the day the decision was made by the Justice Department to seek the delay. Mr. Walsh, in his letter asking for this delay, indicated to Mr. Kleindienst that he believed that, on the evidence that he had seen so far, the Justice Department had a good chance of prevailing in the ITT litigation. He was hopeful that there could be some kind of interdepartmental review before the Justice Department would move forward with the appeal in the case.

So here we had this additional contact that was made, and further conversations with Mr. Walsh, who was acting in behalf of ITT. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD-that he was acting in behalf of rrr, trying to get a delay in this case.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL, New York, N.Y., April 16, 1971.

Hon. RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C. DEAR DICK: As I told you over the tele

phone, our firm has represented ITT, as outside counsel, ever since its incorporation over fifty years ago. A few weeks ago, Mr. Harold S. Geneen, Chairman and President of ITT, asked me to prepare a presentation to you a.s Acting Attorney General and, through you, to the National Administration on the question of whether diversification mergers should be barred and, more specifically, urging that the Department of Justice not advocate any position before the Supreme Court which would be tantamount to barring such mergers without a full study of the economic consequences of such a step.

To us this is not a question of the conduct of litigation in the narrow sense. Looking back at the results of government antitrust cases in the Supreme Court, one must realize that if the government urges an expanded interpretation of the vague language of the Clayton Act, there is a high probability that lt will succeed. Indeed, the court has at times adopted a position more extreme than that urged by the Department. We therefore believe that the Department should not take

such a step without all of the usual precautions that precede a recommendation for new legislation. If the antitrust laws were to be expanded by legislation, rather than by litigation, the Department's views would, in the first instance, be collected by the Deputy Attorney General and then cleared with the Bureau of the Budget which would give all of the other interested federal departments an opportunity to comment. We believe that any major expansion of the antitrust laws should be accompanied by these steps whether the expansion is by litigation or by legislation. It ls our understanding that the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors all have some views with respect to the question under consideration.

Ordinarily I would have first seen Dick McLaren, but I understand that you, as Acting Attorney General, have already been consulted With respect to the ITT problem and that the Solicitor General also has under consideration the perfection of an appeal from the District Court decision in the ITTGrinnell case.

It is our hope that after reading the enclosed memorandum, which is merely a preliminary presentation, you and Dick McLaren and the Solicitor General would be Willing to delay the submission of the jurisdictional statement in the Grinnell case long enough to permit us to make a more adequate presentation on this question. ITT of course will join in any application for an extension of time. It is obvious that this case cannot be heard at this term of court and it would therefore seem that a delay of a relatively short period would not be harmful to the public interest.

With kindest regards, Sincerely yours,

ED Lawrence E. Walsh.

APRIL 16, 1971. MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF Jus

TICE IN SUPPORT OF A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY TOWARD DIVERSIFICATION BY MERGER This memorandum is submitted to demon

strate that the Department of Justice should initiate a comprehensive, Government-wide review of the national interest implications of diversification by merger before making any argument to the United States Supreme Court which, if accepted by the Court, would have the effect of banning all significant mergers and diversificaition. We submit that such a sweeping ban should not be adopted as the policy of the Administration and the Nation without the most careful review. Such a review would be undertaken as a matter of course before the Administration proposed legislation to Congress which would have the same effect. We submit that such a review would show that a ban on significant diversification mergers would sacrifice vital national goo.ls-economic growth and full employment, American competitiveness in world markets, and the balance of payments-to the unreali:zed fear of dangers to competition. The review should avail itself of the insights of all interested Government agencies, as well as of economists, businessmen, lawyers, and other experts outside government.1

1 The Department's appeal from the decision of the District Court in ITT-Grinnell raises a substantial danger that the Supreme Court will issue a decision broadly condemning diversification mergers, in view of the District Court's finding that the anticompetitive effects alleged by the Department were not supported by the facts. This is particularly true of the Department's contention that the mere possibility of reciprocal dealing (purchasing :from customers) is

A BAN ON SIGNIFICANT MERGERS AND DIVERSIFICATION WOULD INJURE VITAL NATIONAL INTERESTS The most important economic problem fac

ing the United States today is the challenge to increase its economic efficiency in order to remain competitive in increasingly rigorous world markets. This challenge must be met if the United States economy is to continue its long-term growth at reasonably full employment. The challenge of remaining competitive in world markets is not something which Government policy can meet unaided, and it is not something which can be met by a simple, one-shot effort. Staying competitive will require a sustained national effort, and increasingly it will require that every economic resource the Naition possesses be utilized to the best advantage.

Diversification by merger is the most important guarantee that every economic resource of the Nation will in fact be used to the best advantage. A nondynamic industry must not be protected from constructive new forces. Through diversification, scarce management skills, additional resources of capital and know-how, and, most important, the will and ability to plan for growth, can be brought to bear in new industries. These inputs are essential if an industry is to remain competitive. If an industry has ceased to generate these inputs itself-as many industries, especially concentrated industries, have-they must be introduced from outside. There are only two ways of introducing these essential inputs from outside: wholly new entry through internal development and diversification by merger. As a practical matter, completely new entry into an established industry is feasible only for (a) firms in closely related industries which have great similarities in production and marketing techniques, so that the vital business "know-how" is readily available and transferable to the new field, or (b) employees of established firms in the industry who use their knowhow to set themselves up in business as competitors of their former employers. For any other types of persons or firms interested in entering a completely new industry, the lack of detailed industry know-how, combined with the high start-up costs of totally new products and marketing channels, is almost always prohibitive.

Thus diversification by merger is often the only effective means of stimulating new competitiveness in established industries. The record shows that diversification mergers have served this purpose. ITT itself is a case in point. ITT stimulates the profit growth o! each of its profit centers by helping them develop short-range and long-range plans for growth and by assisting them through a central management staff of over 1,000 industrial and operations specialists. Since 1960, ITT's earnings have grown at a steady com-

enough to condemn a merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. This contention, if accepted by the Supreme Court, would bar almost any significant acquisition by a company with many suppliers.

We urge the Department, in order to make possible a review of Administration policy before national policy is irrevocably fixed by the Supreme Court on anititrust grounds alone, not to perfect its a.ppea.l in ITT-Grinnell by filing the Jurisdictional Statement which is due on April 20, 1971. If, after this review, the present policy of the Department of Justice regarding mergers and diver.sifica• tion were reaffirmed, there would be numerous other opportunities to present it to the Supreme Court, of which the ITT-Canteen and ITT-Hart ford cases are only two. Moreover, if actual anticompetitive effects should ever develop from an ITT acqu1sit.ion. the acquisition could be attacked when these effects developed, under the du Pont-GM decision of the Supreme Court.

19730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 5, 1972 pound rate of 11 % a. year. The improved competitiveness of the companies ITT has acquired is illustrated by the growth and development of subsidia.lies like Avis and Shera.ton. ITT, in other words, has been able to apply modern management skills in such a. way as to increase very substantially the efficiency and competitiveness of the companies it acquired. Many other companies which have diversified substantially by merger, such as Textron, Litton, TRW, Transamerica, Beatrice, and American Hotne Products, have also been successful in substantially increasing the competitiveness of the companies they acquired.

Increased economic efficiency ls not the only benefit realized from mergers.

For example, individual enterprise and ability are utilized and rewarded much more effectively by companies built around modern management techniques than in many longestablished companies.

The entrepreneurial enterprise which leads to the founding of new companies is stimulated far more effectively if an active market exists for the equity interests which the entrepreneur has built up in a successful company. The 3,751 acquisitions which occurred in 1970, the great bulk of which were diversification mergers, indicate the importance or this "capital market" for businesses.

Diversification is also essential to permit a company to hedge or insure against the risks inherent in business operations. Without diversification, · a decline in business in one industry can have devastating results, as the downturn in the aerospace business has had in Southern California and the State of Washington.

ITT also illustrates the vital importance of such diversification of the Nation's balance of payments. Prior to World War II, ITT was a United States-owned telephone operating and manufacturing company with substantially all of its operations abroad. Most of its properties were expropriated or destroyed during the war. !TT has now rebuilt a substantial position abroad, particularly in Europe and Latin _\.merica. It employs over 200,000 persons abroad, and is the third largest corporate contributor to a positive United States balance of payments, remitting over $300 million a year to the United States economy.

However, the fundamental risks involved in significant foreign operations cannot be ignored. For example, ITT's $150 million investment in the Chile Telephone Company (only two-thirds of which is covered by government insurance purchased by ITT) is facing possible nationalization by the new Marxist government of Chile. Experience has shown that any compensation is likely to be small, paid only in local currency, and late. ITT has not yet received any compensation for its Cuban subsidiary, which was expropriated in 1960.

These risks of foreign operation must be balanced by a stable economic base in the United States. All of ITT's major international competitors, such as Siemens of Germany, Ericsson of Sweden, Mitsubishi, Hitachi, and Nippon Electric of Japan, and Northern Electric of Canada, have solid domestic bases in their home countries as well as active governmental support for their extensive export sales. This need for a stable domestic base is the basic reason for ITT's diversification program. If this diversification into the United States economy is prohibited, the ability of ITT and other United States companies to assume the substantial risks of doing business abroad in a. competitive world market will be substantially impaired.

These national interest questions, while of course they affect ITT vita.Uy, do not affect ITT alone. On the contrary, a ruling ban-

ning all significant mergers and diversification would have broad repercussions throughout the economy.

We recognize that the points we have made about the national interest implications of mergers and diversification are not uncontroversial. We earnestly submit, however, that they should not be dismissed as special pleading. The report of President Nixon's Task Force on Productivity and Competition (the "Stigler Report") , after reviewing the issues of conglomerate mergers flatly concluded: "Vigorous action on the basis of our present knowledge is not defensible." Like views have been expressed by men who have long been identified with vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws. Sc, far as we are aware, this conclusion ls shared by most scholars in the field of antitrust law.

We respectfully suggest that it is timely for the Department and the Administration as a whole to review their policy toward mergers and diversification.

II

THERE SHOULD BE A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY TOWARD MERGERS AND DIVERSIFICATION The Stigler Report strongly recommended

a comprehensive review of national policy toward mergers and diversification:

"We strongly recommend that the Department decline to undertake a program of action against conglomerate mergers and conglomerate enterprises, pending a conference to gather information and opinion on the economic effects of the conglomerate phenomenon."

The need for such a review is even more pressing today than it was when the Stigler Report recommended it, because of the danger that the ITT-Grinnell appeal to the Supreme Court will result in judicial legislation of a blanket condemnation of all significant mergers and diversification. Because the factual assumptions underlying the Department's anti-merger policy were not established in that case, it would seem appropriate to await another case in which the facts show a. real probability of substantial adverse effects on competition, rather than move to a more radical position on the law to compensate for a failure of proof.

This comprehensive review of Administration policy should involve the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and the Treasury, speaking for the business economy, the interests of employees, and the balance of payments, and the Council of Economic Advisors, representing the national commitment to economic growth and full employment, as well as the lawyers in the Department of Justice who have specialized in this field. Such a full and balanced review of merger policy can only be carried out within the Executive Branch, because the Supreme Court has made clear that in merger cases it will look to the antitrust laws alone, and will disregard any economic or other public benefits resulting from the merger.

Such a balanced, Government-wide review ls needed to insure that the policy which results is truly in the national interest. Such a. Government-wide review would be undertaken a:.; a matter of course before the Administration sought a comprehensive statute from Congress which would ban all significant mergers and acquisitions. Such a review is equally necessary before the Department of Justice seeks to obtain such a prohibition through a Supreme Court decision which would have exactly the same immediate impact as a statute and would be even more difficult to modify as experience showed its unwisdom.

CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, a comprehen

sive, Government-wide review of Adrninlstra-

tlon policy toward mergers and diversification should be undertaken.

Respectfully submitted. LAWRENCE E. WALSH, FREDERICK A. 0 . SCHWARZ, Guy M. STRUVE,

Attorneys for International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.

Mr. KENNEDY. And in the letter, Mr. Walsh also said he understood that Kleindienst had "already been consulted with respect to the ITT problem." What this reference was about has never been definitely established.

Now we are beginning to see unfold the series of different contacts that have been made between ITT and Mr. Kleindienst. But this is just the beginning.

By now the Government was really up to the eleventh hour for filing in the ITT case, but that time was delayed. And when we inquired of Mr. Walsh and Mr. Kleindienst about how that was arranged, we heard about the circumstances which surrounded it, and about how the Solicitor General came down and met with Mr. Kleindienst and Mr. McLaren.

We asked the Solicitor General, and I think it is fair to say that he did not think that it affected the merits of the case whether it was delayed or not. I think it is a fair characterization of his testimony to say that he did not care whether or not the filing was delayed. Mr. McLaren did not believe that it should be delayed, and his testimony indicates that. Yet we found that it was delayed. We wondered why. It was through Mr. Kleindienst that that case was postponed, quite clearly, as the Solicitor General, Mr. Griswold, indicated on page 380:

Sena.tor KENNEDY .... could you repeat for us what you believe to be the reasons for seeking the delay in the filing of the jurisdictional statement?

Mr. GRISWOLD. The basic reason was that the Deputy Attorney Genera.I wanted it.

Just before that, there was a question to Mr. McLaren:

Sena.tor KENNEDY. As I understand it, the new kind of issue or at lea.st the consideration in your outlook was the pa.rt of the letter that suggested that these other agencies of Government were now ta.king a look at this. Do I understand you correctly? And, therefore, you thought that their input ought to be at least considered, since the merits of the case would not be affected by a. delay.

Is that a fair statement? Mr. McLAREN. Senator, I have answered

that three or four times. Sena.tor KENNEDY. Could I just get back? Is

that a fair representation? Mr. McLAREN. No, I do not think it ls, be

cause I answered you before. Sena.tor KENNEDY. Well, then, could you

tell us what additional information you thought you were going to get, coming from the agencies which had not really--

Mr. McLAREN. I answered that before, too. I told you that I do not think there was going to be any information coming, and since I did not think so, I did not particularly care whether there was an extension of time.

Here is the fell ow who is in charge of the Antitrust Division, exasperated saying in effect:

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19731 I ha.ve answered that question. I did not

believe there would any new information coming. We studied this thing to death.

It did not matter to Griswold, who was charged with the decision whether to take the appeal. McLaren had the main responsibility for the case. And McLaren, as Kleindienst later testified, was basically negative about the extension of time. Yet the delay was obtained.

I read further from the hearing: QUESTION. Could I have an answer to that?

Who did ca.re whether there was an extension, if you did not, and Mr. Klein'dienst had not read the letter?

Mr. McLAREN. I guess Judge Walsh cared. QUESTION. And ITT ca.red? Mr. McLAREN. I think that there was not

any reason that we should not have listened to whatever came in.

So here we have additional contacts from ITT. We see at least some action being taken by Mr. Kleindienst on this. Mr. Kleindienst had implied that there had not been any contacts, yet we find Ryan, the contacts with Walsh, the meeting with McLaren and Griswold about seeking the extension of time, and the series of meetings he had with Rohatyn, and there were still other contacts.

I think it is important to get to understand and to get some kind of feeling about why this case was so important to ITT. Mr. Walsh is a very distinguished attorney, who had worked in a high position in the Justice Department. Here are some key phrases from his letter, which is printed in its entirety on page 265.

Looking back at the results of government antitrust cases in the Supereme Court, one must realize that if the government urges an expanded interpretation of the vague language of the Clayton Act, there is a high probability that it will succeed. Indeed, the court has at times adopted a. position more extreme than that urged by the Department.

Here is an attorney requested by ITT saying, "Indeed, the Court has at times adopted a position more extreme than that urged by the Department."

So you get some kind of feeling as to why it was so important that ITT was dramatically concerned with the outcome of this case. Here is an outstanding attorney who said that if the Justice .Department carries forward, they are going to win the case.

It is our understanding that the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers all have some views with respect to the question under consideration.

I wonder how Mr. Walsh knew that? I wonder what he was told about those contacts by other ITT officials? I wonder what they told him, what kind of response they had?

Ordinarily I would have first seen Dick McLaren, but I understand that you as Acting Attorney General, have already been consulted with respect to the ITT problem.

Mr. Walsh had been told that Kleindienst had already been contacted, so instead of going to see Mr. McLaren he took his plea to the nominee. And his plea turned out to be successful.

In any event, we can see that Mr. Kleindienst was very much involved in the settlement during the course of this matter, despite protestations to the contrary.

Mr. Kleindienst was to continue his secret meetings with Rohatyn and was also to have at least three conversations with Mr. Flanigan about ITT's antitrust settlement. I will elaborate on these at a later occasion.

In light of what I have said today, I believe that it is plain that the Senate should not act prematurely on the nomination of Mr. Kleindienst. The cloud over his nomination has not been removed, and the nominee's supporters saying time and again that there is no cloud, simply has not made it magically disappear. We must continue to keep in mind the conclusion of the "Separate views" of Senators BAYH, TuNNEY, and myself on the nomination:

The Senate must decide whether or not it is going to be a party to a whitewash. There is much that is wrong in the evidence received so far. There is much evidence not yet received. There is no justification for the Senate's failing to obtain it.

The Senate is being asked to provide advice and consent on the nomination of Richard Kleindienst. He is the one who was ultimately responsible for the case around which the pending charges revolve, so that, to the extent that case remains under a cloud, so does he. Moreover, we now know that beyond ultimate responsibility for the case, he had intimate connections with it, so the need for a complete inquiry and clearance is increased.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.



Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BROCK). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, in February, following 2 days of hearings, the Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported by a vote of 13 to 0 the nomination of Richard G. Kleindienst to be Attorney General of the United States. Because of certain allegations contained in the February 29 and March 1 columns of Mr. Jack Anderson, Richard G. Kleindienst requested of the committee an opportunity to rebut these charges. Repeatedly during these hearings the nominee showed an uncommon willingness and candor in presenting his case to the committee.

Following this initial request, the committee held 22 days of hearings, filing over 1, 700 pages of testimony and related documents in two volumes. It was, in my memory, an alltime record for any confirmation hearing.

Unfortunately, it was also an all-time record for irrelevancy. Most of the testimony and submitted documents had no relationship to the central issue-the fitness of Richard G. Kleindienst to be At-

torney General of the United States. The committee report stated:

The Committee is a.ware that issues unrelated to the fitness of Mr. Kleindienst to be Attorney General held the public attention during much of the hearings. Sensational charges involving the highest government officials, foreign governments, and multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporations frequently blurred the basic issue before the Committee-the qualification of Richard G. Kleindienst. (Page 4, Committee Report)

I could not agree more. It was the best of times; it was the worst of times-and it was often silly times. For example, I cite the following:

I might also say, Mr. Chairman, that I want the record to show that while the Senator from Massachusetts was asking Mr. Kleindienst what Judge McLaren thought, that the Judge was sitting to the immediate right of the witness. Apparently the best evidence rule is also meaningless. (Page 336)

At best it was a study of a new phenomenon in the law and in the Senatehearsay evidence in the f ourt!:l. degree:

Even so, a number of very . senous questions were raised as to the issue of the nominee's fitness.

First. Was the nominee a party to the alleged arrangement to settle the pending ITT antitrust cas_es in return .for ,a contribution to the city of San Diego s convention and tourist bureau?

Absolutely nowhere in the 1,700 pages of testimony is there any indication tI?-at Richard G. Kleindienst attempted to n:ifluence the settlement of these cases m return for any :financial contribution to anyone, including the San Diego convention and tourist bureau.

Senator HART, who is often characte~ized as one of the most objective and fair persons in the Congress, said after sitting through these 22 day&-

But on the basis of this record, I find no basis on which to conclude that the nominee was involved in, or a.ware of, any effort to link the convention and the settlement. (Page 25, Committee Report)

The testimony presented was unequivocal Richard G. Kleindienst made no deai. The record is clear on this point-Richard Kleindienst was not a party to any alleged arrangement.

Was the nominee ever aware of the ITT commitment to the San Diego Convention and Tourist Bureau before the settlement of the ITT antitrust cases?

The nominee was questioned extensively on his knowledge of the contribution of the Sheraton Corp.-an ITT subsidiary-to the San Diego community organization:

Senator BAYH. When did you first find out about this offer?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. About the San Diego convention?

Sena.tor BAYH. Yes. Mr. KLEINDIENST. It was some time in De

cember of 1971; my recollection serves me that it was when I was coincidentally in San Diego at a regional meeting of U.S. attorneys that the first public reference to this alleged tie-in was ever revealed. But it was not until December.

Senator BAYH. Nobody brought this matter to your attention in the latter pa.rt of November when it appeared in the Washington Star?

Mr. KLEINDEINST. Well, whenever that first became public, Senator Ba.yh. But my recol-

19732 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 5, 1972 lection is that it was around December 3 when I was in San Diego. But whenever it appeared in the public press, that is the first time I ever heard about it.

Senator BAYH. And nobody brought this matter to your attention when Congressman Wilson from San Diego in August released the first press report out there?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. No sir; I was out of the city in the month of August with my family on a vacation.

Senator BAYH. You really have no knowledge of such a thing?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Absolutely no knowledge of any kind whatsoever from any person at anytime.

Senator BAYH. Thank you. Until, I think you said, early in December.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Well , I am just trying to use a recollection, Senator.

Senator BAYH. Well, first of December, last of November. Thank you, Mr. Kleindienst. (Page 157-8)

Under oath in response to Senator EASTLAND, he said:

Now, Mr. Chairman, based upon the statements that have been made I would like to conclude my remarks by saying categorically and specifically that at no time, until some time in December 1971 , did I have any knowledge of any kind, direct or indirect, that the ITT Corp. was being asked to make any kind of contribution to the city of San Diego or to the Republican Party with respect to the prospective national convention of the Republican Party in San Diego. I never talked to a person on the face of this earth about any aspect of the San Diego Republican National Convention or the I.T. & T. Corp. I never talked to Mr. Mitchell a.bout any aspect of this case. He never mentioned. any aspect of this case, and there is not a person in this world who, if they testify truthfully, can come forward and say either that I had knowledge of anything going on with respect to the San Diego convention and the I.T. & T. Corp. or that in any way, under any circumstances, I had anything whatsoever to do With anything that the Department of Justice, the Government of the United States, myself, or Judge McLaren, in connection with these matters. (Page 100)

Answering Senator HRUSKA on the same question, he said:

Sena.tor Hruska, subject to the penalty of perjury, I never heard of the San Diego ITT Republican Convention matter until the latter part of November or some time in the first part of December. I heard about that in the press. (Page 176)

A second time, Senator HART said. And, on the record before us, I do not be

lieve there is any substantial evidence upon which to conclude that Mr. Kleindienst was aware of, let alone involved in, any effort to link the settlement to ITT convention commitment. (Page, 19, Committee Report)

At this point it should be noted that a final agreement on the settlement of the cases was reached on July 31, 1971. The settlements were formally presented to the district courts of Connecticut and the Northern District Court of lliinois on August 31, 1971. The final consent decrees were entered on the ITT Canteen, Grinell, and Hartford Fire Insurance cases on September 24, 1971. I think it is important to remember those dates.

Second. Did the nominee act improperly in his limited participation in the settlement of the ITT antitrust cases?

Although there were n u m e r o u s charges questioning his conduct and hinting at clandestine deals, the record

i,

shows no evidence of any misconduct on the part of the nominee. To the contrary, there is unshakeable testimony by the nominee unequivocally denying any impropriety in the ITT cases. Under oath he stated:

The nature of the allegations was so preposterous, so unrelated to any experience that I had ever had in the Department of Justice, and yet if they connived they could only have done it through me because I was the Acting Attorney General in that case.

To my knowledge, and I think I said on the first day that there would not be a living human being on the face of this earth that would come forward before this committee and testify truthfully under oath that either I knew anything about those negotiations for that convention, that anybody ever mentioned them to me or that they ever had anything to do with this case. To me that was the issue with which this committee and I, my Department, this administration, were confronted.

I think that to the extent that a person under those circumstances can truthfully and honestly set forth what he did and why he did it, to ask a U.S. district judge to come on 1 day's notice and be with him without any prearrangement or working out your testimony together, to ask an officer of this corporation to likeWise be here and never talk to him about his testimony, and have the three of them try to tell you a story of what happened, in my opinion, at least was an honest, sincere, conscious effort to indicate to the U.S. Senate that whatever was contained by inference, innuendo, or otherwise in that memorandum was false. I believe that we have done that. (Page 1724)

Bid the nominee lie when he said that the ITT merger negotiations were "negotiated exclusively" by Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division?

On December 13, 1971, in response to a letter by Lawrence F. O'Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the nominee said that--

The settlement between the Department of Justice and ITT was handled and negotia.ted exclusively by Assistant Attorney General R. W. McLaren ....

In regard to his working relationship with the now Federal District Judge McLaren on the ITT case, he replied that--

The settlement between the Department of Justice and ITI' was handled and negotiated exclusively by Assistant Attorney General Richard W. McLaren, who is in Europe a.t the present time and is not expected to return until the evening of December 20, 1971 . . • Mr. McLaren kept me generally advised as to the course of negotiations with ITT and with his reasons for endeavoring to work out a settlement with it. Prior to the final conclusion of these settlement negotiations and the effectuation of a settlement agreement between the Department of Justice and ITT, Mr. McLaren made his final recommendation in the matter to me, with which I concurred. Again, I wlll leave it to Mr. McLaren to more specifically discuss the details of and reasons for that settlement on behalf of the Department of Justice. (Page 120)

Subsequently allegations were made that Deputy Attorney General Kleindienst did in fact negotiate the settlement. To buttress these claims, a series of contacts with various representatives of ITT, such as Felix Rohatyn, an ITT director, were brought up.

Mr. KLErNDIENST. I think in the context of the rather insinuating and inflammatory rhetoric of Chairman O'Brien in his letter, and based upon the limited involvement I

had. With Mr. Rohatyn, that is to say, to set up a meeting by which his company could present to the antitrust staff and other people in the Government, the financial-economic crisis argument is, in my opinion, completely removed from any suggestion that I negotiated or handled the settlement in the ITT Hartford matter and the CanteenGrinnell matters.

I think, as the testimony of Mr. McLaren pointed out, my testimony and that of Mr. Rohatyn I did not inject myself in those settlement negotiations at all. And even twice, when Mr. Rohatyn came to my office after they commenced to complain about the hard-headed, rigid posture of Mr. McLaren, I told him that I wouldn't inject myself in those negotiations and that his company's lawyers and Mr. McLaren and his staff were to work those negotiations out. (Page 155)

All of the testimony characterizes the nominee's position as "passive," with Assistant Attorney General McLaren and other Justice Department antitrust lawyers participating on behalf of the Department. During the ITT presentation in Judge McLaren's office on April 29, 1971, Judge McLaren ran the meeting. In this and all other contacts with Mr. Rohatyn, the nominee made no recommendations or proposals. During later attempted contacts by Rohatyn, Acting Attorney General Kleindienst said that Judge McLaren was handling the negotiations and that he would not interef ere.

In his testimony, Judge McLaren emphasized that he and his staff negotiated the settlement. I read from his testimony:

Judge McLAREN. In conclusion, 1 want to emphasize that the decision to enter into settlement negotiations with ITI' was my own personal decision; I was not pressured to reach this decision. Furthermore, the plan of settlement was devised, and the final terms were negotiated by me with the ad.vice of other members of the Antitrust Division, and by no one else. (Page 113)

The CHAIRMAN. Did I understand you to say that you were, you and your staff were solely responsible for this settlement?

Mr. McLAREN. That is my testimony, yes, sir. ()

The facts are: First, the Rohatyn presentation was

attended by career lawyers of the Antitrust Division, Messrs. Mahaffie, Hummel, and Carlson.

Second, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Widmar, appointed as Judge McLaren's delegates to negotiate, consulted with Mr. Poole concerning Canteen and with I. Curtis Jernigan regarding antiacquisition provisions.

Third, career antitrust lawyers, Messrs. Hummel, Carlson, and Widmar, put together the divestiture package which was phoned to Mr. Rohatyn.

Mr. President, I might say that the tenure of these lawyers go way back to the 1940's and represents some 100 years of expertise in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.

Fourth. Many Stagg negotiations and meetings were held and many more phone calls were conducted between antitrust staffers and rrr representatives, with Mr. Widmar and Mr. Carlson keeping Messrs. Poole, Hummel, Mahaffie, and McClaren posted as to progress.

Fifth. ITT counsel produced facts and statistics almost daily during negotiations, as requested by Mr. Carlson and

June 5, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 19733 Mr. Widmar, much of it by telephone or hand-carried messenger.

Furthermore, the judge testified that no one, including Deputy Attorney General Kleindienst, attempted to influence his actions or decisions. It is extremely pertinent at this point to recount the conditions under which Judge Mcclaren assumed his position as chief architect of the administration's antitrust policies. I read from the testimony:

The CHAmMAN. Now did Mr. Kleindienst, Mr. Mitchell or anyone else attempt to in

- fl.uence your decision in the settlement? Mr. McLAREN. The direct answer to your

question is "No, they did not." I would like to add this: when I was first interviewed by Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Kleindienst in the Pierre Hotel in December of 1968 with regard to coming down here, I had an understanding with them when they offered me a job. I made three conditions: that we would have a vigorous antitrust program; that we would follow my beliefs with regard to what the Supreme Court cases said on conglomerate mergers, and the restructuring of the industry that I thought was coming about in an almost idiotic way; and third, that we would decide all matters on the merits, there would be no political decision.

The CHAIRMAN. Now is that correct in this case?

Mr. McLAREN. That is correct in this case, absolutely. I might add that the Attorney General and Mr. Kleindienst lived up to their commitment. (Pages 116-17)

Second. Was it improper for the nominee to meet with a director of I'IT while the antitrust cases were still pending?

This question is, of course, closely linked with the previous one. However, because of the nature of some allegations that the nominee held "secret meetings" with an I'IT director, it should be more fully explored. It is a serious matter '\?hen an Acting Attorney General responsible under law for the ultimate decision in antitrust matters cannot meet with members of the publicwhoever they are-in order that their case may be heard. Although the impression was given to the public that here was something sinister, improper, or even illegal about these meetings, this is a ~alsehood that must be exposed. Even the Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH), who holds no brief for Richard Kleindienst, I am sure, said:

You have a responsibility to listen, to be sure, and I hope whoever is Attorney General , and when you are Attorney General, you will continue to act that way.

The Senator from Indiana later stated: I can't get uptight over an Attorney Gen

eral of the United States, whether he is Republican or Democrat, talking to a man who is an investment counselor, who happens to be on the board of directors of a corporation in the process of a suit with the government. (Page 431)

The Senator from North Carolina (Mr. ERVIN) the Senate's distinguished constitutional scholar, forcefully stated that a Government official has a constiutional duty to see people with problems because of their right of redress of grievances. Remembering his own legal career, he said:

And when I practiced law, and I thoug·ht that the Internal Revenue Service, or the Department of Justice, was about to do an

injustice to one of my clients, and I felt like that I had some facts that would show that it was an injustice, it was my duty to my clients to go and lay those facts before the subject officials.

Furthermore, these meetings were not secret. They were duly scheduled on the nominee's appointment book like other meetings. These records were available to the committee. As previously noted, career attorneys from the Department's antitrust division were present.

Third. Did the nominee mislead the committee in regard to contracts with the White House?

Apparently the issue as it was pursued in the hearings involves the ability of an individual to totally recall conversations of a year or more ago. Mr. Kleindienst testified that during an ordinary day he had 50 to 60 telephone calls from Congressmen, government officials, and others who have some interest in the actions cf the Department of Justice.

Early in the hearings the nominee was asked if he had talked to anyone at the White House about the ITT cases. He replied:

You asked me did I discuss the ITT matter with the White House. I do not recollect doing so. But I am on the telephone almost constantly, throughout a day or week, with somebody on the White House staff or another with respect to some aspect of the operation of the Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I emphasize the following:

For me to say that no one in the White House with whom I might have talked would not have raised ITT question, I would not be prepared to say that. (Emphasis added)

Then, he proceeded to say: So far as discussing with anybody on the

staff of the White House what I was doing, what do you think I ought to do, what do you feel about it, what are your recommendations-no.

He repeatedly qualified his answers on this point. In spite of this, there are those who would deny him confirmation on the basis of White House aide Peter Flanigan's acknowledgment to the committee that he had three casual contacts with the nominee pending the final resolution of the ITT cases. Acting Attorney General Kleindienst admitted that he was not up to the herculean task of recalling conversations that were not of a substantive nature, but were, in fact, casual or "ministerial."

Peter Flanigan made three contacts with the nominee in regard to ITT and none of them could be classified as substantive or of the nature that the nominee would specifically recall them. In his first contact, he passed on to the nominee a comment by Felix Rohatyn while discussing a totally unrelated matter. The second conversation was a call to inform the deputy attorney general that a financial report on the ITT cases, requested by Judge McLaren, was ready for delivery. The nominee replied that it should be held for McLaren's return from Europe. The third contact as recounted by Mr. Flanigan went as follows:

My further recollection ls that when, again because of the report's market sensitivity, I personally delivered it to Mr. McLaren a

few days after his return· on June 7, 1971, Mr. Kleindienst was with him. Mr. McLaren received both the report and the copy of the ITT analysis which Mr. McLaren had given to me and which Mr. Ramsden had returned to me. As I recall, there was no discussion concerning the report other than perfunctory remarks regarding its delivery by me and expressions of appreciation for rendering the assistance requested by Mr. McLaren. I initiated the meeting in order to deliver the report and no other persons participated in the meeting or heard the comments.

Looking at both the nature of these passing "contacts" and the nominee's repeated qualification that he "might have" talked to the White House, it is clear that Mr. Kleindienst did not mislead the committee on this point. He honestly did not remember these very brief conversations. We must look at his actions, and recollections thereof, in the context of a total day, week, month, and year in the life of an extremely busy deputy attorney general. Remember, the nominee testified that the ITT matters consumed a total of 5 hours of his time. Are we attempting to hold him to a standard that none of us could pass?

Fourth. Was the approval of the settlement of the ITT cases by the nominee in his capacity as Acting Attorney General grounds for denying his confirmation?

While few have said that on this issue alone Richard G. Kleindienst's nomination must be rejected, it is central to the entire proceedings.

The answer to this question has to be an unequivocal no. ·while lawYers may disagree as to the fine points, uncontradicted testimony clearly shows that the Department of Justice under Acting Attorney General Kleindienst was responsible for requiring the largest antitrust divestiture-one billion dollars-in the history of the Republic. Unfortunately, the following facts have been lost on the public at large. But, for my colleagues who must judge the nominee's fitness, it can and should become a measure of his fitness.

Under the three consent judgments, the International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. is required within 2 years to divest Canteen Corp. and the Fire ,Protection Division of Grinnell Corp. and within 3 years to divest either Hartford or Avis Rent-A-Car, ITT, Levitt & Sons, Inc., ITT Hamilton Life Insurance Co. aud ITT Life Insurance Co. of New York.

In addition, ITT is prohibited from acquiring any domestic firm with assets of over $100 million and from acquiring leading firms in concentrated U.S. markets, without the approval of the Department or the court. Under the agreement, a leading firm is defined as one with total annual sales of over $25 million and holding 15 percent of any market in which total annual sales exceed $100 million. A concentrated market is de· · fined as one in which the top four companies account for over 50 percent of total sales.

It is barred from acquiring any substantial interest in any domestic automatic sprinkler company or any domestic insurance company with insurance assets exceeding $10 million.


The agreement also prohibits the practice of reciprocity-using purchasing power to promote sales-by ITT and all of its subsidiary companies.

Senator HART, chairman of the Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee, said as to the deterrent eiiect of the consent decrees:

The prospect of a serious suit and substantial relief will not be dismissed lightly by many prospective acquisitors.

Contrary to popular impressions, the Department in settling this historic an titrust conglomerate merger did not abandon its prosecution. In his testimony before the committee, the Solicitor General of the United States-whose responsibility it is to appeal Government cases to the Supreme Court--Erwin N. Griswold said:

We didn't abandon prosecution of three anti-trust suits. By the settlement, we won two of the anti-trust suits.

I might suggest that the Solicitor General of the United States is an appointee of long standing. He did not secure his appointment under this administration, but rather under the administration of President Johnson.

Mr. Griswold, a former dean of the Harvard Law School, and one of the most respected legal scholars in the country, further stated that the settlement won what was already lost in the Federal district courts. I wish to repeat that. He stated: The settlement won what was already lost in the Federal district courts.

This morning's New York Times says, "Before the Justice Department agreed to drop prosecution of the three suits. "Well, that is like saying that you agree to drop prosecution of a criminal case because the defendant pleaded guilty. There were three suits, and we substantially won two of them. And having won the two of them, we didn't have any ground whatever for winning the third one. And this was in fact a very substantial victory for the government, and the first one in the whole conglomerate field, probably setting a. great precedent in the area, and it seems to me most misleading to keep telling the public that the government dropped three suits in the antitrust field. It didn't. (Page 386)

While nonlawyers may not fully appreciate his active defense of the settlement, he judged that the Department would lose on all three cases if ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court.

We felt that it would be very difficult to win it, not only because the law with respect to conglomerate mergers is far from clear, but also because in this particular case there had been sharp conflict in the evidence before the district judge, the district judge had found all the facts against us and all experience shows that it is extremely difficult to win an antitrust case or another type of case in the Supreme Court when you have to attack the findings of fact. (Page 372)

My distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), who has criticized the ITT settlement, said of Dean Griswold in 1967 during his nomination hearings, when he introduced him to the committee:

Dean Griswold has, in the world of law, and learning, become a legend in his own time. He has earned a position of respect and renown, for his abllity as an attorney, scholar, teacher and educational leader as

well as a public spirited citizen and a family man . . . His qualifications are obvious and outstanding. He not only served for five years as a member of the very office he will soon head, but has also explored and illuminated the far reaches of the most difficult legal subjects from taxes to confiict of laws, and from trusts to the Bill of Rights.

I can only say to that, how true. Fifth. Did the nominee act improperly

in the handling of the investigation of U.S. Attorney Harry Steward?

Harry Steward, a U.S. attorney for the southern district of California, was charged by members of a special strike force from the Justice Department operating in San Diego of misconduct. Pursuant to the normal departmental processes, the general crimes section recommended an FBI administrative investigation of Mr. Steward. However, the then Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division recommended summoning the U.S. attorney to Washington. On November 17, 1970, the nominee met with U.S. Attorney Steward and subsequently ordered the FBI inquiry which was completed in a routine manner. The case was later reviewed by career attorneys in the Criminal Division. It was concluded that although Mr. Steward's conduct in regard to his handling of an investigation of a close friend, a Mr. Frank Thornton, was highly improper, he should not be dismissed.

Henry Peterson, now Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division and a career justice and FBI man since 194 7, told the committee that it "was my conclusion that a dismissal of a U.S. attorney under these circumstances would not only have been unwarranted but also grossly unfair, and I so advised Deputy Attorney General Kleindienst."

In his testimony before the committee Assistant Attorney General Peterson told of his basis for the foregoing conclusion:

A review of the record shows that Harry Steward throughout the entire administrative inquiry, was open and candid with both the FBI and other departmental officials. More importantly, he entered into frank contemporaneous discussions with the individuals immediately involved in the investigation taking place. In short, there was no subterfuge which was observable by us on the part of Steward throughout these entire events.

Furthermore, Steward's actions, contrary to some assertions, did not thwart the investigation of any criminal violations. Admittedly, Steward did talk to Frank Thornton, in lieu of subpoening him before the special grand jury, but only after the subpoena had been issued without Steward's knowledge and at a time when he was out of his office. (Page 973).

Subsequently, the nominee held a meeting with Mr. Steward, Mr. Wegliananother career attorney in the criminal division-and Henry Peterson. Based on the report of these career staff attorneys-which also included a highly favorable recommendation by Johnnie Walters, assistant attorney general in the tax division-the nominee also con:. eluded that dismissal was not called for, and issued a press release expressing full confidence in Mr. Steward.

The charge has been made now that the nominee should not have issued such

a statement if in fact Steward's conduct was improper. Yet this must be weighed against his continuing eiiectiveness as a U.S. attorney if a statement of nonsupport was issued.

Mr. Steward was severely reprimanded by the nominee. I should like to quote from a couple of statements Mr. Steward made in answer to questions asked by the distinguished Senator from California (Mr. TuNNEY) :

Mr. STEWARD. No, I don't think that was it. He is a very forceful man, and I don't remember exactly how he said it but--

Senator TuNNEY. Could you just as best you can recall--

Mr. STEWARD. "Steward, for Christ sakes if a friend is involved get the hell out of it; stay out of it," words to that general effect. When Dick Kleindienst says something he only says it once and you pay attention. (Page 1447)

But if the decision to retain him was made this "in-house" reproach could not have been publicized without the possibility of destroying his future eiiectiveness. Because the pending and important Allessio 1 trial in which Steward was a major participant, it was even more important that this not be disclosed.

So I can say that after sitting through the hearing and reviewing the record, I believe that all of the issues that were raised directly bearing on the fitness of the nominee have been resolved in his favor.

Accordingly, I urge the Senate to confirm the nomination of Richard G. Kleindienst to be Attorney General of the United States.

I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll. The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. it is so ordered.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to support the nomination of

1 On November 5, 1969 a Special Federal Grand Jury was convened in the Southern District of California for the purpose of looking into organized crime in San Diego. The Special Grand Jury, on April 7, 1970, returned a 31 count indictment charging John and Angelo Allesio and four others with various qriminal tax violations, including violations of 18 USC 371, 26 U.S.C. 7201 and 26 USC 7206 (2). In November of 1970 visiting Judge Bruce Thompson of the District of Nevada set March 1, 1971 as the trial date (this was eleven months after the indictment). The United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, Harry Steward was the principal government prosecutor and was assisted by two attorneys from the Tax Division, Criminal Section of the Department of Justice. The Allesio Case, which was considered to be one of the largest and most important criminal cases in the history of the Southern District, commenced on March 1, 1971 where Steward presented the government's opening statement. On March 10, after the introduction of over 4,000 exhibits on behalf of the government, John and Angelo Allesio withdrew their pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of guilty. Judge Thompson commended U.S. Attorney Steward and his assistants on the thoroughness of the government's preparation.

June 5, 1.972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19735 Richard G. Kleindienst for the office of Attorney General. That nomination is a most logical promotion for Richard Kleindienst because of his experience and proven abilities.

He has vast experience with law. In 20 years of general practice, he has engaged in trial, administrative practices, and appellate work, and has been admitted to practice before seven courts ranging from the district courts of Arizona to the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a member of the American Bar Association and president-elect of the Federal Bar Association.

In addition to experience with law, Richard Kleindienst is experienced in government and administration. He was a member of the Arizona Legislature and has been involved in government since 1953. He has been an officer or director of many organizations.

But the most important experience that Richard Kleindienst has involves the duties of the very office for which he is nominated. Since his nomination was approved by this body in 1969, as Deputy Attorney General, he has assisted in directing the Department of Justice. In addition to his specialized knowledge, the Judiciary Committee thought Richard Kleindienst evidenced "an appreciation of the responsibilities which every Attorney General must bear." The committee was satisfied that the nominee possessed the qualifications for that office.

Although he has all the necessary experience to do a fine job, Richard Kleindienst has one even more important qualification-that of his own personal character. He is a man well-liked and respected by those who have known him closely. He has been a man involvednot only just in his work-but also in many diversified interests and many good causes such as Goodwill Industries and the American Heart Association. He is deeply religious and well educated. I am pleased to say that he is a personal friend of mine.

Recently, hearings were resumed on Richard Kleindienst's nomination, at his request, to prove that he has not been guilty of any misconduct while serving as Deputy Attorney General; and these hearings have proven exactly that.

Richard Kleindienst has shown that he is a man with nothing to hide. After the further investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that he acted properly in his conduct in the settlement of the ITT cases. In all of the hearings, no proof has appeared of any indiscretion on the part of the Deputy Attorney General.

Richard Kleindienst, I am pleased to observe, is conservative, a man well able to carry forward the President's policies.

He knows the office, he appreciates the responsibilities, and he has the ability and character to meet those responsibilities.

Therefore, Mr. President, my conclusion is that this is a logical promotion for Richard Kleindienst, and he is the logical choice to be the next U.S. Attorney General.

I intend to vote for the nomination of Richard G. Kleindienst, and I strongly urge all Senators to vote to confirm his nomination.

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unani

mous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.


ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT FROM CLOSE OF BUSINESS TOMORROW UNTIL 11 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. I ask unani-

mous consent that when the Senate completes its business tomorrow it stand in adjournment until 11 a.m. on Wednesday.


PROGRAM Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

the Senate will convene at 12 o'clock noon tomorrow. After the two leaders have been recognized under the standing order, the distinguished senior Senator from New York (Mr. JAVITS) will be recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes, after which there will be a period for the transaction of routine morning business of not to exceed 30 minutes, with statements therein limited to 3 minutes, all of which will be as in legislative session.

At the conclusion of the transaction of routine morning business, the Senate will resume its consideration in executive session, of the nomination of Mr. Richard G. Kleindient for the office of Attorney General of the United States.

No rollcall votes are anticipated on tomorrow. It is hoped, however, that an agreement can be reached shortlyhopefully, tomorrow-which will provide for a final disposition of the nomination of Mr. Kleindienst--again, hopefully-by Thursday or certainly no later than Friday of this week. The leadership is working on this matter and is attempting to come to some understanding, and perhaps by tomorrow we can do this.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. I yield. Mr. HRUSKA. The debate so far on the

nomination and confirmation of Mr. Kleindienst has been lackadaisical, to say the least. The debate was short on Thursday. We adjourned at 3 :40 p.m. on Friday. It is now not quite 5 o'clock. I do hope that serious considerations and discussions are being held with reference to reaching an agreement for voting on this nomination. Obviously, there is not much interest in pursuing the debate, or there is perhaps an idea that in due time the debate can be extended with greater ease and with less effort if a little time is gained by short days such as this.

It is possible, it is conceivable, that if a delay could be reached beyond Thursday of this week, Friday would be no time to take a vote, Monday would be no time to take a vote, and that would mean virtually 2 weeks of debate, which would be nominal in character and quite superficial and rather scanty.

Would the acting majority leader have

any ideas on that subject, considering the importance of some action soon on this important matter?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I would hope that there would be no intention-and I do not believe there is-to drag out the debate or to carry it into next week.

As I indicated earlier, it is hoped that an agreement could be reached by tomorrow which would provide for the final disposition of this nomination on Thursday or Friday of this week. I have some reason to feel that this will be possible.

I share the sentiment of the able Senator in that regard. Certainly, the leadership on this side of the aisle does not want to see a prolonged debate which would go into next week. I feel that the nominee is entitled to a verdict by the Senate. I think that after a reasonable length of time, during which all sides may present their viewpoints, the Senate ought to reach its verdict. I hope, again, that this can occur before this week end.

Mr. HRUSKA. I do not want to sound premature nor unduly impatient, but it certainly would be in order, unless some evidence to the contrary were presented, that the leadership would think in terms of a little longer debate day, starting, say, at 9 o'clock or 9:30 and continuing to a respectable hour in the evening, so that this very important matter--considered important by some of our colleagues-could really get the threshing that they say it should have.

So far, they do not show much disposition to engage in that type of operation. But I agree with the acting majority leader that perhaps it is a little early to foreclose the possibility of a civilized and courteous and fairly speedy agreement for a vote.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say that the distinguished majority leader and I have discussed with the Senators who are supporting this nomination and with those in particular who are opposing the nomination, the possibility of reaching an agreement. As I say, the majority leader and I are hopeful that we can reach an agreement tomorrow, which will provide for the disposition of this nomination this week.

Mr. HRUSKA. I thank the Senator. Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. I thank the

Senator.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. Mr. President,

if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I move, in accordance with the previous order, that the Senate stand in adjournment until 12 noon tomorrow.

The motion was agreed to; and at 4: 55 p.m., the Senate adjourned in executive session until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 6, 1972, at 12 noon.

NO:MINATIONS Executive nomination received by the

Senate June 5, 1972: DEPARTMENT OF CoMMERCE

Andrew E. Gibson, of New Jersey, to be a.n Assistant Secretary of Commerce, vice Harold B. Scott.

19736 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS June 5, 1972

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS MRS. STEVE TULLER, HERNDON, VA.,

MILITARY WIFE OF THE YEAR

HON. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. OF vmGINIA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Monday, June 5, 1972

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I am pleased to report to Congr.ess and the American public on the selection of the Military Wife of the Year, Mrs. Steve Tuller of Herndon, Va.

We are all aware of the many thousands of military wives who devote unt0ld energies to civic and humanitarian programs while at the same time maintaining their homes and keeping the letters flowing to their husbands. They contribute much to maintaining the excellent morale of our Armed Forces, and all Americans owe them a great debt.

The annual award to the Military Wife of the Year was conceived by Art Linkletter and Wilson Harrell, president of Harrell International, Inc., and sponsored by Alfred J. Stokely, president of Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. The program, originally designed to bring entertainment to the wives and dependents of active-duty military personnel, was expanded to focus attention on the re~arkable work military wives are domg to better community relations between the military and civilian population.

All women's clubs whose memberships are wives of active-duty Armed Forces personnel throughout the world are invited to submit nominations. Through a selection process, the field is then narrowed to five--one representative of each of the five major military branches of the service.

The final judging is done by a panel of distinguished women at a formal dinner in Washington, D.C.

On the evening of May 16, 1972, the panel of judges selected Mrs. Tuller as the Military Wife of the Year 1972.

The Washington Star of May 17 contains an interesting account of the award ceremony, including a report of ~rs. Tuner's many activities and accomplishments.

I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Extensions of Remarks.

There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: AREA WOMAN NAMED MILITARY WIFE OF THE

YEAR

(By Ruth Dean) An area Coast Guard wife who takes re

tarded children and teen-agers fighting drug problems into her home was named Military Wife of the Year last night.

Mrs. Dorothy Ann Tuller, wife of Chief Warrant Officer Steve Tuller, was so overwhelmed when Deputy Secretary of Defense Kenneth Rush announced her name, she had to fight back tea.rs.

And the standing ovation and cheers she got from a Shoreham Hotel banquet audience of Pentagon brass and members of Congress revealed that she was their choice long before the judges' decision concurred.

The pretty brown-haired Coast Guard Wife of the Year held a spray of red roses as headtable guests gave her congratulatory hugs. And in the excitement, the weight of the huge trophy almost threw its giver, Alfred J. Stokely, president of Stokely-Van Ca.mp, to the floor at the podium.

TROPHY RESCUED

But Stokely and the trophy were rescued by Mrs. Tuner's husband, a husky 6-footer who is stationed at the Naval School of Health Ca.re Administration at Bethesda, and shares in his wife's dedicated efforts to help troubled teen-agers.

In the final competition interview with emcee Art Linkletter, it was obv ous that the veteran showman was touched by Mrs. Tuller's accomplishments, as he himself has been in the forefront of fighting the drug problem as the result of personal family tragedy.

Though childless, the Tullers have befriended many children whose fathers were serving in Vietnam or who were abandoned by parents who couldn't cope with the drug problem.

"The drug abuse problem and learning disability, are often related," Mrs. Tuller told Linkletter. "But for this type commitment you have to be available. That's why we live right in the center of a school district."

In introducing Mrs. Tuller, Linkletter also revealed she is a licensed pilot and Powderpuff Derby contestant as well as Civil Air Patrol volunteer, bathing suit designer, photographer and ham radio operator.

In congratulating her, he said, "I'm glad you have 16 airplanes to fly because you'll be going off in all directions" to visit military installations all over the United States in the new role.

FIVE FINALISTS

Mrs. Tuller succeeds Mrs. Jeannette M. Squires, wife of Navy Personnelman l/C James M. Squires, who won the title last year.

Mrs. Tuller was one of five finalists from the five Inilitary services, each of whom was given a "Mili" award.

They were chosen from thousands of entrants in the contest annually sponsored as a. public service by Stokely-Van Camp in cooperation with the Defense Department, and produced by Harrell International, a worldwide Inilitary marketing company.

Guests included Secretary of Labor James D. Hodgson, whose wife was one of the judges selected by the General Federation of Woman's Clubs. Other judges were Mrs. William D. Ruckelshaus, Mrs. Elizabeth Carpenter, Mrs. Edward L. R. Elson and Mrs. Gwendolyn Cafritz.

FOR PROGRESS IN SPACE-AMERICA INDEBTED TO DR. VON BRAUN

HON. JOE L. EVINS OF TENNESSEE

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, June 5, 1972 Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker,

the Nashville Banner in a recent editorial praised and applauded the great work of Dr. Wernher von Braun as a leader in space exploration by the United States on the occasion of Dr. von Braun's retirement from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter private industry.

Certainly I wholeheartedly concur in the sentiments expressed in the Banner

editorial-Dr. von Braun is an outstanding scientist and a great American. He was captain of the successful space team that put 10 men on the moon-our American space pioneers.

Dr. von Braun appeared before my Subcommittee on Appropriations many times as an ofiicial of NASA and I recall that at the inception of the space program I asked him if he were confident that a man could be placed on the moon and returned safely to earth. He replied with confidence that he was certain that this could be done, precisely and safely.

Again, 5 years later, just prior to the first landing on the moon, I again propounded this question to Dr. von Braun. He again replied that he was still confident of the success of the mission"well, yes," he said, "if the money holds out."

Funds to finance the moon missions were appropriated and-as we all knowthe program has been successful. America was behind in space when Dr. von Braun entered the space program at NASA-under his scientific guidance America moved ahead in the space program and excelled Russia during the first decade of space exploration.

The first phase is ending and we are now embarking on the second phase. As Dr. von Braun leaves NASA he deserves the plaudits, congratulations and appreciation of the American people for a job well done. His cherished boyhood dream of a voyage to the moon came true-and he made it come true. America owes him a debt of gratitude.

I commend him and wish him well as he enters private industry-Dr. von Braun is one of the great space pioneers of this century and of history.

The editorial follows: FOR PROGRESS lN SPACE-AMERICA INDEBTED TO

DR. VON BRAUN

Because there was-and is-a Dr. Wernher von Braun among those in the United States, who dreamed and worked and built in the pattern of space science, fellow-American a.ssociates on the NASA team has walked on the moon. It is a commonly acknowledged fact; for in the several capacities he has served, as in the decade of his directorship of the Marshall Space Flight Center at Huntsville, his vision and energy, his knowledge in that area of science, were notable factors in the over-all accomplishment.

In the Huntsville assignment he headed the team that developed the world's most powerful rocket, the Saturn V, which propelled Apollo's lunar missions.

Now Dr. Von Braun has retired from NASA to enter private industry, but with the comforting knowledge that the agency's future is reasonably assured. It is particularly gratifying that his new connection ls related to the aerospace field.

America was fortunate that this Germanborn rocket expert elected to come to this country after the war-that by his very nature he preferred a nation and climate of freedom, and that his capabilities have been used not only to advance the science of rocketry for space exploration-inter-planetary travel-but for peace and security.

Not always, but sometimes, there is greater appreciation of and for America. on the part of some newly-privileged to be a part of it

June 5, 1972 than felt by some who have known the privilege for a lifetime.

Almost a score of years ago, Dr. Von Braun received his citizenship. In connection with the naturalization ceremony he spoke words that warrant engraving on the nation's heart:

"I am proud to be a citizen of the United States of America. I must say that we all became Americans in our hearts long ago. I have never regretted the decision to come to this country. As time goes by, I can see even more clearly that it was a moral decision we made that day at Peenemunde. Somehow we sensed that the secret of rocketry should get only into the hands of people who read the Bible." His words were like apples of gold in pictures of silver.

The United States of America reciprocates the affection and faith he expressed. In or out of NASA, he still is on the working end of science in the national interest and humanity's.

NUCLEAR SAFETY IS QUESTIONED IN READER'S DIGEST

HON. MIKE GRAVEL OF ALASKA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES


Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, thanks to the June 1972 issue of the Reader's Digest, a very large group of voters may have learned that they are guinea pigs in a morally grotesque nuclear-power experiment which is permitted by Congress.

An article entitled "Just How Safe Is a Nuclear Power Plant?" explains one important reason why Congress will have to consider a moratorium on the operation of nuclear powerplants. There are several additional reasons which are necessarily omitted from such a br.tef article.

The author, who is one of the Digest's own roving editors, urges the public to insist on nuclear safety before more nuclear powerplants are built and licensed. He refers to the nuclear power moratorium bill, S. 3223, which I introduced on February 23, 1972. ANOTHER SENATOR MOVES FOR A MORATORIUM

I am pleased to learn from friends in Pennsylvania that I am no longer the only Member of the Senate who favors a moratorium. On April 12, 1972, Senator SCHWEIKER wrote to a concerned group in Tunkhannock, Pa., as follows:

I have recently called for a moratorium on the operation of nuclear power plants until the underlying questions concerning possible radiation effects and environmental pollution are satisfactorily answered.

As I noted in my Senate remarks on May 24-page 18815-I expect many other Senators to move into the moratorium position soon.

No one has to choose between nuclear electricity or blackouts.

Energy experts agree that our abundant coal can be converted into a clean and desirable fuel with a minimum of time, effort, and expense. Even General Electric and Westinghouse, who are the two biggest manufacturers of nuclear power systems, have joined the business of gasifying coal. Congress will have to require, however, satisfactory restoration of strip mined land.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS THE EDSEL OF THE ENERGY INDUSTRY

Clean coal technology is not our only alternative to nuclear fission.

We can produce electricity from geothermal hot water, from windmills pulling their energy out of the sky and converting it to hydrogen, from methane produced on algae-farms, from sea-thermal gradients, and from direct sunlight.

Every available alternative is intrinsically more attractive than nuclear fission.

Fission may just be the Edsel of the energy industry.

ARTICLE PLACED IN THE RECORD

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled "Just How Safe Is a Nuclear Power Plant?" be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:

[From the Readers' Digest, June 1972] JUST How SAFE Is A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT?

(By James Nathan Mlller) (The nation is at the point of committing

itself to the atom. But some people--scientists included-are having deep second thoughts.)

In recent months, a debate most of us had considered settled has been revived: How safe are nuclear power plants?

For the last decade, concerned-citizen groups have been loudly bemoaning the building of such plants, arguing that we are setting ourselves up for some kind of holocaust. But much of this protest has come from people who tend to swoon at the mere mention of the word "atomic," and the bulk of scientific testimony has held that the plants are safe. As a result, 23 "nukes" are now in operation, with another hundred scheduled for the next decade. By the end of the century, about 1000 huge atomic plants will be scattered around the country, generating half our electricity.

In other words, we are on the verge of an all-but-irrevocable commitment to nuclear power. Yet now a group of respected scientists claims to have discovered a basic flaw in the plants' safety design-a flaw that "might well expose tens or hundreds of thousands of people to lethal doses of radioactivity." Their claims focus largely on the possibllity of a weird occurrence known as the China Syndrome, a sequence of events that reads like a science-fiction nightmare.

Four basic questions are involved: What are the chances of any one nuclear

plant having a serious accident? Extremely remote--if any safety rules are

observed. To see how remote, I recently visited the Consolidated Edison Company's 965-million-watt Indian Point No. 3 plant, under construction 24 miles north of New York City. The key spot is the 250-foot-high, astrodome-like "containinent structure"-a steel-jacketed security blanket of concrete, 4¥2 feet thick and entered only by double steel doors-that shields the outside world from the four-story-high steel "egg" that sits in the astrodome's center.

The egg is the reactor vessel, the plant's furnace. When loaded with radioactive fuel it will be deadly, but now you can climb down a ladder into its 14-foot-wide interior where eventually the uranium will heat the water that spins the turbines. As you descend, you are confronted by eight great tunnel mouths in the stainless-steel, circular wall surrounding you.

These tunnels--each big enough for a man to crawl into--are the pipes of the fuel coolant system. When the uranium is loaded into the egg-140 tons of little pellets, pa.eked into 12-foot-long metal tubes which are bundled together like thousands of pencils-the system's 100,000 gallons of water will

19737 constantly be rushing out of these tunnels at 30 m.p.h., bubbling up through the pencil bundles to keep them at the proper operating temperature of 600° F. Without this water the uranium would quickly heat up to more than 5000 ° --enough to trigger the China Syndrome.

Could the plant ever lose its crucial cooling water? It's hard to imagine. The pipes are stainless steel 2 ¥2 inches thick. During construction, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) demands that every square inch of this steel be X-rayed or ultrasonically tested for flaws. Once the system starts up, about 100 pressure, temperature and radiation sensors will continuously monitor it-ready, at the first hint of a leak, to "scram" the reactor by snapping control rods into the fuel core and immediately stopping the fission.

What if a pump conks out? A backup emergency pump would automatically trip on; if this one failed, a second one would go on. What if the whole plant lost its power supply? Again, there's a first-backup and then a second-backup diesel generator. And if both of these failed, the reactor would automatically "scram" itself.

Could an external disaster knock out the water supply? Not likely. The steel girders supporting the system are designed to tak~ five times the force of the worst earthquake envisioned for this region, and the big dome of the container is designed to withstand a tornado.

What if, despite all this, a pipe burst? Then a completely independent emergencycooling system-including four tanks filled with 25,000 gallons of water, pressurized by gas-would snap into operation.

Two basic engineering principles are involved here: self-duplicasting "redundancy" backed by super-cautious "conservative design." "In no other engineering activity has overall safety been considered in such detail," says Norman C. Rasmussen, professor of nuclear engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

But couldn't human error cause a failure of the safety systems? Here each side looks at the same set of facts and draiws the opposite conclusions. The AEC and the atomic industry cite their past safety record: only seven fatal reactor accidents in three decades. All were inside reactor buildings; outside, not an injury has been recorded.

The other side says that no one knows whether long-term harm has been caused by radiation leakage to the outside; and that even the inside-the-plant figures mask the truth. If you look behind the conservative design requirements and impressive safety statistics, they say, you'll find lax enforcement by the AEC, sloppy operating practices by the industry-and some very close calls. For example:

Two years ago a worker in a nuclear plant being built near Norfolk, Va., complained to his bosses that joints in critical pipes were being improperly welded. The man was fired, but he kept writing to Congress and the AEC. The resulting investigations uncovered 94 defective welds, plus the violation of a long list of AEC quality-control rules: crucial radiographic inspections were being performed by plant workers instead of trained inspectors; the steel reinforcement of the containment dome was being improperly installed; cable wires from "redundant" systems were not kept separate but were bunched together-so a fire in one could knock them all out.

Critics say the fa.ct that the AEC did not catch such serious violations until an employee complained reveals dangerously lax inspection procedures.• Often it has taken an actual accident to reveal problems.

•As this article goes to press, the AEC has begun investigating a similar complaint--this time by the president of a construction firmof defective reactor installation on Con Ed's Indian Point site.

19738 On June 5, 1970, a defec tive voltage meter

in Commonwealth Edison 's Dresden No. 2 plant near Chicago sen t out an incorrect signal. This led to a two-hour sequence of human and mechanical errors that, says M.I.T. nuclear physicist Henry Kendall, revealed "irresponsibility, incompetence, poor design, inadequate maintenance and defective operating procedures." Safety valves remained open when they should have closed; instrument cables buckled because of crowding in their ducts; a water-level recorder stuck and gave a false reading until someone hit it; faulty instructions in the operating manual were compounded by "incorrect operator action"; and so on.

As the operators fought to keep control of their reactor, they twice violated their own operating rules; at one point they put ten times as much pressure on a crucial venting system as it had been designed for.

"For a period of minutes they actually lost control of the reactor's cooling water," says Professor Kendall, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

Before they regained control, some of this water-and with it a dose of radioactivityescaped into the containment structure. Though three months were required to repair the damage, Commonwealth Edison says: "We did not even consider the shutdown to be an accident." Instead the company calls it an "incident" and points out that the plant's system of multiple safeguards did, in fact, work: no radiation escaped the confines of the plant.

What are the chances of an "incident" escalating to an "accident"? The pro-nuclears say the industry's past safety record proves the effectiveness of the "defense in depth" concept. The antis say that the industry is still in its infancy; soon, with hundreds of big plants all over the country, our luck will inevitably run out somewhere. In the words of nuclear physicist Ralph Lapp, former assistant director of the Argonne National Laboratory, "It appears a certainty we will have a serious nuclear accident before the year 2000."

If all the safeguards did go wrong, what's the worst that could happen? There could never be an atomic explosion; the reactor's uranium pellets are not rich enough, nor are there enough of them, to go bang. But the heat and poisonous radiation they give off are enormous. And here we come to the China Syndrome, the so-called "maximum credible accident."

First, assume there is a defective weld in a cooling-system pipe, and that a series of operating errors subjects it to abnormal pressure. The pipe splits open. Instantaneously, from a dozen different sensors, the order flashes out: Scram. The reactor shuts itself off.

But while the fission thus comes to an immediate stop, the heat in the rods cannot be quickly cut off. As the coolant water loses pressure, it turns to steam which-in about ten seconds of incredible noise and violence-spews out the pipe break into the containment structure. Now the emergency water supply is supposed to flood in and quench the reactor's heat. But suppose (as we shall see, a not untenable assumption) the water can't get inside the egg. Then, with nothing to cool it, the uranium starts heating up at the amazing rate of about 40 degrees a second. In a matter of minutes it hits 5000°, melts the great metal egg-and 200 tons of molten steel and uranium drip to the floor of the containment structure.

So massive and hot is this molten glob that no existing structure can contain it. Thus it melts through the container floor and proceeds straight into the earth-hence, the China Syndrome. It will never get anywhere near China (it will probably stop in a month or so a few hundred feet down). But once the simmering mass has escaped from the concrete structure its poisonous fumes

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS cannot be contained underground. Some percentage will be carried off in the groundwater supply, and some will rise through fissures to the surface, there to be spread by the wind.

What happens then depends on unpredictables. If the fuel is new it's relatively harmless; if it has been burning for a year it has built up the radioactive equivalent of one Hiroshima-size bomb for each million watts of electricity it has produced. Thus, if the accident happened just after a plant had been refueled with new pellets, and if the weather conditions were right, even the reactor's next-door neighbors might escape unscathed. And the other extreme?

The UCS, basing its estimates on AEC figures, says that if 20 percent of the radioactive gas from a 650-million-watt plant were to escape and be wafted away by a 6.5-m.p.h. wind, it could form a cloud that would have lethal effects over an area two miles wide and 75 miles long. How many people might die? Conceivably hundreds of thousands if the disaster hit one of the many reactors being built near big cities.

Proponents of nuclear power say it is the easiest thing in the world to predict such a disaster, and the hardest to prove that it won't happen. They also point out the two very big "ifs" that stand between the public and disaster: if the primary coolant is lost despite all the elaborate safeguards· and if the emergency water supply the~ fails too.

How sure are we, then, that a reactor's emergency cooling systems will work? This depends on how much faith one puts in computer predictions. No emergency system has ever been tested in actual operation. But the AEC and the industry say they have run so many tests on the individual parts working separately that they can put it all together in computer codes--and the computers tell them the systems will work.

The other side says it's extremely irresponsible to base decisions affecting so many lives on untested computer codes. They cite recently revealed documents showing that even top AEC scientists have grave doubts about the codes' accuracy. They also point out that, in one of the most important tests to date the AEC's computer was proved wrong: '

Last year, researchers purposely broke a pipe in an experimental mOdel of a reactor, causing the egg to lose its cooling water. According to the computer, the emergency water was then supposed to flood into the egg. Instead, this water too was blown out the break, leaving the fuel rOds with nothing to cool them. If the same thing had happened in a real reactor, it would have triggered the China Syndrome.

That, then, is the nuclear safety controversy. Certainly it should be resolved before we rush into a national commitment to nuclear electricity that may haunt us for generations. Sen. Mike Gravel (D., Alaska) has submitted a bill that would stop the licensing of more nukes until Congress can hold hearings to consider such questions as these:

Are there practical alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear fission as power sources? Anti-atom people list several that are now merely farout ideas-fusion power, solar energy, chemically fueled power cells, etc. But some leading scientists say that a major national effort could make at least one of them practical by the 1980s. The AEC and the industry agree that fusion power (virtually radiation-free) wlll probably be harnessedin 40 to 50 years. Meanwhile, they say, they have to keep splitting atoms.

Should the AEC control the nuclear power industry? When established in 1947, the AEC was given two basic assignments: to promote atomic development, and to regulate the industry this would help create. Critics insist that the two assignments are mutually contradictory, and they see this as the funda-

June 5, 1972 mental cause of what they consider the AEC's over-optimism on safety. They suggest taking the regulatory function away from the AEC and giving it to people whose professional reputations do not depend on proving the validity of past assurances.

Where to store the poisons? Used nuclear fuel remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and present plans call for storing it all in a Kansas salt mine. Critics say this represents the worst long-range threat of all: first , the growing danger of rail and highway accidents as more and more thousands of poisonous canisters converge on Kansas each year; second, the danger of a leak from the cave a.s thousands of tons of the stuff accumulate.

What do we do right now? Should we go ahead with the present nukes ... or require them to be built underground . . . or ban them near big cities ... or ban them altogether?

The utilities claim that even a temporary delay could be disastrous. They would have to give up years of planning and switch to entirely new programs at a time when we are already short of electricity. Also, atomic fuel is clean, whereas oil and coal foul the air and promote the devastation by strip-mining of hundreds of square miles annually. The environmentalists fighting hardest to stop air pollution and strip mining, says the industry, are the very ones fighting hardest to ban the atom. Is there any source of power that will satisfy these people?

Until recently, this crucial nuclear debate has been carried on by a relatively small number of specialists. Now it's high time to let the country as a whole get in on the action. For the country as a whole will have to live for years with the profoundly important results.

IS IT "HARD TO IMAGINE"?

Mr.GRAVEL. Mr. Miller's article raises several technical questions which deserve further elaboration:

First, is it so "hard to imagine" how a loss-of-coolant accident could actually happen?

Second, is the present emergency core cooling system adequate to cope with all of the possible cooling emergencies? With just some of them? Or with none of them?

Third, is it really possible for catastrophic quantities of radioactivity to escape from the building?

These are matters on which I intend to make additional statements.

The real controversy lies not in technical matters, however, but in ethics. What kinds of gambles are proper, and what kinds are morally rotten?

CORRECTING FALLACIES OF MISLEADING MEDICAL CARE STATISTICS

HON. DURWARD G. HALL OF MISSOURI


Monday, June 5, 1972 Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, statistics are

often used as a vehicle for misleading the populace of this cowitry in order to establish a persuasive argument for a certain cause and position. In an effort to clarify the present state of our "medical care" system in this Nation, in the mass of confusing statistics, Dr. Jack Schreiber, M.D., of Canfield, Ohio, has

June 5, 1972

written an article appearing in a recent issue of the periodical "Private Practice" -separating fact from fiction. It is my hope that I will bring Dr. Schreiber's effort to the attention of many by inserting his article in the RECORD. Dr. Schreiber's article is as follows: THE '"CRISIS": SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION

(By Jack Schreiber, M.D.) I. THE FALLACY OF SELECTED STATISTICS

The present medical care system in the United States is being challenged by numerous individuals and groups who often use misleading statistics to make their case.

Let's take a close look at their allegations: A. Infant mortality

1. Invariably, infant mortality figures are quoted showing United States ranking 13th in the world, behind "progressive" countries such as Sweden, England, The Netherlands, West Germ.any, France, Finland, etc. The source of this information is the United Nations Demographic Yearbook-but the introductory chapter of the section on infant mortality states clearly that infant mortality statistics of different countries should not be used for comparison. The Yearbook points out that there are different standards of measurement. In the United States, for example, a baby is listed as a live birth if there is any sign of life, such as a heart beat in the umbilical cord. Some countries do not record a live birth unless the child takes a breath. Other countries do not list a live birth until the birth has been registered, sometimes weeks after birth.

In the United States; the responsibility of reporting births and deaths is clearly assigned to the physician. In many countries of the world this is a responsibility of the parents or the clergy. With no uniform method of measurement or reporting, comparing infant mortality figures is like comparing apples to potatoes.

United States figures are often compared to Sweden, with the "lowest" infant mortality rate in the world, but (1) the United States has over 200 million people and Sweden has about 8 million; (2) the United States covers over 3.6 million square miles, Sweden covers 170,000 square miles--slightly more than the state of California; (3) the United States has an extremely heterogeneous population, while Sweden has a relatively homogeneous population. The fact is, the United States has a much more complex problem to deal with. To suggest that the U.S. adopt Sweden's health system is like suggesting that New York City adopt the same type of public transportation system as Billings, Montana, because traffic congestion in Billings is much less than in New York City.

2. Even if there were uniform methods to measure these figures, infant mortality statistics are not a good index of the health care delivery system. Infant mortality is a social problem. Such factors as poor housing, poverty, malnutrition, ignorance, and racial ethnic differences are more closely related to infant mortality than such factors as the number of physicians and hospitals, or how medicine is practiced.

3. There are better yardsticks than infant mortality for measuring the status of health in a given nation. In the United States, for example, 70 percent of all deaths in 1969 were related to heart disease, strokes, and cancer. Only 2.2 percent of all deaths were classified as infant mortality.

B. Where the U.S. ranks high According to the United Nations Yearbook,

the United States has a lower mortality rate from tuberculosis, still the world's leading killer among infectious diseases-than any nation except Denmark, the Netherlands, and Australia.


EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS We have better results in preventing death

from pneumonia that half the countries that supposedly outrank us in infant mortality. {Our death rates from pneumonia in 1967 were 28 per 1000, compared to 51 per 1000 in Sweden and 66 per 1000 in England). The United States shows the lowest mortality figure in the world from bronchitis. Our ulcer mortality figures were just one half that of the Socialist countries of the western world. Only Japan and Australia have consistently had better results in cancer mortality figures over the yea.rs.

C. Good health-The real standard The Department of Health, Education and

Welfare recently released figures showing American children, ages 6 through 11, are taller and heavier on the average than any other national population in the world. American children, according to this report, have increased in height by one-half inch each decade for the past 90 years and increased in weight by 15-30 percent. An average 8-year-old American boy today, is almost 4.5 inches taller and 8-19 pounds heavier than his counterpart of 90 years ago. American adults, too, are taller and heavier than they were 90 years ago. If health care here is the worst in the western world, as critics claim, why are Americans fast becoming the largest people on earth?

If one insists on infant mortality comparisons, international comparisons are not particularly useful; the relevant information is whether the United States infant mortality record ls improving or deteriorating. In 1940 the infant mortality rate in the U.S. was 47 per 1000 live births; in 1950, it was 29.2; in 1960 it was 26; in 1969 it was 20.7. In less than 30 years, the rate was cut in half.

II. THE FALLACY THAT MEDICAL CARE IS

TOO EXPENSIVE

A. Comparative costs Those who would restructure the practice

of medicine complain that medical care is too expensive.

Medical care too expensive? Not when compared to the cost of transportation. Each year the average American spends almost twice as much on his automobile as he does on his body. In 1968 the average American spent almost 19 cents of every dollar for food, while spending only 7 cents for medical care. Housing and household operation took 28.5 cents out of every spendable dollar.

Last year, the American people spent almost $10 billion on tobacco and $15.5 billion on alcoholic beverages. Add to this the $33.5 billion spent for recreation, and the question of whether medical care is too expensive becomes, rather, a question of priorities.

The companion charge, heard all too often, is: "You doctors make too much money." Too much, compared to whom? Certainly not compared to some members of the construction industry, who, according to columnist Victor Riesel, will soon be earning $50,000 a year. Many people in construction and manufacturing, being paid time and a half for overtime and double time for nights and Sundays, putting in a 70- or 80-hour week, as many physicians do, could take home more money, after taxes, than many physicians do. And this is to say nothing about education, fringe benefits, retirement plans, etc., which are not available to the private feefor-service practitioner. Do doctors make too much compared to entertainers or professional athletes? We pay someone three or four times as much to play baseball as we pay a family doctor.

In 1970 the Consumer Price Index indicated that physicians' fees rose 7.5 percent over the previous year, while all services rose 8.1 percent. This would indicate that doctors are not out of line when properly compared with persons in other service professions.

19739 B. Not all health costs are medical

Physicians' fees should be separated from the rest of the medical care package. Hospital costs, for example, have risen rapidly in the last decade, chiefly because of the adjustment of wages of underpaid employees. Figures for 1968-69 show that hospital care accounts for 56 percent of the total health bills under public programs, compared to only 13 percent for physicians' fees.

In all of the talk and anguish over rising costs, very few point out that the item most likely to bankrupt a family is not doctor bills, or even hospital bills, but taxes. In 1970, the tax burden for every man, woman, and child in this country was $1,175 {$4,700 per year for a family of four). This is a far cry from the $540 per family of four (on the average) for all medical care; including the cost of hospitalization insurance for the same time period, according to the Bureau of Labor Sta.tistics.

Many persons angered by the high income of doctors in the United States, hold the simplistic view that health care costs could be held down by reducing physicians' incomes. This would have only a minor effect. If the income of the nation's physicians was cut by more than half, the national expenditure for health care would be cut by a paltry eighttenths of one percent.

C. Spreading out the cost Like a payment for the family car, the pay

ment for illness can be spread out. The average American visits his doctor four times per year, and probably goes to a hospital four or five times in his lifetime. These are fairly predictable costs and can be prepaid through the mechanism of health insurance. Almost 90 percent of all Americans have some form of health insurance, testifying to the fact that the majority of us can afford to be protected, just as we protect our homes against fl.re and our automobiles against damage. In the time period from 1956 to 1968, physicians' fees rose 3.7 percent. During that same time period, general wages rose 4.2 percent. Just as most of us can afford entertainment, travel and luxuries, we can afford good medical care, particularly if it is budgeted.

D. Perspective Of course, medical care costs more today

but a patient is in the hospital fewer days because of the increased knowledge and skill of the medical profession. The average laboring man today works fewer hours to pay for a higher grade of medical care than he did 10 years ago.

The average drug prescription today is $3.62-and 80 percent of the drugs purchased today weren't even invented 10 years ago. Several dollars worth of antibiotic capsules today will cure lobar pneumonia, a disease which killed nearly half of all those who contracted it 25 years ago. The cost of tuberculosis treatment 20 years ago was staggering; today, patients can be treated at home with drugs which cost a fraction of what extended hospital care cost in 1950.

E. Foolish spending Everyone has a stake in the cost of overall

health care; the patient has just as much, or perhaps even more responsibility in this matter, than does the physician. Last year, it was estimated that the American people spent at least $2 billion for quackery. This is more than all the money spent on health education. In this modern day, people still have a penchant for the worthless and sometimes harmful, and the often expensive gadget, ranging from the copper bracelet to the rainbow pills for dieting. Untold millions are spent on unnecessary frills which cost the American pulblic far more than all the prescription drugs put together.

Since every accident is potentially avoidable, think of the enormous saving in the total cost of health care in this country if somehow we could do away with the injuries suf-

19740 fered in 1969. In that year, 49 million people were injured-20 million a.t home, 9 million at work, 3.5 million on the highways, and 15 million in nonmoving motor vehicle accidents (while repairing, cleaning or performing work on motor vehicles) . Of the 49 million injuries, 11 million were bed disabling. The total cost of accidents in 1969 was $25 billion. Of this nearly $3 billion was in medical fees and hospital expenses. Every cent of this was preventable.

What about the effects of alcohol? There are 60 million users of alcohol in this country, including an estimated 10 million alcoholics. This is part of the cost of medical care which has been called too expensive. And this too, is preventable. What about the effects of drug abuse? Last year, more young people died in this country from drug aJbuse than all the soldiers killed in Vietnam. This cost, plus the cost to hundreds of thousands of youngsters who are experimentin g with drugs, and who need rehabilitation and medical care, is almost incalculable.

And finally, what about the average adult who overeats, doesn't get enough exercise, smokes too much and doesn't get enough rest. How much does self-abuse add to the cost of medical care in terms of hypertension, diabetes, lung cancer, strokes and hardening of the arteries? It might be safe to say that perhaps half of the total health care bill in this country is preventable.

m. THE AVAILABILITY Ol' MEDICAL CARE

A. The doctor shortage Many, in and out of the medical profes

sion, state that there is a doctor shortage in this country. While there may never be enough doctors in some areas in the United States, this country has more doctors per population than any major European nationone for every 640 citizens. By comparison, Prance has one physician for every 750 people and Great Britain has one for every 1150 citizens. It is true, however, that many physicians have been drawn a.way from patient care by government inducements to research and administrative work. A total of 28,105 doctors a.re in government service (enough to supply three cities the size of Los Angeles).

The charge is frequently made that doctors don't make house calls anymore. According to a ,recent Medical Economics survey, most physicians still make house calls, but on a. limited basis, due chieft.y to the obvious limitations of time, and the opportunity to provide higher quality of ca.re in one's "workshop," rather than at the bedside. Many laymen who stlll measure a. good doctor by the number of house calls continue to live in the nostalgia of a. day long past when the physician had fewer patients to treat and could perform the same service at the bedside as he did in an office with meager equipment.

B. Health facilities But the doctor is only pa.rt of the total

medical ca.re system. What a.bout hospitals? How do we compare with other nations which have the kind of system the politicians plan for this country? In 1969 the United States had 7,144 hospitals, up four percent since 1960. In Great Brita.in, no new hospitals were built from 1948 (the conception of the National Health Service) until 1962. Since then only 10 have been built. Since World War II, 515 new hospitals have been built in just 17 states in the southeastern part of our country, an area comparable in size to the United Kingdom. In most of post-war Europe, hospital construction has been at a standstill because of the lack of funds , in spite of the fact that in Sweden, for example, 20 percent of the Swedish citizens' taxes a.re for "free health ca.re.

Not only do most Europeans have fewer hospitals than Americans, but the ava.11-abllity of hospital beds in Europe is less because of the longer length of stay. In 1969, in the United States, the average

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS length of stay in a non-federal, short-term, general hospital was 8.3 days. In England and Sweden the length of stay was 50 percent longer; in Germany it was 300 percent longer. (One might also compare nonfederal, general hospitals with government hospitals in this country: In 1969 the 8.3 day average for private hospitals compared to 38.8 days for VA hospitals).

Because people stay longer in hospital beds in Europe, and because there are fewer hospitals per population, waiting lists also are a. factor in the availability of hospital ca.re. Most Americans are able to get into a hospital of their choice for elective surgery in two to four weeks. In England the waiting period may stretch to a year. Professor Russell Kirk reports that Britons have to wait up to seven years for treatment of hernias or varicose veins.

C. Free choice Critics of our present health care delivery

system usually fail to point out that if given a choice, citizens prefer to be cared for by their own personal physicians. In Sweden, private doctors are forbidden to treat their own pa,tients in hospitals. Consequently, of the 8,500 doctors in that country, only 1,200 are in private practice (one-fifth of them over 70 years old). Only 30 percent of Swedish citizens are now treated by their own private physicians. A recent survey in England revealed that fewer than 50 percent of NHS patients get to see the specialist of their choice--a.nd 42 percent a.re never even told the name of the specialist they do see.

D. Prepayment plans Many politicians advocate government

support for prepaid, closed panel group practices. One of the selling points to the medical profession is the potential 4-0-hour work week. Currently the average physician in private practice works a 65-hour week (according to Medical Economics). The question therefore is: Would the grouping of physicians in prepaid plans prototype make medical ca.re more available, or would it create just the opposite result? Dr. Roger Egeberg, in a. speech before the Ohio State Medical Association in 1970, stated that if all those physicians now working a. 60- to 70-hour week were suddenly to limit th~ir practices to 4-0-hour weeks, the result would be an immediate reduction equivalent to the loss of 50,000 physicians.

IV. SUMMARY

In summary, politicians and social planners have attempted to justify their demands for national health insurance by claiming: (1) Medical ca.re ls inferior, (2) Medical care is too expensive, and (3) Quality medical care is not available. Ironically, government health programs a.broad, and even within our shores, have historically increased costs, lowered quality, and produced a. relative shortage of personnel and fac111-ties. No government can deliver high-quality, reasonably-priced medical care. Only physicians, pra,cticing in a. stimulating, pluralistic, competitive, free enterprise environment can do that.

FLUCTUATIONS IN WELFARE COSTS IN NEW YORK CITY

HON. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. OF VIRGINIA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, June 5, 1972

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, Newsweek magazine for June 5 contains an interesting analysis of the fluctuations in welfare costs in New York City. The article notes that the number of new welfare recipients in recent years

June 5, 1972

has tended to rise sharply in periods following mayoral elections and to drop dramatically during election campaigns.

The article notes that--Every polltica.1-science major knows that

city welfare budgets are notoriously sensitive to politics--perhaps nowhere more so than in the city of New York, where welfare costs la.st year reached an astonishing $1.2 billion, up fourfold since incumbent Mayor John V. Lindsay first took office six years ago.

I am very much afraid that this is an accurate analysis. It is additional evidence that our present welfare system is subject to great abuse, and additional reason why genuine reform-not expansion, but true reform-is sorely needed. ·

I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed in the Extensions of Remarks.


WELFARE AND POLITICS

Every political-science major knows that city welfare budgets are notoriously sensitive to politics-perhaps nowhere more so than in the city of New York, where welfare costs last year reached an astonishing $1.2 blllion, up fourfold since incumbent Mayor John V. Lindsay first took office six years a.go. Last week, in the course of disagreeing with Lindsay's proposed 1972- 73 budget and some of its welfare proposals, a New York Times editorial presented some fascinating figures on the way the city's welfare rolls rise and fall. In the first months after Lindsay's inauguration in 1966, the editorial noted, new welfare recipients were coming on the rolls at the rate of 2,700. But during the la.st six months of 1966 this figure rose to 11,500 a. month and, by the beginning of 1968, to an incredible 17,700. Then when election time rolled a.round a.gain in 1969, the welfare rolls began to shrink almost magically. By just before election day, the peak rate had been reduced by two-thirds, and only 6,300 were coming on the rolls monthly. This enabled Lindsay to claim in his campaign for reelection that he had begun sharp reductions in the staggering cost of welfare. How long did this state of affairs continue? Not very long. Six months after Lindsay had taken the oath of office a. second time, welfare recipients were once again coming on the rolls at the lively clip of 15,800 a month. - La.st week, faced with City Council demands for stringent cuts in New York's new budget, Lindsay announced he could effect savings of at least $120 million annually, ma.inly by keeping down the number of new welfare recipients and era.eking down on those who get welfare payments illegally.

CORRECTION OF ROLLCALLS

HON. LES ASPIN OF WISCONSIN



Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Speaker, on May 11, I was mistakenly recorded as having voted "yea" on the motion-rollcall No. 144-to instruct the conferees to insist on the House version of the antibusing provisions. I actually voted ''nay" on this vote, which was consistent with my previous vote-rollcall No. 66-on March 8. I believe that we should not have instructed the conferees on a matter as complicated and involved as antibusing legislation.

June 5, 1972

ORGANIZED LABOR'S UMBRELLA KEEPS ITS CRITICS DRY AND COMFORTABLE

HON. RICHARD BOLLING OF MISSOURI



Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, for those who may have forgotten, Mrs. Midge Dector recalls the meaningful contributions of organized labor over the years. Mrs. Deeter, who is managing editor of World magazine, and former managing editor of Harpers magazine, delivered her recollections on the occasion of a Tribute to George Meany, sponsored by the League for Industrial Democracy. Her remarks follow: ORGANIZED LABOR'S UMBRELLA KEEPS ITS

CRITICS DRY AND COMFORTABLE

It it perhaps a breach of proper manners for me to begin my remarks on an occasion of a celebration such as this with a reference to the unhappy-I will not say unredeemeddecade through which this nation has just passed.

These past five years have not been happy years for the labor movement; they cannot have been altogether happy years for you either, Mr. Meany. I presume to make such a judgment, though I am of course a stranger to the daily work and circumstance which must in the end be the true life of the labor movement--indeed, I claim a kind of primary right to make such a judgment--because as an intellectual and a working journalist I have been living for these same years disquietingly close (one might say in the very heartlands) Of the source of that unhappiness. I mean, of course, the question of the place of the labor movement in fashionable political opinion-and most particularly, and particularly unhappily, in fashionable advanced liberal opinion. Those who had once been labor's most natural allies, namely the reformist intellectuals and the seemingly most vocal of my colleagues in the liberal press, had abandoned the labor movement for a rapid succession of self-styled and, alas, infinitely more romantic proletariats: glamorous swashbucklers among the heralds of racial revolution; students; women.

I need not go through the whole sodden history here. What is important to note is that beneath the particular details of the ever-lengthening indictment of labor being brought by its erstwhile and now so-fickle allies among the intellectuals and liberal journalists ran a single unbroken and unspoken thread of attitude. The labor movement was being charged with having had the bad taste and graceless temerity to achieve a wholesome number of its purposes. The success of the labor movement--that very success it would have been so much more appropriate for me simply to celebrate this afternoon-in having established its nowinalienable right to live and grow- and pursue the ordinary daily interests of its constituency is what, I am afraid, has brought about the alienation of our noisy intelligentsia from this movement.

There are, no doubt, several reasons for this. One might point to the spiritual quirk among so many intellectuals by which they are enslaved to the love of those who cannot live and grow and recognize the simple outlines of their own best interest but rather must continue to suffer in futile and grandiose hopelessness. One might suggest of such intellectuals and leftist journalists that they tend to a romantically brutal disdain for the terms and limitations of everyday existenceincluding, I might add, even their own.

In essence, though, I think the most im-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS portant account of this recent alienation is the simplest: that is, that in the success of the labor movement lies the indispensable guarantee of the success of the American social order itself. A weak labor movement, embodying and symbolizing the inabillty of American institutions and social processes to accommodate- the basic needs of the majority of its citizenry-such a weak labor movement could have remained the object of deepest piety. The labor movement we actually have, however-which, despite the long road it has yet to travel in the establishment of economic justice, has yet become the single most powerful vindication of the American social order-was bound on that very account to have become instead the object of hostility. America's most richly rewarded intellectuals do not wish to see the American social order succeed. They wish to see it fail. Its failure, of course, would sap the roots of the existence of these intellectuals as much as it would those of any other Americans.

But it is the luxury of the stability that you and your movement, Mr. Meany, have brought to the American social order-and will continue to maintain on its, and on all our, behalf-which makes it possible for the free-thinking, free-speaking, comfortable and secure enemies of that order to continue in the plying of their reckless trade. As the nations of Western Europe, secure under the American nuclear umbrella, liberated from the palling economic necessities of their own defense, were freed thereby to become heedless critics of American foreign policy, so have my colleagues, -under the umbrella of the success of American pluralist society in general, and of the labor movement in particular, been freed to deplore, as recklessly and selfservingly as they wish, the fruits of both our political liberty and our economic achievement.

Some of us beneath that umbrella, however, do remember that it is here and stop from time to time-as we do here this afternoon-to bless our fate.

PROUD OF FARM TIES

HON. BOB BERGLAND OF MINNESOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - -Monday, June 5, 1972

Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Speaker, Washington Columnist Jack Anderson has provided great services to this country. He has revealed many shortcomings in all branches of Government and industry. I am hopeful, that because of his etI.orts, we will be able to . correct our mistakes.

Yesterday, June 4, he discussed what he considers to be conflicts of interest among Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Banking, the law, real estate, oil, lumber, broadcasting, even undertaking came within Mr. Anderson's scrutiny. It is not unusual to see in print the misconception that Congressmen are overpaid and do not need any outside income, especially from a business related to our work in the committees and on the fioor of the House. I was rather surprised however, that because I am a family farmer serving on the Agriculture Committee, to find my name included with what Mr. Anderson calls "a long string of conflicts."

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to follow that reasoning. If I, as someone who knows the problems of the family farmer

19741 through my own experience, am ineligible to serve on the Agriculture Committee, no Member of Congress who pays taxes could be eligible to serve on the Committee on Ways and Means. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that distinguished committee would have to be dissolved.

I am proud of my ties with the family farmer and I know that farmers would agree that they have needed a voice on the Agriculture Committee.

As a farmer for 20 years I have known both feast and famine on the land. Unfortunately, there has been more famine than feast and it is my goal to correct the grave injustices heaped up on the family farmer. I know what it means to have a crop washed out. I know what it means to have the bottom drop out of the farmer's market. I know what it is like to have notes and taxes due with not enough money to go around. I have watched our smaller communities dry up and have seen the deterioration of health care, housing and public services as the farmer leaves the countryside.

Mr. Speaker, I freely admit that farming is not a hobby with me. It is my livelihood, my way of life. As long as I am allowed to serve in this body I will continue to do everything possible for the family farmer and rural America which is dependent on him for its very existence. I will do it not only because I will one day return to the farm, but because the preservation of the family farm is essential for every man, woman, and child in this Nation and millions of hungry people throughout the world.

-THE ARMY CHANGED ITS PLANS

HON. WILLIAM L. HUNGATE OF MISSOURI


Monday, Ju7J.e 5, 1972

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, for those who are curious as to how we are able to maintain our Vietnam troops reduction at a time of renewed pressure on the enemy, without increasing draft calls and when many of us would suspect our casualties have increased substantially, the following should provide an explanation of where 30,000 of these men were found:

THE ARMY CHANGED HIS PLANS

As many of your readers undoubtedly know, the U.S. Army recently cancelled an early out program and extended some 30,000 men past their expected ETS (time of separation). Personally, I was told ten days before I was scheduled to get out that I would be required to serve another three months. I am only glad that I had made no firm plans. unlike one man I know, who had already paid his tuition for summer school. This extension is not only an excellent example of the callousness with which the Army plans, or rather atltempts to plan, the lives of the people unfortunate enough to be trapped in the Army, but is also an equally valid example of the general inefficiency and high level of incompetency prevalent in all levels of the Army, but especially in the higher OOllUlUIJld levels. This even tops the time that I was told by my company commander that I, being low .ranking and single, must move back into the barracks from an off-post apartment so that

19742 the Army can build more housing for married couples on poot. Really.

Why 30,000 men and women should suffer drastic changes in their personal plans for the future because of a few mistakes made by some hare-brained Pentagon planners is beyond me. I suppooe the basic reason why I have been extended is that not enough people re-en.listed or enlisted during the past few months. I wonder why.

SP4 JOHN W. PENDLETON, Jr.

TRIBUTE TO MRS. MARGARET MAYER

HON. EARLE CABELL OF TEXAS



Mr. CABELL. Mr. Speaker, a longtime associate and personal friend of mine, Mrs. Margaret Mayer, has just recently traveled with the President to Russia as a member of the press pool. Mrs. Mayer, the Washington correspondent for the Dallas Times Herald, is one of the most respected newspaperwomen around. In the Dallas Times Herald an editorial was written about Mrs. Mayer by Felix McKnight, an editor of the paper and one of her colleagues. He says all the things so well that we who have admired Margaret have known all along.

The editorial follows: ROSES FOR A LADY

(By Felix R. McKnight) Margaret Mayer sat off to the side of the

ornate banquet table in Moscow last Monday night and watched as President Nixon traded vodka toasts with the soviet hierarchy.

Richard M. Nixon is not much of a drinking man and Margaret Mayer is not much of a drinking woman; never on the job. But in Russia you don't dodge the uplifted vodka and the accompanying rhetoric that serves as the chaser.

Words that come from the Russian toasts sometimes shape a future. Margaret Mayer was ear-cupping to hear each syllable.

She was there as one of the most skilled newspaperwomen in the trade; a member of the news media "pool" of three or four who report to the hundreds of other newsfolk outside a.bout what went on inside. The "pool" is a pro group; not for novices.

The words of Richard Nixon did, indeed, make world news and Margaret Mayer, Dallas Times Herald Washington correspondent, passed them on to tense millions from the historic summit session.

Since 1951-first in the Times Herald Austin Bureau, since 1966 in the Washington Bureau-Margaret Mayer has been reporting the political and national scene "where intrigue is supreme." It is as much of her as the marrow in her bones.

Margaret is attractive by all gal standards. Medium height, flashing eyes, well groomed. Articulaite because she does her homework; tenacious when in quest of news and eminently fair in her final judgments.

Personalities a.re never tarnished by her report ing-unless they damn well need tarnishing. She will not brook double-dealing. She protects values and respects the individual's rights. She scorns the tawdry and plow~ the straight furrow of fa.ct.

She can walk into any office in Washington, except the President's, because she has been there before and left with respect. Sometimes, grudging respect if the facts as she found them hurt a bit.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS She is a confidante of presidents and cabi

net members because they trust her. She could write a devastating best-seller if she chose to sell the confidence of big men-but she won't. Muckraking isn't her dish.

The Margaret Mayer stories come in bundles but perhaps one is the most illustrative of her clout.

In 1960, Lyndon B. Johnson, aspiring to the Democratic presidential nomination, scheduled a press conference in a model home exhibit at the Los Angeles Coliseum grounds. It was surrounded by a cyclone fence and well policed.

Margaret swung up to the gate, press badge plainly visible, and started through the entrance. A six-foot, six Los Angeles policeman seized her elbow, opened his mouth for something that was never said.

"Take your hands off me, you big so-a.ndso !"steamed Margaret.

The man mountain in blue withdrew his hand and she marched in. I was next in line and the officer turned to me and asked:

"Is she really a newspaperman?" I assured him Maggie Mayer was very much

of a "newspaperman." "Gee," the officer sputtered, " I'll bet she's

a helluva. good one!" And she is. She can outwork and outfox

any newsman in sight, and does. In these past 12 days she covered the shooting of Gov. George Wallace and kept hospital vigil until 3 a..m.; next morning showed up at The White House on a tip and covered the resignation of Secy. John Connally; took ca.re of her other Washington chores for four days and then flew off to Russia with the Presidential party.

To those who have savored her beautiful word story of the memorable week in Russia you get the feel of the day-and-night firsthand reporting that makes her different from the rest of the crowd.

The Germanic stamina. comes from staunch parents. The meticulous touch? Her father was a watchmaker-jeweler.

RED MASSACRES IN CHURCH, AN LOC HOSPITAL REPORTED

HON. C. W. BILL YOUNG OF FLORIDA



Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, those who, in the name of peace, fly the Vietcong flag and shout slogans of vie~ tory for the Communists should pay close attention to the following UPI story which appeared in Sundays Washington Star.

If this is the kind of immoral activities they support then so be it. But if they have had enough and can no longer stomach these atrocities against innocent men, women, and children, let them speak. In either event, Americans everywhere are anxiously waiting.

The article follows: RED MASSACRES IN CHURCH, AN Loe Hos

PITAL REPORTED SAIGON.-A U.S. adviser back from An Loe

says he witnessed a. Communist tank massacre 100 women and children inside a church in the besieged city.

Later the same day, he said, North Vietnamese artillery opened up on a hospital and killed all its occupants.

Army Ca.pt. Harold Moffett of Nashville, Tenn., told UPI correspondent Barney Seibert today that on a day in mid-April, "I personally saw a Russian-built tank go into a church where services were being held and kill 100 people-women and children."

June 5, 1972 That night, Moffett said, wounded soldiers

and civilians were moved into a "clearly marked hospital. The North Vietnamese blew it away with mortar and artillery fire and killed every la.st one of the people inside."

Moffett spent 53 days in An Loe, 60 miles north of Saigon and under Communist seige for the last 49 days. He said there still a.re hundreds of civilians there--some in government-occupied areas and others in Communist-held pockets oft.he city.

FREE SPEECH AND THE PRESIDENT

HON. WILLIAM J. SCHERLE OF IOWA



Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, at a time when election-year rhetoric is escalating, voices of reason and moderation rise above the din so rarely that we should pay them special heed. Following is an editorial which appeared in the Washington, D.C., Catholic Standard last month, in which the students of catholic University are reproved for their opposition to a rumored visit by President Nixon to the campus.

The editor takes no exception to the students' political opinions, but objects to their virulent protests against the expression of a different point of view. He reminds us that the privilege of free speech must be extended to all if it is to be respected by any. The President of the United States is entitled to the same constitutional rights as any private citizen and deserves, moreover, an added measure of consideration because of the dignity of his office.

That such an editorial needs to be written at all is an unfortunate barometer of the extremism which polarizes the political process at times in this country. But necessary it is, and thoughtful men should give it due attention.

The editorial follows: CITIZENS BEWARE?

A small group of Catholic University students, presumably aided and a.betted by some faculty members, recently passed out leaflets accusing President Nixon of extortion and criminal genocide. The leaflet, headed "Citizens Beware-Nixon Is Coming," said in pa.rt: "Our message is simple and clear: Nixon cannot appear on the Catholic University of America campus. We will work to insure that he not appear on any university in our country until he ceases this criminal genocide of the peoples of Vietnam."

The reason for this tirade was a rumor that the President would appear at CU's commencement on Saturday. University officials said they had no knowledge that the President planned to visit the campus.

Whether or not Mr. Nixon shows up is beside the point. The point is that wherever the President of the United States appears he should be treated with the respect due his office. It should be possible to disagree with the President on any issue without branding him as the most despicable war criminal since Attila the Hun.

Those responsible for the leaflet apparently believe that 1) their views on the Vietnam war are irrefutably correct, 2) anyone who disagrees is not only mistaken but also a vicious criminal, 3) their view-and only their view-is the only one that can be

June 5, 1972 heard on campus and 4) they have a right to disrupt a graduation ceremony to prevent any remarks on any subject by a President who doesn't share their views.

This storm trooper attitude ls contemptible. Those in acaidemic circles generally hold great store by free speech and the mutual exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of reasonable discussion. But not this group. Free speech presumably applies only to them. Anyone else has to be shouted down or prevented from coming on campus.

Fortunately only a tiny minority of CU students hold this yahoo viewpoint. It's too bad that their antics besmirch the university.

LET US STOP 'EM IN THEIR TRACKS

HON. ABNER J. MIKVA OF Il.LINOIS



Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Speaker, little more than a week ago, I inserted in the RECORD the text of an article which dealt with a Chicago newspaperman's plan to legalize the machinegun. That proposal, by Mike Royko, apparently was a response to those people, including myself and some of my colleagues, who want strict handgun control-especially a ban on the sale and manufacture of handguns. In that article, he suggested the legalization of machineguns, because not everyone is an accurate shot with a pistol, and the machinegun offers many more advantages as a weapon of self-defense. Mr. Royko made some telling points in that article, and in the interests of fair play, I thought it would be appropriate to insert in the RECORD a subsequent article on the subject by Mr.Royko:

LET Us STOP 'EM IN THEm TRACKS

(By Mike Royko) A few nights ago I was awakened by sounds

outside the window. They sounded like footsteps in the gangway.

My first thought was that It ha.cl to be either a dangerous criminal or a Communist. And there I was without a machinegun.

(As some you you know, I am the founder of the National Machinegun Assn., which will lobby to legalize the machinegun for the benefit of those of us who are bad shots with pistols. We, too, have a right to protect hearth and home.)

As things turned out, though, a machinegun would have been of little use that night.

When I tried to raise the screen to look out the window, it stuck and made a squeaking noise. By the time I opened it, the footsteps were fading into the distance. There would have been no opportunity to get off even one burst of fire.

The result would have been the same had I opened the front door. It was a noisy lock. And the screen door sticks.

In the morning I learned that the footsteps had been those of someone who entered my neighbor's car and removed two radio speakers.

The police said he was a "sneak thief." But one can't be sure. He might have been a. Communist who was equipping a secret radio room.

In any case, this experience taught me that a gun-even a machinegun--doesn't always protect an honest citizen against criminals, Commies, and creatures of the night.

There are times when something else ls needed.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS The answer is the land mine. Land mines, like machineguns, are illegal.

Yet, it should be obvious that for many people the land mine is the ideal-indeed, the only-weapon wit h which they can defend themselves.

These people would include the elderly, the extremely deep sleeper, the weak-eyed, the hard of hearing, and those who cannot stand the sight of a gun.

For them, a gun is useless-even the machinegun. A fiend could be at their throats before they even finished a prayer.

These people are being penalized and endangered by the laws which restrict a citizen's weaponry to rifles, shotguns and pistols.

But if they could place a few land mines in and around their homes-under a throw rug, in the lawn, the back steps, the back yards, and under the welcome mat--an evil doer would be stopped in his tracks. All that would remain of him would be his tracks, which would be his just deserts.

Yet, these people are being penalized and left defenseless because our laws restrict a citizen's weaponry to rifles, shotguns and pistols.

It doesn't make any sense that anyone can buy a pistol for $8, while an honest citizen, who wants nothing more than to enforce his "keep out" sign, should not be able to buy a land mine.

Before I continue, let me anticipate some of the objections that will be raised by the anti-gun, anti-land mine peaceniks.

"You can't use something that can kill you just because you step on it."

That is ridiculous. You can be injured, even killed, by stepping on a roller skate, a banana peel, a mud puddle, or a sleeping dog.

But is that any reason to outlaw roller skates, bananas, rain, or sleeping dogs?

Then there will be the familiar cry: "Land mines kill."

Nonsense. Land mines don't kill. People who step on land mines kill. If you don't step on it, it is as safe as a turnip.

And the only people who would be endangered would be those who are walking where they don't belong.

Oh, I admit that there is always the possibility of regrettable accidents. Nothing is fool proof. A few children, pets, inebriated neighbors and deliverymen might be lost.

But probably no more than are killed each year by handguns. And no clear thinking, decent American would deprive his fellows of their rights because a few children, policemen, store keepers and others are shot each day by legalized, $8 pistols.

Remember, no President, or even a candidate for President, has ever been assassinated with a land mine.

So I urge all of you who are concerned about the safety of the elderly, the deep sleepers, the near sighted, and hard of hearing, to write to your congressman, senator, coroner, postmaster, alderman, precinct captain, the President, vice president, ambassador to the Court of St. James's, your religious leaders, union leaders, newspapers, the National Rifle Assn., and Howard Miller.

Urge them to support much-needed legislation that would make the ownership of land mines legal.

Then we will see if anybody messes with my neighbor's car raidio.

LESSON OF CHINA

HON. DAVID R. OBEY OF WISCONSIN


Monday, June 5, 1972 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, last week an

editorial appeared in the Green Bay

19743 Press-Gazette dealing with Barbara Tuchmann's excellent book "Stilwell and the American Experience in China," and the lessons our China experience may provide with regard to Vietnam. The editorial follows:

LESSON OF CHINA

In her magnificent book, "Stilwell and the American Experience in China," Barbara Tuchmann probably cannot help but read into the discouraging history the similarity to the American role in Vietnam. The really uncomfortable fact is not that the United States should make such a serious mistake once but that it should almost copy it in Vietnam.

Whatever the Chinese desperation at the ruthless Japanese invasion, the Nationalist government was never able to organize a defense much less mount an offensive. Mrs. Tuchmann blames the Chiang Kai-shek hierarchy. But whatever the merits or drawbacks of Gen. Joseph Stilwell's policies and those of the flamboyant Gen. Clare Chennault in how the war in China should be fought, it became obvious that eventually Chiang became assured that the Americans would eventually defeat the Japanese so that his primary concern was his own retention of power particularly against the forces of Mao Tse-tung. Chiang's great concern as the war neared an end was to keep complete control of the Chinese army while at the same time not losing massive American foreign aid.

Stilwell was recalled at Chiang's insistence. The men never did get along, and part of the trouble may have been a personality clash as the United States explained at the time of the recall. But in the light of future events it seems obvious that the Nationalists had long ago lost the support of the population and the Communists indeed were "better men physically, better fed, better clothed ... with better morale than the Nationalist troops" as Gen. Frank Dorn, a onetime aide to Stilwell, later testified.

But for domestic political reasons, as well as because of concern of the effect in other parts of the world, the United States could not publicly concede the truth. The Chinese Nationalists ha.cl been portrayed to the American public much as the South Vietnamese have been-inherently of a democratic nature, fighting courageously for their dignity and freedom against great odds. Obviously, the Chinese Nationalists could no more be abandoned to the truth in 1944 than the South Vietnamese could be in 1972. "We must not indefinitely underwrite a politically bankrupt regime" warned John Stewart Service, later to be condemned for his realism toward Asian affairs.

Mrs. Tuchmann writes, "the option to end support of China was almost taken ... but the United States could not afford to do it." President Roosevelt believed in sovereignty for allied governments but it could not really be achieved any more than it has in South Vietnam. "The United States too was concerned with face saving," she writes. So Stilwell crune home. "The recall was the inevitable outcome of the assumption, growing out of China's dependence and passivity, that an American solution could be imposed on China," Mrs. Tuchmann writes.

Mrs. Tuchmann concludes that "the American effort to sustain the stat us quo could not supply an outworn government with strength and stability or popular support. It could not hold up a husk nor long delay the cyclical passing of the mandate of heaven. In the end, China went her own way as if the Americans had never come."

It won't be quite that way 1n Vietnam. There are millions of the dead and the refugees in that torn country who will not be exactly the same again. But the end political result still could be the same.

19744 ANGELA DAVIS AND AMERICAN

HISTORY

HON. LOUIS STOKES OF OHIO



EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS years of oppression and recited the whole litany of slavery, the standard white response was, "What has this genera.tionwhite or black-to do with that period of our distant history?" But in writing to the man she loved, as a black woman caught up in the struggle for black liberation, Angela Davis had still to be deeply involved in the slow black psychic climb up out of the slime and ooze of slavery. In this letter, excerpts

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, on June 4, from which appear elsewhere on this page, 1972, Angela Davis was acquitted by an her issue is whether the survival techniques all-white jury in San Jose, Calif. Follow- and the perceptions of black needs develing the announcement of the jury's ver- oped prior to 1865 and persisting even now diet, Miss Davis stressed that she held a.re suited to the needs and demands of

thi t black society. no greater confidence in ·s coun ry's The problem Miss Davis confronts runs in judicial system than before, but that-- an unbroken line from the defense mecha

The people who sat as jurors [were] not nisms blacks developed for survival during part of the judicial system, but of the people. the brutal and violent days when they were

The breach between our Government chattel stra.ight into the gust and spirits and the people it purports to govern has of today's black parents struggling with the

excruciating problems of raising their chil-become increasingly evident in recent dren in a still racist America-an America political trials. From the Chicago 7 that seems to think it has done enough about through the Catonsville 9 to Angela the racial problem and is both weary of the Davis, a pattern has developed. On the issue and hostile even toward such minor flimsiest charges, the Government has innovations a,s busing and scatter site housbrought people to trial who happen to ing. She knows the parents will be tempted

to be "overly protective" by dissuading their disagree with the o:tncial interpretation children from accepting the "burden of flght-of events. In each case, the victims of ing this war which has been declared on us," these witch hunts have been vindicated on the one hand while seeing the need to by the American people, represented by hand the sons of the race a "flaming sword" those in the jury box. In each case, the on the other. defendants have been acquitted because During slavery, both black men and black of insu:tncient evidence, a fact which, women performed as beasts of burden from alone, should cause us to wonder. dawn to dusk, but in a very substantial

Angela Davis was a perfect target for measure, that was the man's sole function. In order to turn men into beasts, it was im

o:fHcial castigation. A Communist, a black perative for the society to keep them docile. American, a woman--she failed to fit into Male slaves could be murdered, punished any of the slots which society had carved brutally, sold down the river away from famout for her. She has always been an intel- ily and friends and have their faces pressed ligent and fiercely independent young into the mud in hundreds of other more woman who carries with her the his- subtle ways until manhood was little more torical baggage that all black Americans than a scream of anguish that died in the

throat before it was heard. carry-a memory of slavery, repression, women seemed less threatening and were and rejection. Most white Americans thus often given positions of trust at the have refused to take the trouble to under- mouths of white babies, and in the kitchens stand what it is like to have this particu- of the great houses or of sexual servitude, to lar memory. The San Jose jury took that master, master's son, overseer or visiting firetrouble, and they are to be heartily com- man. The women did what they had to do for mended for the results of their painstak- their own survival and to protect children, ing efforts. husbands and friends. They saw clearly the

perils in store for the black man-child and, On May 24, 1972, a column by Roger over generations and centuries, they devised

Wilkins appeared in the Washington ways to raise their boys to survive in the Post. His article was called "Children of world they knew: "Keep your nose clean, Slavery: Parents and Black Liberation." hang back, work hard, succeed, escape, beRoger Wilkins articulated, for readers of come 'non-nigger'." the :>ost, the meaning of Angela Davis' After slavery, little changed in those patpersonal struggle in terms of her sym- terns. The black male was still systematically bolic battle in behalf of all black Ameri- degraded. Women could get jobs because peocans. On the same page, the Post carried ple needed domestics and the American fan-

tasy grew enough to include a black woman one of Miss Davis' letters to George Jack- teacher, nurse or social worker, but could not son. This letter is a beautiful and sue- encompass a black male supervisor or execucinct pronouncement upon what life is tive. Meanwhile, up through the black revolulike for a black woman in this country. tion of the sixties, black mothers kept teach-

! urge my colleagues to take this op- ing the same old survival course to their partunity to try to understand, as the children. They did so, partially because their San Jose jury did, what people like own paths to progress were blocked and so Angela Davis are all about. I, therefore, they poured all of their hopes and all of their

ambitions into their children, and partially include Roger Wilkins' column and Miss because they wanted to save the children Davis' poetic letter below: 1 from both named and unknown perils. CHILDREN OF SLAVERY: PARENTS AND BLACK I Then came the revolution of blackness dur-

LmERATION , ing the late 60s and the rise of black male (By Roger Wilkins) consciousness. Cultists and others, raging at

The first "love letter" from Angela Davis to an abundance of injustices-many real, some George Jackson introduced by the prosecu- imagined-began fl.ring at any moving target. tion at Miss Davis' trial in California for Black women loomed large in many sights; murder offers an extra.ordinary glimpse into they were told "you have crushed our ma.nthe mind of a young black woman as she hood and bled us of our blackness. We are struggles with one of the still live and an- men now and are prepared to take care of guishing legacies of slavery. During the late business while your role is to keep quiet, sixties, when young angry black rhetoricians succor and love, while I fight and define my lashed America because of three hundred blackness."

June 5, 1972 This is where Miss Davis parts company

with much of the new black thought. She clearly understands the parental instinct to protect the cub, but she knows that the old survival patterns no longer work, for even when they do "work", they often produce in -dividualistic, white-like people, alienated from the black experience, people who stand alone, above and aside, identifying with little of the pain and soaring with none of the joy of engagement and occasional victory. The struggle, as she says, must now be collective. Renewed white resistance coupled with the still abysmal circumstances of the lives of at least half of black America requires a strategy of more ingenious and diversified black initiatives springing from both the talents and needs of a more unified black community than has ever previously existed.

Whether Miss Davis was speaking metaphorically when she talked about squeezing rather than jerking the trigger and rejoicing over the running blood of a policeman is something a jury in San Jose will soon begin to ponder. But no one who walks the streets of the poorest black comm.unities in this country can doubt that desperate struggles, the contours of which are yet unknown, lie ahead. Eyes in black spirits see what white blindness and indifference fall to perceive: a.lleys where children play amidsts rubble and wine-soaked bodies, tenaments where families sleep eight to a room, grammar schools where heroin pushers peddle their wares to ten year olds and empty shells lurching along streets where men should walk. Nor is there any doubt a.bout the rage such sights engender in the core of every black with a living spirit, whether or not that age is articulated as openly as Miss Davis does in her letter.

Nor can he believe that there is an asset anywhere more precious to the future of black America. than her children. Each mother will struggle with the knowledge of the pain that lies ahead for her child. Her instinctive desire to erect an iron protective mechanism around his spirit will do fierce battle with her knowledge that the black community needs him to live his life at full throttle and great risk while pouring his main force into the struggle for black liberation. If the parents choice is the latter, Miss Davis is right. That race of giants won't be developed by strong men and crippled mothers. Rather, it will arise from families headed by two whole human beings who set examples by being fully engaged in the most serious business of America, and who have the full courage to grow and to launch the child in the hope that none of themwhether parent or child-will flinch in the face of the awesome challenges that are sure to come.

LETTER TO GEORGE JACKSON-ANGELA DAVIS: STRUGGLE, SURVIVAL

It is already impossible to begin at the beginning. If I start by dropping the mask and say in all naturalness: I have come to love you very deeply, I count on you to belleve me, George. I have used these words very seldom in my 26 years-because I could not have meant them very often. Believe me, it happened so abruptly, so spontaneously. I was not seeking to love when I walked into a Sallnas courtroom on Friday, May 8, 1970. And so it is difficult to articulate it further. But one thing remains to be said-my feelings dictate neither illusionary hopes nor intolerable despair. My love--your love, reinforces my fighting instincts, it tells me to go to war ...

Concerning black women: I am convinced that the solution is not to persuade the black woman to relax her reins on the black male, (but to translate) the "be a good boy" syndrome into a "take the sword in hand" attitude . . . to take our first step towards freedom, we, too, must pick up the sword.

June 5, 1972 Only a fighting woman can guide her son in the warrior direction. Only when our livesour total lives-become inseparable from struggle can we, black women, do what we have to do for our sons and daughters ...

My mother was overly protective of her sons and daughters. I could never forgive her for forcing my bothers (us, too) to take dancing lessons. George, we must dig into all the muck and get at the roots of our problems ... When we are overly protective, we attempt to dissuade our loved ones from accepting the burden of fighting this war which has been declared on us, we cannot be dismissed as counter revolutionary. You'd be surprised how many brothers would say this. Nor can it be said that we ought to blot our natural instincts for survival. Why, why, is our condition so wrought with contradictions? We, who have been coerced into performing the most degrading kinds of Iabora sex machine for the white slave master. Rather than helplessly watch her children die a slow death of starvation, my grandmother submitted to the white master, my father's accursed father ...

To choose between various paths of survival means the objective availabil1ty of alternatives. I hope you don't take this as an apologetic stance. I'm only trying to understand the forces that have led us, black women, to where we are now. Why did your mother offer you reprimands Instead of the flaming sword? Which is equivalent to posing the same question about every other black woman-and not only with respect to the sons, but the daughters too (this is really crucial. In Cuba last summer, I saw some very beautiful Vietnamese warriors ... all female ... I saw women patrollng the streets with rifles on their backs-defending the revolution. But also, young companeras educating their husbands, and lovers-demythologizing machismo. After all, if women can fight, manage factories, then men ought to be able to help with the house, children.

But returning to the question-we have learned from our revolutionary ancestors that no individual a.ct or response can seize the scepter of the enemy. The slave lashes out against his immediate master, subdues him, escapes, but he has done nothing more than take the first step in the long spiral upwards towards liberation. And often that individual escape is an evasion of the real problem. It is only when all the slaves are aroused from their slumber, articulate their goo.Is, choose their leaders, make an unwavering commitment to destroy every single obstacle which might prevent them from transcribing their visions of a new world, a new man onto the soil of the earth, into the flesh and blood of men.

Even dreams are often prohibited or are allowed to surface only in the most disguised and sublimated form-the desire to be white, the monstrous perverted aspirations of a so-called black bourgeoisie, created to pacify the masses. And then there is the unnatural system-oriented desires of a black woman who is relating to the survival of her children. . . .

The point is-given the vacuum created by the absence of collective strurwle, the objective survival alternatives are sparse: ambitious of bourgeois gluttony or-like you said-unconscious crime. One path goes in thru the front door, the other sneaks in thru the back and is far more dangerous and seemingly far less likely to reach its destination ...

A mother cannot help but cry out for the survival of her own flesh and blood. We have been forbidden to reach out for the truth about survival-that ls a collective enterprise and must be offensive, rather than defensive .. .

Frustrations, aggressions cannot be repressed indefinitely ... For the black female, the solution is not to become less aggressive, not to lay down the gun. but to learn how to set the sights correctly, aim

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS accurately, squeeze rather than jerk, and not be overcome by the damage. We have to learn how to rejoice when pig's blood is spilled. But all this presupposes that the black male will have purged himself of the myth that his mother, his woman, must be subdued before--he----can wage war on the enemy. Liberation is a dialectical movement -the black woman can liberate herself from all the muck-and it works the other way around and this is-only-the beginning . . . Women's liberation in the revolution is inseparable from the liberation of the male ...

Jon and I have made a truce. As long as I try to combat my tendencies to remind him of his youth, he wlll try to combat his male chauvinism. Don't come down on me before you understand-I never said Jon was too young for anything, I just mentioned how incredible it is that in spite of a Catholic school, Georgia, etc., he refuses to allow society to entrap him in adolescence. But still, he doesn't dig any mention of age.

The night after I saw you in court, for the first (time) in months, I dreamt (or at least the dream was significant enough to work its way into my consciousness). We were together, fighting pigs, winning. We were learning to know each other.

I love you ...

EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR DISADVANTAGED VETERANS

HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE OF TEXAS



Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are a good many who are expressing concern about the programs of the Veterans' Administration relating to disadvantaged veterans. I think these persons will be interested in the report of the Veterans' Administration which indicated that large numbers of so-called high school dropouts are taking advantage of the veterans' programs to continue their education. In this connection, I would like to insert a recent report by the Veterans' Administration on this subject.

The report follows: EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR DISADVANTAGED

VETERANS

Where are the high school drop-outs who are now Vietnam Era veterans?

During April, about 21 ,000 were completing high school under the GI Bill, and swelling the ranks of those who have taken advantage of a five year old Veterans Administration program that pays them monthly allowances while attending schools below the college level.

For those veterans this means enrollment in remedial or refresher courses to enable them to earn elementary or high school diplomas or otherwise qualify for higher education:. This "ca.tch-up"tra.ining is not charged against eligibility. Thus these veterans are able to save their full entitlement for higher education later on.

Veterans who are having trouble with their studies may receive special tutorial help which VA will pay for.

So far, about 66,000 educationally disadvantated veterans have taken advantage of "catch-up" schooling or training since it became available in: 1967.

However, VA pointed out that this figure does not include all assistance provided. For example, many educationally disadvantaged veterans elect to enter on-job training programs or attend vocational and trade schools.

19745

UNITED STATES-SOVIET ARMS LIMITATION AGREElV.lENT MARKS A BEGINNING IN DISARMAMENT




Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, certainly we are all hopeful that the recent summit meeting in Moscow will mark the beginning of disarmament and pave the way for a lasting peace.

In this connection, I insert in the RECORD my recent newsle .... .ter Capitol Comments, because of the interest of my colleagues and the American people in this most important subject: UNITED STATES-SoVIET ARMS LIMrrATION

AGREEMENT MARKS A BEGINNING IN DISARMAMENT

Now that President Nixon has returned from the Summit Conference in Moscow and delivered his report to the Congress in joint session, it is appropriate and timely to refiect on the significance of the highly publicized events in Moscow.

In the first place--as the President emphasized in his address before Congress-the accords signed with respect to nuclear disarmament are only a beginning. Further Stra., tegic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) a.re expected, aimed, among other things, at scaling down the numerical limitations placed on various nuclear weapons by the initial agreement. Certainly we are all hopeful that further negotiations can proceed and that there can be further progress in reduction in costs and military weapons production.

The treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the limitations of antiballistic missiles includes the following provisions:

Intercontinental ballistic missiles are limited to those under construction or deployed. The effect of this agreement is to limit ICBMs which Russia can have to 1618 in number, compared to 1054 for the United States. Officials explained that Russia was provided with an edge in missiles in the agreement because the United States has multiple warhead missiles-a single missile with a number of warheads that can be directed at different targets-while Russia has not app1'ied multiple warheads to its missiles. In terms of warheads the United States has an estimated 5,700, while Russia has 2,500.

The Un'ited States and Russia under the agreement are permitted 200 each of antiballistic interceptor missiles-defensive missiles to knock out incoming ICBM's.

Construction of submarine-launched ballistic missiles will be frozen at current levels.

The President emphasized that "the present and planned strategic forces of the United States are without question sufficient for the maintenance of our security and the protection of our vital interests."

Other agreements signed by officials of the itwo nations provided for joint space exploration, for joint health and disease research, a.:rrangements for committees to discuss environmental problems, scientific and technical cooperation, and trade; and a signal system to a.void military confrontations on the high seas.

The overall significance of the agreements is considered by some to be that the United States and Russia both appear to be working together for some stabllity and security in the world.

In the Congress there are reports that strong efforts will be made to reduce military expenditures because of the cutbacks and the freeze on the nuclear arsenal.

19746 There a.re indications that the military

weapons appropriations bill will be delayed pending an analysis of the impact of the agreement on military requirements. There exists some sentiment in the congress that substantial cuts and reductions in the military budget can and should now be made.

Certainly we must keep our guard up and our defenses strong. There have been other agreements with Russia that amounted to little more than scraps of paper. But we are all hopeful that the President's efforts will be successful in reducing world tensions and increasing the chances for lasting world peace. Eternal vigilance must be our watchword.

HORTON PRAISES CAL STEWART AND FAIRPORT'S STEWART FIRE STATION

HON. FRANK HORTON OF NEW YORK



Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, in these times when our Nation is troubled by problems which could affect our future deeply, it is essential that we recognize and pay tribute to the good that is in America. On Sunday, May 21, 1972, I saw some of the good that is America, and I gained an even greater confidence in and respect for the future of our Nation.

On that day, I attended the dedication of the new Stewart Fire Station in the village of Fairport, N.Y. Operated and maintained by the Fairport Volunteer Fire Department, this new facility was named in honor of one of the volunteer fireman, Clair "Cal" Stewart.

No simple phrase such as "one of the volunteer firemen" is an adequate way to describe Cal Stewart, a volunteer fireman since 1926 and chief of the Fairport Fire Department for 24 years. He has been a member of nearly every firefighting organization in the area, and has served as an officer of many of them.

The dedication of the fire station was an opportunity for the leaders and citizens of the community to pay a well-deserved tribute to Cal Stewart. His community and his fellow firemen have paid him their highest tribute in naming their new fire station after him.

Cal, presently serving as the Monroe County fire coordinator, shared the speaker's platform with many of the community's leaders. John J. Kenney, a fireman and long-time friend of the guest of honor was master of ceremonies and introduced the following speakers: Peter J. McDonough, Fairport's mayor; Lake B. Edwards, supervisor of the town of Perinton; Thomas Laverne, New York State Senator; and myself.

Also on the platform to pay honor to Cal Stewart were: Ivan Masclee, chief of the Fairport Fire Department; W. Robert Brown, first assistant chief; Gerald Doser, second assistant chief, Mrs. W. Robert Brown "Aileen," president of the ladies auxiliary, who presented a portrait of Cal to be displayed on the walls of the new station; Carlton E. Dewolff and Peter P. Romeo of Dewolff Associates, architects of the new station; and the Reverend Robert J. Winterkorn,

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

chaplain of the Monroe County Volunteer Fireman's Association.

The cochairmen of the ceremony were Ronald Jensen and Donald Fox. The building committee was staffed by Burton A. Ross, chairman; Rona d Jensen, and Gary Lewis.

During the ceremony, an American flag was given to the fire department by Mrs. Robert "Bonnie" Wiedrich, whose first husband Jeffrey D. Schumacher, Sr., lost his life in acticn in Vietnam in the spring of 1971. The flag was one of the two given to Bonnie, daughter of Burton Ross, by the Department of the Army at the time of the funeral. The other flag is being saved for Jeffrey D. Schumacher, Jr., to be presented to him when he is older.

The flag was accepted by Wallace D. Kennelly, president of the Fairport Fire Department while the visiting Pittsford Fire Department Band, directed by August D'Aurizio, played the National Anthem.

Stewart Station was named in honor of Cal Stewart, a man who typifies the best of what we look for in an American. He has contributed his time, energy, and talent to the community for almost 50 years in various responsibilities in the fire department. He is an individual who does not hesitate to get involved for the betterment of his community and man to be emulated by all of us.

Having been honored to be a part of the dedication ceremonies of the Stewart Fire Station, I am convinced that the spirit of community action and selfreliance-all attributes that helped to mold our great Nation-are alive and well in the village of Fairport, N.Y., and indeed in many communities like it across the country.

I commend all who made this new fire station possible, and especially Cal Stewart. On behalf of the community which he has served so diligently, I thank him.

THE BANDSTAND OF LIFE: RANNY WEEKS RETffiES

HON. MARGARET M. HECKLER OF MASSACHUSETTS



Mrs. HECKLER of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, an unusual man is closing out an unusual career next month and some of his many friends are planning to pay him formal tribute.

The man is Ranny Weeks. The career has ranged from leading a

popular dance band through two wars in the Navy to the post of executive director of the Boston University Law School Alumni Association. He acquired an army of friends along the way and now they are going to repay his friendship.

Emanuel Goldberg has written a fine column about Ranny Weeks and his testimonial in the Jewish Times of Boston which I herewith submit.

THE BANDSTAND OF LIFE: RANNY WEEXS RETmEs

(By Emanuel Goldberg) The human equation is an enigmatic as

any of the crazy concerns that engulf man-

June 5, 1972 kind and it is rare these days to find a constant, fathomable person who does not defy accurate description: one of complete integrity, complete devotion to country, and complete confidence in the future.

Such a guy is Ranny Weeks, who in June will step down from an academic bandstand-having already done so in musical circles many years ago--and retire with his wife, Stubby, to Cape Cod.

Only his friends won't let him bow out quietly. They want him to mount the podium again, at least for the evening of Monday, June 26 when hundreds of Ranny's admirers will gather for a testimonial dinner in his honor at Sidney Hlll Country Club. His friends include the noted, like co-chairmen Rudy Vallee, Arthur Fiedler, David McCord and Dr. Shields Warren, and the multitude of so-called "little people" who adore Ranny and for whom he has al ways had a warm greeting and genuine concern.

This writer has personally known Ranny Weeks and his fe.mily for many years, been close to him, and gratefully enriched. The difficult thing for me to swallow is that Ranny is "retiring," for the tall, handsome, ramrod-straight executive director of the Boston University Law School Alumni Association defies the ordinary mortal 's erosion. His career and friendships teem with human interest, been diversified and never devious.

There were, of course, the 'celebrity years' when Ranny led a famous orchestra, a role which reaped him as much income in a single week as most men then made in a year-income long gone but never, even at the titillating time, capable of turning his head. The baiton, appearance and personal! ty took him to Hollywood for a few movies (some of which he occasionally must stomach when they return via TV on the late-late shows). Ranny once confided that gossip columnists, prodded by Hollywood publicists, even tried to link him romantically with Dorothy Lamour-a family joke since Ranny's marriage to Stubby has been long and happy, and a major anchor amidst incredible pressures.

There•s also the Navy side of Ranny Weeks, a very important part. He twice served as a naval officer on active duty, in World War II e.nd during the Korean War, and for years, was a prime mover in the affairs of the active Naval Reserve inform:ation section in Boston. There a.re few things he's prouder of than his Navy Cap>taincy, epitomizing a career that hangs on a special memory re.ck. Yet nobody should get the notion that Ranny ls a hell-bent-for-leather militarist. It should be observed that he is a member of the Swedenborgian Society and a practising Christian, whose mystical religion keeps his steadfast gaze on the horizon and beyond.

The two wars took him out of music and back to his alma mater, Boston University, where he served for twelve years as director of Alumni Affairs. The Law School post, another labour of love for Ranny, was assumed in recent years.

Just to be sure that June 26th is not a one-night-st.and, Ranny's friends, spearheaded by Newton businessman Herb Abramson, are also planning a Ranny Weeks Scholarship Fund a.t the B.U. Law School, which will assist needy and deserving students. Nothing could be more appropriate since Ranny's own law school study and possible lege.l ca.reer were abruptly terminated by a lack of funds.

A looal philanthropist once described Ranny in these terms: "Ranny al ways stood out above the crowd." Coupled with this connotation of height in human dignity ls Ranny's depth ("inner space" as he himself often referred to things). He could always write extremely well and his "Letters to the Editor" in metropolitan media still comm.and respect. I suspect they'll revitalize at Cape Cod. Ranny comprehends instantly, and suffers long before he condemns the frail· ties of others. He'd rather blame himself.

June 5, 1972

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL WORTH OF CONGRESSMAN ROMANO L. MAZZO LI

HON. ROMANO L. MAZZOLI OF KENTUCKY



Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing into the RECORD a complete statement of my :financial worth as of December 31, 1971. This statement includes a listing of all assets which are held in my name individually or which are held jointly with my wife, as well as all assets which are held by my wife in her individual name.

I have also included a statement of our income, from all sources, for calendar year 1971, as developed from our income tax return for that year.

I intend to place a full :financial disclosure into the RECORD for each year that it is my honor to serve in the Congress of the United States.

The statement of :finances is as follows: STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

Romano L. and Helen D. Mazzoli, December 31, 1971

Cash on deposit: Lincoln Federal Savings and

Loan Association, account No. 37339------------------ $3, 196.33

Liberty National Bank & Trust Co., account No. 09-013390 ------------------- 6,067.30

Liberty National Bank & Trust Co., account No. 08-33-816-7 ----------------- 453.62

Liberty Nation.a.I Bank & Trust Co., account No. 08-33-817-5 ----------------- 100.00

American 'Lnited Life Insur-ance Co., policy No. 1116312 ------------------ 65.26

American United Lile Insur-ance Co., policy No. 1011729 ------------------ 459.14

Securities, Stock, and Bonds: U.S. Government bonds, series

E ------------------------ 722.77 Real Property:

Residential: House (Loulsvllle) : Assess-

ed value________________ 18, 860. 00 Less: Mortgage, Portland

Federal Savings and Loan------------------- 12,295.03

Equity -----------------Commerctal or investment __ _

Household goods and miscel-laneous personalty (es-timated) ------------------

Cash surrender value of life insurance policies: American United Life Insur

ance Company, policy No. 1011729 -----------------

American United Life Insur-ance Company, policy No. 1116312 ------------------

Federal employees retirement system:

Contribution to Fund _______ _ Automobile:

1965 Rambler _______________ _ Law office furniture, equipment,

and library __________________ _ Total assets _____________ _


6,564.97

4,500.00

2,100.00

170.00

3,097.77

625.00

772.00 28,894.16

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS INCOME FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1971

Income Interest:

Lincoln Federal Savings and Loan Association _________ _

Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. ----------------------

American United Life Insur-ance ca __________________ _ Kentucky State Retirement

System -------------------

Law practice:

$121. 59

184. 82

19.32

4.69

330.42

Income--------------------- 2,265.00 Expenses--------------------- 2,926.61

(661.61)

U.S. House of Representatives: Salary---------------------- 38,722.00

Grossincome ____________ 38,390.89

Expenses U.S. House of Representatives:

Congressional Expenses Allow-able as Deductions_________ 8, 732. 73

Miscellaneous Deductions and Exemptions --------------- 5, 452. 99

14,185.72

Total taxable income ____ 24,205. 17

GREENEVILLE, TENN., HIGH SCHOOL BAND TO TOUR EUROPE

HON. JAMES H. (JIMMY) QUILLEN OF TENNESSEE



Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, this week the Greeneville High School Band and the Band Boosters Club of Greeneville, Tenn., in my district, will embark on a 2-week tour of Europe where they will visit six countries. Concerts by the band have been scheduled in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

I consider these fine young people and their sponsors "touring goodwill ambassadors," and I know they will do an outstanding job wherever they go.

Greeneville has a population of 15,000 and is located in beautiful east Tennessee. In the many years of growth and development of this thriving and progressive city, one of the most illustrious citizens to come out of Greeneville was Andrew Johnson, 17th President of the United States. Last month's issue of Reader's Digest recognized Andrew Johnson and cited Greeneville as being a unique, historical storehouse of the wonders of our heritage.

The article states: Andrew Johnson's association with Greene

ville is today memorialized in the Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, a tourist complex which includes a museum, a tailor shop which he operated during his early manhood, the homestead which includes the house in which he lived from 1851 until 1875, and the cemetery on Monument Hill where he was buried.

The people of Greeneville and east Tennessee take great pride in the signif-

19747

icance of the past; ho-wever, this same citizenry glow with a feeling of delight at the present. They are especially proud of the Greeneville High School Band and the Band Boosters Club who have worked so hard to make a dream come true.

The school is fortunate to have as band director, Mr. Gene Proffitt, a native of Elizabethton in Carter County, Tenn. He has served as director in Greeneville since 1960. Mr. Proffitt received his degrees at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City and at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.

Many honors have come to the band during Mr. Proffitt's directorship. The band has appeared locally at Armed Forces Day, Law Day, Shrine functions, political rallies, dedication exercises and has marched in numerous parades' and festivals.

The group has already traveled extensively both nationally and internationally. It represented the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee Lions Club in the 1964 Lions International Convention in Toronto, Canada; it appeared on national television at the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans; it participated in the Memphis Cotton Carnival in 1967 and again in 1969, and it has been runner-up twice in the University of Tennessee Marching Band Festival.

Much credit should also go to Danny Treadway, assistant band director, and Ralph Lister, who is currently serving as president of the Band Boosters Club. These two young men have greatly assisted Mr. Proffitt in coordinating arrangements for this trip.

Needless to say, I am extremely proud of the Greenville High School Band and the Band Boosters Club. All 181 members of these two organizations are to be commended and I want to take this opportunity to wish each and every one of them well on this memorable journey.

The complete itinerary is as follows: June 5, Knoxville, Tenn., to Amsterdam. June 6, Amsterdam. June 7, Amsterdam. June 8, Amsterdam to Duisburg (concert). June 9, Duisburg to Bonn. June 10, Bonn to Seigburg (concert). June 11, Bonn/Rhine Cruise/Rudeshelm.. June 12, Rudesheim (concert--Bingen). June 13, Rudesheim to Heidelberg. June 14, Heidelberg to Rothenberg. June 15, Rothenberg to Innsbruck (con-

cert). June 16, InilJSbruck to Lucerne. June 17, Lucerne ( concert-Surcee). June 18, Lucerne to Paris. June 19, Paris. June 20, Paris to Brussels to Knoxville.

CONCENTRATED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR EX-OFFENDERS

HON. RICHARDSON PREYER OF NORTH CAROLINA


Monday, June 5, 1972 Mr. PREYER of North Carolina. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues information about a program

19748 which has been initiated by the North Carolina Department of Correction for the North Piedmont Area of the State which is designed to assist prisoners who are about to be released in finding suitable and worthwhile employment. This program is called a "Concentrated Employment Program for Ex-Offenders" which provides for prerelease training of inmates, job development and placement of releasees, and followup counseling services. The businessmen in this area of North Carolina are backing this program and feel that it is working extremely well. The program, which was initiated \.."t-.ol"ough a grant from the Law Enforceme~ti Assistance Administration, gives these men a chance to rehabilitate themselves and become productive members of society.

Following is a statement by Mr. Gene M. Carver, project manager which explains the project in detail, and I want to congratulate and commend Mr. Carver and all of those involved in this project for the excellent work they have done in promoting this fine program: A STATEMENT FROM MR. GENE M. CARVER,

PROJECT MANAGER

In November, 1971 the North Carolina Department of Correction initiated an innovative correctional effort which was designed to facllitate the reintegration of ex-offenders who were returning to communities in the North Piedmont Area. The effort, a Concentrated. Employment Program for the ExOffender, is unique, both in its focus and in its aims; furthermore, it represents a significant departure from the traditional method of returning an ex-offender to the community in which he lived prior to his incarceration.

Traditionally, an offender who was discharged from the Department of Correction received "fifteen bucks and a new suit of clothes"-that is, if he had served a sentence of two years or more. Those serving sentences of less than two years receive nothing upon release. Provided with little or no assistance upon release, the ex-offender, who has been conditioned to a state of dependency while incarcerated, is 1ll equipped to deal with the pressures which confront him on the "outside". Needless to say, the success rate for these releases is extremely low; 65 percent return to prison, often for commlting another crime. The Concentrated Employment Program for the Ex-Offender focuses primarily on this particular group of releasees. In recognition of the importance of work as a crucial factor in the ex-offender's successful reintegration into society, the thrust of services provided by the Program is directed toward placing him on a job. _

According to the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in order to become a "fully functional adult male, one prerequisite ls essential: a job". "In our society a person's occupation determines more than anything else what life he will lead and how others will regard him." The Commission's findings were supported in the report which was submitted by the President's Task Force on Prisoner Rehabilitation in April, 1970. The Task Force said that "satisfying work experience for institutionalized offenders and the assurance of decent jobs for released offenders should be at the heart of the correctional process".

Although employment is necessary for the successful rehabilitation of released offenders, a. study by George A. Pownall for the U.S. Department of Labor in 1969 found that ex-offenders have more diffi.culty than other persons in obtaining employment. This is refiected in an unemployment rate for former

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS offenders that is four to five times higher than that of the public generally. In Philadelphia, for example, Pownall noted that the unemployment rate in 1969 of released prisoners was 15 percent, compared to a three percent rate for males generally in the area. For young offenders--those under 20-the unemployment figures for ex-offenders may well be even greater today than they were in 1969.

The study also revealed that even for exoffenders who are employed, their income was less than that of the public generally, and the majority of employed releasees work in low paid unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. The national median monthly income, for example, in 1964 was $465.58. but for employed released prisoners it was $256.00. Even when ex-offenders work in skilled or semiskilled jobs they receive less pay than others who work in related jobs. The national median for service workers in 1964, for example, was $338.75, but for ex-offenders it was $267.67; for white collar workers, the national median was $642.21, but for ex-offenders it was $379.57.

The Concentrated Employment Program for the Ex-Offender seeks to correct these employment inequities by providing services to offenders and ex-offenders in three crucial areas: we prepare the offender for the world of work while he is still incarcerated; we help him find employment commensurate with his ablllty upon his release; and, we lend the necessary assistance after he is released to ensure that he retains his job.

The pre-release assistance is essentially an orientation to the world of work which is designed to motivate the offender. The thrust of staff efforts at our Motivation Center are two-fold: we want t9 develop a positive attitude towards work; and, we want to expose the offender to job finding and job keeping skills which will result in easier placement for him and longer retention on the job. First, the offender is tested to measure his individual potential and identify areas of vocational interest and aptitude. After a thorough assessment of the individual has been made, the motivation cycle itself begins. Included in the four-week motivation cycle are the development of skills which include resume preparation and employment interview techniques. In addition, the offender is taught good grooming and good work habits; and, how to take advantage of training opportunities. Finally, through both individual and group counseling, the staff begins the process of resoclalizing the offender-a process which continues after his release.

Job development for the offender occurs while he is at the Motivation Center in order to ensure that the transition from the completion of pre-release preparation to release into the community as a full-time employee is smooth. The entire effort is closely coordinated between the Motivation Center staff and job development counselors from High Point, Winston-Salem, and Greensboro, who meet with the offender at the Motivation Center after preliminary tests have been scored and interpreted. With test results available the job developers are able to discuss more realistically and intelligently the various prospects for employment for the offender.

Given an accurate assessment of an offender's interest and potential, job developers can proceed to contact those employers who need workers with skills and aptitudes which match those of their clients. Individual attention to the employment needs of offenders eliminates the placement of carpenters in dishwashing jobs or cooks in construction work. By completing this preliminary work while the offender is still in training the job development counselor is able to p'l"ovide the inmate with several job prospects when he is released.

June 5, 1972 The placement of an offender on a Job

marks the beginning of follow-up services. Research shows that the transition from institution to community generally ls accompanied by temporary insecurity, trial and error behaviors, and especially intense feelings of hope, discouragement, frustration, and accomplishment. There are also practical, mundane problems which present themselves as well: how to get back and forth to work; and, how to survive until the first paycheck ls earned for example. The same job development counselor who assisted the inmate in securing a job continues to provide support in these and related areas for as long as the two men mutually feel that the assistance is needed. The primary objectives during this time are to support the ex-offender during the initial period following release and ensure that he retains his job.

Our goal through these means-preparation for work; job development and placement; and, follow-up services-ls the reduction of the high rate of recidivism of released offenders which currently is reported to be in excess of 65 percent. The achievement of our goal will contribute significantly to a reduction in crime for the area, and, in addition, will save taxpayers the expense of maintaining an offender in the State Correction System-an expense which now totals $7.15 per day exclusive of the tax dollars for welfare support to the offender's family and the loss of productive income while he is incarcerated.

We feel that the human and practical aspects of the Concentrated Employment Program for the Ex-Offender-making productive citizens of released offenders, while helping reduce the incidence of crime and correctional costs-make it the most innovative challenge to recidivism that has been attempted anywhere in -North Carolina.

_ THE COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER

The creation of the Concentrated Employment Program for the Ex-Offender is a manifestation of the important role the social and business communities play in corrections. In keeping with this realization, the- Concentrated Employment Program for the Ex-Offender envisiohed a strong need for a monthly publication to better integrate our correctional function into the communities of the North Piedmont.

This is the first edition of the Community Newsletter. Hereafter it will be published each month and will focus on the Concentrated Employment Program for the ExOffender and its interaction in the communities. -

As Ramsey Clark stated in Crime 1n America:

"We know that corrections can rehabilitate. We know that the younger the offender the better his and society's chance. We know that when we fall it ls all of us who suffer. America is a nation with the skills and resources to provide the necessary elements of rehabllltation: physical and mental health, all the education a youngster can absorb, vocational skills for the highest trade he can master, a calm and orderly environment away from anxiety and violence, living among people who care, who love-with these a boy can begin again. With these we can restore a reverence for life, a sense of security and a self-assurR.nce amid all the pressures of modern community life. These attitudes will not be developed in a laboratory. They must be developed in the community itself: first, sometimes, in the prison community but finally in the open society in which the individual must make his way by himself."

We hope that you will contact us if you have any questions or comments a.bout the Concentrated Employment Program for the Ex-Offender.

June 5, 1972

TERROR AT LOD-ITS INTERNATIONAL MESSAGE

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL OF NEW YORK



Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, political terrorism in the sky or on the ground against innocent civilian passengers is the most repugnant and inhumane behavior I know of. It is the kind of act that must be stopped regardless of cost, political sensitivities, inconvenience to passengers, or other obstacles.

I am speaking of the repulsive actions of three gunmen armed with automatic rifles and hand grenades, who on May 30, 1972, attacked a crowd of 300 people at Lod International Airport outside Tel Aviv, spraying them with bullets and :flinging live grenades in their midst.

The :floors of the airport's customs hall were splattered with the limbs of dismembered bodies and pools of blood, shattered glass, and broken doors. The walls were pockmarked with bullet holes. Some 25 people, 14 of whom were pilgrims from the United States, died in the bloodbath and 76 more were wounded. A 3-year-old girl was among the dead.

The three gunmen were leftwing Japanese terrorists trained at a Palestinian guerrilla center in Lebanon. After firing indiscriminately into the crowd, one of the gunmen shot up two parked planes, then accidently blew himself up with a hand grenade. A second was killed by bullets fired by his comrades and the third was captured alive after unsuccessfully trying to blow up a plane.

The Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the group which claimed credit for the massacre, said it was in retaliation for the killing of two Arab guerrillas in a hijacking earlier in May. Regardless of motive, these senseless acts of violence can serve no purpose.

All governments with airlines entering Israel must immediately take steps to insure the safety of people. This means not only searching baggage, screening people, and policing aircraft while in Israel, but also taking these steps at all points along the way. If the terrorists' baggage had been checked in Rome where the gunmen boarded an Air France airline, over 100 innocent people would not be dead or wounded today.

The Embassy of Israel has issued a policy backgrounder interpreting the international meaning of these horrendous acts. The embassy rightly states that governments and airlines must immediately take the long overdue steps necessary to guarantee the safety of airline passengers. It is not sufficient for the Rome airport officials to blame the French airline officials and the French airline officials to deny negligence. Additionally, the Arab world carries the responsibility. Cairo has allowed the terrorist organizations to freely thrive. Beirut has furnished the arms, materials, and passports.


What is left to be done is to get all governments to make the necessary security arrangements and to bring to bear on such incidents the heavy weight of world opinion. I commend to my colleagues the following background report prepared by the Embassy of Israel here in Washington: 'TERROR AT Lon-ITS INTERNATIONAL MESSAGE

1. The international community has long recognized that there are categories of hostile behavior that cannot be tolerated and that, in the name of humanity and the universal interest must be outlawed. Political warfare through terror in the air against civilian carriers and passengers is clearly of this category. The carnage perpetrated at Lod International Airport by three terrorists on May 30, 1972, was an act of premeditated murder. It was an indiscriminate killing for killing's sake. Its victims were innocent civilians, men, women and children, most of them Christian pilgrims. It is not a parochial Israeli concern. It is reflective of a new and foul behavior by political extremists who take the lives of international travelers, employing as their weapon the vulnerability of mass air travel.

SECURITY NEGLIGENCE 2. Violence and murder in the air have

proven to be so contagious as to constitute now a world problem. Unless checked, it threatens the very fibre of communications between states and the orderly transport of peoples and goods. Governments and airlines have it in their power to take the long overdue steps necessary to guarantee the safety of the international traveling community, on the ground and in the air. It cannot be done piecemeal as the most recent Lod tragedy so horrifically demonstrated. It is not sufficient for the Israel national airline or the Lod airport authorities to take maximum security precautions if airline and airport authorities elsewhere permit passengers to board aircraft concealing automatic rifles and grenades to murder scores of innocent people on landing in Israel. To do so is negligance bordering on the criminal. Air France, the particular airline involved in the recent Lod tragedy, is not alone, however. Siinila.r conditions of negligence prevail at most international airports and on most carriers as the universal spread of violence in the air proves.

3. If sanity is to be restored to traffic in the air it requires the urgent and forceful action of both air carriers and governments working in concert. It requires stringent standards of security even if this inconveniences passengers. This is the minimal price for saving lives. No less important than the thorough searching of baggage and of persons, the screening of suspect individuals and the policing of aircraft in the air are steps called for on the part of the international community on the political level.

FOREIGN AGENTS 4. In the case of the murderous attack at

Lod Airport on May 30, 1972, the perpetrators were three Japanese terrorists. They did not act on their own behalf. Their horrendous mission was in the service of the Beirutba.sed terrorist group calUng itself "The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine". Members of this group claim responsibility for previous terror acts in the air, but now they are reduced, evidently, to "liberation by proxy", employing foreign agents for their killings. Within the hour, the Popular Front issued its communique in Beirut claiming credit for the organization of the murder. Radio Cairo and the two major Cairo dallies, "Al Ahram" and "Al-Goumhuria" characterized the action as "a. brilliant surprise feat" and. as "the beginnings of the fedayeen uprising marking June 5".

19749 The Fatah radio station in Syria lauded the killings in similar vein. Commented Prime Minist er Golda Meir in the Knesset on May 31, 1972:

"As soon as the news of what happened broke, joy broke out in Cairo and in Beirut over the 'great victory'. Dozens of people were killed and scores of others woundedand there is no end to the rejoicing. Those who were unable to stand up against us on the battlefields a.re great heroes at hiding explosives in planes, at assaults on planes and passengers. and in their readiness to blow up a plane with a hundred people aboard-a5 they did two years ago in the Swissair disaster. This, indeed, takes great 'courage'. And if the little 'courage' needed for that is lacking, foreigners are recruited for the purpose".

CONNIVANCE OF GOVERNMENTS 5. Arab governments carry a grave respon~

sibility for the foul record of murder and maiming of men, women and children alluded to by Mrs. Meir in her address. Two governments share a particular blame-the Egyptian and the Lebanese. For years Cairo has given its blessing to the indiscriminate klllings by the terrorist groups as an instrument of its own policies against Israel. Cairo is the location of most of the conferences of the terror organizations which are invariably greeted by President Sadat. It is a. prime source of their instruction and it is the Egyptian regime that grant s the major moral and political backing for their exploit s .

It is from the Lebanese capital that the air terror and sabotage acts abroad mainly emanate. In Beirut are located the headquarters of the main terrorist organizations, including the Popular Front. Here the travel documents and other necessary papers a.re prepared, and the arms, sabotage materials and operational commands issued. Training for terrorist operations abroad are also carried out on Lebanese soil.

6. The international community has the means, were it but willing to use them, to convince such governments of the inadmissability of their behavior. Certainly, it requires far more concrete steps than halfmeasures and declarations by official , international and private agencies. Tangible actions are needed including measures extending, if necessary, to abstention from the use of certain airports and airlines.

It is in the Arab capitals that the murderous plots are hatched. They have to be made to understand that their connivance in air terror warfare constitutes a crime against the world community.

TWO NECESSARY STEPS 7. Arab terror against Israel is n ot new. It

was a. phenomenon of the pre-State era, it served as the overture to the invasion of the Arab armies in 1948, and it was tried by Egypt in the 1950's and again by Syria in the early sixties. Militarily, it is of no significance, as the attempted terror campaign following the '67 war has proven. That campaign dwindled to impotence in the past two yea.rs due, not a little, to the refusal of th~ Arab inhabitants of the areas administered by Israel to become party to it. What is left, is the sporadic criminal acts of Arab extremists bent on killing innocent civilians for its own sake, and in hijacking aircraft to win the release of other terrorists to swell their ranks. They are international outlaws. Two major international efforts are required to eliininate them. National governments must take the drastic and cooperative steps necessary to reduce to the minimum the threat to international air passenger traffic. And Arab governments must be brought to the realization that their collaboration with air terrorism carries a. too heavy international price tag.

19750 U.S. ASSESSMENTS TO U.N.

HON. DONALD M. FRASER OF MINNESOTA



Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, the House Appropriations Committee reported out the State Department appropriation bill with a unilateral reduction of our legally assessed contribution to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies. It started in motion a dangerous process which can place this country at the top of the list of nations which disregard international treaty obligations by defaulting in their payment of dues to international organizations.

On May 18, the House voted down an amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI) ' which would have restored the cuts made by the Appropriations Committee. Last week the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a State Department appropriations bill that would limit the U.S. contribution to 25 percent of the U.N. budget after January 1, 1973. All of these actions ignore the procedure for U.N. assessments that this country accepted when it became r. member of the U.N. These actions also undermine the President's policy of obtaining a 25-percent limitation through negotiations with the U.N., a goal which might be reached by January 1, 1974.

Two recent items from the Washington Post point out the perils of these illegal unilateral actions. Both articles were written after the House vote on May 18, and both call upon the Senate to respect our international obligation to pay. Mr. Stephen M. Schwebel, in "Congress vs. International Law" expresses the hope that:

. . . the President of the United States will exert his full and sustained influence in favor of the United States meeting its international commitments.

We have reached the paint at which the Senate vote may make the difference between honoring our obligation to pay our dues or driving the U.N. into total financial collapse this year. Full White House support for our legal obligations to the U .N. is, indeed, required.

I include Mr. Schwebel's article and the Washington Post editorial "A Meat Axe in International Affairs," both dated May 25, in the RECORD: (From the Washington Post, May 24, 1972}

A MEAT AXE IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAmS

Elsewhere on this page today, Stephen M. Schwebel discusses the legal implications of last week's House vote to cut back unilaterally on U.S. financial obligations to the U.N.-an action inspired and led by Congressman Rooney of New York. The net effect of this vote-if it is upheld by the Senatewould be simple. It would reduce the United States payment from $60.1 million to $46.9 million. According to knowledgeable analysts, the U.N., with a full contribution from the United States, would end up on December 31 with only $1.9 million in the bank and nothing in reserve. Opera.ting with the diminished U.S. contribution it would run out of money sometime in the third week of October-just in the early stages o! the General Assembly

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS meetings-with all the world watching the results of Mr. Rooney's handiwork.

And an ugly handiwork it is. The U.N. would not have money to pay salaries or expenses and would have to borrow in order to operate. But without any hope of a full contribution from the United States, there would be little likelihood that there would ever be any money to pay the loan ... a position that even the kindliest neighborhood finance company would find it hard to smile upon.

Thus, Mr. Rooney has treated the United Nations, our international obligations and our international credit with the same disdain he usually reserves for Directors of the United States Information Agency, Assistant Secretaries of State and Assistant Attorneys General.

When the Rooney mace is wielded in family squabbles between the legislative and the executive branches of the government, however, all that suffer are the dignity of the governmental process in this country, some important programs and the egos of some o! the men the President has asked to help him do a job. But when the Rooney treatment is turned to violating our treaty obligations and will serve to humiliate the country in the eyes of the rest of the world, it becomes a bit hard to determine how this President, or any other, is going to be successful in bringing off a "generation of peace." Such a dream must encompass a notion of world order and adult behavior by all nations, particularly the one that prides itself on being the most powerful nation in the world.

Moreover, it would ill serve the cause o! peace or the international standing of the United States to argue that since France and the Soviet Union began to renege first, we are justified, after the vote admitting China and the Tanzanian dance in the aisle, to behave like a pitiful helpless child, picking up our marbles and running for home. The rest of the world expects more from us and we have a right to expect more of ourselves.

Both the White House and the Department of State have protested the move. The President has stated that he believes that ultimately our aim should be to reduce our contribution to 25 per cent through orderly multilateral negotiations and the processes of the United Nations-according to our treaty commitments. That makes a great deal more sense than the Rooney meat axe .

It is to be hoped that when the bill gets to the Senate, our international obligations, the views of the President and those of the Secretary of State wlll be treated with the intelligence that they and our national honor deserve.

[From the Washington Post, May 25, 1972) CONGRESS VERSUS INTERNATIONAL LAW

(By Stephen M. Schwebel) (The writer is professor of international

law at the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University.)

To the apparent surprise of the State Department and the unconcealed anguish of the United Nations, Congressman John J. Rooney has extended the reach of his financial squeeze upon the International Labor Organization to embrace the whole U.N. system. A bill he has steered through the House of Representatives, if accepted by the Senate, will appropriate about $151,000,000 to meet the American financial "obligations of membership" in the international organizations to which we belong-"Provided, that no payment shall be made . . . to the United Nations or any affiliated agency in excess of 25 percentum of the total annual assessment of such organization ... "

The blll, in other words, recognizes that the U.S. government is bound to meet certain obligations "pursuant to treaties," but it then proceeds to set an arbitrary limit on the extent to which such obligations shall be met. As a result of this prospective 25 per

June 5, 1972 cent limitation on U.S. contributions, the House has reduced the authorized sum to be appropriated this year for the U.N. and most of its specialized agencies (the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, etc.) by some $25,00-0 ,000.

"Much has been said and written by officials of the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government," Mr. Rooney's report declares, "relative to the necessity for reductions in our contributions to these international organizations but to date little has been accomplished. This recommended reduction serves notice that the Congress means what it has been saying in this regard." The reference in Mr. Rooney's report to what has been said and written about "the necessity" of reductions in U.S. contributions to the U.N. system is suggestive. Therein lies a story, the essentials of which are these.

A year ago, the President's Commission for the Observance of the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the United Nations (the "Lodge Commission'') recommended that the U.S. affirm its intention to maintain and increase its total contributions to the U.N., but that it seek ·•over a period of years to reduce its current contribution of 31.52 percent to the assessed regular budget of the Organization so that eventually its share will not exceed 25 percent." As U.S. obligatory assessments decline, U.S. voluntary contributions would rise. The apparent rationale of this recommendation was to reduce somewhat the disparity between U.N. voting power and U.N. assessments---assessments based essentially on the relative capacity of members to pay.

This recommendation was one of the few of the Presidential Commission which the President took up-at lea.st in part. In his "State of the World" message, Mr. Nixon declared that the Administraition's policy would be "to negotiate with other U.N. member states" a reduction in assessments on the U.S. to the level of 25 percent. But the President cautioned: "In view of the U.N.'s current financial difficulties, and of the requirements of international law, we must proceed in an orderly way in reaching this goal. It is unrealistic to expect that it can be done immediaJtely." The President accordingly recognized that a U.N. reduction in U.S. assessments would, in view of the "requirements of international law," have to be negotiated multilaterally, not imposed unilaterally. And he implied that the negotiation would take time-which was putting it mildly indeed.

Those familiar with the U.N. scene were aware that, in terms of political realities, U.S. assessments could only be reduced by the payment of dues of new members; that the prospective new members rich enough to pay something significant are the two Germ.antes, whose admission-with the ratification of the Ostpolitik treaties-is foreseen in 1973; and that a.bout three quarters of their contributions would have to be earmarked for the reduction of assessments upon the United States i! the percentage paid by it were to sink to 25 percent.

However, there is little reason to suppose that all other members of the U.N., or even all the developed non-Communist countries, would forego the great bulk of all the reductions to which they would be entitled by reason of the admission of the Germanies in order to please the United States. This is especially true in the face of the fact that the U.S. continues to earn more than 30 percent of the national income o! the total U.N. membership. While in the next few years, the U.S. should, by reason o'f its normal share o! the contributions which the addition of German membership should bring, benefit by a reduction in assessments to 28 to 29 percent, it is doubtful that the deftest of diplomacy could succeed in extracting 25 percent. And, if it did, the U.S. would doubtless pay more quid in the process than that trivial, addi-

June 5, 1972 tional U.N. quo of about $6,500,000 a year would be worth.

Mr. Rooney, perhaps perceiving all this, has in any event proceeded not in what the President describes as an "orderly way", but in his own disorderly way, in contempt both of international law and the international credit of the United States. The House sustained him, as it has since 1970 in his financial assaults on the I.L.O. The I.L.O. experience, incidentally, demonstrates that the U.N. systems' vulnerability to U.S. financial irresponsibility will not be much moderated by a reduction of U.S. assessments to 25 per cent. For unlike all other U.N. agencies, the I.L.O. has traditionally assessed and today assesses the United States at 25 per cent.

The international law of the matter is beyond dispute. The U.N. Charter, and comparable clauses of the constitutions of the specialized agencies, provide that the expenses of the Organization "shall"-not "may" but "shall"-be borne by the members "as apportioned by the General Assembly" (not as apportioned by the Congress of the United States). When the extent of this obligation was argued before the International Court of Justice in its advisory proceedings on Certain Expenses of the United Nations the U.S. maintained that: " ... the General Assembly's adoption and apportionment of the Organization's expenses create a binding international legal obligation on the part of States Members to pay their assessed shares." The Court agreed.

To be sure, the Soviet bloc, urged on by de Gaulle, &>tuck with France in spurning the Court's advice and the General Assembly's acceptance of it. The Assembly turned out to lack the guts to apply the Charter's mandatory provision for suspension of voting rights of financial delinquents-a decision, or lack of decision, whose vultures are now coming home to roost.

But it is not certain that, this time, the U.S. Senate will defer to Congressman Rooney's leadership of the House. Hopefully, the Senate, which has talked much of late of respect for international law, will not swallow wholesale violations of treaties to which it has given its advice and consent. And hopefully, this time, the President of the United States will exert his full and sustained influence in favor of the United States meeting its international commitments.

"THE LAST POOR MAN": ED HURLEY AUTHORS A REMARKABLE BOOK ON NEW YORK CITY POLITICS

HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN OF NEW YORK



Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most provocative and powerful books on the political scene today is Ed Hurley's "The Last Poor Man." This book brilliantly desc1ibes the political realities facing those who seek elective office on the precinct level or who harbor dreams for State and national office. Mr. Hurley is a highly respected writer for the New York Daily News and for years his political observations have enlightened countless readers.

This publication is of particular importance to those of us in Queens, N.Y., because we are all familiar with Frank O'Connor's great abilities and exemplary character as a public servant. I had the distinct privilege of serving with Mr. O'Connor in the State senate and all New


Yorkers know of this fine record, as district attorney, as president of the New York City Council, and now as a State supreme court judge.

Because of the timeliness of this book and in view of the expertise of its author. I enthusiastically commend this book to those who are seeking elective office. Mr. Hurley's insights as well as his :firsthand analysis of issues and political events, make this book must reading.

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the RECORD, at this time, a brief publishers sketch of "The Last Poor Man" and its author Ed Hurley:

"THE LAST POOR MAN"

"The Last Poor Man" tunes in on television as the most powerful weapon in a modern political candidate's arsenal. The medium's enormous expense, the biggest drain on the campaign treasury, is making public office the millionaires' play toy.

Frank O'Connor, titular leader of New York State's Democratic Party, has felt this sting several times. Simply speaking, O'Connor has experienced the frustration of not being able to compete financially-commercial for commercial-with the Empire State's wealthy families in the quest for public office.

"The Last Poor Man" examines bossism, the shabby Democratic Party version and the high-tone Republican Party style. The book explores, from firsthand knowledge, the brawls of precinct politics and the loftyand not so lofty-campaigns for high office.

The limitation of these positions of "honor and trust" to the select few millionaire dynasties can become the tragedy of our democracy. Laws regulating campaign expenditures and contributions have become shams, ignored and freely violated.

"The Last Poor Man" concludes with a breezy peek into the future and a compelling question directed at you. A question-indeed a challenge-that cannot for long be ignored.

THE AUTHOR

Ed Hurley's special view of New York politics and its colorful characters comes from opposite angles. He has witnessed major political events from the vantage point of the press section.

Hurley has also sat in council in the famous smoke-filled rooms of the Regular and Reform Democrats. He has visited their Republican counterparts in posh, air-conditioned splendor. A privilege not granted to many, especially newspapermen.

Hurley's political columns and special features for the New York Daily News have been saluted throughout the Empire State.

The author has campaigned in the election districts of New York City's five boroughs and toured the country in Air Force One with President John F. Kennedy. Hurley campaigned for JFK in 1952 "before it became fashionable." He has also worked in the political ventures of Bob Kennedy, Adlai Stevenson, Bob Wagner and a score of congressional figures.

GUN CONTROL

HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL OF vmGINIA


Monday, June 5, 1972 Mr. BROYlllLL of Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, we all agree something should be done to solve the great problem of preventing deranged people and criminals in the commission of crimes from getting hold of guns.

19751 The attempt to assassinate Gov.

George C. Wallace of Alabama has revived talk of enacting additional Federal firearms controls. While new means of handling this problem must be explored, more than ever we must approach each recommended solution with careful study and restraint to prevent the enactment of confiscatory legislation which, if enacted in haste and under the pressure of hysteria, could well cause more harm than good to the general public we would be trying to protect.

Governor Wallace was shot and wounded by a supposedly demented man who trailed him through a half dozen States by automobile before firing a shot from a pistol. There has been no talk about setting up better mental health facilities or detection techniques to identify the mentally disturbed. There has been no talk of enacting more stringent laws against the use of firearms in the commission of a felony or even the use of motor vehicles to perpetrate a crime, nor have the courts vigorously applied laws enacted in 1970 by the Congress which require certain mandatory sentences of persons convicted of a felony where a firearm was involved. All of these factors, it would appear upon cool consideration, are fully as important as any rush to legislate against handguns and perhaps even more so.

The present administration has consistently taken the position that gun control is essentially a matter of State regulation. This is logical under the longstanding theory of law that the police power is reserved to the individual States, because a law which is good for one State may not be good for another. Insofar as gun laws are concerned, the Federal Government should at most back up the States, where possible in such a way as to enable them to enforce their own laws which are best fitted to their own conditions. This is a traditional realistic American way of thinking.

It should be of interest to Viflginians and to the rest of the Nation that the suspect in the Wallace shooting committed the crime exactly 7 weeks to the day after a new, restrictive Maryland handgun control law took effect. That law would have been sufficient to stop him in advance if anyone had sought to invoke it. Unfortunately, no one did, although the suspect had been under surveillance by law enforcement officers repeatedly during the weeks preceding the Wallace shooting. Under the "st.JP and frisk" provision of the Maryland law, officers could have searched the suspect at any time if his conduct or appearance caused them to believe that he was carrying a firearm with unlawful intent.

The new Maryland law is in fact one of the strongest in the Nation. It is as strong, if not stronger, than any Federal firearms law which has a possibility of enactment and application under such circumstances. How can there be any law much stronger than one which permits citizens to be searched on mere police suspicion? There was indeed opposition to the Maryland law on grounds that it was too strong in this respect and tended to violate civil liberties.

Some say the answer to this problem

19752 is to confiscate all guns. However, I have serious problems with this proposition for several reasons. One will suffice: Lawabiding American citizens are not in any mood to surrender their firearms meekly in these troubled times, to anyone on any pretext.

All probable information indicates that a majority of the families in the United States own one or more firearms, sometimes as many as a dozen or more. It is estimated that there are approximately 50 million privately owned handguns, alone, in the United States. The vast majority of these are owned by good, lawabiding citizens. It mtght well be unconstitutional to deprive them of their property without due process. It might well impinge on their constitutional rights to protect themselves, their dear ones and their property against criminal hoodlumism which has been so rampant in recent years, not to mention the entirely proper "pursuit of happiness" which takes more than 20 million hunters afield every year for the sake of sport.

It is no mere catch-phrase to say that any law attempting to confiscate private firearms in the United States is likely to leave the inevitable residue of guns mostly in the hands of criminals and others who make a habit of failing to comply with laws. Homicide and other crime would still exist, under those circumstances, and conceivably could increase.

The problem of attacks on public figures is a very real and acute one, and Governor Wallace has the deep and sincere sympathy of all good Americans. Yet if there is a solution to such attacks, it ~ust be far more comprehensive than merely outlawing certain types of guns or even prohibiting all private firearms ownership.

Whether there is any way to assist the mentally disturbed and alleviate ·the threat that comes from a few of them is a huge question in itself. Certainly some answers can be found. Whether there is any way to curb the use of firearms in crime, when even children have manufactured the "zip-gun" from pieces of ordinary pipe, is a problem awaiting solution. I personally feel that one of the best solutions is vigorous enforcement of the Federal law requiring mandatory sentencing of those using a gun in the commission of a crime. Unfortunately the courts have so far been reluctant to forcefully apply this law. Nonetheless, to approach only one phase of the immediate situation by hastily passed gun control legislation is no real approach at all. It is political sophistry and should be recognized and opposed as such.

Finally, it should be said that no o~e legislative stroke is going to cause this problem to dry up and blow away. It is a problem, however, that needs solving and one which I intend to fully pursue.

MAN'S INHUMANITY TO MAN-HOW LONG?

HON. WILLIAM J. SCHERLE OF J:OWA



Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, a child asks: "Where is daddy?" A mother asks:


"How is my son?" A wife asks: "Is my husband alive or dead?"

Communist North Vietnam is sadistically practicing spiritual and mental genocide on over 1600 American prisoners of war and their families.

How long?

CARROLL M. CRAFI' RETffiESALASKA STATE OFFICIAL

HON. NICK BEGICH OF ALASKA



Mr. BEGICH. Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 1972, Mr. Carroll M. "Murph" Craft will retire as the Alaska State Director of Vocational Rehabilitation after 11 years of dedicated service to Alaska and 14% years in the rehabilitation field.

Four years ago, Mr. Craft went before the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation with the suggestion that they establish a minimum allotment of $1 million in funds to the States for the basic SUPPort program for vocational rehabilitation services. At that time, the Council of State Administrators made this proposal part of their program and took it before the National Rehabilitation Association. This association also accepted the proposal and this minimum allotment of $1 million was made a part of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act.

About 2 years ago, Mr. Craft evaluated the program and found that the $1 million minimum was inadequate for the less populous States which have a higher per capita income, such as Alaska. He, again, went to the Council of State Administrators and to the National Rehabilitation Association for approval of his proposal that a $2 million minimum be set.

Recent legislation <H.R. 8395) was passed by the House of Representatives which recognizes Mr. Craft's foresight. The committee, in title I, section 103, has gone even further and added a provision that--

The minimum available to each State will be $2 million or ¥.t of 1 percent of the am.ount appropriated, whichever is greater.

This action was taken in recognition of the fact that--

A certain minimum level of funding is necessary to conduct an adequate program in any State, but once that minimum is achieved, the minimum should be allowed to expand in relation to the total amount of funds available for matching.

Mr. Craft has been a loya1, dedicated worker in the field of rehabilitation for many years and has felt a professional obligation to help to make the rehabilitation system the best possible program available. He has been active and concerned about the services provided for physically and mentally handicapped persons, and it was with this in mind that he sought to have the basic level of funding raised for less populous States. Because of his outstanding efforts, the handicapped people of Alaska, Dela ware, Nevada, and Wyoming will be able to receive basic services to help to prepare

June 5, 1972

them for employment and a productive, useful life. The House report to accompany H.R. 8395 defines these basic services as:

(1) comprehensive evaluation, including medical study and diagnosis;

(2) medical, surgical, and hospital care, and related therapy to remove or reduce disa.bllity;

(3) prosthetic and orthopedic devices; (4) counseling or reduce disa.bllity; ( 5) training services; (6) services in comprehensive or spec1a.1-

1zed rehabllitation facilities, including adjustment centers;

(7) maintenance and transportation asap· proprlate during rehabilitation;

(8) tools, equipment, and licenses for work on a job or in establishing a small business;

(9) initial stock and supplies, and mana.gemeillt services and supervision, for small businesses including the acquisitton of vending stands by the Staite agency;

(10) reader services for the blind and interpreter services for the deaf;

(11) recruitment and training services to provide new careers for handicapped people 1n the field of rehabilitation and other public service areas;

(12) the construction or establishment of rehabilitation facilities;

(13) the provision of facllities and services which promd.se to contribute to a group of handicapped people, but which do not relate direotly to the rehabilitation plan of any one individual;

(14) services to families of handicapped people when <.uc'1 s ,rvices will contribute substantially to the r ehabilitation of the handica.pped client;

(15) placement services, including followup services, to assist handicapped individuals to secure and maintain their employment; and

(16 ) other goods and services necessary to render a ha.ndicapped person employable.

The purpose of the vocational rehabilitation program is to combine all resources in a coordinated. way, to bring the disabled or handicapped person to the best functioning level.

The field of rehabilitation will miss "Murph" Craft when he retires on July 15, but the progress he has brought about through his innovative ideas and his genuine concern for the physically and mentally handicapped people of this Nation will be a rich reward for his years of outstanding service. On behalf of all Americans, I want to express our gratitude for Mr. Craft's exceptional achievements in the field of vocational rehabilitation.

HUNGER STRIKE COMMENCED BY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS TO PROTEST WAR

HON. ABNER J. MIKVA OF ILLINOIS



Mr. MIKV A. Mr. Speaker, more and more people around the country are feeling the frustration of watching the President, who was elected on his pledge to end the war in Southeast Asia, continually escalate the level of American involvement through increased air attacks and most recently by mining Haiphong Harbor.

The American people want to get out of Vietnam. The Vietnamese people want us out. And yet we stay, seeking a mili-

June 5, 1972 tary victory while proclaiming a desire for peace.

Inevitably, Americans come to wonder what difference they can make, when their President acts like an absolute monarch and Congress sits on its hands.

In an effort to express their frustration, to express their opposition to the policies being pursued by the President, 203 students at Northwestern University in Evanston, m., committed themselves to a hunger strike- They have asked other Americans who ~hare their strong feelings to join them in this expression of opposition and of "Personal commitment.

Mr. Speaker., J. hope and pray that such hunger strikes need not last too much longer. The eonscience of the Nation cannot starve lor much longer and still remain alive.

NATIONAL l:SLOOD BANK ACT OF 1972

HON. FRANK HORTON OF NEW YORK



Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I have sponsored legislation to deal forcefully with the purity and safety of the Nation's blood supply. The National Blood Bank Act of 1972, authored by our colleague from California <Mr. VEYSEY) would establish a Federal program to encourage voluntary blood donation and require that all blood banks be licensed and inspected by the Federal Government.

These steps would drastically reduce the incidence of serum hepatitis by getting at the primary source of this insidious disease: the paid blood donor. There is ample evidence that the risk of contracting hepatitis from the blood of paid donors is far greater than the risk from blood donated voluntarily. I understand the risk estimates range from at least 11 times greater to as high as 70 times greater. According to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Center for Disease Control-CDC-52,583 cases of serum hepatitis were reported in 1970 alone. Given these statistics, it is alarming to think that only seven States license blood banks and only five inspect them. The Federal Government has been equally negligent.

The dangers of bad blood have come all too close to home for me. Recently, one of my closest friends suffered a serious coronary attack and had to undergo a major heart operation. Little did he know that the routine transfusions he required would prove as risky as this most delicate surgery. He contracted serum hepatitis from contaminated blood.

My friend survived, but one out of every 150 transfusion patients over age 40 does not. Dr. J. Garrott Allen, probably the Nation's most eminent expert on the blood problem, has estimated 3,500 deaths and 50,000 illnesses a year from serum hepatitis. Because so many serum hepatitis cases go unreported by physicians,


the CDC says the rate could be 2 to 10 times Dr. Allen's estimate.

The National Blood Bank Act of 1972 should not be interpreted as a condemnation of all blood bank operations. On the contrary, it seeks, in a responsible manner, to require disreputable operators to adhere to the same standards followed by conscientious blood banks in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are indebted to our colleague, Mr. VEYSEY, for introducing legislation that hopefully will lead to congressional scrutiiny of blook banking. I urge our committee to move on this legislation before we run out of time in this Congress.

DAYLIN, INC. HONORS THE FUND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION-IN ISRAEL

HON. THOMAS M. REES OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. REES. Mr. Speaker, an American company which has concerned itself with matters of social responsibility for most of its corporate life has undertaken a unique project which I wish to call to the attention of the House.

The company, Daylin, Inc., with headquarters in my district in Beverly Hills, Calif., has operations in the retail business throughout the United States. This forward-looking company has lent its name and prestige to the Fund for Higher Education-in Israel-to support a tri-university dinner which will be held on June 25, 1972, at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills.

The uniqueness of this undertaking is that it will raise funds for projects at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and Tel Aviv University in Tel Aviv, Israel. To the best of my recollection this is the first time in the history of academic fundraising that an effort has been made simulaneously on behalf of more than one university at a single function.

But then, the Fund for Higher Education-in Israel--stands out as different in other important ways. Although it has that parenthetical phrase "in Israel" as part of its very name, the fund aims its philanthropy not only at America's stanch ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel, but also at American institutions as well.

For lending their efforts to the fundraising activities for this educationally enriching purpose, a distinguished group of Daylin executives are being honored, one of them posthumously.

The Fund for Higher Education-in Israel-will establish the Peter Lum Lounge to serve students and faculty at the new pharmaceutical science center at the University of Southern California. Pete: Lum was the first pharmacist hired by Daylin. The son of Chinese immigrants, he had grown with the company to become the first man to hold the posi-

19753 tion of vice president of Daylin. He died in a tragic airplane crash in 1965, but his orphaned daughter, Helene Louise Lum, will attend the Los Angeles dinner to accept for him the Maimonides Laurel of the Fund for Higher Education-in Israel.

Also to be honored with him, and to receive the Maimonides Laurel, will be four senior executives, all pharmacists who worked with Peter Lum. They are Gary E. Parks, corporate vice president; Sol Goldsmith, president of Hospital Pharmacies, Inc.; Harold Heldf ond, president of Daylin Medical & Surgical, Inc.; and Francois D . . "Bo" Studer, president of Studer Wholesale Drugs.

In addition, a memorial plaque at the Peter Lum Lounge when completed will carry the names of the Daylin founders who planned the memorial, Amnon Barness, chairman of the board; Max Candiotty, president; and Dave Finkle, chairman of the executive committee. The plaque will list a total of some 75 friends and associates of Peter Lum still active with Daylin.

Brandeis University will be the recipient of funds to establish the Yearbook Room in the Student Union Building at the university. The room will be named for Alvin M. Levin, Secretary of Daylin, Inc. who will also receive the Maimonides Award.

Establishment of the George and Dorothe Swerdlow Mathematics Building in the Center for Theoretical Studies at Tel Aviv University will be the third result of the June 25 dinner. George Swerdlow is president of Western Big Wheel, a Daylin company, engaged in sale of automotive supplies through discount stores. Mr. Swerdlow and his wife, Dorothe, have been very active and their philanthropic gifts have helped many enterprises. Mr. Swerdlow will receive the Flame of Truth Award.

The Fund for Higher Education-in Israel-which was first launched some 18 months ago, now has under construction five buildings in Israel has commitments for the three others to which I have referred, as well as a fourth project soon to get underway, the Georges A. Hanzi Experimental Surgery Institute at Tel Hashomer Hospital, affiliated with Tel Aviv University.

The fund received its impetus from the founders of Daylin and has attracted a prestigious board of advisers which includes Dr. Albert B. Sabin, discoverer of the Sabin oral polio vaccine and head of the Weizmann Institute of Science; Alexander Goldberg, president of Technion; Prof. William Haber, adviser to the executive officers of the University of Michigan; Dr. Joseph J. Schwartz, renowned American Jewish communal leader and scholar; Dr. George S. Wise, chancellor of Tel Aviv University; and the Honorable Aviad Yafeh, member of the Knesset, Israel's parliament.

Daylin, Inc., its founders-Messrs. Barness, Candiotty, and Finkle-and the Fund for Higher Education-in Israelare to be commended for their foresight, their philanthropic eif orts and goals. They are a credit to American ingenuity and enterprise.

19754 CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS

PRESENTS THE BLACK DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE BLACK BILL OF RIGHTS

HON. LOUIS STOKES OF OHIO



Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, on June 1, 1972, the Congressional Black Caucus announced its preparation of the black declaration of independence and the black bill of rights. It was an historic moment and one which, we hope, will have positive repercussions throughout the American political system.

The preamble to the black declaration of independence states:

The Congression'al Black Caucus calls on the National Democratic Party, as the Party whose victories have always depended upon black votes, to take immediate steps to rectify the harsh conditions under which black citizens are forced to live.

We feel that the Democratic Party would take long strides toward this goal by adopting our minimum demands, as set forth in the 12 articles of the black bill of rights.

The black bill of rights' articles concern jobs and income; foreign policy; education; housing and urban problems; health; minority enterprise; drugs; penal reform; Democratic administration appointments; justice and civil rights; self-determination for the District of Columbia; and the military.

This document was prepared and will be presented to the National Democratic Party, at the request of the millions of poor, disadvantaged, and minority Americans who look to the Congressional Black Caucus for leadership. It was compiled after a year of intense hearings, meetings and conferences with hundreds of thousands of our nationwide constituency.

I urge my colleagues in this Chamber to review this document which we hope will have the strong support of every Democratic Member of this body and that you will join with us in this endeavor to enrich the quality of life for all Americans.

The preamble, declaration, and bill of rights follow: PREAMBLE TO THE BLACK DECLARATION OF

INDEPENDENCE AND THE BLACK BILL OF RIGHTS

Millions of black Americans look to the 13 black Members of the United States House of Representatives as their legitimate spokesmen on national issues. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are petitioned dally by citizens, living hundreds of miles from our Congressional Districts, who view us as Congressmen-at-large for Black America. This imposes an awesome burden on our shoulders. Large numbers of Black Americans have been subjected to intense hardships, have been denied their basic riehts, and have suffered irreparable harm because the two major political parties have failed to firmly and honestly commit their powers and resources to equality and justice for all.

It has become patently obvious to the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus that black Americans will no longer tolerate insensitivity and lack of concern on the part

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS of those who benefit from black involvement in the political process. Therefore, the Congressional Black Caucus calls on the National

· Democratic Party, as the Party whose victories have always depended upon black votes, to take immediate steps to rectify the harsh conditions under which black citizens are forced to live.

The new political mood permeating Black America makes it impressive that the Democratic Party address itself to the hopes, aspirations, concerns and rights of black Americans--if that Party expects to continue to receive the support of black voters. Benevolence and paternalism are unacceptable and wlll not be tolerated. The torch has passed to a new generation of blacks who no longer accommodate but confront; who no longer plead but demand; who no longer submit but fight.

THE BLACK DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"We have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies--just permanent interests."Rep. William "Bill" Clay.

We, the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, being the highest elected black officials in the United States, responding to a mandate from millions of black Americans, and in conjunction with thousands of representatives from our national constituency, do hereby demand that the following Black Bill of Rights be implemented immediately, to create a society which is truly founded upon the principles of freedom, justice, and full equality.

We insist that the Democratic Party, in its official pronouncements and policies, and at its national political convention, dedicate itself to the doctrine that no American shall be denied the fundamental right to be equal.

Black Americans are no longer petitioning !or equal treatment, but are demanding from the Democratic Party and its Presidential nominee a full, honest and unequivocal commitment to equality-in words, deeds, and most importantly, results.

If Black Americans are to achieve equality in this country, the Democratic Party must create the machinery to realize and to implement the Black Bill of Rights.

THE BLACK BILL OF RIGHTS

"It's not the man it's the plan; It's not the rap it's the map"--Ossie Davis.

I. JOBS AND INCOME

If the right to live is to be assured for blacks and other citizens, the new Democratic Administration must establish a full employment program and replace the present welfare system with a guaranteed annual income system.

A. Full Employment The number one priority, in our view, is

the creation of jobs to alter the present imbalance in the national unemployment rate. Whlle the national unemployment average is about 6 % , Black unemployment is an intolerable 10.6%. Joblessness among Black youth has soared to 44 % . Furthermore, in some cities Black unemployment reaches the shocking level of 45 % . These stark statistics represent millions of struggling Americans who seek employment and do not find it, who want to earn a living and are denied the opportunity. Confronting what is truly a national crisis, the Congressional Black Caucus calls for:

( 1) The establishment of a national monetary and fiscal policy designed to achieve continuous full employment and full production.

(2) A direct attack on the high unemployment among minority groups and in minority communities, through public service job programs, training programs, quality education and a computerized comprehensive national employment service.

(3) A systematic approach to solving the apparent tendency of full employment to

June 5, 1972 cause infiation. This would include more effective enforcement of the anti-trust laws, a comprehensive program of consumer education, and Federal product testing and quality rating.

B. Guaranteed annual income By now it is almost commonplace, if not

cliche, to state that the present welfare system is inadequate and inequitable. We urge that:

( 1) The present system be replaced by a guaranteed annual income system.

(2) The Democratic Party oppose any welfare "reform" program which fails to establish a one-year timetable for reaching a. guaranteed adequate income system of a minimum of $6,500 a year for a family of four.

(3) The Democratic Party oppose any punitive "workfare" requirement legislation.

II. FOREIGN POLICY

Black Americans, like all Americans, have a right to peace. If our right to peace and the right of black people on the continent of Africa to freedom and oppression are to be realized, the New Democratic Administration must bring an immediate and definite end to the war in Indochina and withdraw all support of colonialist or neo-colonialist forces on the continent of Africa.

A. End the war The New Democratic Administration must

terminate all military activities in Southeast Asia immediately, concomitant with an immediate withdrawal of all American land, sea and air forces.

B. Support African liberation Implementation of a New Democratic Ad

ministration Foreign Polley of support for the liberation of black people of Africa should be reflected in:

( 1) An increase in American aid to black African nations from 8.5 of our foreign aid to 20% for a period of five years.

( 2) An immediate halt to the purchase of chromium ore from Southern Rhodesia.

(3) The immediate transfer of our sugar quota arrangement from the Republic of South Africa to a majority-ruled state in South Africa.

(4) The withdrawal of all support from Portugal in terms of loans and grants and as a member of NATO.

(5) The withdrawal of all economic or polltlcal support from Africa countries that practice suppression and perpetuate inequality and apartheid.

(6) The discouragement of prlva.te American investment in South Africa and the closing of all U.S. government financed or contracted facillties, including the U.S. Embassy in the Republic of South Africa.

III. EDUCATION

The right to a quality education is as fundamental as any in the Bill of Rights. America can afford every chlld a quality education. To finance quality education for all, we urge the inclusion of specific tax reform recommendations in the Democratic Party Platform so that the cost of education will not continually be borne by the poor. The Party's commitment to quality education for blacks and other disadvantaged minorities should reflect itself in platform planks calling for:

A. Increased appropriations under Title I ot the Elementary and Secondary Educa-tion Act.

B. Increased funds for research and development in the areas of education for minorities.

C. Increased federal funds for black institutions of higher education.

D. Increased funds for aid to students and for community colleges.

E. The de>elopment of mechanisms for black control of schools where black children are educated, moving beyond the sterile issue of "busing" to the basic issue of the

June 5, 1972 redistribution of educational wealth and control.

F. Federal, state and local authorities to comply fully with the Supreme Court's recent school desegregation decision that busing will be employed as a suitable means to ensure quality education for all American children.

IV. HOUSING AND URBAN PROBLEMS

The right of every American to live in human decency must not be abridged by federal passiveness. Citizens of the innerc1ty, especially blacks, are confronted with increasingly deteriorating housing conditions. To remedy the current situations, we urge that your platform include a plank calling for:

A. A new Homestead Act, to make use of the billions of dollars worth of land now owned by federal, state, and local governments. This property must not move into the hands of private, for-profit developers when there is such drastic need for human housing and land use where black people live.

B. The rebuilding of the inner cities-not the removal of the poor.

C. Tax legislation which would provide priority treatment for investments in new and rehabilitated housing in the inner-city.

D. Free access by minority groups to housing in any community or building in the land.

V. HEALTH

A major plank of any national platform must be guaranteed health delivery systems. The current inaccessibility of adequate health delivery to all Americans; lack of adequate or comprehensive health coverage, and seemingly uncontrollable rises in health cost combine to relegate countless Americans to a state of insufficient medical care. To remedy this, we urge:

A. The establishment of a National Health Insurance for all citizens from birth until death, with free medical care for all the poor and near-poor.

B. A federal program to recruit and train minority medical and para-medical personnel.

c. The establishment of a national health delivery system which encompases those existing programs similar to the Neighborhood Health Centers (NHC) which are functioning well in a limited role with a delivery mechanism that provides physician's in-patient and out-patient hospital emergency services, out-of-area emergency service preventive health care, home health services, laboratory and radiological services and laboratory services included, and physical therapy. The concept of comprehensive health services should include the following areas: psychological, sociological, and environmental, as well as physiological.

D. That there be outreach services which attack the problems of health, education and health awareness in the community.

E. Health centers should be provided in a coordinated, continuous and comprehensive manner so that the services are available and accessible to the communities being served.

F . The establishment of state and national peer review programs for the medical profession.

G . That the schools of the health sciences at both Meharry and Howard University be expanded immediately to their maximum capacity and that, further, priority funding be given to any new schools of the health sciences which focus on increasing the number of minority members in the health field.

H. The establishment of a limit on profits which can be made on the sale of drugs.

VI. MINORITY ENTERPRISE

Business ownership and receipts reveal a wide economic disparity between blacks and whites in this country. For example, in a total of 7.3 million businesses, approx1mately 170,000, or slightly over 2 % , are black owned. Blacks constitute over 12 % of the popula-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS tion. These black businesses had sales of only 4.5 billion dollars; white businesses had gross sales of 1.5 trillion dollars. Black-owned banks and insurance companies owned less than one billion dollars in assets.

To correct the present inequities and to fulfill the right of black Americans to the free enterprise system, we urge that your platform include:

A. A call for an increase in the number of black-owned businesses with supporting grants and loans from the federal government and major corporations.

B. The establishment of a federal policy to set aside 15 % of all government contracts exclusively for black-owned businesses.

C. Provisions whereby all government funds earmarked to be expended in black areas be deposited in and disbursed by black banks.

VII. DRUGS

Black Americans have a right to drug-free lives and drug-free communities.

The goal of the Democratic Party must be to eliminate the illegal sale and use of drugs and to treat those who are unfortunately hooked on drugs not as criminals but as people with serious health problems. To accomplish this we urge the inclusion in your platform of a plank that:

A. Declares drug abuse and addiction a major national crisis.

B. Require the use of all existing resources to stop the illegal entry of drugs into the United States, including suspension of economic and military assistance to any country which fails to take appropriate steps to prevent narcotic drugs produced or processed in that country from entering the United States unlawfully.

C. Make funds available to every major city for the establishment of ambulatory detoxification and rehabilitation centers.

D. Provides federal financial support through a locally controlled board to reinforce the local initiatives.

E. Provides for efforts to develop non-addictive, safe and effective substances to prevent, treat, and cure addiction. Methadone is a highly addictive, dangerous and frequently abused drug. Methadone is no cureall for the problems of drugs. Methadone maintenance programs, and recently proposed heroin maintenance programs, should only be used with a full recognition of their limitations and with a commitment to develop alternative therapies.

VIII. PENAL REFORM

The tragedy at Attica has catapulted into national prominence the brutal fa.ct that most of our penal institutions are out-dated, inhumane, dehumanizing and extremely cruel. The new Democratic Administration must a.ct swiftly and decisively to implement enlightened methods of dealing with people who run afoul of the law-methods that view the time spent in prison not merely as punishment, but as an alternative factor in the re-socialization of a human being.

The Democratic Party's commitment to thorough-going penal reform should reflect itself in a plank that includes:

A. The establishment of reliable vehicles for the enunciation and redress of prisoner grievances.

B. The establishment of meaningful training programs, bath educational and vocational, which are complimented by work release and educational release programs, remuneration for all work performed and job placement assistance upon release.

C. The systematic inclusion of such aids to rehabilitation as halfway houses for men, home furloughs for married men and women, privacy, as relates both to correspondence and family visitations and to the full restoration of civil rights including the right to vote upon completion of a sentence.

D. An end to the practice of incarcerating individuals for their political beliefs and in-

19-755 tolerance of religious beliefs, particularly as they relate to dietary laws.

E. The revamping of first offender programs, methods of bail release, and parole and probation systems so as to encourage and assist the prison resident in readapting to society.

F. The construction of small, modern facilities by the federal government in proximity to the large urban areas and the recruitment of minority personnel for prison employment.

IX. DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION APPOINTMENTS

Though black Americans make up 20 % of the Democratic Party electorate, the blackman's right to their share of the power in a Democratic Administration has been woefully neglected by the party in the past. This must stop. The Democratic National Platform must call for black Americans receiving a proportionate amount of all appointed positions, up to and including the Cabinet of the President of the United States. Furthermore, federal judgeships shall reflect the percent.age of minority residents in any given state or local jurisdiction. In this policy's enactment, particular attention shall be paid to correct the racial imbalance which exists in the Southern federal judiciary.

X. JUSTICE AND CIVIL RIGHTS

Earlier this year the Congressional Black Caucus responded to the Administration's report on "Progress in Civil Rights". Our paper, entitled "From the Administration Which Gave Us Benign Neglect", scored the Administration's insincerity and hypocrisy on the subject of civil liberties and equal rights.

One critical area which we discussed at the time remains critical today-voting rights. The Democratic National Platform and the new Administration should move to:

A. Establish political guarantees that regional and metropolitan government arrangements do not disenfranchise or deny majority black cities and blacks in other jurisdictions the right of self-government, self-determination and control of their communities and of federal and state resources provided within metropolitan areas.

B. Effect the strict application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so that those currently disenfranchised will be able to participate in the upcoming election.

C. Increase the number of black federal judges and other legal omcials, including U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshalls, federal correctional omcers and other Justice Department employees in every region of the country. XI. SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

No Black Bill of Rights would be complete that did not call for the granting of self government to the nearly 800,000 residents of our Nation's Capitol, 72% of whom are black.

The National Democratic Platform should contain a firm commitment to the "Washington agenda" brought to Miami Beach by the duly elected District of Columbia. Delegation to the Democratic Convention, which agenda is also an integral part of the National Black Political Agenda.

The agenda calls for full congressional representation, an elected mayor and city council with an automatic federal payment formula and a host of interim and immediate steps that the President and the Congress must take to deal with the social, economic and political problems confronting the people of this, the Last Colony.

XII. THE MILITARY

It ls the RIGHT of every Serviceman and Servicewoman to be FREE from discrimination within the military system. Certainly this nation cannot be secure as long as its forces are more concerned with protecting themselves against their fellow servicemen than they are with fighting the external

19756 enemy. Although blacks make up to 10.8% of the military personnel, they are not permitted equal representation as officers; they receive a higher percentage of other than honorable discharges; and they are assigned to more menial occupational jobs.

The New Democratic Administration must deal with this reality and turn from lip service which condemns discrimination in our society to proposing concrete programs of reform.

We urge the creation of a Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civil Rights who would have direct access to the Secretary of Defense as well as to the Secretary of each branch of service.

We urge a complete revision of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would remove the judicial system from the military and transfer it to the civllian federal courts.

We urge the establishment of an independent non-judicial appeal procedure outside of the military chain of command.

We urge the elimination of all punitive discharges and the establishment of a certificate of service that would in effect remove the distinction of "honorable, dishonorable, undesirable", etc.

GENERAL CLARKE SPEAKS OUT FOR SOLDIERS IN RIOT SITUATIONS

HON. DURWARD G. HALL OF MISSOURI



Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a soldier of distinction, Gen. Bruce C. Clarke, USA, retired, is well aware of the problems facing our college campuses and our cities in recent years of protests and riots. General Clarke, however, is also concerned with the soldier's role in a riot situation. This outstanding soldier has expertise and experience that, I am sure, would be of great benefit and interest to this body. In the interest of explaining a soldier's duty, and a soldier's predicament in the riots for which they must defend people and property, I insert these remarks by General Clarke in the RECORD: THE CASE FOR THE SOLDIER CALLED OUT To

QUELL A DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE (By Gen. Bruce C. Clarke, USA, Retired) (EDITOR'S NoTE: General Clarke was an en

listed man in the National Guard in 1920-21. He was on the staff of Army Ground Forces in 1945-48, and was Commanding General of CONARC in 1958-60. Thus he has given much thought to the problems of employing troops to quell civil disturbances.)

In the early days of our existence as a nation we found that the Articles of Confederation were ineffective in providing the kind of Federal Government we needed. A Constitutional Convention was called. Its first order of business was to set down what services the people wanted the Federal Government to provide the citizens of our nation.

This became the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. Substantially, it set forth the following in one sentence:

"We the People of the United States 1n order to: Form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings o! liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

All six of these requirements for an ade-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS quate Federal Government were to be the products of a Government of laws functioning in an environment of law and order. The framers of our constitution considered that the orderly processes of a Government of laws could only exist in a. climate of domestic tranquility. Thus they used the phrase: "Insure domestic tranquility," not "restore domestic tranquility."

Is there anyone 1n the field of higher education who hasn't had reasons to be concerned with this subject in the past few years of campus demonstrations and disorders? Might it not be well for them to learn more, not only a.bout the nature of riots and rioters, but about the young men, pursuant to orders, who may be confronted with the unpleasant duty of insuring or restoring "domestic tranquility"?

When we think of what is the ca.use of a breakdown of domestic tranquility in a community, a riot comes to mind. What is a riot? Riot is a legal term defined as follows:

"A tumultuous disturbance of the peace by 3 persons or more assembling together of their own authority with the intent mutually to assist each other against any who shall oppose them in the execution of some enterprise of a private nature and actually executing the same in a violent and turbulent manner to the terror of the people whether the act intended were of itself lawful or unla.wful."-Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition.

Sometimes our Commander 1n Chief or our Governors of the several states call out a military force to insure domestic tranquility when a riot threatens but, often, they do not do so until the situation is out of hand and a riot has started and then the job of the troops is to restore domestic tranquility. The latter case confronts the young trooper with the more difficult mental, physical and disciplinary situation.

Let us now consider the young soldier, his leaders, his training, his opponents, his weapons, their weapons, their mental and emotional state, how to perform his task with the least injury to people and property and to himself. All of these factors must be considered in the framework of the morale, training and disciplinary veneer of the troops who are engaged under legal orders in a. confrontation with their own people on a task they do not like and from which they will receive little credit and probably much mental and possibly physical abuse.

Here a.re a few thoughts on the problem of handling riots by soldiers:

1. People who engage in a. riot are disorganized and emotional, and basically cowardly as a group. The crowd lacks unity and courage.

2. If we a.re going to handle them without bloodshed we must use enough force (or show enough force) to ca.use them to believe the riot has no chance of success.

3. A policy of "limited" or "graduated" response by police or troops can only encourage the rioters and lead to bloodshed.

4. The ones who egg on the rioters a.re almost never in front. They operate from a safe position in the rear.

5. The best trained soldiers have a "breaking point" when on such duty. Even though soldiers likely to be employed in riot duty a.re periodically given training the turnover of personnel is such that their training is seldom at full effectiveness when used on short notice.

6. Young soldiers can take only so much abuse, rocks, insults and casualties before their veneer of discipline and comma.ndercontrol wears thin-then they break under actual or feared threats.

7. When they break, people 1n the rioters' ranks-even bystanders--often get hurt or killed.

8. Those who caused armed soldiers to "break" a.re more to blame than the soldiers.

June 5, 1972 Students who cause this to happen are deficient in ordinary good judgment.

9. Unfortunately, it generally follows that incidents which result in casualties break the tension and cause those who are prone to riot to take a hard look at such tactics and stop using them. This has resulted from recent incidents.

10. Thus such incidents cause people to look at their problems rationally instead of emotionally. It is unfortunate they do not do it before people are hurt or killed.

11. The "inciters" to riot are really to blame, not the unfortunate young soldiers who have been called out by our elected officials to do a very distasteful and necessary job under very trying conditions.

"There is no grievance that is a fit object for redress by mob la.w."-A. Lincoln.

ALASKAN NATIVE CONCERNS IGNORED IN ENVffiONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE




Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Speaker, the Interior Department's final environmental impact statement on the trans-Alaska pipeline largely ignores the very legitimate concerns of the Alaskan Natives.

I would like to include in the RECORD today an excellent comment submitted to the Interior Department by Patrick Macrory of the law firm of Arnold and Porter on behalf of several Alaskan Native villages. This comment quite accurately details both the likely consequences of the construction and operation of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline on these Native villages and the failings of the impact statement to adequately consider and mitigate these expected consequences.

I urge my colleagues to read this important document, which follows: COMMENTS ON ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT STATE

MENT ISSUED BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CONCERNING THE TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE

(Submitted on Behalf of The Native Villages of Allakaket, Bettles, Minto, Rampart and Stevens Village) These comments are submitted by five In·

dia.n Villages situated close to the proposed Trans-Alaska. Pipeline. Two witnesses, Chief Richard Frank and David Wolf, Esq., testified on behalf of these vlllages at the hearings held by the Department of the Interior in 1971.

Although the Impact Statement represents some improvement over the draft Impact Statement released by the Department in January 1971, it remains inadequate in many important areas vital to the needs of Alaska's native population.1 Moreover, the stipula-

1 These inadequacies cannot be analyzed in full here because of the pressures of time. Only 45 days have been allowed for comment on a nine-volume report, more than 2500 pages in length. We find it difficult to a.void the conclusion that the Department regards the expression of views by members of the public as a. pro forma exercise.

Three deficiencies may be briefly noted: (a) the failure to discuss the need for a

further Impact Statement when final, as op-

June 5, 1972 tions which the Department would require Alyeska to enter into as a condition of granting the pipeline permits it seeks are weak and insubstantial. They afford neither our villages nor any of the native villages situated near the pipeline any significant protection from the impact of the pipeline project.

The remarkable fact is that, despite the enormous quantities of additional evidence obtained by and submitted to the Department as to the adverse impact of the pipeline on Alaska's natives, the stipulations affecting the native population are virtually unchanged from the original stipulations contained in the first draft of the Impact Statement. The Department has simply ignored the extensive evidence gathered by and the views of the persons most affected by the pipeline, the natives of Alaska. The Department evidently considers it sufficient compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act merely to obtain the views of other government departments and the public, without permitting those views to have any bearing on a decision apparently already reached. The Secretary of the Interior is the trustee for the native people of Alaska; they are his wards and a.re entitled by law to his protection. The present stipulations are an abdication of trust by the Department of the Interior.

A. THE IMPACT OF THE PIPELINE AND HAUL ROAD

1. Oil Leaks of Unpredictable Magnitude and Serious Siltation of Rivers are Virtually Certain to Occur

A few excerpts from the Impact Statement make graphically plain the enormous risks to the environment, and to Alaska's natives, that the Trans-Ala.ska Pipeline would entail:

" ... the performance record of pipelines in general and the abundance of environmental factors in Alaska that could contribute to pipeline rupture are such that perfect nosplll performance would be unlikely during the lifetime of the pipeline. It therefore is likely that some spills would occur, but their size, location and frequency are indeterminate." (Vol. 1, p. 27, emphasis supplied here and throughout.)

"Any point along the southern two-thirds of the proposed pipeline route could be subjected to an earthquake of magnitude greater than 7.0 on the Richter Scale, and it is almost a certainty that one or more large magnitude earthquakes will occur in the vicinity of this portion of the proposed route during the lifetime of the pipeline. Strong ground motion and large ground displacement accompanying such an earthquake could damage-even rupture-the proposed pipeline." (Id., p. 97.)

"The excavation of construction materials in areas of ice-rich permafrost would cause the permafrost to thaw. The materials could become unstable and flow or slide, especially on slopes. Locally, excavation in flood plains might cause diversion of stream channels, and where such excavation occurred, pools would form and siltation would follow." (Id., p. 95.)

"Thawing of permafrost by heat from the pipeline and by redirected surface and ground water could result in slope failure and differential settlement in areas under-

posed to preliminary, design plans for the pipeline are submitted to the Department;

(b) the inadequate discussion of the possibility of running the natural gas pipeline that will be needed to bring natural gas from the North Slope along the same route as the oil pipeline; and

(c) the failure of the Statement to consider the possibillty that the demand for oil will be greatly diminished as a result of widespread use in automobiles of the Wankel rotary engine, which is much more efll.cient than the internal combustion engine.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS lain by ice-rich sediments. Either effect could cause serious damage to the pipeline." (Id., pp. 96-97.)

The Statement admits that in the pipeline segment between mile 345.6 and mile 521.9 (i.e., the area of the five vlllages whose views are here expressed), "a major impact effect of the pipeline would be associated with the generally ice-rich silts, permafrost temperatures near 0° C, moderate to steep slopes and the likelihood of seismic events." (Id., p. 99.)

Further: "It is predicted that some damage would

occur to the aquatic resources as a result of the project .... " (Vol. 4, p. 126.)

"Pipeline and road construction activities would result in erosion and stream siltation." (Vol. 4, p. 128.)

2. The Impact of the Project on the Animal Resources of the Region

As we have shown, the Impact Statement predicts that oil leaks of some magnitude are almost inevitable, and that there is a strong possibility of a break in the pipeline. If a break occurs, "14,000 ba.rrels of oil could leak out during the time required for pump station shutdown and valve closure", and "up to an additional 50,000 barrels of oil could drain from the pipeline at some localities" thereafter. (Vol. 1, p. 124.) The effect of an oil spill of this magnitude would be catastrophic to our villages and to others in its wake. It could wipe out the fish population of an entire river system such as the Yukon. A vital part of the subsistence economy of the native population of Alaska could thus be eliminated in large regions crossed by the pipeline.

The Statement concedes that the effect of the pipeline on large mam.ma.ls--another important element in the native subsistence economy--00uld be equally serious.

"Disturbances associated with construction activities and road and pipeline maintenance and operation would have adverse effects on large maxnmals inhabiting the proposed right-of-way and areas adjacent to the pipeline routine .... Direct disturbances as well as physioal disruption of their habitat would undoubtedly result in displacement of large mammals from the pipeline route and areas immediately adjacent to it." {Vol. 1, pp. 126-27.)

"The effect of the above-ground portions of the pipeline on large mammal movement cannot be conclusively predicted .... However, it does appear ... that above-ground elevated portions of the pipeline with frequent provision of animal crossing facillties of the best available design would still act as partial barriers to the movement of hoofed animals" (Id., p. 128.)

"The combined barrier effects of the highway and pipeline might reduce the number of animals using the winter range east of the highway." (Id., p. 129.)

The Statement admits that the effect of the above-ground portions of the pipeline 2

"would probably alter the distribution of caribou in the future and account for the abandonment of portions of their range." (Vol. 1, p. 200.) It also admits that:

"Several situations conducive to large mammal mortality would result from pipeline and haul road construction and their maintenance." (Id., p. 130.)

"The increased human population would be reflected in a general increase in hunting pressures on large maxnmals." (Id., pp. 130-31.)

3. The Impact on the Native Population The specific impact of the pipeline on our

villages ls also described in some detail in the Statement:

"A significant adverse impact on land use for Native subsistence purposes could be incurred in the event that, during the construction or operational stages of either road

ll An extremely high proportion of the pipeline will be above ground in the area closest to the five villages in question.

19757 or pipeline, streams or other areas essential to subsistence harvests were severely contaminated by oil or other toxic materials. In addition to the direct and indirect impacts, this could cause major shifts in local land use patterns. Both the direct damage and the shifts could be costly to resource bases, local communities, the State, and the oil industry. If such adverse impacts did occur, they would very likely affect subsistence-dependent villages such as Anaktuvuk, Allakaket, Alatna, Stevens Village, Rampart, and Minto." a (Vol, 1, p. 146.)

"The threat of adverse impacts on the Native subsistence resources would come primarily during the operational stage of the proposed project. These could stem from (1) damage to subsistence resources resulting from losses of oil, (2) increased recreational activities and other competition on lands close to the transport corridor, or (3) possible shifts in migratory patterns of caribou.

"The greatest threat would be that of potential oil spillage, especially in a major river. Local water supplies, fish and wildlife harvests, and transport corridors could be adversely affected. Such impacts on the resource base, depending on the extent of damage and on the extent of Native dependence upon the subsistence base in the affected area, could be detrimental to the livelihood of the local population. An accidental spill could be much more significant in the relatively well populated Yukon Rivet watershed than in the Copper and Lowe River systexns, where the reliance on a subsistence economy is less, both in terms of numbers of villages and numbers of Natives." (Id., p. 159.) B. THE FAILURE OF THE STIPULATIONS TO PRO

TECT THE INTERESTS OF THE NATIVE POPULATION OF ALASKA

As we have shown in Section A above, the Impact Statement itself demonstrates that the construction and operation of the pipeline will inevitably have a serious impact on the subsistence economy relied upon by the vast majority of the inhabitants of the five villages whose views are here presented. Yet the stipulations do nothing whatever to compensate these people for the loss of their livelihood-despite the fact that the Secretary of the Interior is their legal guardian.

Clearly, if our nation's asserted need for more oil is deemed to justify the proposed pipeline, at the cost of the Natives' ability to support themselves from the land, they must be compensated in some way. As we suggested at the hearing, there are two means by which this could be done: First, the Natives could be given the right to compensation for damage to their lands or subsistence caused by pipeline construction and operation, in order to protect them from the immediate impact of the pipeline. Second, they could be guaranteed a certain proportion of the jobs connected with the construction and operation of the pipeline, as protection against the effects of the longterm trend away from a subsistence economy which the Statement predicts the pipeline will cause.

The stipulations do neither of these things. Although the suggestion has been made on many occasions that the Department should impose absolute liability on Alyeska for damage caused to private persons-as it proposes to do for damage caused to the federal government-the Department dismisses the suggestion with the following comment:

" ... the February 1972 stipulations impose liability on the permittee. The Department believes that to impose further liability would exceed the Department's authority." (Vol. 6, p. 52).

The first of these statements ls simply in-

s The villages whose names are are four of the five villages whose views are here presented.

19758 correct. All that the February 1972 stipulations do is to recite that the permittee will be liable to third parties " in accordance with applicable laws." (Stip. 1.7.1.) Clearly, of course, this would be the case even without the stipulation. The stipulation "imposes" no liabilh;y on the permittee beyond what the law would impose in any even t. It gives private persons affected by the pipeline absolutely no additional guarantee of compensation against loss.

The second statement is almost certainly erroneous. The Department has extremely broad power to impose conditions on pipeline permittees (see Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Section 28, 30 U.S.C. § 185; 43 C.F.R. § 2801.l-6(h)) , and further was specifically directed by Congress in the Conference Report on the Alaska Native Claims Act to "take any action necessary to protect the subsistence needs of the Natives." At the very least, if the Department is unsure of its authority, it should take immediate steps to clarify the legal pDsition. We strongly endorse the suggestion of the Alaska Federation of Natives that an opinion of t he Attorney-General be sought on this issue.

The double standard incorporated in the present stipulations-which impose absolute liability on the permittee for damage to the federal government, which does not need the protection, but no liability for damage to the government's impoverished native wards who desperately do need it--is a gross violation of the Department's trusteeship obligations and of the standards by which a government department should conduct itself.

The second deficiency is in the area of jobs and training. The Statement concludes that without "quantitative goals for Native employment" and "specific means for attaining them," Native participation in the pipeline project will be adversely affected. (Vol. 4, p. 409.) The Statement points out that "Alyeska's employment estimates do not include a commitment to a numerical goal for Native hiring." (Id., p . 410.) However, the stipulations impose no obligation whatever upon Alyeska to establish numerical goals for Native employment. They merely require Alyeska to "do everything within its power" (a notorious euphamism for total inaction) to secure the employment of Natives who successfully complete its training program. (Stip. 1.14.3.)

The stipulations are equally deficient in the area of Native training. The Statement asserts that with only a minimal amount of training a very large number of Natives could meet the job skill requirements (see Vol. 4, pp. 411-12) but warns that:

"To date there are no training programs planned, and unless this planning is accomplished well in advance of the start of pipeline construction, it is unlikely that training programs would be effectively phased into the requirements of the construction activities." (Vol. 4, p. 414.)

Once again, however, the stipulations themselves simply ignore the Statement. Stipulation 1.14.1 provides only that Alyeska "shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary regarding . . . training . . . of Alaska Natives." There is no indication that any such agreement has been reached, what the proposed terms would be, or what planning for timely training has been undertaken, if any.

ANTIBUSING AMENDMENT NOW IS IMPERATIVE



Monday, June 5, 1972 Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker,

the Nashville Banner in a recent editorial


emphasized the importance of passing a constitutional amendment banning the busing of students to achieve a numerical racial balance.

I endorse the sentiments expressed in the Banner editorial concerning the need and necessity for such an amendment.

While the editorial refers to Senators BAKER and BROCK from Tennessee, I would add that many Members of Congress-Democrats and Republicans-on a bipartisan basis-are cosponsors of similar legislation in the House and indeed many Representatives have signed a discharge petition to bring to the floor a constitutional amendment to prohibit busing.

In addition, the House has passed three amendments to curb busing, with substantial support, as follows:

The Ashbrook amendment which would bar the expenditure of Federal funds for crosstown busing.

The Green amendment which would prohibit the Federal Government from requiring school districts to spend State or local money to finance busing.

The Broomfield amendment which would permit school districts to delay compliance with busing orders issued by lower courts until all appeals have been exhausted.

I support all three of these amendments.

The House has taken definite and definitive action to curb and halt unnecessary and undesirable racial balance busing.

Because of the interest of my colleagues and the American people in this most important matter, I place the editorial from the Nashville Banner in the RECORD herewith.

The editorial fallows: [From the Nashville Banner, May 31, 1972] ANTIBUSING AMENDMENT Now Is IMPERATIVE

To the surprise of few, if any, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed Judge L. C. Morton's order of massive crosstown school busing for oompulsory racial balance; but the fact that such a decision was expected for the reasons asserted in the language of the court does not modify the urgency of remedial action-for redress of the system-wide injury inflicted-by the oorrective method clearly demanded.

That would be, of course, by constitutional amendment--the provision of that organic instrument, itself, for the exercise of final authority where it belongs, in the hands of the people.

It not only is obligatory that the amendd.ng power be employed-putting the principle and concept of school authority in such a particular beyond eccentric manipulation either legislative, executive, or judicial-but it is imperative.

It needs to be done now, before the damage so disruptive and nearly destructive of the local public school system, here or anywhere, is compounded by another school year of magnifying costs and mounting chaos. Never in the history of this city have its approximately 100,000-member student body, and its school plant community-wide, divested of the neighborhood school preroga tives, suffered a comparable blow.

The corrective device sought ts in this instance for Congress to initiate-as it has started a number of times to do, only to be side-tracked by a totally unsatisfactory substitute.

Sen. Bill Brock, with co-sponsorship by a number of colleagues similarly aware of the crisis confronted up a usurpation of school authority-has pushed for an amendment

June 5, 1972 forbidding that trespass. Tennessee's Senior Senator, Howard Baker, has pushed for its adoption. The sense of it has been stated in another proposed amendment, by Michigan Sen. Robert Griffin, declaring that:

"No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to make any decision, enter into any judgment or issue any order the effect of which would be to require that pupils be transported to or from school on the basis of their race, color, religion, or national origin."

State by state, in the Sout h and elsewhere, school patrons, taxpayers and voters--one and the same-have gone clearly on record for an end to massive school busing for achievement of racial balance. They have done that, as in Tennessee, in direct referendum on the question itself--0verwhelmingly for the amendment. They have done it in party primary balloting, as in the George Wallace vote itself, or its margin, in which such clearly was the principal message.

Congress has condemned the massive busing operation as an inst rument of arbitrary, bureaucracy-ordered l"acial balance. It has done that in legislation en.acted, as in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

President Nixon has oalled for correction of the outrage jointly inflicted by HEW fiat and court intrusion-and for return to the historic format of the neighborhood school system, with regulations thereof vested in the hands of local authority.

Now is the time to get on with that, via the only route by which it oan be achieved-the methOd clearly preferred by the m ajorit y of the American people, irrespect ive of race. It is their school system. It also is t heir Constitution. It is time to employ the one, with vigor, honor and courage, in behalf of justice for the other.

congress clearly has the duty to submit this amendment to the people of these United States, for their decision. If that preliminary, enabling action is t aken in time, the school year beginning in September conceivably could be spared t he chaos that otherwise impends for it.

SALT ANALYSIS

HON. CRAIG HOSMER OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, the following has been prepared by me and is being delivered to all Members of the Congress on June 6:

JUNE 6, 1972. From: Representative Craig Hosmer, Chair

man, GOP Task Force on Nuclear Affairs.

To: Members of Congress Subject: SALT-ABM Treaty & Offensive

Weapons Interim Agreement It is generally conceded that America and

Russia cannot risk attacking each other because their nuclear arsenals are sufficient to withstand surprise attack and still have enough undamaged retaliatory hardware left over to pulverize the aggressor.

President Nixon and Premier Brezhnev believe it is in the self-interest of their respective countries to perpetuate this condition of ?nutuai deterrence based on nuclear sufficiency. The proposed SALT Treaty limiting defensive anti-ballistic missile systems and its accompanying interim agreement limiting certain offensive weapons was designed for this purpose.

The rationale of the ABM limitation is obvious. Each new ABM built by one side can be nullified by the other's new offensive installation. It 1s 1n nobody's security ln-

June 5, 1972 terest to spend money for that kind of an arms race only to end up poorer, but no safer than before.

The logic of allowing the Soviets a. lopsided number of offensive missiles and submarines is obscure if quantity alone is considered. It emerges clearly, however, when other factors, relevant to assessing the kill power of these two nation's strategic nuclear arsenals a.re taken into account. These include the following:

The actual number of nuclear warheads in the U.S. deterrent package considerably exceeds those of the Soviets because of our many multiple independently guided re-entry vehicles (MIRVS).

The greater accuracy of the U.S. warheads gives them a proportionately large kill capability, ample for nuclear sufficiency.

U.S. allies and near allies possess substantial strategic deterrent forces which augment the Free World's overall deterrent posture.

The arrangements impose no limitations a.t all on certain U.S. systems contributing to our deterrent strength, such as SAC bombers and U.S. aircraft based overseas on land and on aircraft carriers.

"Sufficiently to deter" is something in the mind of the beholder and when one side fields a mix of bombers, ICBMs and SLBMs with which it is satisfied, the other side would need to assume very large and unknown risks of miscalculation in order to assess it as "insufficient."

What are inside the strategic systems, how good they are now and how they may be qualitatively improved are not covered by the arrangements, leaving the parties in exactly the same circumstances, whatever they are, as before.

Provision for verification by each party's own intelligence apparatus involves minimal risk, since the arrangements are cast in terms of items which reasonably can be monitored by satellite photography and similar means.

The foregoing and many additional calculations undoubtedly influenced President Nixon's determination that the agreements are worthwhile and that their terms involve neither undue risks to United States security nor disproportionate advantage to the Soviet Union.

In making his decision the President also must have totalled the quite large costs of the superpowers taking no steps at all toward arms control against those involved in the limited agreements he made in Moscow. No person better knows these costs than he and his judgment deserves great respect.

To assure that the arrangements do not grow lopsided by the passage of time, Congress must support the President's R&D requests for the TRIDENT submarine program, the B-1 bomber and other improved strategic systems.

AGRICULTURE HONORS FOUR FROM MARYLAND'S FIFTH DISTRICT

HON. LAWRENCE J. HOGAN OF MARYLAND



Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Speaker, I was recently privileged to be present at the annual Honor Awards ceremony of the U.S. Department of Agriculture where four men from Maryland's Fifth District were among those honored for their superior service as employees of the Department.

Mr. Speaker, these are the kind of men who make our Government truly responsive to the needs of our citizens,


and I think we all owe them a special vote of thanks. They are Mr. William Gladden, Seat Pleasant; Mr. James H. Lauth, Bowie; Dr. Louis P. Reitz, Hyattsville; and Mr. Robert A. Fast, Beltsville.

NIXON'S DIPLOMACY

HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL OF ll.LINOIS



Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, an editorial appearing in the June 1, 1972, edition of the newspaper, Chicago Today, discusses President Nixon's recent initiatives in the field of foreign policy in a most perceptive and knowledgeable manner and I commend its text to my colleagues. I insert it in the RECORD at this point.

The editorial follows: NIXON'S DIPLOMACY

President Nixon has taken giant strides toward world peace. He returns to the United States as one of the most successful diplomats in history, tho time alone can measure the true results of his diplomacy. This diplomacy has ended the power stalemate and given the world leaders an opportunity to move toward world peace. The skepticism of those who remember the broken treaties of history is understandable. But this time there is a new factor, introduced by Mr. Nixon ar d Henry A. Kissinger: By its ra.pproachment With China, the United States has taken control of the bale.nee of forces.

A few months ago, the U. S. S. R. could move in the power struggle With China in relative confidence that the United States would not choose sides. But no more. When President Nixon went to China, the possibility opened up that the United States might agree to provide the Chinese with the sophisticated weapons needed to defend their 1,500-mile border with the U. S. S. R. Russia cannot suffer that. The new posture of the Russians, the reluctant wooing of the U. s., began when Kissinger made the first breakthru to Peking.

More than a. century ago, Karl Marx, the ideological source for both Russia and China, pointed out on the basis of his long study of their history that Russia and China are the world's most natural, enduring and im .. pla.cable foes. The Russians forgot this temporarily after World War II, when they helped to arm and industrialize the Chinese. But they were forced to remember as the ancient enmity erupted. The ma.in Russian and Chinese armies are now spread along that 1,500-mile border.

For a time, after China developed the nuclear bomb, the U.S.S.R. even considered a preemptive strike. So, we are told, did President John Kennedy. President Nixon had a better idea, an offer of friendship. So long as the U.S. and China were virtual enemies, the U.S.S.R. had many options, including those in Europe and the Middle East. Once Mr. Nixon took the unthinkable step, a detente With China, Russia had no choice but to ease tension in Europe, to think twice about increasing pressure in the Middle East, and to seek United States friendship once more. And the United States price for friendship is a guarantee toward enduring world peace.

Thus the "Spirit of Moscow" may be more durable than the "Spirit of Camp David" and other previous attempts of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to come to terms. This time the United States controls the balance of power. President Nixon proved that when he ordered

19759 the bombing attacks as North Vietnam again invaded the south.

The world shuddered, the Democratic Presidential candidates shouted their jeremiads, but the President and his adviser K:issinger knew what they were doing. Both China and Russia had to accept this new element in Vietnam because the United States once again controls the balance of power.

But only the events unfolding in the next months and years can prove the real worth of the Nixon peace policy. If the war in Vietnam ends, if there is no eruption in the Middle East, if the relaxation of the tension in Europe continues, then the new policy Will prove to be the greatest diplomatic success in history.

At present, the bombing goes on because North Viet Nam refuses to check its invasion of the south. But the a.id formerly received from Russia and China is no longer being received. And neither China nor Russia has formally protested to the United States, nor will they. The war must come to an end, for North Viet Nam cannot long continue this new kind of war Without suppliers. Then the United States can totally withdraw, and an era of universal peace may be at hand.

Neither Machiavelli or Prince Metternich would ever have believed that diplomacy could come to this. President Wilson, seeking world accord, thought persuasion alone could do it. But President Nixon has seen that the best way to get world peace is the proper application of power. That is the kind of persuasion Communists understand. His diplomacy should bring an end to war in Viet Nam, and it should prevent other "brush fire" wars, as President Kennedy called them.

This, in turn, will enable the great powers to keep the peace. As the President returns home from the second of his brilliantly successful diplomatic journeys, it appears that the prospect for enduring world peace was never more promising.

SMALL CLAIMS COURT AS A CONSUMER REMEDY

HON. MARGARET M. HECKLER OF MASSACHUSETTS



Mrs. HECKLER of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the seventies have become the decade of consumerism. Today more and more attention is being given to the very legitimate claims and complaints which consumers have against harmful credit reporting techniques, faulty workmanship, and poor performance.

The consumer is often hampered in remerlying these situations by lack of information. Confronted by a myriad of agencies, omcers, and bureaus, a disgruntled customer often gives up his attempts to seek relief.

For his reason, the Students Organized for Consumer Action-SOCA-at Boston College, under the direction of Rev. Robert J. McEwen, S.J., have prepared a series of reports designed to inform the public of gaps in necessary consumer information or protection related to products and services. SOCA bulletin No. 1 addresses itself to the subject of the small claims court as a viable instrument in consumer complaints.

I commend these students for their efforts to insure greater protection for the Massachuetts consumer, and include the text of their first bulletin for your in-formation:

19760 SOCA BULLETIN No. 1

SMALL CLAIMS COURT AS A CONSUMER REMEDY

The Small Claims Court should be one of the crucial tools of effective consumer action. It is a man's cha.nee to defend himself in a. court of law at little cost. However, our study of 1000 cases in four different district oourts (West Roxbury, Quincy, Hingham, and Dorchester) shows consumer use of this legal remedy to be minima.I. While sixty-six percent of all cases involved a. company suing an individual, only five percent were individuals suing a. company. There are several reasons for this.

Lack of knowledge of sma.11 claims court procedures on the part of consumers ls a. major problem. Few people know how to use the court. Few people even know that it exists. As a solution, we urge pamphlets be published by either the courts, the Attorney Genera / s office, or the State Department of Education or the Consumers Council to explain the purpose and procedure of the court.

Another problem is time. Court hours are scheduled during the regular working day, a most inopportune time for the average working man who Inight lose money 1f he had to be in court. We urge that evening and Saturday court sessions be scheduled.

Thirdly, the court personnel should be made aware of their duty to the public. What ls routine for them may be something entirely new for a. consumer. Their willingness and ability to help is most important.

The small claims procedure was intended to provide a simple, prompt and informal means at small expense for the adjudication of small claims. For the most pa.rt the system fulfills these prerequisites. When a person believes that another party owes him money for damage to persona.I property, nonfulfillment of contract, etc. (in the a.mount of $300 or less) he may bring suit against this party in Small Claims Court. The plaintiff goes to the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk tra.nsposses a. simplified version of the plaintiff's story to a court docket and then notifies the defendant by registered mail that a complaint has been lodged against him, informing him of the nature of the complaint and the date of the trial. This whole procedure costs the plaintiff only three dollars and fifty-five cents.

If the defendant does not settle with the plaintiff out of court, then the case comes to trial in a. few weeks. At that time the plaintiff brings any evidence he has to court (a. torn coat from a. laundry, for example), and waits for his case to be called. Either party is allowed to be represented by a lawyer, but this is not recommended by the court. The judge will listen to both sides of the story, asking questions as he sees fit. Both parties wm be informed of the .1udge's decision by mail a week or so later. If the plaintiff wins his case, the judge will usually make the defendant reimburse him for the court costs and sometimes even for the time the plaintiff missed from work. Either party may appeal tbe decision to a regular court trial.

MR. FRANK SCHMIDT-A VENERABLE GENTLEMAN

HON. JAMES C. CORMAN OF CALIFORNIA


Monday, June 5, 1972 Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want

to take a few moments today to tell my colleagues about a man who came to our country as an immigrant 67 years ago, and whose life in his adopted country exemplifies what America is all about.


Mr. Frank Schmidt will celebrate his 89th birthday on June 16 in the company of friends and family living in my congressional district.

Mr. Schmidt arrived in America in 1905, unable to speak a word of English though he was-and still is-fluent in five other languages. Three days after his arrival he began to work as a laborer. He studied English at night, and by World War I had advanced to roundhouse foreman for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. During World War I, he served the U.S. Navy as a civilian on detached duty, expediting transportation of troops and water materiel. He was selected for this role because of his railroad experience and also because he was one of the few men who could communicate in the various languages of the immigrant railroad workers. He continued with the Navy, teaching crash courses in machine skills to classes of immigrants to further the war effort. In the years after World War I he earned his teaching credentials at night school and taught in Brooklyn. With the onset of World War II, Mr. Schmidt volunteered for and taught extra after-hour courses in machine operating procedures to help meet the burgeoning manpower needs of war production.

In 1965, at the age of 82, Mr. Schmidt volunteered for VISTA, and at the organization's request moved from California to Philadelphia where he taught full-time courses in tool and diemaking to minority students at Temple University. In 1967 he was honored by the city of Philadelphia for his services and as the oldest VISTA worker in America. Just this year, upon specific invitation, he has rejoined VISTA on a part-time volunteer basis. Throughout these years he raised and educated a family and launched them on careers as productive citizens.

Mr. Schmidt's other contributions to this country notwithstanding, it is remarkable that in his 88th year, at an age when most men think only of rocking chairs and warm slippers, he serves in VISTA.

A very wise man said long ago: Misfortune is no disgrace but doing noth

ing about it is-and so it is with age. We may fold our hands in the face of the infirmities that age may bring, and let the world pass us by, or we may simply forget to look for it, and find life active and good long after we have passed the promised biblical limit of days.

One can only believe that this wise man knew there would be Frank Schmidts in the world when he wrote these words.

- For whatever reasons he left his native land, a man with Mr. Schmidt's character would certainly have lived the same kind of life in any country he adopted. How fortunate for all of our country-men whose path he crossed, for they learned much from him: patriotism in the truest sense of the word; fortitude, perseverance; love of country; and the grace that service to his community and to his fellowman offers. For 67 years he gave of himself to America. This is a better country because he chose to make

June 5, 1972

it his home. The lives of all of us have in some part been enriched.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues join me in wishing Mr. Schmidt a very happy birthday on June 16.

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE OF TEXAS



Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Karl G. Harr, Jr., president of Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., recently addressed the Aero Club of Washington, D.C.

In his discussion he talked about our total national economic situation and the effect of development of high technology products as a cornerstone of our competitive world market position. I am including the significant comments of Mr. Harr in the RECORD and commend them to the reading of my colleagues and the general public.

The comments follow: REMARKS BY KARL G. HARR, JR.

I have a gut feeling that this is neither the time, the place nor the audience for either a. technica.l or a statistical exposition of any of the problems that confront the aerospace industry. Besides I've already spewed forth all the statistics I know on the subject and even a few I'm not quite sure about.

Rather, I think, this is a good time, place and audience for the consideration of the fundamentals of the world in which we currently live, and the analysis that must be made if we a.re to deal with these fundamentals.

I am not talking about a "white paper" or state-of-the-industry type survey. I am talking rather about facing up to some simple truths, on the part of ourselves, the Government and the American people as a whole, insofar as the fate and fortunes of the aerospace industry are, indeed, a matter of national concern.

Let me begin by saying there is no real question about the survival of the aerospace industry over the long run as a sound and increasingly dynainic element of the total national economic picture. Even if not just some but all of the companies that comprise the industry today were to disappear tomorrow, they would have to be immediately replaced by others in adequate numbers to fulfill national requirements of the same dimension. For air transportation has become a necessity a.s a means of mass transportation, not just nationally but globally; the aerospace component of national security will inevitably grow rather than diminish; the space effort will be pursued, in the long run I am convinced, on some roughly equivalent order of magnitude; and, perhaps most significantly of all, the capability to produce high technology products will become increasingly essential to our national well-being. not merely in terms of our national economic competitiveness, but also in terms of our capacity to address a multitude of new and demanding domestic problems.

However there is a. real question whether we as a. nation will be able to realize, in the national interest, upon the benefits of this asset called the aerospace industry in ways adequate to the cha.Henges immediately a.head of us. Many current signs tend to indicate that we will not, and that we will as a nation pay a fearful price for this failure.

June 5, 1972 There is no simple single explanation ror

this failure. Nor does any person or group have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to remedy it.

Perhaps the way to begin looking for this wisdom is to examine some of the sources of today's situation. The aerospace industry, as we know it today, really came into being in the post-Korean War period. It started its surge toward that peak position, where it ranked as the nation's foremost industry on many if not most counts, sometime in the late 1950s.

Three principal factors were involved: 1. Soviet demonstration of both nuclear

weapons and intercontinental delivery capability produced a reaction that led to an almost frantic U.S. effort to develop and install ICBSs; to deploy an effective retaliatory bomber deterrent, and to develop a strategic undersea deterrent.

2. The arrival of the Space Age, about the same time and with demonstrated Soviet capability therein, produced a reaction here that led to a decade of commitment to highgeared space exploration, both manned and unmanned.

3. The arrival of the Jet Age in terms of commercial air travel led to the usurpation by aviation of an enormous chunk of the travel market that had previously belonged to surface modes.

All of these factors started to gain momentum in the late 1950s and surged forward into the mid-1960s, culminating in a peak for this new industry, in terms of sales and employment, in 1968.

Where did this leave us in the late 60s? Well it meant that America had in its midst a brand new, big, heterogeneous industry with spectacular capab11ities for both advanced technological and managerial accomplishments. Foreign competitor nations, mostly still struggling out of the destruction of World War II, and possessing neither the economic base nor the technological injection of comparable national efforts in space and defense began to lag behind us in overall technological advances to the point at which there was desperate concern as to whether they ever would be able to compete. The famous brain drain became very real as the U.S. became regarded as the place where the action was in all advanced technological pursuits. One thing came after another. Computers, for example, were greatly spurred by the space effort. Our transport aircraft dominance seemed permanently assured. One after another, new industrial processes seemed to be promising to widen the gap between ourselves and other nations.

In short, there was every reason to believe, and most people both here and abroad were firmly convinced, that the only problem was to keep the U.S. from hopelessly out-distancing the rest of the world in the production of high technology products.

This pace of advance, of course, obscured parallel maturing of some problems arising within the procurement process itself in this country, and it also obscured some signs of a coming alteration in the trade factors that had prevailed since World War II. In effect we were moving so fast, were doing so well that there was a general complacency about some of these small black clouds. Many assumed we could ignore them.

However, in 1967 or 1968 there began a rapid and radical turnabout. Competition for priority on the part of shrieking domestic concerns reached a crescendo simultaneously with a general abatement of fear about overall national defense, the subsiding of concern about space competition and general and widespread disenchantment with the Vietnam War.

There was a very rapid and almost complete :fiip-fiop in public attitudes crystallizing into a reaction against technology generally. The frenzy of a mere decade earlier to "catch up" in eng'ineering students

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS turned into a virtual discrediting of the profession. For a time at least there was an almost uni versa.I return, particularly among youth, to the Walden's Pond syndrome-a rejection not only of the so-called military industrial complex, but of all technological advance.

This tide culminated in, if you will permit me, the emotional and irrational rejection of the supersonic transport at what was certainly the most uneconomical time and for the most absurd reasons. The SST was, in my view, a hapless victim of unfortunate timing.

Okay, so that was a year ago-and now we have had time to look at the effects of this overreaction and have started to pick up the pieces.

In these calmer times we all can take a somewhat longer view-and what we see down the road, and not very far down the road at that, is pretty frightening.

In our violent transition from a period of accelerated technological advance-a virtual technological revolution-to a period of intense and almost exclusive preoccupation with domestic social problems, we have come perilously close to throWing the baby out with the be.th water.

For during this transition period, say 1967 or 1968 to the present, not only have our principal competitor nations been moving feverishly in the opposite direction, but we seem to have completely lost sight of some of the fundamentals upon which both our economic and n 'ational security survival have always been based.

So now we are awakening to some rude surprises. A trade deficit for the first time in 80 years. A productivity growth rate for the past five years lower than that of any major industrial nation. An inabllity for the first time in modern history to accumulate the financial resources necessary to proceed with the next generation•s research and development. A reverse brain drain. Hordes of skilled scientists and engineers---60 desperately needed and recruited a few short years ago-serving as short order cooks. The very real prospect of seeing the world's air transport fleets, now n·early 80 % equipped with American aircraft, become predominantly foreign built. An American superiority in weapons systems drastically undercut both qualitatively and quantitatively. A drying up of the undergraduate and graduate school pools from which our future scientists and engin'eers must come. Hundreds of thousands of skilled and semi-skilled workers newly unemployed and largely unemployable at their skills.

In general terms, a lopping off at the knees of that giant which has stood us in such good stead both in terms of our national economic well-being and our national security since World War II-the capability of producing high-technology products, for whatever purpose, far better than any other nation in the world.

Where does that leave us now? Well, I suggest, it at least gives us con

siderable food for thought. There's a very human tendency to believe when you first realize something that you discovered it, and a lot of people are busy "discovering" today that we're in a hell of a fix. Publications ranging .from the scholarly to the most current mass media are full of it. Those faced with all or a piece of the problem are and have been for some time busily grappling wi·th it. Now, I recognize that few if any of us can individually comprehend all of the factors that must be taken into consideration. I certainly do not pretend to be able to do so. The most, and perhaps the best, one can do is to candidly and objectively as possible put forth from his own perspective the facts a.s he sees them.

So here goes. First, this nation is due for a rude jolt

not very far down the road in terms of its

19761 international trade position. Gradually over the past decade the advantages we have had in this regard have slipped away and now we a.re in jeopardy of losing those last few key elements which have kept our heads above water. This focuses very much on the aerospace industry because of its central identification with our national capacity to produce superior high technology products. To date we have been able to overcome labor costs advantages on the part of our competitors. We have been able to overcome myriad forms of government support to our competitors. We have been able to afford sometimes superb neglect of support of exports by our own government. Today we no longer a.re in a position to do this. Some of all of the competitive advantages of our revived, resuscitated and hungry competitors must be countered if we are to retain our world leadership in high technology products. Whatever steps we take, whatever practical combination of measures we adopt to survive this challenge, they must stem from and be consistent with the acceptance of one fundamental strategy. The Government, fully supported by industry, labor and the public at large, must adopt as a national goal the maintenance of a positive trade balance. In every way consistent with our ott~r national policies this goal must be supported by positive export policies. Particularly, given the current situation, these policies must be designed to emphasize promotion of internationally competitive high-technology products, because it is such products that represent our strongest card in the international market place.

Second, even if the foregoing principle is fully adopted, the nation will still be in for that rude jolt if it doesn't have the capacity to produce such superior products for export, and today that capacity is in jeopardy. Obviously this deficiency transcends the question of international trade and involves as well both our domestic economic growth and serious questions of naitional security.

In a number of ways and for a variety of reasons we are now neglecting research and development. We are neglecting it in terms of direct Government funding, and we are neglecting it in terms of the policies confronting private funding. We also are suffering from the fact that under our system the rising costs of research and development put us at a disadvantage compared with our principal competitors in terms of assembling, from private sources as we must do, the financial resources necessary to the task.

Here again, we need to accept, as a nation, a long-range national technological strategy. Such a strategy must of course be responsive to the nation's needs in the fullest sense, but it also must be supported by a mechanism that can establish and pursue research and development goals, objectives, priorities and programs, and also provide adequate funding.

Third, we are paying an unnecessary price for our failure to find ways effectively to apply some of our superb technological and managerial skills to a whole range of domestic problem areas in which there ls an obvious potential contribution for such skills.

Many of us could write brilliant and sophisticated essays on the problems and obstacles associated with effectively making such transfers. This subject has been the great intellectual plaything of the last five to 10 years. Many of us in the industry, in Government at all levels and branches, and in the intellectual community have been debating our respective breasts about it for some time. Although I don't for a moment suggest that the many problems uncovered through experience or study are unreal or will be solved easily, I don't think it's beyond our national genius to analyze the fundamental first steps that must be taken toward their solution. Some of these, I am pleased to say, already are underway in the Executive Branch. Programs to identify major domestic probleins having a potential for tech-

19762 nological solution and to fund their R&D have been initiated. But this must not be a one-shot effort. It must be a continuing program and it must be accompanied by funded demonstration programs backed by a concentrated Government effort to find solutions to such problem areas. Only in that way will the puzzle that has so fascinated us be solved.

Fourth, all of the foregoing relates in greater or lesser degree to questions affecting our national security. I would merely point out one simple fact in this regard. Since World War II the United States has deterred war with a posture based on a limited forcein-being equipped with superior weaponry. Such superiority has been made possible by viable industry, active technological competition, adequate research and development funding and sufficient procurement of advanced systems.

As in the case of our international competitive position we in the industry now are concerned with our ability to meet our share of future defense requirements if present trends continue. You all know the overall employment story, but of even greater importance in this particular connection is the national reduction in numbers of scientists and engineers. Many vital technological and managerial teams have been broken up with a resultant erosion of the future technological capabllity on which our national security must be based.

The simple conclusion and remedy here seem to me to be logically inescapable. If we as a nation are to continue to base our national security on modern forces-in-being, relying on qualitatively superior weaponry, then we must fund both research and development, and procurement, adequately.

Fifth, again inescapably intertwined with the foregoing but having its own special place in the future of this country, is the treatment we as a nation accord the greatest national adventure we have ever undertaken, the exploration of space. Perhaps more than any other element of our concern; perhaps even more, in a sense, than questions affecting national security, our national willingness or unwillingness to proceed with this effort so rich in demonstrated benefits of all kinds, will foretell our spiritual strength to face the future. As a nation we now have a fine plant, superb teams of skilled people and programs intelligently designed to reap maximum benefits for the nation. There are many untapped practical applications for space research utilizing the space shuttle. Earth orbiting satellites, weather control, communications advances and the management of our natural resources, despite many accomplishments already made, have only scratched the surface in improving our own environment.

Common sense, it seems to me, once again dictates the policy course that is in the best national interest. We must utilize efficiently the existing research and development oopability and capacity that are made available to us through the Space Program. We should, of course, emphasize projects having the greatest potential for solution of man's problems on Earth, but above all we should take optimum advantage of the opportunity afforded us by the efforts and public investments of the last dozen years.

What f.ndeed have I been talking all around in this recital of fundamental problems? They all relate to one central proposition.

We canno·t as a nation afford the loss of technological momentum that we have undergone and are undergoing today. We cannot afford it in terms of our competitive position in an increasingly dyanmic world economy. We cannot afford it in terms of our nat ion.a.I security. And we cannot afford it in terms of the options available to us to address a host of critical domestic problems.

Who can't afford it?

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Well, obviously indsutry, and particularly

an industry such as ours, can't afford it because technological superiority is that which keeps us competitive. Labor can't afford it because the productivity based on technological superiority is what keeps our labor force competitive. The American consumer can't afford it because the price of his consumer products is directly tied to the competitiveness of American industry and labor. But above all, the nation as a whole can't afford it because its prosperity, freedom and progress are, and have been for a quarter of a century, tied directly to it.

I give you these thoughts with some humility. I fully realize that they are neither new nor startling. Yet they are clearly central to our national dilemma. We cannot spend too much time or effort working toward their resolution. Perhaps nothing else we can concern ourselves with at this moment in history is of greater importance.

EULOGY TO JAMES PORTER SEIDENSTICKER

HON. LEE H. HAMILTON OF INDIANA



Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague, Andy Jacobs, recently delivered a eulogy to James Porter Seidensticker, a well-known and well-respected Indianapolis resident. "Port" Seidensticker served his city, his party, and his country well during his long lifetime, service that is well doeumented in the eulogy that follows:

EULOGY TO JAMES PORTER SEIDENSTICKER, MAY 26, 1972

We gather together for continuing tribute to a remarkable life. Port Seidensticker was a person of deep, strong and idealistic principles, and just a little cantankerous.

In 1916 James Porter Seidensticker was first elected to office-President of his senior class at Shortridge High School in Indianapolis. He was then and continued throughout most of his life to be an outstanding athlete.

His studies at Indiana University were interrupted by World War I and his conspicuously intelligent choice among the various branches of American military service. He, of course, became a Marine. When Americans came back from "over there," Port continued his studies at Carnegie Tech and later became secretary to the National Commander of the American Legion. And a while later he was the executive secretary of the Indianapolis Junior Chamber of Commerce.

In 1920 when Governor Cox and Franklin Roosevelt sought the Presidency and Vice Presidency on the Democratic ticket and Harding was awarded the Presidency on the Republican ticket, Porter Seidensticker was elected to his first public office on the Democratic ticket. Port became Democratic precinct committeeman in 1920 and thus began a political career that was to continue for fifty years as party precinct committeeman, ward chairman and delegate to Democratic Conventions. There he goes-with straw hat and ribbons proclaiming without equivocation who his candidate is; likely as not standing on the Convention floor before the rostrum demanding regular order and that the rules be followed. "Those were the days, my friend."

"All that you do, do with your might, for things done by half are never done right." Those words could have been written about Port Seidensticker.

June 5, 1972 In the 1920's Port helped organize the

Indiana and Marion County Young Democrats. And he, together with his famous father, the former Postmaster of Indianapolis, stood up when the standing up was rough against the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana. "Be strong and of good courage, be not afraid. Neither be dismayed." Can you imagine Port Seidensticker not strong? Can you conceive of his lacking courage? And did anybody ever see Port Seidensticker dismayed?

During the 1930's Port continued his active participation in the affairs of the American Legion and organized alert opposition to the growing Nazi cancer in Europe.

When World War II happened, Port Seidensticker was there, forty-two years of age, volunteering and because of his remarkably good physical condition, being accepted once again in the United States Marine Corps.

It is 1945. Can't you see him, standing there in that elevator, ramrod straight, tears streaming down his cheeks in a way that made crying strong and expressive, upon his hearing those four catastrophic words, "Franklin Roosevelt is dead."

In 1947 James Porter Seidensticker was elected from the First District to become City Councilman of Indianapolis and continued to serve during the administration of Mayor Al Feeney.

In 1971 they finally gave him the Adlai E. Stevenson award for excellence in political service and civic performance.

Though he rose to the highest councils of our city, his basic MOS never ceased being the precinct, just as a Marine's basic MOS is always infantry.

Port Seidensticker was rightly known as the Committeeman's Committeeman.

Jud Haggerty has suggested that some of us see life in black and white while others see it in technicolor. Not only did Port Seidensticker see life in technicolor, but somehow he arranged such reception for all the rest of us who have been privileged to come in contact with him. Look at the magnificent humanity some of us might have missed had there been no Port Seidensticker. Can't you hear him? "I'm going to call Chet Schonecker and Bessie Gasaway and Jimmy Slinger and some more of my friends and see what they think."

And in the precincts of politics he remained the tough D.I., the Marine Corps drill instructor afraid of nobody when he was satisfied he was on the right side. And if you knew Port you know he was always so satisfied. If Port was for you, you didn't need to question it. And if he was against you, he had a way of making you believe that, too.

Port Seidensticker never stopped believing what he learned in his high school civics class. He believed in the most idealistic concept of democracy and the nobility of its participants.

Political Science Professor Stoner of Indiana University had once said jokingly that sometimes it seemed "Government is that means by which the strong will take what they would have taken anyway and the weak may retire gracefully." Can you in your wildest imaginings see Port Seidensticker retiring gracefully at the hands of the so-called politically strong?

In 1958 a high British official visited the United States, not having done so for a decade. He was asked what change in our country impressed him most. And he replied that in 1948 the average citizen seemed to question and require proof from his government but that by 1958 Americans seemed to be going along and saying, "Well I guess that must be right."

That might have been true of many Americans but it wasn't true of Port. Listen, "Are we going to take orders from the politicians downtown? No--o-o! We're the little peo-

June 5, 1972 ple. We're in the precincts. They work for us. We don't work for them."' What a delight. What refreshment. What a privilege that Port passed our way.

Even into advanced years there he was climbing the long flights of stairs in the apartment buildings of the fourth preinct, fourth ward in Indianapolis, knocking on the doors, tipping his hat, urging the people to participate in the people's business of politics.

On primary day his base of operation was not at precinct headquarters. It was a comprehensive war room replete with company runners at the ready, mechanized forces manning their automobiles at the curb and his own situation map, a huge hunk of cardboard listing every voter, the time of day each preferred to vote, who needed reminding, who needed a ride, who needed cajoling, and who needed a sidewalk repaired. And throughout it all, there was his Sally smiling broadly as if somehow to counterbalance the cantankerous when it burst forth to admonish us "Young fellows are going to have to learn."

All the King's horses and all the King's men never got Port into line. Because being "out of line" was exactly in line with James Porter Seidensticker's concept of what American democracy and a precinct committeeman were all about.

Elmer Davis said this country was not created by cowards, and it will not be maintained by them either. James Porter Seidensticker, Sr. was no coward. He was and his memory is all that any American, Jefferson, Jackson and all the others might have hoped !or.

PEERS COMMISSION REPORT




Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the New York Times published portions of the My Lai massacre report known as the Peers Commission report. I believe that Army Secretary Robert Froehlke should release the entire 260-page document.

It is foolish for the Government to withhold a document, part of which has already been published. Rather than rely on excerpts published in one newspaper, Members of Congress and the public should have an opportunity to study the entire document.

As many of my colleagues may know, on April 4 I filed a Freedom of Inf ormation Act suit seeking release of the massacre documents.

Originally, the Government was scheduled to respond to my suit on Monday, before Federal District Judge John H. Pratt. However, on Friday the Government filed a motion requesting an additional 2-week delay. Obviously the Government is stalling in order to cover up the unpublished portions of the report. Surely the Government knows its position by now and these delaying tactics only reveal the Government's total dis .. regard for the public's right to know the contents of the report.

I will continue to press for a full hearing of this case as soon as possible.

Those portions of the report published by the New York Times raised serious questions about the effectiveness of our


system of military justice. General Koster and General Young have been accused of 43 specific charges of misconduct. It is clear that they should answer those charges before a military tribunal.

I am also calling upon Secretary Froehlke to report to the American people what the Army has done to improve the training of infantry soldiers to prevent another My Lai tragedy. The Peers Commission report recommends that the training be improved in the rules of war for our soldiers and the procedures for the reporting of war crimes be simplified.

However, the specific recomendations of the Peers Commission report and what actions the Army has taken remain a mystery.

SOVIET RECORD IN 25 SUMMIT AGREEMENTS

HON. PHILIP M. CRANE OF ILLINOIS



Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Americans are being asked at this time to gamble with the national security of their country and to curtail arms production and development on the basis of a treaty signed by our own leaders and those of the Soviet Union.

If the Soviet record with regard to keeping its treaty obligations was an honorable one, that gamble might well be worth taking. All of us want peace, and none would seek to fuel a race in armaments unless it was necessary for our continued security.

The Soviet record, however, could hardly be worse. In seven summit meetings between a U.S. President and a Soviet leader, 25 agreements have been reached. The Soviets have violated 24 of those 25 agreements according to a staff study for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In its issue of May 29, 1972, U.S. News & World Report presents this Soviet reccrd. Consider some examples:

At Potsdam, where President Harry Truman represented the United States in a summit meeting after Germany's surrender, the Soviet Union made 14 major agreements. All were broken.

In 1955 at Geneva in a Big Four meeting, including France, Russia agreed that Germany's reunification problem should be settled by free elections. Moscow later refused to permit such elections.

In World War II, the Soviets promised Western allies they were seeking noterritorial aggrandizement. But Russia by 1948 controlled 11 countries-plus East Germany-and 750 million people.

Some have argued that times have changed, that the Soviet Union in 1972 is more trustworthy than it has been in the past, that we are now entitled, if not obligated, to place faith in its word.

Yet, recent examples of Soviet violation of agreements are as numerous as those dating to the period of World War II.

In 1969, for example, the Soviet Union promised to end the nuclear arms race

19763 and work toward disarmament. Instead, it accelerated its missile construction and overtook our own country. Now it is challenging us in almost every category of nuclear weaponry.

Even more recently, in 1970, the Soviet Union approved of a U.S. cease-fire plan in the Middle East, then helped Egypt violate it by moving SA-2 and SA-3 antiaircraft missiles up to the Suez Canal.

Can the good faith of a country with a record such as this be taken seriously? Can we, in fact, stake our own national security upon it?

The record indicates that the burden of proof is clearly with those who say that we can. No one should make that decision until carefully reviewing the record.

Following is a brief summation of that record as it appeared in U.S. News & World Report:

SOVIET RECORD IN 25 SUMMrr AGREEMENTS-ONE HONORED, 24 BROKEN

In seven summit meetings between a U.S. President and a Soviet leader, 25 agreements have been reached. The Soviets have violated 24 of those 25 agreements, according to a staff study for the Senate Judiciary ComInittee. Here is their record:

1943. At Teheran, in a meeting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin made four major agreements. Russia broke all of them.

1945. At Yalta, in another wartime Big Three meeting, Russia entered into six major agreements, of which five were violated. The only pledge kept was to enter the war against Japan-and that was done only after the outcome was decided.

1945. At Potsdam, where President Harry Truman represented U.S. in a summit meeting after Germany's surrender, Stalin made 14 major agreements. All were broken.

1955. At Geneva, in a Big Four meeting including France, Russia agreed that Germany's reunification problem should be settled by free elections. Moscow later refused to permit such elections.

No hard agreements were reached at the last three summit meetings-in 1959 when President Dwight Eisenhower met with N1-ki1ta Khrushchev in Camp David, Md.; in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy met with Khrushchev in Vienna, and in 1967, when Premier Alexei Kosygin conferred With President Lyndon B. Johnson in Glassboro, N.J.

The Russians similarly have failed to keep many other international agreements with the U.S. Examples:

In World War II, the Soviets promised Western allies they were seeking no territorial aggrandizement. But Russia by 1948 controlled 11 countries-plus East Germany-and 750 million people.

Russia repeatedly promised the U.S; between 1942 and 1946 that it would guarantee freedom and free elections in Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Rumania. All those countries wound up with Communist dictatorships.

The Kremlin pledged to repatriate World War II prisoners, but instead sent millions of them to slave-labor camps.

Russia gave the U.S. a promise that Korea would be free and independent--then set up a Communist government in the northern half of the country and masterminded an attempt to invade and conquer the rest of Korea. That broken proxnise cost the lives of 33,629 Americans.

The Soviet Foreign Minister traveled to New York in 1946 and repeated a previous Kremlin promise that the Danube River

19764 would be opened to free navigation and trade. Today, the lower Danube, behind the Iron Curtain, is still a controlled Communist waterway.

The Soviet Union promised the U.S. that it would treaty Germany as one country after World War II-then sealed off its occupation zone, turned it into a separate country and is now seeking to make Germany's division permanent.

Russia's promise of free travel between Berlin and the West has been broken repeatedly. Outstanding examples of this were the Berlin blockade of 1948-1949 and the 1961 construction of the Berlin Wall.

Russia repeatedly assured the U.S. in 1962 that the arms build-up in Communist Cuba was purely defensive in character-then secretly put in offensive missiles aimed at the U.S. When this action was met by a firm U.S. challenge and naval blockade, Russia promised to remove the missiles.

Faced with Russia's long history of breaking agreements, the U.S. attempted a tacit rather than a formal agreement to halt nuclear testing in 1958. In 1961 the Soviets broke this understanding and resumed testing.

In signing a nonproliferation treaty in 1969, Russia promised to end the nuclear arms race and work toward disarmament. Instead, Russia accelerated its missile construction, overtook the U.S. and is now challenging in almost every category of nuclear weaponry.

In 1970 Russia approved of a U.S. ceasefire plan in the Middle East, then helped Egypt violate it by moving SA-2 and SA-3 antiaircraft missiles up to the Suez Canal.

Other countries, as well as the U.S., have learned by experience that they could not rely on agreements with the Kremlin. Examples:

In joining the League of Nations in 1934, Russia pledged not to resort to war. In 1939, Russia was expelled from the League for acts of aggression, including the invasion of Poland and Finland-both countries with which Moscow had signed treaties of nonaggression.

In violation of nonaggression pacts, Russia invaded Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940 and incorporated them into the Soviet Union.

AGRIBUSINESS BIAS SEEN IN UNIVERSITIES

HON. DAVID R. OBEY OF WISCONSIN



Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, the agribusiness accountability project released a report entitled "Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times."

The report delves deeply into the expenditure of tax funds at America's landgrant colif~ges, and concludes that--

The tax paid, land grant complex has come to serve an elite of private, corporate interests in rural America, while ignoring those who have the most urgent needs and the most legitimate claims for assistance.

Most disturbing in their report is the degree to which "people-oriented" needs--such as rural poverty, rural income improvement and rural housingare ignored in terms of total research by these colleges.

In 1969, for example, 6,000 man-years of research was conducted by our land-


grant colleges, yet only 4.8 percent deal with people-oriented programs. Eighteen scientific man-years were spent on improving rural income, and seven on rural housing. A grand total of 17 scientific man-years was spent on the causes and remedies of poverty among rural people, while enormous amounts of time and money were spent on the technical and managerial needs of agribusiness corpo· rations and large-scale operators.

Mr. Speaker, these are not the only disturbing facts brought out by "Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times." Certainly they are sufficient to make this must reading for all those concerned about the future of our rural areas, because if we speak of agricultural or rural development without zeroing in on the problems facing rural people, then we are blindfolding ourselves against the true problems of rural America.

The following article from the Washington Post regarding this report indicates some of its other conclusions and recommendations:

AGRIBUSINESS BIAS SEEN IN UNIVERSITIES

· (By Nick Kotz) The nation's tax-supported land grant

universities have served corporate agribusiness while neglecting the needs of consumers, family farmers, farm workers, and rural America, a report charged yesterday.

The land grant college complex--composed of colleges of agriculture, agriculture experiment stations and state extension services--are charged with spending annually almost $1 billion in tax dollars "almost solely for efforts tha.t have worked to the advantage and profit of large corporations involved in agriculture."

The 308-page critical study was made by the Agribusiness Accountabtlity Project, a nonprofit, research organization, financed principally by the Field Foundation, and interested in the problems of the rural poor.

Jim Hightower, the project director, said at a. press conference that his group soon will file lawsuits against various land grant Un\.versities, to require them to stop serving special corporate interests at the expense of the public interest.

The report, entitled "Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times, The Failure of the Land Grant College Complex" variously asserts that:

The land grant college complex has stimulated an agricultural scientific revolution which changed the face of rural America without devoting any attention to the needs of farmers, farm workers, consumers, and rural communities that have been adversely affected by that change. Even though the revolution in agriculture has enormously increased production, the gains in "strict economic efficiency" have been often offset by harm to "people."

Of 6,000 scientific man-years of research conducted at government-financed agricultural research stations in 1969, only 289 hours were devoted to the needs of rural people and their communities.

University research in cooperation with food corporations often has produced less desirable food for consumers such as "hard tomatoes," which were developed to withstand machine picking, or has produced harmful foods, such as cattle fattened with possible disease-producing chemicals.

Corporate agribusiness has developed machinery with taxpayers' help, "but the workers who are replaced a.re not even entitled to unemployment compensation."

The important advisory committees appointed by the Agriculture Department to supervise research have seldom had repre-

June 5, 1972 sentation from "the rural nonfarmer, the small farmer, the leaders of rural communities, and the consumer."

Land grant colleges and their officials are guilty of numerous confiicts of interest in their relationships with agribusiness corporation. "It is difficult to find the public interest," the report states, in relationships in which it is impossible to tell "where the corporation ends and the land grant college begins."

The Agriculture Department's extension service has helped market agribusiness products while falling to implement a 1955 law relating to special needs of rural people and communities.

Black land grant colleges, created by an 1890 I.aw in 16 southern and border states, are discriminated age.inst in receiving less tha.n one per cent of USDA funds allocated to land grants and agricultural research in those states.

Land grant colleges are not required to make adequate public accounting of their activities, particularly those conducted in partnership with agribusiness corporations.

"Had the land grant community chosen to put its time, its money, its expertise, and its technology into the family farm rather than into corporate pockets," the repor·t states, "then rural America today would be a place where millions could live and work in dignity. The colleges have mistaken corporate need for national need. This ls proving to be a fatal mistake for the people of America. It is time to reorient the colleges to act in the public interest."

The study recommends: A General Accounting Office audit of the

land grant complex. Reopening of congressional hearings on

the 1972-73 agricultural research budget. Legislation prohibiting land grant person

nel from receiving remuneration from agribusiness corporations in specified "conflicts of interest;" prohibiting corporations from earmarking research contributions for work in their own behalf; ensuring that land-grant patenting practices do not allow private gain from public expenditure.

"The land grant colleges must get out of the corporate board rooms," the report concluded. "They must get the corporate interests out of their labs. They must draw back and reassess their preoccupation with mechanical, genetical and chemioal ge.dgetry. The complex must again become the people's university. It must be redirected to focus the preponderance of its resources on the full development of the rural potential."

The activities of Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz and his predecessor Clifford Hardin were cited in the report as an example of the close ties between agribusiness and the land grant colleges.

Butz and Hardin, to a certain extent, exchanged places as Hardin took the position being vacated by Butz on the board of directors of the Ralston Purina Co.

The report noted that Butz served as an officer of the Purdue Research Foundation and Purdue University, and as a $10,000-ayear director of the International Minerals and Chemical Corporation at the same time that the corporation gave the university research funds, developed a product through university research, and received a patent on the product from the university research foundation.

At the same time Butz and his university had interrelated ties with IMC and other companies, the report says Butz was publicly advocating industry viewpoints with such statements as: "Cau*lon must be exercised that we don't go overboard in our hysteria to clean up the environment and make everything absolutely safe."

In contending that many land grant research facilities "begin to look like labo-

June 5, 1972 ratories for the chemical industry," the report cites a University of California professor who said that at his school, a recipient of $600,000 in funds from chemical companies in three years, "individuals are more loyal to the insecticide companies than to the university or the growers."

Among questionable development of chemicals by universities to serve commercial food interests, the report oited:

The use of ethrel at Louisiana State University to effect ripening of hot pepper; the use of ferric ammonia citrate and erythorbic acid at Texas A&M to loosen fruit before machine harvesting; the development by the University of Florida of "Thick-skinned" tomatoes which are then ripened in storage by application of ethylene gas.

In addition to developing products of questionable safety and edibility, the report contends that universities have helped agribusiness develop products to deceive consumers.

For example, the report cited Iowa State University studies which indicate bacon stays bright-colored longer when it is vacuum sealed on carbon dioxide and Univers.1.ty of South oarolina studies using a fluorescent light treatment to increase the red color in green-picked tomatoes.

IN THE WAKE OF SUMMIT, HOPES MUST BE CAUTIOUS




Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, the Nashville Tennessean in a recent editorial pointed out that although a beginning toward disarmament has been achieved at the recent summit conference in Moscow:

It will take much more labor to erect a. firm foundation for a stable world ... cautious optimism is in order.

Because of the interest of my colleagues and the American people in the President's efforts to achieve disarmament, I place the editorial in the RECORD herewith.

The editorial follows: [From the Nashville Tennessean, May 31,

1972] IN THE WAKE OF SUMMIT, HOPES MUST BE

CAUTIOUS

The Moscow summit is over, climaxed by the joint signing of a. declaration of principles in which the United States and the Soviet Union pledged to seek peaceful solutions to their disputes. After two and a. half decades, a. watershed has been reached.

The meeting between the leaders of the two countries culminated in accords on limiting offensive and defensive weapons, on cooperation in space, on preventing Navy collisions at sea., on joining to fight pollution and cooperating in fields of health.

All of these are significant and even historic, but the millenia.l epoch is not yet at hand and the Russian bear has not changed into docility. Nobody knows at this point whether the arms limitation accords are going to be in good faith, or if a joint operation 1n space will work out.

What may be fully as important a.s any of these and, in fact, the determinant factor, are the personal contacts between the leaders of the two nations and their joint pledge to continue negotiating on a wide range of is-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS sues, including mutual and balanced force reductions in Central Europe.

But even with the agreements both sides reached, and the spirit of harmony that seemed to prevail between Mr. Nixon and the Kremlin leaders, there still remain deep divisions over Vietnam and the Middle East.

And Communist doctrine has not changed. Marxism-Leninism is a combative ideology. It progresses through struggle, although there are frequent pauses to re-group. But even so, the prospect of nuclear war and mass destruction introduces another factor tn Communist dogma.

The Kremlin has a vested interest !n avoiding holacaust, although the struggle may take other forms. The key to the Moscow summit very well may have been President Nixon's trip to Communist China and the emergence of communication between Washington and Peking.

The Sino-Soviet conflict is very real and what the Kremlin least wants is a closer rapprochement between Washington and Peking. If it had withdrawn its bid for Mr. Nixon's visit, that possibility would have loomed large.

There are intractable problems among the big powers; the fears of the Chinese that Russia may one day turn on them, and somewhat similar fears among Russians that the Chinese leadership may strike out in anger.

The struggles for primacy an:i influence in the world will continue, but President Nixon has sought, both in Peking and Moscow, to create a climate in which the voices of moderation are given freer rein than the v0ices of militancy; that restraint holds in the face o:t temptation.

Some building blocks have been erected, but the balance is yet fragile and uncertain. It will take much more labor to erect a firm foundation for a stable world. At this point, cautious optimism is in order-with tbe emphasis on caution.

A RESPONSIVE CONGRESS

HON. WILLIAM L. HUNGATE OF MISSOURI



Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, there is a great movement in our country to make the Congress more "responsive" to the people. This is a great cause and one which most, and perhaps all, Members of Congress staunchly support. The large number of questionnaires, newsletters, radio and television reports, correspondence, and public appearances, both in nonelection and election years, represent a great effort on behalf of the Members to inform their constituents and to be informed on the views of those whom they represent.

Those who have stood for elective office would testify that there is no greater training in the science of being "responsive" than to place your name on a ballot where people can vote for or against you. Teaching responsiveness without standing for elective omce is like teaching swimming without using water.

As the lobbyists study Congress, I am certain they would recognize the fairness in a congressional examination of lobbyists.

The biggest spending lobby in the last quarter of 1971 was Common Cause, spending a reported $123,000 in 3 months.

19765 For purposes of comparison, the Disabled American Veterans lobby listed $32,759 during the last quarter of 1971. Common Cause's total spending for the year was $1.1 million. Their 1972 operating budget is $2,294,300.

The Associated Press lists Common Cause as a "self-styled people's lobby." How is a "people's lobby" organized? How is it made truly "responsive?" Well, in the first place, it is not done by selecting its governing board through democratic processes. The present governing board for Common Cause-from whom you are receiving advices on how to be more "responsive" on Vietnam, water pollution, welfare reform, et cetera, presently consists of 42 members. Of these, 22-a majority-are appointed, not elected. Of these 42, 15 come from the area of Washington, D.C., with 11 listing the District of Columbia as their address and the other four from the Washington metropolitan area. Seven are from New York State, and all those seven are from the New York City metropolitan area. Three members are from Chicago, two from Los Angeles, two from Phoenix, Ariz., and one each from San Francisco, San Diego, and Stanford, Calif., St. Paul, Minn.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Lincoln, Mass.; Detroit, Mich.; Muscatine, Iowa; Cincinnati, Ohio; Durham, N.C.; New Haven, Conn.; Ann Arbor, Mich.; and B~nnington, Vt.

Therefore, "representatives" faces a considerable hurdle at the outset, since 37 of the 50 States of our Nation have no representatives on the Common Cause Board. Among the unrepresented are 4 % million of my fell ow Missourians.

I expect every Member of the House of Representatives would agree that the House is not as responsive to the people as it should be. However, it would appear nonetheless that some people's lobbies are probably less responsive, and certainly less representative than the U.S. Congress.

By 1974, Common Cause proposes a Board of 80 members--60 of whom would be directly elected by the membership and 20 of whom would be elected by the board itself. What would the public reaction be if we proposed a Congress of 400 Members--300 elected directly by the people and the other 100 selected by Congressmen themselves, "to insure that all segments of the population and all geographic areas are represented?"

Being a Congressman from the "Show Me" State can be exhilarating, exciting, frustrating, fractious, or just plain puzzling. However, it is never boring and carries the constant comfort that no matter how strongly your constituents may agree or disagree with you, they insist on thinking for themselves. The praise or vituperation you read does not represent the canned thoughts of a Washington-New York-Log Angeles or New Haven lobbyist, no matter how well paid those opinion molders may be.

I would urge voters, concerned about the problems and policies facing our country, to buy an 8-cent stamp and write your own letter to your Congressman. It is cheaper than joining Common Cause-and more effective.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, June 5, 1972

Documents

Transcript of HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, June 5, 1972