march 28, 1974 congressional record -senate' s 4701congressional record -senate march 28, 1974...

March 28, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE'

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am pre-pared to yield back the remainder of mytime.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield back our time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

agreement provides for the vote to occurat 11:30 a.m. The unanimous-consentagreement could be changed by unani-mous consent.

Mr. JAVITS. We yield back our time.Mr. GRIFFIN. What is the change in

the agreement?Mr. JAVITS. No change. We merely

want to yield back our time. We have nofurther speakers; unless we have a quo-rum call before the vote.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The Senator can sug-gest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JAVITS. We have only 3 minutes.Mr. GRIFFIN. We can call it off.Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I do not

yield back my time. I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to callthe roll.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


Under the previous order, the hour of11:30 having arrived, the vote on theconference report is now in order. Theyeas and nays have been ordered, and theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the rollMr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.FULBRIGHT), the Senator from Alaska(Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from Wyo-ming (Mr. McGEE), the Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. MONDALE), and the Sen-ator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE)are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Rhode Island(Mr. PASTORE), the Senator from Minne-sota (Mr. MoNDALE), the Senator fromAlaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator fromArkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), and the Sen-ator from Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE), wouldeach vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL), theSenator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS),and the Senator from South Carolina(Mr. THR-UMOND) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator fromOregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is absent on of-ficial business.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom Vermont (Mr. AIKEN) is absent dueto illness in the family.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Vermont(Mr. AIKEN), the Senator from Oregon(Mr. HATFIELD), the Senator from Mary-land (Mr. MATHIAS), and the Senatorfrom Maryland (Mr. BEALL) would eachvote "yea."

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from South Car-olina (Mr. THnRMOND) would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 71,nays 19, as follows:

AbourezkAllenBakerBayhBellmonBentsenBibleBidenBrookeBurdickByrd, Robert C.CannonCaseChilesChurchClarkCookCranstonDoleDomenitcDominickEagletonFongGriffin

BartlettBennettBrockBuckleyByrd,

Harry P., Jr.Cotton

[No. 91 Ieg.]YEAS-71

GurneyHartHartkeHaskellHathawayHollingsHuddlestonHughesHumphreyInouyeJacksonJavitsJohnstonKennedyLongMagnusonMansfieldMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMetzenbaumMontoyaMossMuskie

NAYS-19CurtisEastlandErvinFanninGoldwaterHansenHelms

NOT VOTING-

NelsonNunnPackwoodPearsonPellPercyProxmireRandolphRibicoftRothSchweikerScottHughSparkmanStaffordStevensStevensonSymingtonTaftTalmadgeTunneyWeickerWilliamsYoung

HruskaMcClellanMcClureScott,

William L.StennisTower

-10Aiken Hatfield MoncaleBeall Mathias PastoreFulbright McGee ThurmondGravel

So the conference report was agreed to.Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move

that the Senate reconsider the vote bywhich the conference report was agreedto.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to lay thatmotion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, Icongratulate the Senate on approval ofthe conference report on S. 2747, theminimum wage bill. The minimum wageof $1.60 an hour has not been increasedsince 1968. Since that time inflation haspushed the cost of living up 33 percent.

Today's vote is the third time in lessthan 2 years that the Senate has ap-proved an increase in the measure ofeconomic dignity for those workingAmericans at the bottom of the economicladder. On one occasin the other bodyrefused to go to conference and on theother, our efforts were vetoed by thePresident.

I strongly urge the President to signthis bill into law.

S. 2747 fully reflects the will of Con-gress and the public. Its provisions havebeen thoroughly examined in committeein both Houses. It has been debatedmany hours. Every controversial pointhas been tested by a vote in the Senate.The differences between the two bodieshave been fairly compromised. It is afine bill and should become law.

I also want to thank our chairman,Senator WILLIAMS, for his outstandingleadership and perseverance in bringingthis difficult piece of legislation safelythrough once again. It is my strongesthope that this time we will see our ef-forts rewarded by becoming law.

uNANIMMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMNENTS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that following the

vote on the first Allen amendment therebe a limitation of 1 hour on the Hatha-way amendment, to be equally dividedbetween the distinguished Senator fromMaine (Mr. HATHAWAY) and the mi-nority leader or whomever he may desig-nate.


Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask unanimousconsent that it be in order at this timeto ask for the yeas and nays on thatamendment.


Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask for the yeasand nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that it be in orderat this time to ask for the yeas andnays on the second Allen amendment.


Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask for the yeasand nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that following theIdisposition of the second Allen amend-ment, the amendment to be offered bythe distinguished Senator from Texas(Mr BENTSEN) may follow, and thatthere be a time limitation of 30 minuteson that amendment, the time to beequally divided.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, reserv-ing the right to object, I am not familiarwith the Bentsen amendment.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I am fa-miliar with the Allen amendments, but Iam not familiar with the Bentsenamendment, either. I wonder if the ma-jority leader would consider holding thatone in abeyance.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes; I withdraw therequest.

Mr. ATLLEN. Mr. President, the Sena-tor from Texas, in conversation with me,said that his amendment provided thatno foreigner could contribute to electioncampaigns It is a recommendation, I be-lieve, that the President made.

Mr. COOK. May I say to the Senatorfrom Alabama, I Would think an amend-ment of that nature could be adoptedunanimously by a voice vote, and thatit would not be necessary to have a roll-call or to have time for debate.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I will discuss thatlater.

Then I understand that following thedisposition of the Bentsen amendment,the third Allen amendment for todaywill be offered.

Mr. ALLEN. That suits me.Mr. MANSFIELD. If I may have the

attention of the minority leader and theranking member of the Rules Commit-tee, the Senator from Alabama has indi-cated that he would be willing to con-sider a 30-minute limitation on the thirdamendment on the same basis as theother two. I understand that the amend-ment has to do with the positions of theMembers of the 93d Congress who willbe running for office this year.

Mr. ALLEN. Running for the Presi-dency?

S 4701

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 28, 1974Mr. COOK. I have no objection to that.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I re-mind the Senate that we have a voteon the extradition treaty with Denmarkat 12 o'clock tomorrow. There is a rumorgoing around that that would be theonly business tomorrow. However, it isthe intention of the joint leadership toconsider amendments to the pendingbusiness, and it is anticipated that therewill be yea and nay votes in addition tothe vote on the treaty of extradition.

MESSAGES FROvI -THE PRESIDENT

Messages in writing from the Presi-dent of the United States were com-municated to the Senate by Mr. Mvarks,one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session, the Presiding)Officer (Mr. HUDDLESTON-) laid before the

Senate, messages from the President ofthe United States submitting sundrynominations, which were referred to theappropriate committees.

(The nominations received today areprinted at the end of Senate proceed-ings.)

FiEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACTAMENDMENTS OF 1974

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.ABOUREZK). Under the previous order,the Chair lays before the Senate theunfinished business, S. 3044, which theclerk will state.

The assistant legislative clerk read asfollows:

A bill (S. 3044) to amend the FederalElection Campaign Act of 1971 to providefor public financing of primary and generalelection campaigns for Federal elective of-fice, and to amend certain other provisionsof law relating to the financing and conductof such campaigns.

The Senate resumed the considerationof the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thepending question is on agreeing to theamendment (No. 1109) of the Senatorfrom Alabama (Mr. ALLEN), which theclerk will state.

The assistant legislative clerk pro-ceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. ALLEN's amendment (No. 1109) isas follows:

On page S, line 6, strike out "FEDERAL,and insert in lieu thereof "PRESIDENTLAL",

On page 4, line 6, strike out the commaand insert in lieu thereof a semicolon.

On page 4, beginning with line 7, strikeout through line 12.

On page 4, line 13, strike out "(5)" andinsert in lieu thereof "(4)".


On page 5, line 6, strike out "any".On page 5, line 21, immediately before

"Federal", strike out "a".On page 7, line 3, strike out "(1)".On page 7, beginning with "that-" on

line 5, strike out through 7 no page 8 and

insert in lieu thereof "that he Is seekingnomination for election to the office of Presi-dent and he and his authorized committeeshave received contributions for his campaignthroughout the United States in a totalamount in excess Of $250,000.".

On page 9, line 6, after the semicolon, in-sert "and".

On page 9, strike out lines 7 and 8 andinsert in lieu thereof the following: "(2)no contribution from",

On page 9, beginning with "and" on line13, strike out through line 19.

On page 10, beginning with "(1)-" on'line 3, strike out through line 16 and insertin lieu thereof the following: "(1), no con-tribution from any person shall be takeninto account to the extent that it exceeds$250 when added to the amount of all othercontributions made by that person to or forthe benefit of that candidate for his primaryelection.".

On page 13, beginning with line 16, strikeout through line 18 on page 14 and insert inlieu thereof the following:

"SEC. 504. (a) (1) Except to the extent thatsuch amounts are changed under subsection(f) (2), no candidate may make expendituresin any State in which he is a candidate in aprimary election in excess of the greater of-

"(A) 20 cents multiplied by the voting agepopulation (as certified under subsection(g)) of the State in which such election isheld, or

"(B) $250,000.".On page 14, line 19, strike out "(B)" and

insert in lieu thereof "(1)" and strike out"subparagraph" and insert in lieu thereof"paragraph".

On page 14, line 20, strike out "(A)" andinsert in lieu thereof "(1 )".

On page 15, line 8, beginning with "thegreater of-", strike out through line 17 andinsert in lieu thereof "15 cents multiplied bythe voting age population (as certified undersubsection (g)) of the United States.".


On page 26, lines 2 and 3, strike out "undersection 504 of the Federal Election CampaignAct of 1971, or".

On page 71, beginning with line 20, strikeout through line 2 on page 73 and insert inlieu thereof the following:

"(a) (1) Except to the extent that suchamounts are changed under subsection (f)(2), no candidate (other than a candidate fornomination for election to the office of Presi-dent) may make expenditures in connectionwith his primary election campaign in excessof the greater of-

"(A) 10 cents multiplied by the voting agepopulation (as certified under subsection(g)) of the geographical area in which theelection for such nomination is held, or

"(B) (i) $125,000, iif the Federal officesought is that of Senator, or Representativefrom a State which is entitled to only oneRepresentative, or

"(ii) $90,000, if the Federal office sought isthat of Representative from a State which isentitled to more than one Representative.

."(2) (A) No candidate for nomination forelection to the office of President may makeexpenditures in any State in which he is acandidate in a primary election in excess oftwo times the amount which a candidate fornomination for election to the office of Sena-tor from that State (or for nomination forelection to the office of Delegate in the case ofthe District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands,or Guam, or to the office of Resident Com-missioner in the case of Puerto Rico) mayexpend in that State in connection with hisprimary election campaign.

"(B) Notwithstanding the provisions ofsubparagraph (A), no such candidate maymake expenditures throughout the UnitedStates in connection with his campaign forthat nomination in excess of an amount

equal to 10 cents multiplied by the votingage population of the United States. For pur-poses of this subparagraph, the term 'UnitedStates' means the several States of the UnitedStates, the District of Columbia, and theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guani, andthe Virgin Islands and any area from whicha delegate to the national nominating con-vention of a political party is selected.

"(b) Except to the extent that suchamounts are changed under subsection (f)(2), no candidate may make expenditures inconnection with his general election cam-paign in excess of the greater of-

"(1) 15 cents multiplied by the voting agepopulation (as certified under subsection(g)) of the geographical area in which theelection is held, or

"(2) (A) 4175,000, if the Federal officesought is that of Senator, or Representativefrom a State which is entitled to only oneRepresentative, or

"(B) $90,000, if the Federal office sought isthat of Representative from a State which isentitled to more than one Representative.

"(c) No candidate who is unopposed in aprimary or general election may make ex-penditures in connection with his primaryor general election campaign in excess of 10percent of the limitation in subsection (a)or (b).

"(d) The Federal Election Commissionshall prescribe regulations under which anyexpenditure by a candidate for nominationfor election to the office of President for usein two or more States shall be attributed tosuch candidate's expenditure limitation ineach such State, based on the voting agepopulation in such State which can reason-ably be expected to be influenced by suchexpenditure.

"(e) (1) Expenditures made on behalf ofany candidate are, for the purpose of thissection, considered to be made by .such can-didate.

"(2) Expenditures made by or on behalf ofany candidate for the office of Vice Presidentof the United States are, for the purposesof this section, considered to be made by thecandidate for the office of President of theUnited States with whom he is running.

"(3) For purposes of this subsection, anexpenditure is made on behalf of a candi-date, including a Vice Presidential candidate,if it is made by-

"(A) an authorized committee or any otheragent of the candidate for the purposes ofmaking any expenditure, or

"(B) any person authorized or requested.by the candidate, an authorized committeeof the candidate or an agent of the candi-date to make the expenditure.

"(4) "For purposes of this section an ex-penditure made by the national committee ofa political party, or by the State committeeof a political party, in connection with thegeneral election campaign of a candidateaffiliated with that party which is not inexcess of the limitations contained in subsec-tion (I), is not considered to be an expendi-ture made on behalf of that candidate.

"(f) (1) For purposes of paragraph (2)-"(A) 'price index' means the average over

a calendar year of the Consumer Price In-dex (all items-United States city average)published monthly by the Bureau of LaborStatistics, and

"(B) 'base period' means the calendar year1973.

"(2) At the beginning of each calendaryear (commencing in 1975), as necessary databecome available from the Bureau of LaborStatistics of the Department of Labor, theSecretary of Labor shall certify to the Fed-eral Election Commission and publish inthe Federal Register the percentage differ-ence between the price index for the twelvemonths preceding the beginning of suchcalendar year and the price index for thebase period. Each amount determined under

S 4702

March 28, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEsubsections (a) and (b) shall be changed bysuch percentage difference. Each amount sochanged shall be the amount in effect forsuch calendar year.

"(g) During the first week of January 1975,and every subsequent year, the Secretary ofCommerce shall certify to the Federal Elec-tion Commission and publish in the FederalRegister an estimate of the voting age popu-lation of the United States, of each State,and of each congressional district as of thefirst day of July next preceding the date ofcertification. The term 'voting age popula-tion' means resident population, eighteenyears of age or older.

"(h) Upon receiving the certification ofthe Secretary of Commerce and of the Secre-tary of Labor, the Federal Election Commis-sion shall publish in the Federal Registerthe applicable expenditure limitations in ef-fect for the calendar year for the UnitedStates, and for each State and congressionaldistrict under this section."

On page 73, line 3, strike out "(b)" andinsert in lieu thereof "(i)".

On page 73, line 24, strike out "section 504"and insert in lieu thereof "subsection (g);and".

On page 74, strike out lines 1 and 2.On page 74, line 6, strike out "that Act"

and insert in lieu thereof "the Federal Elec-tion Campaign Act of 1971".

Dn page 74, line 8, strike out "(c)" and.rt in lieu thereof "(j) ".

W n page 74, line 10, strike out "(a) (4)" andBert in lieu thereof "(e) (3)".

On page 75, line 6, strike out "(a) (5)" andinsert in lieu thereof "(d) ".

On page 75, line 11, strike out "(a) (4)"and insert in lieu thereof "(e)(3)".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timefor debate on this amendment is limitedto 30 minutes, to be equally divided be-tween and controlled by the Senatorfrom Alabama (Mr. ALLEN) and the Sen-ator from Nevada (Mr. CANNON). Whoyields time?

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield my-self 3 minutes.

This amendment would merely takefrom under the bill the races for theHouse of Representatives and the Sen-ate, both for the primary and the gen-eral elections.

s Mr. President, I do not believe it isight for Members of Congress to pro-

xLde that the taxpayers, through the-nic Treasury, should pay for theirW. ion campaigns. I do not believe it isright to present to a candidate for theSenate 15 cents per person of voting agein his State, to allow him to run for theSenate. This would involve astronomicalamounts of money. In the State of Cali-fornia, the public subsidy to a candidatefor the Senate in the general electionwould be $2,121,000. In the State of NewYork, it would be $1,900,000. I do not be-lieve that the taxpayers of the countryshould be called on to finance electionsof Senators and Representatives.

I might say also, Mr. President, that astrong public opinion in this countrycaused the Senate to vote against arecommendation of the President thatthe salaries of the Members of the Houseof Representatives and the Senate beincreased by about $2,500. That wasoverwhelmingly vetoed here in theSenate.

What would public opinion be aboutpresenting a check for more than $2million to a candidate for the Senate in

California, $1,900,000 in the State ofNew York, and lesser sums on down?

All this amendment would do wouldbe strike the House and the Senate fromthe provisions of the bill. I do not believethat the House would accept the pro-vision anyway, and I believe that theSenate should take the leadership andstrike the primary and general electionsof House and Senate Members from thebill.

For another thing, matching fundsare provided in the primary for theHouse of Representatives and the Senate,and this would actually aid the incum-bents, in that we would match the privatecollections of sums up to $100 of Houseand Senate Members. Naturally theHouse and Senate Members, being in-cumbents, and being better known,would be able to collect more funds fromindividual contributors, and then theFederal Government would match thatamount, compounding the advantagethat the incumbent would have.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator's time has expired.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield myself 1 more min-ute.

Mr. President, it is not in the publicinterest to require the taxpayers to payfor the primaries, or half of the primariesand all of the general election expense, ofSenators and Representatives, and I hopethat the Senate will approve the amend-ment.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to thedistinguished Senator from Tennessee(Mr. BAKER).

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator from Alabama for yieldingso that I could speak in support of theamendment.

It is no secret here in the Senate thatI do not look favorably upon public fi-nancing of any campaigns, includingPresidential campaigns. I think it wouldresult in the distortive effect of contribu-tions of large sums of private money giv-ing way to the distortive effect of largecontributions of public money, with theinevitable effect of a proliferation ofTreasury rules and regulations and bu-reaucratic redtape that ultimately willpervade a system of public financing, nomatter how we try to avoid it.

The election of officials to office at thePresidential and congressional levels, inmy judgment, is the most intimate of alldemocratic processes. It was intentionallynot structured into the Constitution, sothat we would be entirely on our own,free of the dictates of the Governmentin deciding how we select our officials.

But there is a very real distinction be-tween a Presidential campaign, with twomajor-party nominees who command theattention of the national press corps andthe national media including televisioncoverage, and the campaign of a typicalcandidate for the House of Representa-tives or the Senate, who does not havesimilar coverage, especially those who arechallengers of established incumbents.

I am an incumbent. Now, by the graceof God and the good will of the people ofTennessee, I have been here a little morethan 7 years. But 7 years is not longenough to eradicate from my mind a rec-

ollection of how hard it is to run fromobscurity, and how hard it is to be a chal-lenger.

I think, Mr. President, that .partic-ularly in the cases of candidates for theHouse of Representatives or the Senate,public financing creates a distinct ad-vantage on behalf of the incumbents, anddiminishes the chance for new and ag-gressive, intelligent and worthwhilechallengers.

It tends to cement the status quo ofcongressional affairs and is far more sus-ceptible to unfavorable results than eventhe financing of a Presidential campaignfrom the public treasury, which I alsooppose. On the scale of things, I must saythat I oppose this more than I opposethat.

So I very much hope that the Senatewill support the amendment of the dis-tinguished Senator from Alabama toexempt ourselves from public financing.If the matter of the setting of our ownsalaries is a patent conflict of interest,the matter of providing for our own warchests to campaign with is an evengreater conflict of interest.

I thank the distinguished Senatorfrom Alabama for yielding me this time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will theSenator from Tennessee yield for a ques-tion?

Mr. BAKER. I yield, if I have any moretime.

ML. CANNON. Mr. President, I yieldthe Senator from Massachusetts 5 min-utes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I op-pose the amendment offered by SenatorALLEN to strike the pr*iisons of S. 3044dealing with public finaicing of congres-sional general elections and congressionalprimaries, and I urge the Senate to rejectthe amendment.

At a very minimum, yesterday's over-whelming vote cements the existing lawproviding public financing for Presiden-tial general elections. Obviously, Congressis not about to roll back the clock onthe current dollar checkoff by repealingor deleting existing law.

By what logic, then, can Congress failto see the need for public financing of itsown elections?

The issue is the same under bothamendments that Senator ALLEN plansto offer today -to strike public financingfor all congressional elections, and tostrike it for Presidential primaries.

The logic is compelling, and we escapeit at our peril. If public financing is theanswer to the problems of private moneyand political corruption is Presidentialelections, then it is also the answer tothe problems of private money and politi-cal corruption in other Federal elections,too. If public financing is good enoughfor the President, it is good enough forthe House and Senate, too. If public fi-nancing is good enough .for general elec-tions, it is good enough for primaries, too.

For centuries, money and public serv-ice have been a corrosive combination inpolitical life. And the more things changethe more they remain the same. In "ThePrince," Machiavelli put the problemclearly almost 500 years ago:

S, 4703

S 4704 COl,As a general rule those who wish to win

favor with a prince offer him the things theymost value and in which they see that hewill take most pleasure; so it is often seenthat rulers receive presents of horses, arms,piece of cloth of gold, precious stones, and.similar ornaments worthy of their station.

The only real change today, when thefavors available from the modern orn-gress and the modern Federal Govern-ment would boggle the mind of anymedieval prince, is that the most valuedpresents are not horses and arms, butcontributions to political canmpaigns.

Just as Watergate and private cam-paign contributions have mired theexecutive branch in its present quick-sand of corruption, so, I am convinced,the present low estate of Congress is theresult of the ingrained corruption andappearance of corruption that our sys-tem of private financing of congressionalelection has produced.

Today, in Congress, the problem hasreached the epidemic level. For too long,we have tolerated a system of private fi-nancing that allows the wealthiest citi-zens and biggest special interest groupsto infect our democracy by buying a pre-ferred position in the deliberations ofCongress.

It is no accident that Congress so oftenfails to act promptly or effectively onissues of absolutely vital importance toall the people of the Nation-issues likeinflation, the energy crisis, tax reform,and national health insurance, to namebut four subjects where the ineffectiveaction of Congress, sometimes over manyyears, appears to bear a direct and obvi-ous correlation to the massive campaigncontributions by special interest groups.It is no secret to any citizen that suchinterest groups have a stake at least inthe status quo, and often a stake insomething worse, in flagrant disregardof where the public interest really lies.

Not until we root out 'L the errosiveaspects of the present sstem 1il we beable to cure this worsening Uvectiam ofour Government, and bring eour democ-racy back to health.

To make the case for public financingof congressional elections, we need lookno farther than the figures released to-day by Common Cause. Beyond any rea-sonable doubt, these figures demonstratethat special interest groups have astranglehold on Congress, and that thestranglehold can only be broken by publicfinancing.

The figures tell a dismal story of howCongress is bought in each election year.

Contribu-tions to

Congress, Cash on hand,Special interest groups 1972 1974

Total -....-..-. . $14,000,000 $14,200,000

Business professional ...-. 3, 400, 000 , 900,000All labor 3,800,000 5,000,000AFL-CIO -........-. . 847,000 309, 000BIPAC (NAM). --.... - 410,000 231,000AA MA.-.....-....9..... . . 844, 000 335,000

qGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA

Contibhu.tions to

Congress, Cash on hand,Special irierest groups 1972 1974

oairy.~........---.-. --...; $1,089,000 $2,019,000Oil . -... ....-- .37,000 .. A

One of the most distressing aspects ofthese figures is the proof that Watergatehas not even made a dent in the specialinterest war chests now being accumu-lated for the 1974 elections. Already, withthe 1974 primary campaigns hardly evenmunderway, the special interest groups

have collected more cash on hand forpolitical contributions in 1974 than theycontributed in all of 1972.

An equally distressing aspect is thatthese figures vastly understate the realamount of special interest giving, sincethey are compiled only from reports filedby registered political committees. Be-cause of limits on current capability foranalyzing the published reports, the fig-ures are forced to ignore contributionsby individuals. Yet, we know that indi-viduals with a specia! interest in legisla-tion before Congress contributed im-mense amounts to 1972 campaigns, andthey are obviously tooling up to do thesame in 1974.

It is a hollow joke, a very hollow jokewhose butt is the people of America, toread that oil committees gave only$37,000 for congressional elections in1972, when we know from other estimatesthat oil executives contributed millionsto both the Presidential and the congres-sional elections in 1972.

In sum, Congress owes America a bet-ter legislation record on the issues, andthe way to start is by cleaning the sta-bles of our own campaigns, by reformingthe way we finance our own elections.Only when we have public financing ofour elections will we in Congress trulyrepresent the public.

Mr. President, I wonder whether theSenator from Alabama and the Senatorfrom Tennessee are fanliar with thelgures eleased by Oeawon Cause this

mornn/g, uht1c t sihw tie Tizable contri-butieas made by the special interestgroups to Members of Congress in the1972 elections, and the sizable warcheststhey have accumulated for 1974. I won-der what kind of reaction the Senatorshave to these disclosures.

We already have public financing forPresidential elections. Why do we thinkin the House and the Senate that we are"holier than thou" and that it is notnecessary to have public financing forMembers of Congress? Most specifically,what is the reaction of the Senator fromTennessee to the analysis by CommonCause, which shows that over $14 millionin special interest money has alreadybeen collected for the Senate and Houseelections this fall? How does he respondon that issue to the amendment beforethe Senate?

XTE March 28, 1974Mr. BAIKER. I thank the Senator from

Alabama for giving me, again, enoughtime so that we can have this colloquywith the Senator from Massachusetts.

My response is, I do not think weshould have any contributions from any-one except qualified voters. I do not thinkthe Treasury of the United States, orthe treasury of the State of Tennessee,or that any corporation, or association orco-op, or whatever, should make contri-butions or give financial support to anycampaign. Rather, I think that the sup-port should come only from individualhuman beings who can vote. Corpora-tions cannot vote. Common Cause can-not vote. Chambers of Commerce cannotvote. Why should they contribute? I pro-posed, and there is at the desk, anamendment to the bill which I will callup. later, that says that no one except aqualified voter can contribute.

That is my reply.Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, so long

as we have private contributions, thespecial interests will find a way to givetheir money and make their influencefelt.

As I indicated earlier, the Coymon Cause figures are only the tip oficeberg, because they reflect only ,contributions reported or collected byorganized political committees. They donot reflect contributions by individuals.Yet we know, as in the case of oil money,that vast amounts of special interestmoney come rolling in, each electionyear, in the form of individual contri-butions.

We know why these special interestgroups are building up their warchestsfor 1974. To take but one example, it isclear that this Congress is now well intoa major debate on national health insur-ance. Possibly, a comprehensive bill toestablish a program of national healthinsurance may pass the Senate and theHouse before the end of the present ses-sion. Or, the debate may well carry overinto the 94th Congress that convenes inJanuary 1975, after the congressionalelections this fall. Obviously, health relform and national health insurancesLissues that are now coming into thefront of the agenda of Congress. W

And what do we see when we look atthe Common Cause figures, published to-day, showing the warchests that specialinterest groups have already accumu-lated for the purpose of making contri-butions to the 1974 elections? We findthat one of the special interest groupswith the fattest warchests is none otherthan the American Medical Associationand its affiliated political action commit-tees in the various States.

Mr. President, I ask at this point thatan excerpt from the Common Cause ma-terials showing the breakdown by Stateof the AMA warchest, may be printed inthe RECORD.

There being no objection, the materialwas ordered to be printed in the REcoRD,as follows:

March 28, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE1974 CAMPAIGN WAR CHEST OF AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ITS AFFILIATED POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES

Organization(branches of

Closing American Medicaldate Association) Committee name Amount

Mar. 7,1974 National ----------. American Medical PAC -....-.........Dec. 31, 1973 District of Columbia Physcns Corn For Good Govt--O.C ...----...

Executive.Feb. 28, 1974 Alabama .--------- .Alabama Medical PAC .-..-- --.. . .....Jan. 31,1974 Alaska ----....-..-. Alaska Medical PAC .---------------------Mar. 10, 1974 Arizona .---------- .Arizona Medical PAC -...-.-.-.. . ......Feb. 28, 1974 Arkansas .--------- .Arkansas PAC -...--.... . ............Dec. 31, 1973 California--...-.. . ... California Medical PAC .------------------Mar. 10, 1974 ---- do ... --------.-. Committee for Govt Improvement ---------Dec. 10, 1973 -... do.--...-.. . .... L.A. Cnty Physicians Comm --.----- --------Mar. 7,1974 ....-- do -...-.-. . ... Professional Comm for Good Govt .-... .....Feb. 28, 1974 Colorado --...-.---- Coldrado Medical PAC .- ---...-. . .....Mar. 10, 1974 Connecticut.--..... .. Connecticut Medical PAC.-....--.... .....Feb. 28, 1974 District of Columbia._ District of Columbia PAC ....-.............Feb. 31,1973 Florida ..------ F.--. Florida Medical PAC .-........--........Feb. 28, 1974 Georgia --..-....... Georgia Medical PAC...-.....-..-.......

) Feb. 28, 1974 Hawaii ...-..-.-. . . .Hawaii Medical PAC.......................Dec. 31, 1973 Idaho------- Idaho Medical PAC.. -----------Mar. 7,1974 Illinois -------------- Illinois Medical PAC .......................Feb. 28, 1974 Indiana--..--... .... Indiana Medical PAC......................

Do ------ Iowa - -......... .-- Iowa Medical PAC .----..-.... ..........,Do --.. ... Kansas.... . ........ Kansas Medical PAC .......-.........

Cb. 31,1973 Louisiana --. . ....... Louisiana Medical PAC ----. ---. - ---....-eb. 28, 1974 Maryland ..--.....- .Maryland Medical PAC ...... ..............

bec. 31, 1973 Massachusetts -.... . Bay State Physicians PAC .... ..........Feb. 28, 1974 Michigan --...-..... Michigan Doctors PAC .-.-..... . .......

$60, 5208, 482

15,0291, 375

13, 3924, 411

178, 517168

14, 002156

1, 6704, 1561, 367

22, 94334,232

2,629981

18, 59447, 90922, 652

6, 38316, 98627, 294

1,02225, 320

Organization(branches of

Closing American Medicaldate Association) Committee name Amount

Do .-... .Minnesota -..-...... Minnesota Med PAC .- $-.......----------- $17, 584Do ...-. .Mississippi..-...... Mississippi PAC -...-------------------- 15,884Do ...... Missouri ... ......... Missouri Med PAC -...-........------- 26, 380

Oct. 2, 1973 Montana ........ Montana PAC .-. --..-...-- ........ 2,372Feb. 28, 1974 Nebraska ------ Nebraska Med PAC ..--... ........... 7,999

Do -.... New Jersey -------- N.J. Med Political Action -.........- . . .... 8, 899Dec. 31, 1973 New Mexico -.---. .. N.M. Med PAC .-.....-...... ......... 3,221Mar. 10, 1974 North Carolina --.---- North Carolina Med Pal Educ & Action Comm. 20, 699Feb. 28, 1974 North Dakota -..---- N.D. Corm on Med Pol Act -.--.... . ...... 1, 243

Do ...... Ohio -... . ........ Ohio Med PAC -...- --............... . ; 53, 123Dec. 31, 1973 Oklahoma ---------- Oklahoma Med PAC .--.--. --..-. .. .-.---.Feb. 29, 1974 New York .......... Empire Medical PAC 6.....0..-...-.-....... 1, 3

Do ------- Oregon -------------- Oregon Med PAC ------ -.------------------ 16, 121Do... Pennsylvania ------- Pennsylvania Med PAC .-.---... . ........: 50, 874Do ...... Rhode Island ------- Rhode Island Med PAC..---.....--.-.. . .... 1,160Do ...... South Carolina ------ South Carolina PAC ...-...... ........... 6, 405

Dec. 31, 1973 South Dakota ..-.... South Dakota PAC.. - . . ................... 1,435Feb. 28, 1974 Tennessee -.. . ...... Independent Medicine's PAC ........---... 19, 673

Do .-.. . .Texas .-.-....... ... Texas Med PAC .................... . . .-.. 59, 160Dec. 31, 1973 Utah --...-..----- Utah Med PAC .---................ 1,661

Do ------ Virginia .----------- Virginia M ed PAC ------------------------ 6, 840Feb. 28, 1974 Washington -.------- AMPAC-State of Washington ..-. . ..... 10,084

Do ..... Wisconsin .--..-. . .. Wisc Physician's PAC ....-.-..-. ......... 16, 085Do ------- W yoming ..------- --- W yoming PAC ----------------------------- 1, 894

Total ..-..- - - - - - --.-..-....... 889, 088

r. KENNEDY. We see from thesees that the AMA and its affiliates

Iready collected the massive sumt?/0 000 in available contributions forthelS congressional elections. We alsoknow the position of the AMA on healthreform, which is a position of total oppo-ition to the sort of national health in-urance program that many of us believe

_.s essential if the Nation is to have de-cent health care.

Clearly, the AMA position will be wellrepresented in the next Congress. Moneyspeaks, and $889,000 in campaign con-tributions speaks with a very loud voice

,-indeed.But who speaks for the average citi-

zen? Who speaks for the mother tryingto get a doctor because her child is sick.Who speaks for the family driven intofinancial.ruin because of the high cost ofserious illness? Who speaks for all thepeople fed up with a health care systemThat suits the doctors and the insurance

}panies very well, but that fails to1_ the people's basic need for decent

heg1lare at a price they can afford to

Pl W is the nature of the problem weface.-There are probably only a handfulof Members of this body who have not re-ceived at least some contribution from

·one or another of these various interestgroups. I think that public financing isthe only realistic answer to eliminate thecbrrupting influence of the special in-terest contributions on our Senate andHouse elections.

We see the picture. The special interestgroups are waiting with their checkbooksto make their influence felt. If thisamendment passes, the effect will be tosay that we in Congress are glad to getthat money, that we welcome their cam-)aign contributions in 1974 and on into

the future.I oppose the amendment, and I hopetat the Senate will reject it.Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I do not

know what the parliamentary situationis at the moment. The Senator fromMassachusetts asked me to yield, but onwhose time, I do not know. We have beenhaving this colloquy. If I still have the

floor, I should like to have 1 minute moreto speak.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield the Senator fromTennessee 1 more minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. Whatever time re-mains to me I will gladly yield to theSenator from Tennessee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Tennessee is recognized for 1minute.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I am reallymost distressed by the concept embod-ied in the remarks just made by theSenator from Massachusetts, which Iread to mean that we can trust ourselvesso little to cure the ills spotlighted by theWatergate case that we have got to throwthe baby out with the bath water. I reallyam concerned that we do not considerourselves to be good enough legal drafts-men or legislative scholars to be able todraft a way to prevent the special inter-ests from having an effect on the electiveprocess.

I know half a dozen ways to do thatwithout tearing down the destiny and thepolitical system of this country.

We could hand out $2 million in Cali-fornia or $365,000 in Nevada, or what-ever, and pretty soon we will have a littlebooklet coming out that says "FederalRules and Guidelines for Qualifying forthe Expenditure of Funds"-and prettysoon the Federal Government will be su-pervising how campaigns are going to berun. Thus, we will have created politicalincest.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator from Massachusetts hasexpired.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I have any time re-maining, I should like to have 2 min-utes

Mr. CANNON. I yield 2 minutes to theSenator from Massachusetts.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Massachusetts is recognizedfor 2 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, thething the American public should un-derstand is that they are paying for thesystem now. We hear the statementsabout the raid on the Federal Treasury.

The Senator from Tennessee under-stands who is paying for what now.

And one of the most obvious thePeople are forced to pay is through taxloopholes. The Internal Revenue Code isriddled with tax loopholes. The Amer-ican public is paying for those loopholes.Vast amounts of tax welfare are beingpaid through the tax laws to big con-tributors and special interest groups.And we know who makes up the differ-ence. The working man and woman, themiddle income and the lower incomegroups are the ones who pay higher taxesto make up for the various tax loopholes.

We know how those various tax loop-holes have been obtained. As the Sen-ator from Tennessee and every otherMember of the Senate knows, it isthrough the work of the highly paidlobbyists and the special interest groupsdown here in the conference rooms andin the committee rooms and in the hallsof Congress. They make sure that theloopholes are written in and stay in andthey are always around when campaigncontributions are to be made.

So, make no mistake about it, Mr. andMrs. Public, you are paying for the sys-tem, and you are paying for it in hiddenbillions of dollars every year.

All it takes to change the system andput it on .an honest footing is to makesure that the public pays the bill forelections to public office. We are talkingabout a cost of $360 million over a 4-yearperiod, to make Members of Congressand the Senate, and the President ofthe United States accountable to thepeople and not to the special interests.That is a bargain by any standard, aprice we cannot afford not to pay.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield 2

minutes to the Senator from Colorado(Mr. DOMINICK).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Colorado is recognized for 2minutes.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, Ithank the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I have not participatedvery much in this debate so far and I donot serve on the Committee on Rules and

S 4705

S 4706 CO:Administration, but I think I have justheard the most illogical argument fromthe Senator from Massachusetts that Ihave heard in my whole life in the 12years I have se'ved in this body, and my2 years of service in the House.

Every single tax thing, including whathe calls the tax loopholes, were originallyput in for a social reason of one kindor another, like the tax loophole whichgives an extra deduction, for example,to one who is blind or over the age of65. There is a whole group of things likethat, which he lumps into so-called taxloopholes. It does not have a single thingto do with the bill which is designed toput Members of the Senate and Mem-bers of the House in the public trough.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will theSenator from Colorado yield for a ques-Ilull

Mr. DOMINICK. I yield.Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator

support a bill to eliminate all the taxloopholes, say, by the end of this year,over a 2- or 3-year period, then rebuildthem back into the Revenue Code, ifthey really serve a social purpose? I be-lieve that many of those loopholes are di-rectly related to campaign contributionsby the people who enjoy the benefits ofthe loopholes. Would the Senator be will-ing to test the social purpose of the loop-holes by re-enacting them or is he simply.prepared to continue--

Mr. DOMINICK. Is the Senator ask-ing me a question?

I wonder whether the Senator fromAlabama would yield me another minuteto answer the Senator from Massa-chusetts.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.Mr. DOMINICK. I thank the Senator.The answer to the Senator from Mas-

sachusetts is, "no," I would not supportsuch a bill.

A great many social projects are ofextraordinary impact in this country.One of the things I hope to do is to geta tax credit for higher education. Wehave passed it in the Senate twice, andI have no -intention of saying that theSenator from Colorado would simplyeliminate these social practices which wetry to accomplish in a tax bill. Besides,that comes out of the Ways and MeansCommittee, not out of the Rules Com-mittee, and has nothing to do with thepublic trough bill that is before the Sen-ate now.

I have been adamantly against publicfinancing from the very beginning. I amagainst it for any kind of race-Presi-dential, -Republican, senatorial, or any-thing else-because all I can see is acontinuing effort to get more and moremoney as expenses go on, increasing theamount of money we are going to bespending on public campaigns for elec-tion one way or another. As one who isrunning this year, it would be helpful tome, of course, if we had public financing.But I cannot think of anything worse forthe taxpayers of my State, for the tax-payers of the country, and for the coun-try's government as a whole-its welfare,its honor, and its integrity. To have cam-paigns run on public financing is theworst thing I can think of.

NGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SEN,The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished Senatorfrom Mississippi (Mr. STENNiS).

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senatorfrom Alabama.

Mr. President, last year the Senatepassed a good bill. I could not be here toparticipate in that bill, but I have beenso concerned about elections, about whathas been happening, that I have goneinto this matter rather thoroughly;-andI cannot support the principle of using,taxpayers' dollars to pay for the cam-paigns, especially our own elections,especially for the election of Membersof the House of Representatives, whohave only 2-year terms.

As a practical matter, I know of noscandal connected with senatorial racesor with races of Members of the House,either-the actual races for election orreelection. I have been here a good while.We have had some matters come upabout funds collected and appreciationdinners, whatever one wants to call it.But that was after the election was over.Some of that money, we decided-in onecase especially-was misused. But I donot think Congress has any record ofscandal or any kind of fraud or anythingfixed up. There is a selfish angle, too.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator has expired.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield the Senator 1 addi-tional minute.

Mr. STENNIS. I feel that to get intoour races and to let the taxpayers pay forthem takes the people out of it, so tospeak. The taxpayer pays his taxes be-cause he has to, and he should, of course.But the idea of taking his money andputting it to this use is contrary to whatmany people believe in. Worse than that,it takes the people out of the race, so tospeak, because they feel that what theycan do will not count. We have to getthese elections back closer to the people,closer to their voluntary actions, to theirenthusiasm, to their willingness to be ac-tive citizens, to become involved. Weneed more people actively involved inthese elections, particularly congres-sional elections.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. CANNON. I yield 2 minutes to theSenator.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, it is my in-tention to vote against the proposal ofthe Senator from Alabama, but I wouldbe remiss if I did not say that one of thereasons why I intend to do so is that Ithink the people of the United Stateshave an opportunity to try what we haveproposed for some time.

I must say, in all fairness, that I amsurprised at the extreme length of theindictment of Democratically controlledCongresses that I have just listened toas to the Internal Revenue Code as itnow exists, with what are called completeand absolute loopholes.

I think that the average taxpayerwho files his form 1040 seems to thinkof everybody who has a loophole as not

ATE March 28, 1974being an average taxpayer. I am think-ing about the fellow who owns a gasstation, the fellow who deducts for theutilization of his truck, which he alsodrives home at night because it is hisvehicle, and that is a loophole.

I am thinking of literally hundreds andhundreds of things that give a little in-dividual who is a small, independentbusinessman, not the giant business-man, an opportunity and an incentiveto be a businessman, an incentive tomake a living.

I hope that during the course of thisdebate we will not take into considera-tion such broad, sweeping statementsthat we are going to have an amend-ment that takes away all loopholes.What does "all loopholes" really mean?What are we really saying to the Inter-nal Revenue Service? What are we reallysaying to every little individual who-pays his taxes on a quarterly basis, not'once a year?

I hope we.will look at this situationfrom the standpoint that we now havean opportunity to try a process thatnot totally untried in the worldpolitics, and I think we all knowI know how individuals on this_feel, but if the Senator feels that sgoing to try, he should try it at all lbelsof elective government.

I know that the next amendment isgoing to swing around and say that wewill do it for this group and not thatgroup.

I agree with the Senator from Massa-chusetts that we have had many mis-uses, and I think we have a tendencyto overkill in the United States. Manytimes, legislative bodies certainly do.But I believe this issue has been debatedenough so that it is rio longer the issueof overkill, that it is now the issue thatthis is a process that may indeed workand can work; and if it does not work,obviously the system can be changed.

To the extent that we in. the RulesCommittee, under the leadership of ourdistinguished chairman, have tried 'work this matter out to the best of oability, this amendment would do a rinjustice to the work we did in the _ings on the bill. We feel that ifgoing to make this experimental attemptto change the methods of campaign oper-ations in the United States, it has to bedone at the legislative level and must bedone at the Presidential level.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, what isthe time situation?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Nevada has 2 minputes remain-ing. The Senator from Alabama has 1minute remaining.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yieldmyself 2 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Nevada is recognized.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, Congressalready acted once on this matter anddetermined last year that the mattershould be referred to the Committee onRules and Administration and that weshould come back with a proposition forthe financing of campaigns out of Fed-eral funds. That is exactly what we havedone.

March 2;8, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEWe do not provide in this law that

every candidate must go to the Federalfunding source. We leave it up to his op-tion. If he sees a great danger in it andwants to go the private sector he maydo that within the limits of the bill. Ofcourse, we prqyide a limit on the amount.We will not see another situation, if thisbill is passed, where Clement Stone andpeople like that can make tremendouscontributions, or a committee, like themilk fund or a like organization makestremendous contributions, because wehave a limit. It means that a person whois unknown and wants to try, if he candemonstrate initially that he has a cer-tain amount of appeal, can find thefunds without going to private interestgroups to finance a portion of his cam-paign, provided the funds are there.

The law now provides for the checkoffprovision. In this bill we increase thatand double the amount of the checkoff

- and increase the amount of the tax creditor the tax deduction that may be taken.

.h.ey can use those to provide funds toth, candidate.

simply say the Committee on Rules~A~dministration is trying to comply_he instructions given it last yearbye Senate in reporting a bill on thissubject and we think we have done thebest job we could do after holding hear-ings and listening to the testimony ofwitnesses who appeared before us.

Mr. President, I hope the amendmentof the Senator from Alabama is rejected.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, yes, theCommittee on Rules and Administrationdid discharge its commitment in report-ing the bill, but there is no obligation onus to take the bill. It is just a vehicle forthe Senate to express its will with regardto public financing.

I do not believe that the people of thiscountry, having rejected the thought ofCongress raising its salary-by some $2,-500, will look with favor on Congress vot-

g itself funds in the primary; up to-e $2 million in California and lesser.Mounts down through other States for

Jmbers of the Senate to run theircmpl/igns. I do not believe they want to

i embers of Congress have theirclIlgsns subsidized.

This amendment will take House andSenate races, both primary and generalelections, out from under subsidy pro-visions of the bill. I hope it is approvedby the Senate.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I risein support of the amendment No. 1109proposed by my friend from Alabama(Mr. ALLEN).

The bill as it is currently written wouldestablish public financing for all Federalpolitical campaigns. I am opposed tothis because I oppose public financingexcept in the case of Presidential

.,and Vice-Presidential races. The hugeamounts of money spent in the 1972Presidential campaign-$60 million forPresident Nixon and $35 million for Sen-ator McGovERN combined with theWatergate revelations indicate the,needto change the method of funding Presi-ldental campaigns.

I support, and voted for, legislationsponsored by Senator RUSSELL LONG, OfLouisiana, some years ago, to try the

checkoff system on our income tax re-turns. By this system taxpayers canindicate on their tax forms whether ornot they want $1 of their tax money togo to the financing of Presidential levelcampaigns. I believe that this measure,plus a proposed $15,000 ceiling on con-tributions, would stimulate a healthieratmosphere for Presidential campaigns.The huge sums required to mount aPresidential campaign force the candi-date to seek out the big contributor-towhom he then feels some obligation. Weshould provide this candidate with analternative-and public financing is suchan alternative.

However, I am opposed to establishingpublic financing for the congressionaland senatorial races. This onslaught onthe- public treasury to pick up the tabsfor campaigning and "politicking" allacross America would create chaos. Itwould entice every Tom, Dick, and Harryto jump into the political arena and takehis money, and hence take advantage ofthe public financing. It is nothing morethan a subsidy program for all would bepoliticians.

I do favor control on Senate andHouse races in order to keep down spend-ing and disclose all facts concerning con-tributions and expenditures. One wayto do this is to limit campaign expendi-tures to 10 and 15 cents per voter. Sincethis would put a ceiling on the total ex-penditures of a candidate, it would en-courage him to go after smaller individ-ual contributions instead of having toseek out big contributors to pay for anunlimited, and hence, expensive cam-paign. I feel that by. limiting campaignspending, the candidates will be drawnto public financing in the true sense ofthe word-the solicitation of funds fromindividual citizens. And I also favor aprohibition on receiving contributionsfrom any source other than an individ-ual contributor. No more milk fundshenanigans for example. The last Sen-ator elected in South Carolina spent$660,000. With a voting age populationin South Carolina of 1,775,00-and witha limit of 10 cents per voter on campaignfinancing, future candidates would belimited to spending $177,500 in theircampaign. This would be a big improve-ment.

I also support limiting the amountthat an individual can contribute to acampaign, and while I personally favora $1,000 ceiling, I would agree on a com-promise that would set $15,000 as themaximum contribution in Presidentialraces and $3,000 in Senate and Houseraces.

We must do away with the corruptinginfluence of big money-far more moneythan is necessary to present a candi-date's views to the people. I think thesteps I have outlined here can do thedeed. At the same time, they will avoidthe pandemonium that public financingand more government meddling arebound to create.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I have said on numerous occasions thatthe most important task now before usis to restore the confidence of the peoplein their Government. Public feeling to-ward elected officials is at an extremely

low point. In fact, this Congress--despiteits fine record-could muster a favorablerating from only 21 percent of the people

* interviewed in a recent Lou Harris sur-vey.

It appears to me, then, that this isthe worst possible time for Congress toenact legislation that would provide forthe use of tax dollars to finance congres-sional campaigns. I have grave doubtsthat public financing of House and Sen-ate races would ever be advisable, but Ihave no doubts as to this being thewrong time, of all times, to provide forFederal financing of House and Senateraces.

The bill now before us would allowevery candidate in every primary forevery House seat in the country to col-lect $45,000 from the U.S. Treasury.Those who survive the primaries couldbe rewarded with a $90,000 campaignchest from the Treasury.

Not only is the principle of using taxdollars to finance Senate and House cam-paigns highly questionable, but theamounts involved here seem way out ofline with what would be considered real-istic limits.

In the 1972 House races, for instance,74 percent of all the candidates recordedexpenditures of less than $50,000. In-stead of setting the limit at that level,the bill would set a $90,000 maximuin.In other words, rather than moving todecrease the high amounts spent in aminority of the congressional races, thebill would actually encourage increasedspending in the majority of such races.

The amounts available for Senateraces, although varying according to theparticular States, are also high. In WestVirginia, for example, the voting agepopulation is listed at 1,228,000. Thatmeans that $122,800 would be availablefor primary campaigns, based on 10cents per voting age citizen; and $184,200would be available for the general elec-tion, based on-a 15-cent ceiling.

If one of the objects of campaign re-form is to limit expenditures-and thatcertainly should be a main objective-then public financing of congressionalcampaigns is not going to accomplish it.Actually, public financing of Senate andHouse races threatens to increase ex-penditures, not only by setting higher-than-needed limits, but also by openinga crack in the Treasury for this kind ofspending. No one can say that the 10-cent and 15-cent limits contained in thisbill will not be increased to 25-cent or50-cent limits in the future. The publicbecame enraged recently when there wastalk of dollar-a-gallon gasoline. Imaginehow enraged the same taxpayers will be-come when there is talk of dollar-a-voteFederal expenditures for congressionalcampaigns.

The way to bring about reform is notthrough the use of taxpayers' dollars forSenate and House candidates, but ratherby setting limits-reasonable but strictlimits--on what congressional candi-dates can spend; limiting the amountsthat single contributors can give to cam-paigns; strict disclosure of contributors;and stricter enforcement of the lawsagainst violations.

With all the problems facing the tax-

S 4707

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1974payers of this country today, we shouldbe trying to find more ways to save theirtax dollars-not new ways to spendthem.

Therefore, I support the amendment todelete Public financing of congressionalcampaigns from this bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All timeis yielded back. The question is on agree-ing to the amendment of the Senatorfrom Alabama. The yeas and nays havebeen ordered, and the clerk will call theroll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.FULBRIGHT), the Senator from Alaska(Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from Wyo-ming (Mr. MCGEE), the Senator fromMainnesota (Mr. MONDALE), and theSenator from Rhode Island (Mr. PAS-TORE) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Rhode Island(Mr. PASTORE) and the Senator fromWyoming (Mr. McGEE) would vote"nay."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL), theSenator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS),and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.SCHWEIKER) are Nlecessarily absent.

I also announce'that the Senator fromOregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is absent on offi-cial business.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom Vermont (Mr. AMEN) is absent dueto illness in the family.

I further, announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Oregon(Mr.'HATFIELD) would vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from Ver-mont (Mr. AIKEN) is paired with theSenator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE).If present and voting, the Senator fromVermont would vote "yea" and the Sena-tor from Minnesota would vote "nay."


AllenBakerBartlettBellmonBennettBrockBuckleyByrd,

Harry F., Jr.Byrd, Robert C.ChurchCottonCurtisDole

AbourezkBayhBentsenBibleBidenBrookeBurdickCannonCaseChilesClarkCookCranstonDomeniciEagletonHartHartke

[No. 92 Leg.]YEAS-39

DominickEastlandErvinPanninFongGoldwaterGriffinGurneyHansenHelmsHollingsHruskaJohnstonLong

NAYS--51HaskellHathawayHuddlestonHughesHumphreyInouyeJacksonJavitsKennedyMansfieldMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMetzenbaumMontoyaMossMuskie

MagnusonMcClellanMcClureNunnRothScott,

William L.SparkmanStennisTalmadgeThurmondTowerWeicker

NelsonPackwoodPearsonPellPercyProxmireRandolphRibicoffScott, HughStaffordStevensStevensonSymingtonTaftTunneyWilliamsYoung

NOT VOTING-10Aiken Hatfield MondaleBeau Mathias PastoreFulbright McGee SchweikerGravel

So Mr. ALLEN'S amendment (No. 1109)was rejected.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I movethat the Senate reconsider the vote bywhich the amendment was rejected.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I move to laythat motion on the table.


AMENDMENT NO. 1082

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senate will nowproceed to the consideration of theamendment by the Senator from Maine(Mr. HATHAWAY), No. 1082. The amend-ment will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows:On page 75, line 19, redesignate subsection

"(a)" as subsection "(a) (1) ".On page 75., line 19, strike the word "per-

son" and substitute the word "individual".On page 75, line 22, strike the word "per-

son" and substitute the word "individual".On page 75, Iollowing line 28, add the fol-

lowing new subsection:"(2) No person (other than an individual)

may make a contribution to, or for the bene-.fit of, a candidate for nomination for elec-tion, or election, which, when added to thesum of all other contributions made by thatperson for that campaign, exceeds $6,000."

On page 75, line 25, strike the word "per-son" and substitute the word "individual".

On page 76, line 2, strike the word "per-son" and substitute the word "individual".

On page 76, line 2, strike the period andadd the following: ", or from any person(other than ail individual) which, whenadded, to the sum of all other contributionsreceived from that person for that campaign,exceeds $6,000.".

Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, Ispoke the other day at somne length insupport of the amendment. I am notgoing to burden Senators by repeatingeverything I said the other day, but Ishould like to make a few points in sup-port of the amendment.

The purpose of the amendment is todifferentiate between individuals and or-ganizations with respect to the contribu-tions limitation. The amendment allowsorganizations to contribute $6,000 percandidate rather than $3,000, which isthe limitation now in the bill. The $3,000limitation will still apply with respect toindividuals.

It seems to me that it is inequitable toequate one wealthy individual with anorganization whose membership runs tohundreds or thousands. Large citizengroups, whether they be liberal or con-servative, or single-issue groups, such asconservation groups, perform a valuablefunction by serving as funneling or-ganizations to give modest contributorsa voice and an impact in the election.

By giving to the political committeesthat reflect their philosophy or views,more people get interested and stay in-terested in the electoral process.

In areas where it is difficult to raisefunds for a statewide campaign, either

because the area simply does not havethe funds to provide, or because the can-didate is not very well known, thesegroups provide a means of channelingfunds into the area while preventing anyoutside influence.

Most liberal organizations, trade as-sociations, or business groups alreadyhave State, local, or regional affiliatesas existing networks to support candi-dates, and each of them may contributelarge sums to each candidate. But citizengroups are usually national. They raisefunds by mailings to the general publicand would not have the means tomultiply their committees and set themup in separate States. So the $3,000 limi-tation which is at present in the bill forcontributions is not enough for broad-based citizen groups or nationwide or-.ganizations.

An organization representing 80,000or more people, such as the NationalCommittee for an Effective Congress, or'.70,000, such as the American Conserva-Jtive Union, should bd allowed to contrill-lute as much as a man and wife contrb-ute, under the bill, that amounts$6,000.

It has been said that it would bferable to have no group contribisat all; that only individual citizens couldmake contributions. I agree that it wouldbe nice to have so many individuals in-terested in our electoral process that wecould rely solely on individual contri-butions. Ultimately, that should be ourgoal.

But at present, organizations that poolcontributions from groups of citizenswho share a view or an ideology per-form a valuable function in our system,and I feel that they are being treatedunfairly as individuals in the committeebill.


Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I sug-gest the absence of a quorum. I -- 'unanimous consent that the time for thequorum call be charged to this side. *

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With.objection, it is so ordered. The Cler] kcall the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk_ceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-dent, I ask unanimous consent that theorder for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. HARRY F: BYRD, JR. I askunanimous consent that during the con-sideration of the pending legislation, Mr.Philip Reberg of my staff be granted theprivilege of the floor.


Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whosetime?

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR., 1On thesame time that ran before I called off thequorum call.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will theASenator withhold that?

S 4708

Mlarch 28, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEMr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I withdraw

it.Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield

myself such time as I may require.,The pending amendment would make

a change that in my view is wrong inprinciple.

As the bill is now written, special in-terest groups--organizations that collectand distribute campaign money for busi-ness, labor, farm and other special inter-est groups-including the infamous milkfunds-would be limited to $3,000 in thecontributions made to the campaign ofany candidate. The amendment proposedwould increase that limit to $6,000.

In my humble opinion it would be wellif we could wipe out contributions of anysize from special interest groups to acandidate's campaign. I considered of-fering just such a counter-amendment

Which would eliminate even the $3,000,ontribution. I recognize, however, thathere would be little chance that such

an amendment could prevail._2 I shall not argue the constitutional is-

S--sue-even though I recognize that it doesist. But whether the limit is $3,000 or

56,000 does not really change the con-tutional arguments.

e question, so far as I am concerned,Wtially is one of direction and prin-

cWie. It is my view that to increase thelimit from $3,000 to $6,000, as the Sena-tor from Maine would do by his amend-ment, would be to go in the wrong direc-tion; it would be going away from cam-paign finance reform-which is supposedto be the purpose of the bill.

As the distinguished Senator fromTennessee (Mr. BAKER) said earlier to-day in a colloquy, special. interest groupsdo not vote; people vote. And it seems tome that we should be endeavoring, in thisreform legislation, to focus on more di-rect participation by individual citizensrather than to encourage the channel ofcampaign support through special inter-est groups.

When an individual contributes to aspecial interest group-whatever its

eology, philosophy or legislative pur-e-and then allows the directors of

at organization to determine which$ates should be supported opposedW[is money, that individual is there-

by delegating an important element ofhis own citizenship responsibility. I justdo not think it is in the national interestto encourage that practice.

This amendment, in my view, woulderode and weaken the strength that is inthe bill now. It should be voted down.

I realize that in many campaigns-insome Senate campaigns and certainly inPresidential campaigns-the enlarge-ment from a $3,000 limit to a $6,000 limitcould be considered relatively insignifi-cant. But the amendment would not beso-insignificant, I suggest, in many racesfor seats in the House of Representatives.

At the present time, many candidateswho run for House seats conduct theirentire campaigns on total amounts of$12,000, $15,000, or $20,000. Certainly, inthose situations, a $6,000 contributioncoming from a special interest groupwould be a large portion of the total_- unt spent in the campaign.

It would be much better, it seems tome, if all contributions made to a cam-paign were to come directly from indi-vidual citizens and if there were com-plete and full disclosure concerning allsuch contributions.

The amendment leaves open the pos-sibility, at least, that campaign fundscan be "laundered" through the conduitof a special interest group.

Whatever may have been possible inthe past in that regard, it seems thatthis practice should be eliminated. Thepeople want clean elections; they wantfull disclosure.

To allow contributions to be channeledthrough special interest groups could bea method of concealing and covering upfinancial support, rather than disclosingit.

So, for those reasons, I urge my col-leagues to vote down the amendment.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainderof my time.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, Iyield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to speakfor the amendment. I have listened buthave not had the opportunity to be ex-posed to all the arguments on both sides.I realize the point the Senator fromMichigan is making, that this permitsthe enlargement of the laundering fund,but with all this legislation we have toweigh the good and the bad. My own viewis that the organizations that would bemost affected by the $3,000 limitationwould be organizations whose contribu-tions were basically small and that theyshould be permitted to contribute, be-cause they are organizations that wouldbe representing large groups of people.

The $3,000 figure is an arbitrary figure.The $6,000 figure proposed in the amend-ment of the Senator from Maine is alsoan arbitrary figure. Perhaps the $6,000figure more nearly meets the needs ofthe situation.

It is for these reasons that I wouldrespectfully disagree with the Senatorfrom Michigan and support the Senatorfrom Maine.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, Iyield myself such time as I may require.

I want to answer a few points raised bythe Senator from Michigan. He pointedout that we would be allowing organiza-tions such as milk co-ops to double thecontribution which they can now makeunder the bill. To be sure, those co-opshave come under some surveillance in therecent past, and some suspicions havebeen cast on those particular organiza-tions, but the same thing is true of someindividuals. A husband and wife can give$6,000, and I suppose there are husbandsand wives that might come under somesuspicion as to what motivated them tomake such a contribution.

Certainly, in this bill, we cannot pre-tend to examine every potential con-tributor and say that only those who donot come under suspicion may make con-tributions and those who are undersuspicion may not do so. That is a matterfor the individual candidate to judge forhimself when he chooses to accept sucha contribution.

Also, I should like to mention that the

amount involved is not the point at issuethere. The reason for the amendment isto do equity and justice to organizations.Under the terms of the bill itself, an in-dividual can give $3,000 and a husbandand wife can give $6,000, even though allthe money is coming from the husband.

This simply puts large organizationswhich have many members-and I havealready cited two such organizations-the Committee for an Effective Congressand the Americans for Conservative Ac-tion, which have 80,000 and 70,000 mem-bers respectively-on the same basis formaking contributions as a husband andwife.

Many people throughout this Nationhave a propensity to participate in poli-tics. They make contributions to variouscandidates. Many people throughout thecountry, from Maine to Hawaii, are in-terested in knowing the composition ofthe House of Representatives and thecomposition of the Senate. They are notnecessarily interested only in the candi-dates who are running in their respectiveStates. Organizations serve as the vehiclefor these people to make contributionsto those candidates throughout the coun-try who represent their ideology orphilosophy. Individuals who may be ableto contribute only $5 to $100 each, andwho do not have access to informationabout all the candidates running for of-fice are justified, I think, in relying onthe organizations which give them lead-ership and direction about where to maketheir contributions.

The point was made by the Senatorfrom Michigan that the people do notnecessarily know where their contribu-tions are going. Certainly they know thepurpose of the organizations to whichthey are making contributions. I do notknow of any organization that deceivesits supporters into believing the con-tribution will be used otherwise than in away that will be consistent with what theorganization holds itself out to be.

In conclusion, let me say that theamendment merely puts an organizationon a more equitable basis than the basison which it will be if the bill passes inits present state.

Mr. President, I urge Senators to sup-port this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, how

much time remains on this side?The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HUD-

DLESTON). Fifteen minutes remain.Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the Chair.Mr. President, of course, I respect the

views of the distinguished Senator fromMaine. I realize there is some points towhat he says, but I do not find his argu-ment weighty enough to convince me thatI should support his amendment.

I take issue, particularly, with thethrust of that part of his argument whichappeared to condone the delegation byindividuals to special interest groups oftheir citizenship responsibilities.

Of course, there is an infinite numberof special interest groups-many of themare interested in only one particular is-sue. For example, I think of the Right toWork Organization, which is interestedin nothing except the one issue of so-

S 4709

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 28, 1974

called right-to-work legislation. The or-ganization collects funds and providessupport for candidates needless to say,it hopes--or expects-that those candi-dates will vote right on their particularissue.

I do not wish to criticize the right-to-work organization. It is no different thanhundreds of other one-issue special in-terest groups.

I do not believe it serves the nationalinterest when candidates are elected toCongress because of funds supplied byspecial-interest, pressure groups. Suchgroups are not interested in the com-plete record of the candidate. The one-issue special-interest group cares onlyabout the position of the candidate onits issue.

Such an organization will support orwork to defeat a candidate solely on thebasis of the candidate's views on thatone issue.

If the limit on such support were in-creased as proposed by this amendment,the influence of such groups would bedoubled as compared with the pendingbill.

I urge the defeat of this amendment.Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I

yield such time as he may need to theSenator from South Dakota (Mr.ABOUREZK).

Mr. ABOUREZK. Mr. President, wemust work to create an electoral systemwhere Americans by the tens of millionscan and will actively participate. Thisultimately is the greatest safeguard ofour constitutional freedoms.

In recent years, organizations rangingfrom the conservative Americans forConstitutional Action to the liberal Na-tional Committee for an Effective Con-gress and the League of ConservationVoters have been working vigorously toachieve more active participation in pol-itics. Many of these organizations havebeen in the forefront of the fight formeaningful reform of the electoral proc-ess. At the same time they have activelysolicited tens of thousands of donationsfrom citizens to be pooled together andcontributed to congressional candidates.

As the Federal Elections Campaign Actis now written, these groups will be se-verely limited. Their pooled contribu-tions will be treated the same as indi-vidual contributions. The Council for aLiveable World, for example, might getcontributions from 500 citizens average$20 for a total of $10,000. The Councilmight want to give that money to oneprogressive candidate but it would beallowed to give only $3,000. However,Mr. and Mrs. Clement Stone, if theywanted to, and I imagine they wouldwant to, could give $6,000 to a special-interest opponent. And all the littleStones could each give $3,000 as well.

The New York Times looked at thissituation earlier this month and edi-torialized that:

Surely such organizations, whatever theirpolitical complexion, can be allowed to con-tribute three or four times the amount ofa single person without distorting the willof the electorate.

Senator HATHAWAY in his amendmentasks that such organizations be allowedto contribute only twice that of an in-dividual.

I support Senator HATHAwAY'S amend-ment. It is a reasonable compromise. Itis a compromise that will be unpalata-ble to the large corporate interests, eachof whom would like to give their $3,000contributions in splendid isolation. Butit is a compromise that will work to ex-pand and broaden the political process,not to narrow it.

I thank the Senator for yielding.Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I yield my-

self 5 minutes on the bill.The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is

no time on the bill.Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield the Senator 5

minutes.Mr. COOK. First of all, Mr. President,

we are talking about a matter of seman-tics, and I hope it does not get down toan arpagumnent between whether C. Clem-ent Stone and his wife give $6,000 or theCommittee for an Effective Congress cangive only $3,000. We are debating thewhole issue that we really picked a figurewith no study as to how we got to thatfigure. Therefore, any place we go fromthat particular figure to another partic-ular figure is just a matter of making adeterminration as to whether we agree ordo not agree.

Another point I should like to make isthat we discussed this business ofwhether it is or is not a means by whichwe can launder funds. Obviously, one canlaunder funds at $3,000 contributions aswell as at $6,000 contributions. But thisbill depends on the people of the UnitedStates to have a basic concept of whatthe law is and whether they are willingto live by the law or whether they arewilling to break the law.

I suggest to the Senator from Michiganthat under this act, if we pass it rela-tively in the form it is in, we providethat one cannot do what the Senator hassuggested. I read to him from page 76,paragraph (c):

(c) (1) For purposes of the limitationscontained in this section all contributionsmade by any person directly or indirectly toor for the benefit of a particular candidate,Including contributions which are in anyway earmarked, encumbered, or otherwisedirected through an intermediary or conduitto that candidate, shall be treated as con-tributions from that person to that candi-date.

So the only point we have to raisehere, if we believe that in the operationof the political process it is our intentionto abide by the law, is that if one wishesto give $3,000 and say, "Will you pleasegive it to the Senator from Maine, andthat is whom I want it to go for," underthe law, the organization that receivesthe $3,000, and is a conduit to get it tothe Senator from Maine, has to reportwhere it came from, and that it wasinstructed to pass it on.

The point I really think we are gettingdown to is not a point between C. Cle-ment Stone and the Committee for anEffective Congress, but an honest-to-goodness point. I think the only pointthat has merit is whether a husbandand wife who have substantial assets cangive to one candidate $6,000 and some-one who has substantial assets and givesa facility or a lobbying group such as theCommittee for an Effective Congress, theCommittee for a Federal World, or the

Committee for a Cleaner Environment,can give only $3,000 because they can-not marry another committee.

I think that is the issue before us, andthat is the issue on which we have tomake a determination when we vote,

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.ABOUREZK). Who yields time?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, howmuch time remains on this side?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has 6 minutes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I do nottake issue with the Senator from Ken-tucky.

Mr. COOK. I thank the Senator forthe time.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am pleased that thelanguage to which he refers is in thebill, and it will be helpful. It is an im-portant step in the right direction.

However, I still believe that the basi!question is the one I raised at the outsetof my. presentation-that is whether thecitizenship responsibility should be delet-gated by individual citizens to special--interest groups.

I find It interesting and somewhinironic that some of the organizationthat are the loudest in their calls_reform, including ceilings on conttions and expenditures, are in thefront of support for weakening amend-ments such as the one pending now. TheNew York Times, which frequently callsfor election reform, is unrealistic whenit contends that special interest groupscould give 3 or 4 times as much as thebill provides without influencing or af-fecting elections. That is absolutely ab-surd as it would apply to House races. Ifthe limit were to be three or four timeswhat it is in the bill, then a special in-terest group could, in effect, provide themajor portion of the funds on which acandidate would run for the House ofRepresentatives.

Mr. President, the arguments havebeen presented; and so far as I am con-cerned, I am willing to yield back the re-mainder of my time.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Presidentsyield 5 minutes to the junior Senalfrom Kentucky. r

Mr GRIFFIN. I reserve the reof my time.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. I thank the dis-tinguished Senator for yielding..

Mr. President, I have a couple of pointsto make in support of this amendment.

It has been a long accepted conceptin this country-and indeed a tradition-that citizens are able to join other citi-zens of like philosophy, of like purposesor objectives, so that their combinedforce may have a combined impactgreater than the individual would have ,'himself.

I would think that a person who hasonly a few dollars to contribute to acandidate of his choice must feel some-what helpless as he considers what irn-pact his contribution might make or whatinfluence he may have, when he con-siders that other individuals can con-tribute $3,000 or, in the case of a marriedcouple, $6,000.

What we are doing here, it seems tome, is to give individuals who are wilingto join because they have a like interestor like philosophy or a like objective, and

S .4710

March 28, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATEprovide some impact, if they have$50,000, $100,000, or whatever, com-parable to a couple. It is reasonable toassume that the interest of two indi-viduals will be somewhat more narrowin relation to the interest of the generalpublic and the interest of some 50,000 or60,000 people who join together. So itdoes not seemn unreasonable that thiskind of organization would receive thesame treatment as a couple who happento be married, which would represent theinterests of only two individuals.

I support the amendment. I believe withthe restrictions it would be subject tovery little abuse. It would be a contribu-tion to those who like to participate andlike to know their views are being felt by

, joining an organization, knowing thatthe organization might have some im-pact, at least as much as a couple, on theoutcome of a race in which they areInterested because they support a candi-date.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, it shoulde recognized that a $3,000 contribution

or some individuals means no more than,contribution for other individuals.

[ rt more important, I believe, is theno automatic implication is attach-

ed to individual's contribution under nor-mal circumstances.

On the other hand, when a specialinterest group, organized to promote par-ticular Issues, makes a contribution,there is no question as to what the mo-tive and purpose of that special interestgroup. No one would doubt what thepurpose or motive is when a milk fund,for example, makes its contributions.

I think the American people under-stand this distinction very well. They donot want the Congress to go in the direc-tion of this amendment. They expectmore from this Congress in terms ofcampaign financing reform.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, howmuch time is remaining to both sides?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-r from Michigan has 1 minute re-aing and the Senator from Maine14 minutes remaining.r. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I justt to point out in conclusion that as

far as the amount involved is concerned,the President advocated a $15,000 limi-tation, at least with respect to Presi-dential campaigns. It seems to me the$3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for agroup limitation, being considerably be-low the amount recommended by thePresident, is realistic. I do not believethat the distinction which was beingmade by the distinguished Senator fromMichigan with respect to special inter-est groups can be made between thegroups and a married couple. A marriedcouple that is able to contribute $6,000to a candidate is just as apt to have aspecial interest as a special interestgroup.

I do not think we can make a legisla-tive decision about whether a special in-terest group, couple, or individual shouldor should not make a contribution.

The Senator from Michigan mentionedearlier in his remarks that there are con-stitutional problems involved. Certainly,we do not want to inhibit any person orgroup in making a contribution; whether

an individual is interested in all legisla-tion before Congress or only in one pieceof legislation, he or a group to which hebelongs should be able to make a con-tribution. And as I have said, a groupshould be able to make the same con-tribution as a married couple.

Mr. President, I know of no reason notto yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield back the timeon this side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All timeis yielded back. The question is on agree-ing to the amendment of the Senatorfrom Maine. The yeas and nays havebeen ordered, and the clerk will call theroll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.FULBRIGHT), the Senator from Alaska(Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from Wyo-ming (Mr. MCGEE), the Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. MONDALE), the Senatorfrom Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE), andthe Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WIL-LIAMS) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if presentand voting the Senator from Rhode Is-land (Mr. PASTORE) would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Tennessee (Mr. BARER),the Senator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL),the Senator from Maryland (Mr. MA-THIAS), and the Senator from Pennsyl-vania (Mr. SCHWEIKER) are necessarilyabsent.

I also announce that the Senator fromOregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is absent on offi-cial business.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom Vermont (Mr. AmKEN) is absent dueto illness in the family.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Oregon (Mr.HATFIELD) would vote "nay."


[No. 93 Leg.]YEAS---46

Abourezk Hartke MossBayh Haskell MuskieBentsen Hathaway NunnBible Huddleston PellBrooke Hughes RandolphByrd, Robert C. Humphrey RibicoffCannon Inouye S6parkmanCase Jackson StaffordChurch Javits StennisClark Johnston StevensCook Magnuson StevensonCranston Mansfield SymlngtonDole McGovern TunneyEagleton Metcalf YoungEastland MetzenbaumHart Montoya

NAYS-42Allen Ervin NelsonBartlett Fannin PackwoodBellmon Pong PearsonBennett Goldwater PercyBiden Griffin ProxmireBrock Gurney RothBuckley Hansen Scott, HughBurdick Helms Scott,Byrd, Hollings William L.

Harry F., Jr. Hruska TaftChiles Kennedy TalmadgeCotton Long ThurmondCurtis McClellan TowerDomenict McClure WeickerDominick McIntyre

NOT VOTING-12Aiken Gravel MondaleBaker Hatfield PastoreBeall Mathias SchweikerFulbright McGee Williams

So Mr. HATHAWAY'S amendment (No.1082) was agreed to.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, Imove that the Senate reconsider the voteby which the amendment was areed to.

Mr. COOK. I move to lay that noticeon the table.


MESSAGE FPROM THE HOUSEA message from the House of Repre-

sentatives by Mr. Berry, one of its read-ing clerks, announced that the Househad agreed to the report of the commit-tee of conference on the disagreeing votesof the two Houses on the amendment ofthe House to the bill (S. 2747) to amendthe Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 toincrease the minimum wage rate underthat act, to expand the coverage of theact, and for other purposes.

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACTAMENDMENTS OF 1974

The Senate continued with the consid-eration of the bill (S. 3044) to amend theFederal Election Campaign Act of 1971to provide for public financing of primaryand general election campaigns for Fed-eral elective office, and to amend certainother provisions of law relating to thefinancing and conduct of such cam-paigns.

NSANIXMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, be-fore the Senator from Alabama is recog-nized, I should like to make a request.I ask unanimous consent that followingthe disposition of the amendment to beoffered by the Senator from Alabamathere be a 30-minute limitation on theBentsen amendment, which is next in or-der, the time to be equally divided be-tween the Senator from Texas (Mr.BENTSEN) and the manager of the bill(Mr. CANNON); and that in addition therebe a 10-minute limitation on an amend-ment to be offered to the amendment, tobe divided between the sponsor of theamendment, the distinguished Senatorfrom Texas (Mr. BENTSEN), and the act-ing Republican leader, the distinguishedSenator from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this anamendment to the amendment?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Thirty minutes and10 minutes, the 10 minutes to be on theamendment to the amendment.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that it be in order toask for the yeas and nays on the amend-ment.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I nowask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, while a

large number of Senators are in theChamber, would the distinguished ma-jority leader allow me to ask unanimousconsent that it be in order to ask for theyeas and nays on my amendment to theamendment, with the understandingthat if the amendment is accepted, the

S 4711

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 2:8, 1974order for the yeas and nays will bewithdrawn?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Certainly.Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that it be in order forme to ask for the yeas and nays on myamendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is theSenator asking that it be in order to askfor the yeas and nays at this time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will theSenator describe his amendment? Or ishis request merely to ask for the yeasand nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That itbe in order to order the yeas and nays atthis time. Is there objection to the re-quest of the Senator from Michigan?

Without objection, it is so ordered.Mr. GRIFFIN. I now ask for the yeas

and nays on my amendment.The yeas and nays were ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 1110

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senator fromAlabama is recognized to call up hisamendment No. 1110, which will bestated.

The assistant legislative clerk read asfollows ·

On page 4, line 21, immediately after "(C)",insert "and".

On page 4, line 24, beginning with "and(D) ", strike out through line 2 on page 5and insert in lieu thereof a semicolon.

On page 7, line 9, immediately after thesemicolon, insert "or".

On page 7, line 17, strike out the semicolonand "or" and insert in lieu thereof a period.

On page 8, beginning with line 3, strike outthrough line 7.

On page 9, line 7, strike out "for nomina-tion for".

On page 9, line 8, immediately after thecomma, insert "the candidate and his au-thorized committees must have received con-tributions for his general election campaignin a total amount of more than $250,000and".

On page 9, line 12, strike out "primary" andinsert in lieu thereof "general".

On page 9, line 24, immediately after "can-didate", insert "other than a Presidentialcandidate".


On page 10, strike out lines 11 and 12 andinsert in lieu thereof "(2) For the purposesof paragraph (1), no contribution from".

On page 13, line 16, strike out "(1)".On page 13, line 17, strike out "(f)" and

insert in lieu thereof "(e)".On page 13, line 24, strike out "(g)" and

insert in lieu thereof "(f)".On page 14, beginning with line 9, strike

out through line 3 on page 15.On page 15, line 5, strike out "(f)" and

insert in lieu thereof "(e) ",On page 15, line 10, strike out "(g)" and

Insert in lieu thereof "(f)".On page 15, beginning with line 22, strike

out through line 3 on page 16.On page 16, line 4, strike out "(e)" and

insert in lieu thereof "(d)".On page 17, line 4, strike out "(f)" and

insert in lieu thereof "(e)".On page 17, line 21, strike out "(g)" and

insert in lieu thereof "() ".On page 18, line 4, strike out "(h)" and

insert in lieu thereof "(g)".On page 72, between lines 3 and 4, insert

the following:

"(2) (A) Except to the extent such amountsare changed under section 504(e) (2) of theFederal Election Campaign Act of 1971, nocandidate for nomination for election to theoffice of President may make expenditures inconnection with his primary election cam-paign in any State in which he is a candi-date in such an election in excess of thegreater of-

"(i) 20 cents multiplied by the votingage population (as certified under section504(f) of the Federal Election CampaignAct of 1971) of that State, or

"'(i) $250,000."(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of

subparagraph (A), no such candidate maymake expenditures throughout the UnitedStates in connection with his campaign forthat nomination in excess of an amountequal to 10 cents multiplied by the votingage population of the United States. Forpurposes of this subparagraph, the term'United States' means the several States ofthe United States, the District of Columbia,and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,Guam, and the Virgin Islands and any areafrom which a delegate to the nationalnominating convention of a political party isselected.

"(C) The Commission shall prescriberegulations under which any expenditureby a candidate for nomination for election tothe office of President for use in two or moreStates shall be attributed to such candidate'sexpenditure limitation in each such Stateunder subparagraph (A) based on the votingage population in such State which canreasonably be expected to be influenced bysuch expenditure.".


On page 72, line 7, strike out "(3)" andinsert in lieu thereof "(4) ".



Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, willthe Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. ALLEN. I yield.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that it be in order atthis time to ask for the yeas and nays onthe third Allen amendment, on whichthere is a limitation of 30 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears none, and itis so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I now ask for theyeas and nays on the third Allen amend-ment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields. time?Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield my-

self 6 minutes.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Alabama is recognized.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, this

amendment removes from the bill, andtherefore from the Federal subsidy, thePresidential nomination contest. It wouldleave the House and Senate primariesand general elections, and the generalelection for the Presidency, but wouldtake out from under the bill the contestfor' the nominations for President andVice President of the two major parties.The bill as it now stands would providefor matching campaign contributions ofup to $250, for up to a total of some $7.5million for every candidate for the nom-ination of the two major parties who wasable to raise $250,000.

I do not believe that the taxpayers ofNation want to subsidize the campaign,not for the Presidential election, whichis already provided for in the checkoffand provided for in other portions of thebill, but to give every candidate for thenomination of the Republican Party andevery candidate for the nomination ofthe Democratic Party up to $7.5 milliontoward his campaign. I thought the ideawas to reduce the amount of expendi-tures in primaries and in general elec-tions.

But far from doing that, I would think$7.5 million is as much as a person couldraise in a race for the Presidential nomi-nation. Then this measure would providefor the Government, the taxpayers, put-ting in icing of $7.5 million on theamount that the candidate raises. So thisamendment would simply take out fromunder the bill the Presidential nomina-tion contests.

I do not think it is right to make avail-able to Governor Rockefeller, for exam-ple, $7.5 million, to Governor Reagan $7.W-million, to Governor Connally $7.5 mil-lion, or, to bring it a little closer to honrto the distinguished Senator from liii(Mr. PERCY) or the distinguished Selfrom Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDYthe distinguished Senator from Texas(Mr. BENTSEN). I do not feel that thetaxpayers should pay $7.5 million to thePresidential candidacies of these variousindividuals who want to run for Presi-dent.

Let them run for President; that isfine. I wish them all well. Though they allcannot be nominated, I wish them well;but I do not think the taxpayers shouldhave to foot the bill for half of their ex-penditures. I think there are a greatmany more causes that should havepriority over subsidizing the races ofcandidates for the Presidential nomi-nation.

For another thing, Mr. President, thisbill does not set any limit on the Presi-dential race for which matching is madeavailable. If a fellow said, "I do not wandto run in 1976, but I do want to ruxfin 1980, or 1984, or 1988," well, he cambe getting Uncle Sam to finance his cpaign all through that period.

Also, looking backward, there is nostarting point, no cutoff time, back ofwhich matching contributions may notbe made. So it appears, and the distin-guished Senator from Rhode Island in aprevious colloquy on this issue so stated,that there is no cutoff time back of whichcontributions could not. be received. If aman has been running for the Presidencyfor several years, wofild those contribu-tions be matchable? As I read the bill, allhe would have to do is get his list of con-tributors, pick up a matching check, andgo on his merry way soliciting contribu-tions and having them matched by theGovernment.

I do not believe this is election reform,Mr. President. I think we ought to limitthe amount that can be spent, but keep itin the private sector, demanding strictreporting, strict disclosure of contribu-tions and expenditures, but not Justhanding the bill to the taxpayer.

That is what this amendment would

S 4712

March 2,8, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

seek to do in taking from under theprovisions of the bill the Presidentialprimary contests which we see every 4years, attended with a lot of hoopla andvarious political goings on of that sort.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheSenator's time has expired.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield myself 1 addi-tional minute.

I do not believe it is in the publicinterest to make $7.5 million availableto some 15 or 20 candidates for thePresidency, just to get out and wastethe taxpayers' money in that fashion.

Mr. President, I reserve the remain-der of my time.


Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yieldmyself such time as I may require.This is just another attack on thewhole concept of public financing. TheSenate has voted against the distin-guished Senator's proposal to eliminatepublic financing from the bill. Sincethat time, he has come up with anotheramendment that would have eliminatedpublic financing for congressional races,and the Senate has decided againsttLm on that issue. Now, this is the only

Jiaining part of the elimination ofW'lic financing. If you vote to elimi-nate the Presidential race, you are sim-ply voting piecemeal on the issues thatare in the bill under the concept of pub_lie financing.

If Senators are for public financing,they should vote against this amend-ment. If they are not, then they shouldvote for the amendment, because thatwould strike out public financing onthis portion of the bill.

The Senator has made the statementthat a number of people could come inand, in effect, raid the Public Treasuryfor campaign funds. But the require-ments in the bill are such that a per-son has to have demonstrated wide-spread public support before he is eli-gible. So it does not mean that everyonewho wanted to run for President would

e t~itled to get matching funds oute Treasury. They must have

_l6ns~trated support to the levels setin the bill before they would be

Wie for the matching funds contri-bution, and I might say that they couldonly receive that money to the extentthat the funds are available as providedin the bill in the separate fund, or un-less Congress appropriated them. So itin no wise permits someone to come inand raid the Treasury.

But I say again in conclusion, Mr.President-and then I am prepared toyield back the remainder of my time-that the issue is very simple. The Sen-ate voted on the issue last fall, and in-stiucted us to come back with a pro-posal for public financing. This we did.There was a vote to strike out public fi-nancing. That was defeated. There wasa vote to strike out public financing forcandidates for Congress. That was de-feated. The only other element in the

; bill is public financing for candidatesfor the Presidential nomination, andthat is covered by this amendment. Iurge the Senate to reject the amend-ment.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. CANNON. I yield.Mr. ALLEN. I am sure that the Senator

understands that the amendment is notdirected at the Presidential general elec-tion; it has to do only with the nominat-ing process.

Mr. CANNON. I understand that theamendment relates only to the primaryportion, which does have the triggeringfactor that the candidate must havedemonstrated widespread support.

Mr. ALLEN. He could get that all inone State, could he not, under the pro-visions of the bill? So it would not haveto be really very widespread.

Mr. CANNON. Well, I think he wouldhave a very difficult time raising thatkind of money in one State. That wouldbe my own reaction, that he would havea difficult time meeting the triggeringfactor in only one State, though it mightbe possible.

Mr. ALLEN. But I guess one could ex-pect that in California, for a candidateto get up to some $700,000 in one State,in $100 dollar contributions, or $250,000.in $250 contributions in Presidentialnomination contests.

Mr. CANNON. Well, the triggering fac-tor in the State of California provides amaximum limit as well as the minimum.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, but he could get-Mr. CANNON. The Senate candidates,

if they triggered in California, wouldraise only $125,000.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. But $700,000 wouldbe available to him on a matching basis,would it not?

Mr. CANNON. That is correct, pro-vided he met the triggering factor.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, so if he could raise$700,000 in $100 contributions in oneState, it would certainly seem likely thata Presidential candidate of not too muchstature could raise $250,000 in $250 con-tributions in one State.

The point I was making was that I wastaking mild exception to the Senator'sstatement that it required widespreadsupport. But the support could come fromone State or from the District of Colum-bia.

Mr. CANNON. The Senator is correct.It could come from one State, providedhe raised that triggering amount fromone State.

Mr. President, I am prepared to yieldback the remainder of my time.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will theSenator from Alabama yield?

Mr. ALLEN. I yield.Mr. LONG. How many States did the

Senator wish a person to raise money in?Mr. ALLEN. I rather imagine it will be

adopted-I am not absolutely sure-be-cause I have not had too much successwith my amendments-but I have anamendment that would require that the$250,000 triggering amount would haveto be raised with $2,500 contributionsfrom at least 40 States to show wide-spread support.

Mr. LONG. It would seem to me thatif a man had support in 10 States thatshould be enough.

Mr. ALLEN. Take a man like the headof Common Cause, Mr. Gardner, hecould raise the $250,000 without too

much trouble. He seems to be able toraise larger amounts than that. Thatwould entitle him to start dipping intothe Public Treasury, ostensibly to run forPresident, if he has the contributions.I do not feel that we should encourageeveryone who has the ability to raise$250,000 from getting that matched andgetting subsequent contributionsmatched on an equal basis out of theFederal Treasury up to a limit of$7.5 million in matching funds. I do notbelieve that is what we want to do withthe taxpayers' money.

Mr. LONG. I find myself thinkingalong the same lines as the Senator, thatany Senator from a large State, a per-sonable Senator from a large State, say,who could raise a quarter of a milliondollars easily-even an average ,sizeState-I think that the man potentiallycould raise that much money in his ownState if the people thought he had theslightest chance. So that it would seemappropriate he should have to demon-strate that he could raise a substantialportion-maybe $100,000 or $150,000-to indicate that he was not purely acandidate of his own constituency.

Mr. ALLEN. I have an amendmentto offer later on which would carry thatinto effect.

Mr. LONG. I thank the Senator fromAlabama.

Mr. ALLEN; I thank the Senator fromLouisiana.

Mr. President, I yield back the re-mainder of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yieldback the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc-CLURE). All time on this amendment hasnow been yielded back.

The question is on agreeing to theamendment of the Senator from Ala-bama (Mr. ALLEN) No. 1110.

On this question the yeas and nayshave been ordered and the clerk willcall the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from North Carolina.(Mr. ERVIN), the Senator from Arkansas(Mr. FULBRIGHT), the Senator fromAlaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator fromWyoming (Mr. McGEE), the Senatorfrom Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), theSenator from Rhode Island (Mr.PASTORE), and the Senator from NewJersey (Mr. WILLIaMS) are necessarilyabsent.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Rhode Island(Mr. PASTORE), and the Senator fromWyoming (Mr. McGEE) would vote"nay."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER),the Senator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL),and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.SCHWEIKER) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator fromOregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is absent on of-ficial business.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom Vermont (Mr. AIKEN) is absentdue to illness in the family.

I further announce that, if present

S 4713

.CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 28, 1974

and voting, the Senator from Oregon(Mr. HATFIELD) would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Ver-mont (Mr. AIKEN) is paired with theSenator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE).

If present and voting, the Senatorfrom Vermont would vote "yea" and theSenator from Minnesota would vote"nay."



Allen Eastland NunnBartlett Fannin RothBellmon Fong Scott,Bennett Goldwater William L.Brock Griffin SparkmanBuckley Gurney StennisByrd, Hansen Taft

Harry F., Jr. Helms TalmadgeByrd, Robert C. Hoilings ThurmondCotton Hruska TowerCurtis Johnston WeickerDole McClellanDominick McClure

NAYS-53Abourezk Haskell MossBayh Hathaway MuskieBentsen Huddleston NelsonBible Hughes PackwoodBiden Humphrey PearsonBrooke Inouye PeltBurdick Jackson PercyCannon Javits ProxmireCase Kennedy RandolphChiles Long RibicoffChurch Magnuson Scott, HughClark Mansfield - StaffordCook Mathias StevensCranston McGovern StevensonDomenici McIntyre SymingtonEagleton Metcalf TunneyHart Metzenbaum YoungHartke Montoya

NOT VOTING-12Aiken Fulbright MondaleBaker Gravel PastoreBeall Hatfield SchweikerErvin McGee Williams


MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE-EN-ROLLED BILL SIGNED

A message from the House of Repre-sentatives by Mr. Hackney, one of itsreading clerks, announced that theSpeaker had affixed his signature to theenrolled bill (S. 2174) to amend certainprovisions of law defining widow andwidower under the civil service retire-ment system, and for other purposes.

The Vice President' subsequentlysigned the enrolled bill.


The Senate continued with the con-sideration of the bill (S. 3044) to amendthe Federal Election Campaign Act of1971 to provide for public financing ofprimary and general election campaignsfor Federal elective office, and to amendcertain other provisions of law relatingto the financing and conduct of suchcampaigns.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that Ric Glaub, amember of my staff, be accorded theprivilege of the floor during the debateon this measure.


Under the previous order, the pendingbusiness is the amendment of the Sena-tor from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN), amend-ment No. 1083. The amendment will bestated.

The legislative clerk proceeded to readthe amendment.

The amendment is as follows:On page 76, between lines 2 and 3, insert

the following:"(2) (A) No candidate may knowingly

solicit or accept a contribution for his cam-paign-

"(i) from a foreign national, or"(ii) which is made in violation of section

613 of this title."(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the

term 'foreign national' means-"(i) a 'foreign principal' as that term is

defined in section 611(b) of the ForeignAgents Registration Act of 1938, as amended,other than a person who is a citizen of theUnited States; or

"(ii) an individual who is not a citizen ofthe United States and who is not lawfullyadmitted for permanent residence, as definedin section 101 (a) (20) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act.".

On page 76. line 3, strike out "(2)" and in-sert in lieu thereof "(3)".

On page 76, line 6, immediately after"(I) ", insert "or (2)".

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, myamendment is very simple. The amend-ment would ban the contributions of for-eign nationals to campaign funds inAmerican political campaigns. Theamendment specifically excludes residentimmigrants living in this country. It inno way stops the contributions of Amer-ican nationals living overseas who areU.S. citizens. They would be able to con-tribute to American political campaigns.

Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator is recognized.Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, all of

us have heard the stories, I am sure, inreecnt months of the enormous amountsof mqney contributed in the last politicalcampaign by foreign nationals. We haveheard of the hundreds of thousands ofdollars sloshing around from one coun-try to another, going through foreignbanks, being laundered through foreignbanks; and we have heard allegationsof concessions being made by the Govern-ment to foreign contributors. I do notknow whether those allegations are trueor not. I am not trying to prejudge them.That would be up to the courts to deter-mine. I am saying that contributions byforeigners are wrong, and they have noplace in the American political system.The law is ambiguous and confusing. TheDepartment of Justice was asked to makean interpretation. Congress thought ithad taken care of the matter long ago,but the Department of Justice said thatthe law, when it refers to foreign prin-cipals, applied only to those who hadagents within this country. Therefore,this left a giant loophole for contribu-tions to be made by foreign individuals.It allowed huge sums to flow into the dof-fers of American political candidates in1972 and it is essential that we have leg-islation to clarify the situation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent to have printed in-the RECORD a let-ter from L. Fred Thompson, Director ofthe Office of Federal Elections at the

General Accounting Office, addressed tome, wherein he indorses the enactmentof clarifying legislation to ban contribu-tions by foreign nations.

There being no objection, the letterwas odered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE,Washington, D.C., March 26, 1974.

Hon. LLOYD BENTSEN,U.S. Senate,Washington, D.C.

DEAn SENATOR BENTSEN: Through recentinformal contacts with a member of yourstaff we have learned of your interest inoffering a floor amendment to S. 3044, 93rdCongress, 2d Session, which would clarifyCongress' intent regarding section 613 ofTitle 18, United States Code.

This provision prohibits political contri-butions by any agent of a foreign principaland also prohibits the solicitations, accept-ance, or receipt of any such contributionfrom any agent of a foreign principal or fromthe foreign principal directly. The responsi-bility for enforcing 18 U.S.C. 613 rests withthe Attorney General of the United States.

In the course of our administration of theFederal Election Campaign Act of 1971, asthe supervisory officer responsible for presi-dential camplaigns, we made several referralsof apparent instances of foreign contribu-tions to the Attorney General. We have beejadvised by the Department of Justice thythe term "foreign principal" as used in se_tion 613 does not have the same meaning as"foreign national." The Department's view isthat to be a foreign principal within themeaning of section 613 it is essential to havean agent acting or operating within theUnited States. Therefore, in the opinion ofthe Department, the mere acceptance of apolitical contribution from a "foreign na-tional" without evidence to establish thatsuch foreign national is a "foreign principal"having an agent within the United Stateswould not constitute a violation of thestatute.

In view of the statutory interpretationplaced on the existing law by the Departmentof Justice, it is our opinion that to prohibitforeign contributions to U.S. political cam-paigns the statute should be amended toexpressly bar a candidate, or an officer, em-ployee, or agent of a political committee, orany person acting on behalf of any such can-didate or political committee from knowing-ly soliciting, accepting, or receiving any con-jtribution from any "foreign national." Fothis purpose the term "foreign nationshould be defined to include:

(1) any person who is a "foreign princeor an "agent of a foreign principal" as psently defined in 18 U.S.C. 613;

(2) any individual who is neither a citizennor a permanent resident of the UnitedStates; and

(3) any partnership, association, corpora-tion, organization, or other combination ofpersons organized under the laws of or hav-ing its principal place of business in a for-eign country.

In testimony last June before the Sen-ate Rules and Administration Committee,Phillip S. Hughes, who was then Director ofthe Office of Federal Elections, stated hisview that restrictions should be placed onpolitical contributions by foreign nationalsand, at the very least, that Congress shouldclarify what it intended to prohibit whenit enacted 18 U.S.C. 613. (See Hearings be-fore the Senate Committee on Rules andAdministration on S. 372 and other Federalelection reform bills, 93rd Cong., 1st sess. 262-264.) I believe that Mr. Hughes' testimony atthat time continues to represent the posi-tion of this office, as well as the ComptrollerGeneral, on the issue of political contribu-tions by foreign nationals.

We endorse your efforts to have the Senate

S 4714

March 28; 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATEconsider an appropriate amendment to 18U.S.C. 613 at the time it begins floor debateon S. 3044. We will be pleased to provide fur-ther information or assistance on this'sub:ject if you desire.

Sincerely yoursrL. FRED THOMPSON,

Director.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I wishto point' out that last June, in testimonybefore the Committee on Rules and Ad-ministration, Mr. Phillip Hughes, whowas then Director of the Office of FederalElections, stated his views that restric-tions should be placed on political con-tributions by foreign nationals.

President Nixon as well in his recentmessage on campaign financing and thereform of campaign financing called fora ban on contributions by foreign na-tionals.

My amendment would accomplish thatgood 'by making clear that the presentban on contributions by foreign prin-cipals extends to foreign nationals aswell; and without this ban Americanelections will continue to be influencedby contributions of foreign nationals.

I do not think foreign nationals havekny business in our political campaigns.Wey cannot vote in our elections so whyWould we allow them to finance our elec-

tions? Their loyalties lie elsewhere; theylie with their own countries and theirown governments.

Many in this country have expressedconcern over the inroads of foreign in-vestment in this country, over the at-tempts by foreigners to control U.S. busi-ness. Is it not even more important totry to stop some of these foreigners fromtrying to control our politics? I thinkthis limitation would accomplish thatpurpose.

One additional point I should like tomention relates to foreign citizens livingin the United States as resident immi-grants. My amendment would exemptforeigners with resident immigrant statusfrom the ban on contributions by for-eigners. There are many resident immi-garnts in the United States who have

! lived here for years and who spend mostI their adult lives in this country; theyAmerican taxes and for all intents

d purposes are citizens of the UnitedStates except perhaps in the strictestlegal sense of the word. These individualsshould not be precluded from contribut-ing to the candidate of their choice un-der the limitations of $3,000 in S. 3044 aswell as S. 372 which passed the Senatelast summer.

Let me say a word about implementa-tion of the amendment. The responsibil-ity will be placed on the candidate or thecommittee established on behalf of thecandidate to refuse donations proferredby foreigners. Some will say that thisplaces an unnecessary burden on the can-didate or his committee. I would point outthat present disclosure and reportinglaws require the name of the donor, hismailing address, occupation and principalplace of business on all contributionsover $10. It will then be up to the com-mittee or the candidate receiving a dona-tion from abroad to refuse the contribu-tion coming from a foreigner. Thus thereis no additional recordkeeping require-

ment. Having to determine whether a.contribution coming from abroad comesfrom a foreign national or from an Amer-ican citizen living abroad may be an in-convenience but it is minor compared tothe loophole it closes.

I know the amendment is not foolproof.There are ways to get around just aboutevery campaign finance measure we bringabout but my amendment goes a longway toward getting at the problem.

I repeat that the principle of myamendment has the support of PresidentNixon. It is my understanding that theSenate Watergate Committee is digginginto contributions by foreign nationalsand its final report will probably suggestreforms on the present status of thestatutes pertaining to foreign contribu-tions.

American political campaigns shouldbe for Americans and a large loopholewould be closed by my amendment. Iurge the Senate to adopt the amendment.


Mr. COOK. Mr. President, will theSenator yield to me for 3 minutes?

Mr. BENTSEN. I am delighted to yieldto the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, first I wouldlike to have the Senator from Texas giveme the privilege of being a cosponsorof the amendment. I ask unanimous con-sent that I may be added as a cosponsorof the amendment.


Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I think theSenator from Texas raises an interestingpoint and we should look at it in re-verse. Let us look at the mandate of Con-gress. Let us look at our creation of thespecial subcommittee in the Committeeon Foreign Relations to investigate thesignificance of the corporate conglomer-ate on international affairs. Let us lookat the influence that American corpora-tions attempt to exert on other govern-ments. Let us look at it from the stand-point that we in this country are abso-lutely rather chagrined, and sometimeshorrified, at the extent of America's in-fluence on foreign governments. Thereare attempts to change governments;there are attempts to bolster a particularcandidate at a time the time of an elec-tion; and there is the situation we haveseen in several situations in SouthAmerica. Congress is investigating amatter under the leadership of the dis-tinguished Senator from Idaho (Mr.(CHURCH) in regard to Chile.

I would say that the significance of allof this is that the United States andthose influences in the United Statesthat are of worldwide significance shouldfrankly mind their own business whenit comes to the political significance ofother countries. In effect, we are sayingthat those people abroad should mindtheir own business when it comes tomaking contributions to political cam-paigns in the United States.

Am I correct in my basic philosophy?Mr. BENTSEN. I agree wholeheart-

edly with the Senator from Kentucky.Mr. COOK. May I ask the Senator a

question? I think this is important. In

no way is the Senator from Texas ex-cluding an American national who findshimself by reason of his corporate em-ployment living in Japan, Australia, oranywhere else in the world. Is he exclud-ing that individual from writing his in-dividual check and sending it to a polit-ical organization of his choice in theUnited States in any election?

Mr. BENTSEN. In no way is he pre-cluded from that. He is an American cit-izen living overseas and he can partici-pate. The American political processshould be left to American nationals.

Mr. COOK. I do not think the publicknows, and it should be in the RECORD,that in the vicinity of 2 million Ameri-cans, who by reason of employment,study, and many, many other situationsexisting in the commercial world, are lo-cated overseas and live there for longperiods of time. They are American citi-zens; their children are American citi-zens. They maintain voting facilities. TheVoting Rights Act of 1965 broadened thatability for American nationals who liveoverseas to vote.

In no way is the Senator from Texassaying that these people are in any wayimpeded in making a contribution to thepolitical process in their country.

Mr. BENTSEN. The Senator fromKentucky is absolutely right.

Mr. COOK. I thank the Senator fromTexas.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yieldmyself 3 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator is recognized.

Mr. CANNON. I have no quarrel withthe basic purpose of this amendment,which is directed toward contributionsfrom abroad to influence political cam-paigns, but I think it should properly bepointed out that last year in this coun-try there were, as aliens lawfully here,4,643,457 people. That is a pretty sub-stantial number of people who were hereproperly in this country, and we permitthem to come here for many things otherthan to come here to be residents.

So I want to be sure the Senator knowsexactly what he is doing, because a sub-stantial number of those people are inhis own State of Texas, who are law-fully in this country, who are not hereas permanent residents, and the onlypeople who would be excluded from thisprovision are people who are here aspermanent residents.

I may say the Immigration peoplethemselves say there is some questionin their minds as to the propriety ofthe language in this particular case. Ihave no particular brief with it, but Iknow last year there were 4,633,457 reg-istered aliens in this country. Those peo-ple were here in this country lawfully,but by this amendment the Senator isgoing to preclude many of those peoplefrom participating in the elective processby making contributions, and he is alsogoing to impose on the candidate thequestion of whether he knew or ought tohave known that those people were notproperly admitted here for perrnanentresidence at the time they made con-tributions to his campaign. I would ven-ture to say that a mailing campaign that

S 4715

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 23, 1974was put out would result in that person'smail going to hundreds of people in hisown State, including the great State ofTexas, who would not be eligible to makecontributions under this particularamendment, if it is adopted.

I simply want to point that out soSenators will know what they are doing.

As one of my distinguished colleaguespointed out a few minutes ago, we haveto get money from somewhere for thesecampaigns. I remember an old song froma few years ago that was titled "PenniesFrom Heaven." I am sure we realize thatmoney does not come from heaven tocarry out political campaigns.

So, by the Senator's excluding con-tributions from people who are lawfullyin this country, but who are not here aspermanent residents, he is creating anundue and an unnecessary burden on thepersons who are running for office as wellas the persons who are here in this coun-try, and properly so, who would be af-fected-by the amendment.

As I said initially, I support the thrustor the purpose for which the amendmentwas originally drawn and intended, butI think, frankly, that it goes further thanwould be intended by Members of thisbody if they were here to hear the dis-cussion on it. I am sure it would imposesome undue burdens on any person whomight run for political office, as well asfor certain people who are properly here.

If the Senator. were to restrict theamendment to money coming fromabroad, from foreign nationals abroad,or foreign nationals living abroad, or for-eign contributions of any sort, I wouldcompletely agree with him, because Ithink that is not correct.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I yieldmyself' 2 additional minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Texas is recognized.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, thisamendment was carefully drawn to try toexclude certain people who might belegally in this country passing throughhere as tourists. I do not think they haveany legitimate role to play in the politicalprocess of this country, nor do illegalaliens in this country. That privilege tocontribute ought to be limited to U.S.citizens and to those who have indicatedtheir intention to live here, are herelegally, and are permanent residents.Those people would be and should be al-lowed to make political contributions inthis country.

I think one statement ought to be madein response to the comment made by theSenator from Nevada. It has been statedthat no candidate may knowiigly solicitor accept such contributions, so he mustknowingly have done it in order to be inviolation.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. BENTSEN. I cannot yield withthe limited time I have.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Can I have 2 mrnn-utes for a question?

Mr. CANNON. I yield 2 minutes.Mr. GOLDWATER. How would this

affect a person livinrg in Mexico who isan American, working there, who votesby absentee ballot, who has an accountin a MexiCan bank, with no checkingaccount in an American bank?

Mr. BENTSEN. This amendment doesnot affect that. If he is an American na-tional living overseas in any foreigncountry he is allowed to contribute.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Even if the draftis made on a foreign bank?

Mr. BENTSEN. Yes, the distinguishedSenator from Michigan has somethingon that. My amendment does not affect it.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, if the Sen-ator will yield, may I say to the Senatorfrom Arizona that we will face the verysituation he is talking about with thesubmission of the amendment by theSenator from Michigan. This is not amatter which involves the presentamendment in its present form.


Mr. COOK. Mr. President, may I sug-gest to the Senator from Texas that, ifhe is through with the basic debate onhis amendment, he yield back histime-

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, if theSenator from Nevada is prepared to yieldback his time, I am prepared to yieldback my time.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will theSenator from Texas accept a suggestion?It appears there may be more contro-versy to my amendment to the Senator'samendment than.anticipated. We hadonly 5 minutes on a side. Perhaps wecould make it 10 minutes on a side anduse it from the time left on his amend-ment.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, if theSenator from Nevada is prepared to yieldback his time for that purpose, I am.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I askunanimous donsent that we yield backthe time on this amendment and thatwhatever time is left be added to the5 minutes to a side on the amendmentof the Senator from Michigan.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thereare exactly 11 minutes remaining on thisamendment.

Without objection, it is so ordered.The Senator fron Michigan.Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I send

an amendment to the desk in the natureof a substitute, which is a modified ver-sion of my printed amendment No. 1087.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will read the amendment.


'The amendment to the amendmentis as follows:

In lieu of the language proposed to beinserted by amdt. No. 1083 insert the follow-ing:"PROITIITION OF CONTRIBUTIONB AND EXPENDI-

UBES BY FOREICN INDIVIDUALS

"SEC. 304. Section 613 of title '18, UnitedStates Code, is amended-

"(a) by adding to the section caption thefollowing: 'or drawn on foreign banks';

"(b) by inserting immediately before'Whoever' at the beginning of the first par-agraph the following: '(a) '; and

"(c) by adding at the end thereof thefollowing new subsection:

"'(b) No person may make a contribu-tion in the form of a written instrumentdrawn on a foreign bank. Violation of theprovision of this subsection is punishableby a fine not to exceed $5,000, imprisonmentnot to exceed five years, or both.'."

On page 71, line 16, strike out "304." andinsert in lieu thereof "3065.".

On page 76, between lines 2 and 2, insertthe following new paragraph:

"(2) No candidate may knowingly solicitor accept a contribution for his campaign-

'(A) from any person who-"(i) is not a citizen of the United States,

and"(ii) is not lawfully admitted for per-

manent residence, as defined in section 101(a) (20) of the Immigration and NationalityAct; or

"(B) which iR made In violation of section613 of this title.".

On page 78, line 3, strike out '(2)" andinsert in lieu thereof "(3) ".

On page 76, line 6, immediately after "(1)",insert "or (2)".

On page 78, line 19, immediately after"611,", insert "613,".

On page 78, line 87, strike out "by addingat the end" and Insert In lieu thereo: "bystriking out the item relating to section613 and inserting in lieu".

On page 78, below line 22, immediatelyabove the item relating to section 614, insertthe following:"613. Contributions by agents of foreign

principals or drawn on foreignbanks.".

Mr. GRIPFFN. Mr. President, at thoutset, I vwant to say that I strongly slmport the amendment offered by the Selator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN). It is al-most identical to a portion of my amend-ment 1087, which I had submitted forprinting. I checked with the Parliamen-tarian as to the best way to present myversion, and he :suggested that the bestway would be in the form of a substitute.

The major portion of my amendmentis identical in purpose to the amendmentof the Senator from Texas in that it pro-hibits contributions to compaigns by for-eigners and by aliens who have not beenadmitted for permanent residence in theUnited States.

I agree with him that, by and large,our political process should be in thehands of those who are citizens and havethe right to vote. Actually, our amend-ment does not really close it up thatmuch. It acknowledges and permits con-itributions by those who have been adl-mitted for permanent residence. So emthough they do not have the righvote in that instance, they would h]the right to make financial contributions.

But my amendment goes further. Italso prohibits a contribution in the formof a check written on a foreign bank.The distinguished Senator from Texas,in his argument for his amendment, re,ferred to foreign banks. I would agreewith the concern that he expressed bythat reference. However, the amendmentas he has -presented it does not touch thematter of foreign banks.

I realize that some persons will makethe argument that it is going to be in-convenient, particularly for Americancitizens who live abroad, if they cannot.write their checks on foreign banks.However, I think that it is also importantto underscore the fact that obviously U.S.law does not reach and cannot controlforeign banks. We cannot, by the courtprocess of the United States, investigatea foreign bank. We cannot examine itsaccounts. We cannot have access to itschecks.

Some of the stories of abuse that wehave been exposed to have involved

S 4716

March 28, 1974 CONE

Mexican banks and other foreign banks. aThey have involved unnumbered ac- scounts in Swiss banks. c

It seems to me that if we really want ;to do something about this problem, we ishould take this additional step and alsoprovide that a foreign bank cannot be jused as a means of funneling money into Ia campaign in the United States. I know (that all Americans who live overseas donot have checking accounts in U.S. Ibanks, but I assume that most of themdo. If they do not, they might in some iother way establish an account in a U.S. Ibank. I think the matter of being able toinvestigate, outweighs the disadvantages Iwhich would accrue. f

That is the argument pure and simple.I think this would be an improvement of X

the amendment of the Senator from ITexas. Perhaps he might want to acceptit. If he does, and there is no opposition,we could then go to a vote on his amend-ment as amended.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I yield3 minutes to the distinguished Senatorfrom Kentucky.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I would hopeSat the Senator from Texas will not

to take that language as an amend-to his amendment.

Last year I had occasion, while I wasin Mexico-as a matter of fact, as amember of the Mexican-American Inter-parliamentary Meeting-to go to theUniversity of Guadlajara, I spoke to anumber of American students. I wasamazed to learn that there is a retire-ment community of American citizensthere. They have taken up residencethere, having retired on social security.It has not been so long ago that all of ushad occasion to view, on television, re-tirees in Spain and Ireland. Those peopleare living in those countries because it ischeaper to live there than in the UnitedStates. They do not have two checkingaccounts. They have bank accounts inthe country in which they are now resid-ing as American citizens. They do not

shave an account in the First Nationalank of Dallas and also one in the Bank

of Guadlajara. They cannot afford it.have one account.gree with the Senator from Mich-

Igan that we do have a problem withmajor contributions. We do have prob-lems with substantial checks. I am quitesure we will not receive a great manycontributions from Americans who livethroughout the world by reason of theadvantages of their retirement situations.But it would be a terrible crime to denythem the opportunity if, in fact, theywant it. It would be a terrible situationfor an individual who is retired.

The Guadlajara community is largelya military retirement facility. It wouldbe a shame, for those individuals whosend in checks of $5, $10, or $15 as con-tributions to the political process in theircountry to be told that they were illegalcontributions; to be told that if theywanted to make that kind of small con-tribution, they would have to open anaccount in an American bank. Obviously,they would not do that.

There are one or two instances wherethere have been large contributions thathave come from foreign banks that were

GRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA

eccepted. But I say that the way to re-solve this problem is to be totally andcompletely open so that we will not de-prive thousands of Americans of the rightto vote.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I havelust been advised that the State Depart-nent estimates, from its consuls andother officers abroad, that 1,750,000 U.S.,itizens are living abroad, not including;he military and not including tourists.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, if we areup to well over 2 million, we cannot saythat all of those 2 million are going towrite a check for $25 or $50 on, say, aMexican bank. They may-write checksfor $5, $10, or $50. But we are reallyJenying the biggest percentage of themof that right, and we cannot resolve abad situation as it now presents itself.

If we pass this bill--and I say this tothe distinguished Senator from Michi-gan-we will know one thing. If such acheck came from an individual, if thecandidate accepted it, and the amount ofthe check was in excess of $1,000, thenwe would know that the candidate wassubject to the penalties of the bill if heaccepted it.

It seems to me we should not go totallyand completely overboard and destroythe incentive of 2 million Americanswho live abroad and want to contributeto the electoral process, Therefore,' Istrongly oppose the amendment of thedistinguished Senator from Michigan.

I thank the Senator from Texas foryielding me this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Michigan has 5 minutes re-maining.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I shallrespond to the argument of the Senatorfrom Kentucky in this way: I recognizethat there could be inconvenience forsome. I point out, however, that the mili-tary personnel who live abroad on U.S.bases would have U.S. banking facilities.Also, in most cases, embassy personneland diplomatic personnel would havesuch economic facilities at their dis-posal.

I am convinced in my own mind thata -great many of those persons who liveabroad would have access to banks in theUnited States. I suggest that in any cam-paign that I know anything about, thepercentage of contributions that wouldcome in to a campaign from Americansliving abroad, who could draw theirchecks only on foreign banks, would besmall.

It is a question of balance in the situ-ation, and I realize that reasonable mencan differ. And if there has been enoughevidence of abuse, enough concernaroused so far as the American people areconcerned, I believe that it would be ahealthy thing to do to make sure thatall of the institutions which are handlingand accounting for the money are subjeclto the laws and the jurisdiction of theUnited States, where the elections arnheld.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, will theSenator from Texas yield me 30 seconds,

Mr. BENTSEN. How much time dohave remaining, Mr. President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.

XTE S 4717

Mr. BENTSEN. I must say that theSenator from Kentucky has been so per-suasive I will yield him 3 additional min-utes.

Mr. COOK. I thank the Senator; I willnot use nearly all that time.- Mr. President, I have no idea, and Ireally do not think the Senator fromMichigan has any idea, either, how manypeople in the northern rural areas of ourborder States between the United Statesand Canada may find that a Canadiancommunity is much closer to their resi-dence, their farm, or wherever they livealong that border line, so that they maywell do business with a Canadian bank.There may conceivably be some familiesup there who have never done businesswith an American bank, because of itslocation.

Let us take the plains areas of NorthDakota, or the areas of northern Michi-gan, the Senator's State.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I was going to suggesttaking Michigan.

Mr. COOK. I am wondering, really, howmany people who live along the commonborder of the United States and Canadado business and have done business foryears and years with Canadian institu-tions. What we are really saying by thisbill is, "If you want to do it, drive the 40miles to an American bank, open an ac-count, write out your check for $10, andthen close your account, because you arenot going to deal with that place becauseof its inconvenience, and go back to yourown bank that you are now doing busi-ness with."

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, if I mayrespond most respectfully to a Senatorwho comes from a State within the verycenter of the" United States, respondingas a Senator who does live in a Statewhich borders all along the Canadianline, my amendment does not bother meone bit, whatsoever insofar as that con-cern expressed by the Senator from Ken-tucky. I concede there might be a fewcontributions that would not come intothe campaign as a result of what I amdoing, but I really do not think the mis-chief or inconveniehce is all that great. Ido not think there is a lot to be gainedin terms of building confidence in ourelection process and in other respectsgenerally called reform, in taking thestep which I have suggested.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield.Mr. BENTSEN. I can understand the

concern of the Senator from Michiganwith trying to stop this laundering ofaccounts through foreign banks, but ifyou are just trying to do that, and youhave someone who is trying to move alarge sum of money through a foreignbank, they will be able, as I understandit, to take that to their bank, buy a money

t order on a U.S. bank, if they wanted to,e or buy an American Express check, ife they wanted to, and circumvent what the

Senator is trying to do very easily.e- I think what the Senator's amendment?would really do is make it inconvenientI for 2 million Americans living overseas

who might not want to take the time and- trouble to overcome its restrictions by

going to a U.S. bank, by trying to prevent

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 28, 1974some person from trying to resort toskullduggery, when, Mr. President, itwould not prevent it, and t maintain thatthe Senator's amendment would not ac-complish what he intends.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I think, onthe basis of one or two episodes whichhave occurred, we are trying to decidewhether we should interfere with the bal-ance of all international transactions,and say that as a result, this transactionby an American citizen must have theadded restriction that it must be throughan American institution.

We are saying that American bankscannot have international relations intheir banking departments, which obvi-ously every major bank in the UnitedStates has, and they make daily transfersof deposits back and forth. Yet we aresaying that this individual who wants tocontribute to the American political proc-ess as an American citizen will have thisadded problPmn that he must face. I mustsay I real' ,inl it .is an onerous one,and I agr, ,I A that the amendmentof the Senator from Michigan will bedefeated.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, is theretime remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Michigan has 2 minutes re-maining. The Senator from Texas has 1minute.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I wish tofocus again on the major reason why thisamendment should be accepted. That isthat Mexican banks, Swiss banks withnumbered accounts, and other foreignbanks are not subject to the'laws of theUnited States. It is not possible to in-vestigate a campaign situation and re-quire a foreign bank to reveal canceledchecks or otherwise provide an account-ing for what has happened in that bank.I think that the time has come when theAmerican people expect Congress to pro-vide for control by the laws of the UnitedStates over the facilities and institutionsthat are going to handle the funnelingof campaign contributions. I hope theamendment will be agreed to.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I wouldreluctantly oppose the substitute for myamendment proposed by the Senatorfrom Michigan, despite the very nobleobjectives the Senator from Michiganhas outlined. The Senator from Ken-tucky has convinced me that this wouldresult in substantial inconvenience to acouple of million Americans living over-seas, and yet would not accomplish theobjective the Senator from Michigan istrying to accomplish in this regard.Therefore, I would urge the Senate to de-feat the substitute amendment proposedby the Senator from Michigan.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time? The Senator from Michiganhas 1 minute remaining.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield it back, Mr.President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc-CLURE). All remaining time having beenyielded back, the question is on agreeingto the substitute amendment of the Sen-ator from Michigan. On this question,the yeas and nays have been ordered,and the clerk will call the roll.


that the. Senator from Arkansas (Mr.FULBRIGHT), the Senator from Alaska(Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from Wyo-ming (Mr. McGEE), the Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. MONDALE) and the Sen-ator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE)are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Rhode Island(Mr. PASTORE) would vote "nay."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), theSenator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL), theSenator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEI-KER), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.FANNIN) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator fromOregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is absent on offi-cial business.


I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Oregon (Mr.HATFIELD) would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 23,nays 66. as follows:

AllenBartlettBayhBelimonBennettBrockCottonCurtis

AbourezkBentsenBibleBidenBrookeBuckleyBurdickByrd,

Harry F., Jr.Byrd, Robert C.CannonCaseChilesChurchClarkCookCranstonDomeniciEagletonEastlandErvinFongGoldwater

NAikenBakerBeallFannin

iNo. 95 Leg.]YEAS-23

DoleDominickGriffinGurneyHansenHelmsHollingsHruska

NAYS-66HartHartkeHaskellHathawayHuddlestonHughesHumphreyInouyeJacksonJavitsJohnstonKennedyLongMagnusonMathiasMcClellanMcClureMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMetzenbaumMontoyaMoss

MansfieldPackwoodPearsonTaftThurmondWeickerYoung

MuskieNelsonNunnPellPercyProxmireRandolphRiblcoffRothScott, HughScott,

William L.SparkmanStaffordStennisStevensStevensonSymingtonTalmadgeTowerTunneyWilliams

NOT VOTING-11Fulbright MondaleGravel PastoreHatfield SchweikerMcGee

So Mr. GRIFFIN'S amendment was re-jected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The votenow occurs on the amendment of theSenator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN). Onthis question the yeas and nays havebeen ordered, and the clerk will call theroll.


that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.FULBRIGHT), the Senator from Alaska(Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from Wyo-ming (Mr. MCGEE), the Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. MONDALE), and the Sen-ator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE)are necessarily absent.

I further anpounce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Rhode Island(Mr: PASTORE) would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER),the Senator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL),the Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN),and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.SCHWEIKER) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator fromOregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is absent on of-'ficial business.

I further announce that the Senatorfrom Vermont (Mr. AIMEN) is absent dueto illness in the family.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Oregon (Mr.HATFIELD) would vote "yea."


AbourezkAllenBartlettBayhBellmonBennettBentsenBibleBidenBrockBrookeBuckleyBurdickByrd,

Harry F., Jr.Byrd, Robert C.CannonCaseChilesChurchClarkCookCottonCranstonCurtisDoleDomenlciDominickEagletonEastlandErvin

NAikenBakerBeallFannin

So Mr. Bagreed to.


FongGoldwaterGriffinGurneyHansenHartHartkeHaskellHathawayHelmsHollingsHruskaHuddlestonHughesHumphreyInouyeJacksonJavitsJohnstonKennedyLongMagnusonMansfieldMathiasMcClellanMcClureMcGovernMcIntyreMetcalfMetzenbaumMontoya

NAYS--

MossMuskieNelsonNunnPackwoodPearsonPellPercyProxmireRandolphRibicoffRothScott, HughScott,

William L.SparkmanStaffordStennisStevensStevensonSymingtonTaftTalmadgeThurmondTowerTunneyWeickerWilliamsYoung

OT VOTING-11Fulbright MondaleGravel PastoreHatfield X SchweikerMcGee

ENTSEN'S amendment

LEAVE OF ABSENCEMr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that I may be ex-cused from attendance on the Senateon Friday and Monday, to conduct hear-ing in Alaska.


MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE-ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

A message from the House of Repre-sentatives by Mr. Hackney, one of itsreading clerks, announced that theSpeaker had affixed his signature to theenrolled bill (S. 2747) to amend the FairLabor Standards Act of 1938 to increasethe minimum wage rate under that act,to expand the coverage of the act, andfor other purposes.

The enrolled bill was subsequentlysigned by the Vice President.

S 4718

March 2.8, 1974FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT

AMENDMENTS OF 1974The Senate continued with the con-

sideration of the bill (S. 3044) to amendthe Federal Election Campaign Act of1971 to provide for public financing ofprimary and general election campaignsfor Federal elective office, and to amendcertain other provisions of law relatingto the financing and conduct of suchcampaigns.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Alabama is recognized.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom Iowa.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Iowa is recognized.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that an amendment I amsubmitting to S. 3044 be considered ashaving met the requirements of ruleXXII of the Standing Rules of theSenate.


Under the previous order the pendingbusiness is the amendment of the Sen-Sor from Alabama (Mr. ALLEN).

'he amendment will be stated.he legislative clerk read as follows:

n page 13, between lines 14 and 15, add anew subsection (d), as follows:

(d) No Member of the Ninety-third Con-gress or any committee of such Member shallbe eligible to receive matching funds in con-nection with the candidacy of such Memberfor nomination for election to the office ofPresident for the term beginning January 20,1977.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield my-self 6 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Alabama is recognized.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that I be given leaveof absence for tomorrow, because of thefact that about a month ago I acceptedtwo engagements to speak to Alabamaaudiences on tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutj ectiit is so ordered.

ALLEN. Mr. President, the pend-n endment is very short, but it is

. COTTON. Mr. President, may wehave order? We cannot hear the Sena-tor. May we have order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ate will be in order.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, the amend-ment is very short and to the point. Itsays:

No Member of the Ninety-third Congressor any committee of such Member shall beeligible to receive matching funds in con-nection with the candidacy of such Memberfor nomination for election to the office ofPresident for the term beginning January 20,1977-

Which would be the term starting afterthe 1976 election.

We already have, under the checkoffprovision, adequate machinery, and therewill be adequate funds, to finance thegeneral election campaign of 1976.

Under the checkoff provision therewould be accumulated in this fund bythe 1976 Presidential elections more

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

than $50 million, and it is provided thatsome $21 million shall be available toeach of the major parties for the con-duct of the Presidential election of 1976.

Of course, a minor hitch in the law isthat, in order to get that money, thepolitical party would have to certify thatit would not accept funds from theprivate sector, and the members of thatparty might think they could not runa Presidential campaign on $21 million.So unless they have the law amended,it is possible they will not come underthat provision in 1976.

But it is quite obvious where much ofthe drive for further Federal campaignfinancing, public Treasury financing, iscoming from. It is quite obvious that itis coming from those here in the Con-gress who have an ambition to serve asPresident of the United States.

This amendment would preclude anyMember of the 93d Congress from re-ceiving funds, not to run for his presentposition-that has already been decidedby the Senate-but would preclude himfrom obtaining a subsidy from the tax-payers to conduct a campaign for thePresidential nomination of either party.

We frequently hear it said, "Well, itis not the money that is involved; it isthe principle." Well, if the candidatesfor the Presidency who are in the Con-gress really believe that, andthey believethat campaign financing by the tax-payer is a good thing, that the principleis right, they ought not to have any ob-jection to a provision that would pre-clude them from profiting in running forthe Presidency to the tune of up to $7.5million.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. Mr. Presi-dent, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLEN. I yield.Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT. I note a

section of the Constitution that my dis-tinguished colleague is quite familiarwith, article I, section 6:

No Senator or Representative shall, duringthe time for which he was elected, be ap-pointed to any civil office under the au-thority of the United States, which shallhave' been created, or the emolumentswhereof shall have been increased duringsuch time .'..

The Senator is speaking of principles.I wonder if there is not a correlation inprinciple between this section of theConstitution with regard to appointmentto a civil office and creating a fund fromwhich a campaign for the Presidencymight be utilized. It seems to me thereis a corollary between the two.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator forthat suggestion. I doubt, however, if theywould be analogous. That section of theConstitution applies to emolumentswhich would accrue to an individual asan office holder, whereas the presentproposal provides for funds to help himget that office. I doubt if they would beanalogous, but there occurs the principleof voting for a measure that would re-sult in a person's receiving up to $7.5million.

I am hopeful that the Senate andthose who might possibly be beneficiariesof this provision will see fit to add thisamendment to the bill, on the theorythat the principle of public financing

S 4719would still be there; but those who feelso strongly that this is a good principle,and if it is a principle that they arestanding for, possibly would be willing toforego the receipt by them or their cam-paign committees of this subsidy of upto $7.5 million.

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. ALLEN. I yield.Mr. MATHIAS. I understand the prin-

ciples that underlie the amendment. Iwant to assure the Senator that, as faras I am concerned, I can approach thiswith a great deal of objectivity.

Mr. ALLEN. I am sorry to hear that,I will say to the Senator.

Mr. MATHIAS. But, on a more seriousnote, I wonder if in proposing thisamendment the Senator has in mind thatthe President of the Senate is to be in-cluded as a Member of the 93d Congress.

Mr. ALLEN. If what?Mr. MATHIAS. If the President of the

Senate is to be included within the def-inition of Members of the 93d Congress.

Mr. ALLEN. Does the Senator thinkhe would?

Mr. MATHIAS. Well, the distinguishedSenator is the author of the amend-ment, and I was just probing for hisintention.

Mr. ATJLEN. No, I would not feel thathe would be a Member of the 93d Con-gress. He presides over one branch ofthe 93d Congress, but he is not a Mem-ber of the Congress, quite obviously.

Mr. MATHIAS. I thank the Senator.I thought it was important to make thata matter of legislative history, to find outwhat was in the Senator's mind.

Mr. ALLEN. I do not know that thatlegislative history is necessary, becauseI doubt seriously if this amendment isgoing anywhere, I will say to the Sen-ator.

Mr. MATHIAS. Well, I think it is use-ful. Of course, the President of the Sen-ate is, for many administrative pur-poses, a Member of the Senate, andwhen he is called upon, under the provi-sions of the Constitution, to break a tie,he votes as a Senator votes. So I thinkif this amendment, or if the thoughtwhich underlies this amendment, shouldsucceed either now or later, that wouldbe an important point.

Mr. ALLEN. Is it the Senator's ideathat the Vice President is a Member ofthe 93d Congress? I stated it was myidea it was not. What is the Senator'sidea?

Mr. MATHIAS. Well, the Vice-Presi-dency, of course, has been defined invarious ways in various periods of his-tory, and sometimes most colorfully, bythose who have occupied that lofty andelevated chair. I think we all rememberthe definition of the office that was givento it by Vice President John Nance Garn-er. But for some Purposes the Vice Pres-ident is a Member of the Senate. Let ussuppose, just hypothetically, that theSenator's amendment would produce atie and that the Vice President had to becalled upon to break the tie.

Mr. ALLEN. He is not here.Mr. MATHIAS. We are talking hypo-

thetically. Suppose that.Mr. ALLEN. I see.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 28, 1974Mr. MATHIAS. And then he voted.

Certainly under those circumstances theprinciples of equity which the Senatorhas described as applying to everybodyelse would operate on the Vice-Presi-dency.

Mr. ALLEN. The chances are he wouldhave a lot of company in that predica-ment, if he voted for the subsidy.

Mr. MATHIAS. I thank the Senator.Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished

Senator.I reserve the remainder of my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am

prepared to yield back my time and amprepared to vote, if the Senate so de-sires.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I yield backthe remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the amend-ment of the Senator from Alabama(No. 1061). All time having been yieldedback, and the yeas and nays having beenordered, the clerk will call the roll.


that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.FULBRIGHT), the Senator from Alaska(Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from Wyo-ming (Mr. MCGEE), the Senator fromMinnesota (Mr. MONDALE), the Senatorfrom Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE), andthe Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG)are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if presentand voting, the Senator from Rhode Is-land (Mr. PASTORE) and the Senatorfrom Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE) would eachvote "nay."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER),the Senator from Maryland (Mr. BEALL),the Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN),the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.SCHWEIKER), and the Senator fromPennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) are neces-sarily absent.

I also announce that the Senatorfrom Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is absent onofficial business.


I further announce that, if presentand voting the Senator from Oregon(Mr. HATFIELD), and the Senator fromPennsylvania (Mr. HUGH SCOTT) wouldeach vote "nay."



Allen CurtisBartlett DoleBayh DominickBellmon EastlandBennett ErvinBrock FongBuckley GoldwaterByrd, Griffin

Harry F., Jr. GurneyByrd, Robert C. HansenChiles HelmsCook HollingsCotton Hruska

McClellanMcClureNunnPearsonScott,

William L.SparkmanStennisTalmadgeThurmondTowerWeicker

AbourezkBentsenBibleBidenBrookeBurdickCannonCaseChurchClarkCranstonDomeniciEagletonHartHartkeHaskellHathaway

AikenBakerBeallFanninFulbright

NAYS-51Huddleston MuskieHughes NelsonHumphrey PackwoodInouye PellJackson PercyJavits ProxmireJohnston RandolphKennedy RibicoffMagnuson RothMansfield StaffordMathias StevensMcGovern StevensonMcIntyre SymingtonMetcalf TaftMetzenbaum TunneyMontoya WlilliamsMoss Young

NOT VOTING-13iSGravel PastoreHatfield SchweikerLong Scottr HughMcGeeMondale


AMENDMENT NO. 1099

Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I call upmy amendment No. 1099.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment will be stated.


Mr. BRoCK'S amendment is as follows:On page 48, line 19, strike out "and 617"

and insert in lieu thereof "617, and 618".On page 49, line 17, strike out "and 617"

and insert in lieu thereof "617, and 618."On page 49, line 23, strike out "or 617"

and insert in lieu thereof "617, and 618".On page 78, line 16, strike the closing

quotation marks and the second period.On page 78, between lines 16 and 17, insert

the following:' 618. Voting fraud

"(a) No person shall-"(1) cast, or attempt to cast, a ballot in

the name of another person,"(2) cast, or attempt to cast, a ballot if

he is not qualified to vote,"(3) forge or alter a ballot,"(4) miscount votes,"(5) tamper with a voting machine, or"(6) commit any act (or fail to do any-

thing required of him by law),with the intent of causing an inaccuratecount of lawfully cast votes in any election.

"(b) A violation of the pravisions of sub-section (a) is punishable by a fine of not toexceed $100,000, imprisonment' for not morethan ten years, or both.".

On page 78, line 19, strike out "and 617"and insert in lieu thereof "617, and 618".

On page 78, after line 22, in the item relat-ing to section 617, strike out the closingquotation marks and the second period.

On page 78, after line 22, below the itemrelating to section 617, insert the following:

"618. Voting fraud.".

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. BROCK. I yield.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ate will be in order.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that there be a timelimitation of 30 minutes on the pendingamendment, to be equally divided be-tween the sponsor of the amendment, thedistinguished Senator from Tennessee(Mr. BROCK), and the manager of thebill, the distinguished Senator fromNevada (Mr. CANNON).


Mr. BROCK. I yield to the Senatorfrom Texas.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that during the con-sideration of S. 3044, a member of mystaff, Mr. Gary Lieber, be accorded theprivilege of the floor.


.Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that during the fur-ther debate on this legislation, a memberof my staff, Mr. Jim George, be per-mitted access to the floor.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askfor the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. BROCK. Mr. President. this

amendment attempts to deal with onenotable inadequacy in the proposed leg-islation which relates specifically to thelargest single area of campaign abuse, inmy opinion, and that is voting fraud.There can be no greater violation of thecivil rights of an individual than to havehis ballot stolen by any device. Myamendment would attempt to deal withjust that particular problem. It says: J

No person shall-(1) cast, or attempt to cast, a ballot inW

name of another person,(2) cast, or attempt to cast, a ballot if he

is not qualified to vote,(3) forge or alter a ballot,(4) miscount votes,(5) tamper with a voting machine, or(6) commit any act (or fail to do anything

required of him by law).with the intent of causing an inaccuratecount of lawfully cast votes in any election.

Mr. President, I very much believe thatthis Congress must pass major and com-prehensive campaign reform legislation.But I cannot believe that it is in the in-terests of the Congress, the elective proc-ess, or the American people to deal onlywith the financial problems of politics.It seems to me that something very es-sential is at stake in this particular de-bate, and that is assurance to the peop]of this country that their ballots willcast and counted as they are cast. Ifare to restore any faith in the e1process, that has to be a fundalpurpose of the bill.

I do not understand why there simplyare not Federal laws in this area today.If there is a civil right in this country,it is the right to vote, for the future ofourselves and for our children. To thebest of my knowledge, about the onlyaccess or the only recourse we have in theinstance of ballot abuse would be to saythat that would violate our civil rights,although that is probably the most diffi-cult charge in the world to prove. But itis important that we spell out what wemean by vote fraud and what penaltyshould be established for that vote fraud.It is important, in view of the recent po-litical scandal, that we not forget the tra-dition of fraud and abuse in this country,which is still ongoing in too many places,in too many communities, and in toomany counties.

Each Senator will speak for his ownState, of course, and I can speak only

S 4720

March 28, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

for my own and say that Tennessee hasmade remarkable progress in reducingballot abuse. But we are not perfect yet,and I am not sure that anyone else iseither. It is important that peoplewherever they may live in this countryshould have the assurance that we in-tend to protect this most essential oftheir rights.

I cannot believe that we can pass com-prehensive campaign reform legislationwithout dealing with this most funda-mental reform as it relates to the ballotand the right to vote and the right tohave that vote counted.


Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, willthe Senator from Tennessee yield for aquestion?

Mr. BROCK. I yield.Mr. GOLDWATER. Does the Senator

have any idea in how many States theprocess he outlined is now illegal?

Mr. BROCK. I would say to the Sen-ator that probably, generally speaking,virtually all of them are. The problem,it seems to me, is more with the in-

idequate ability to deal with the prob-· The States' law are either not ade-

ately enforced or else they are poorlydrawn so as to be unenforceable. Muchof the time the State laws are enforcedby the very people who are engaging inthe abuse. This is the problem I am try-ing to deal with.

Mr. GOLDWATER. The Senator wouldmake it a Federal crime for those whoparticipate in the activities that he hasoutlined and illustrated today and thatwould apply to the Presidency, to theSenate, and to the House?

Mr. BROCK. That is correct.Mr. GOLDWATER. Has the Senator

suggested any penalty?Mr. BROCK. Yes, I have a sizable

penalty which would go, in the case ofextreme abuse, to a $100,000 fine and 10years in jail. We must have a severepenalty..Mr GOLDWATER. Would the Sena-

r's amendment--this sounds funny,it has happened in my city-woulde~nator's amendment cover the usees in graveyards?

Mr. BROCK. Absolutely.Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Sena-

tor. I think his amendment is worthwhileand I shall support it.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the' Senator from Tennessee yield for a ques-., tion?

Mr. BROCK. I yield.Mr. TOWER. If I understood the Sena-

- tor correctly, one of the reasons he isoffering this is that although virtuallyall the States have laws that define suchabuses as crimes, the fact is that veryoften the beneficiaries of the rigged elec-tion are those responsible for adminis-tering the election laws of the State and,therefore, they are rarely ever broughtto justice and justice is often not done.

Mr. BROCK. That is correct. Thereseems to be no recourse in some instancestoday and no protection against this kindof abuse..We have seen it on too manyoccasions, in elections that were stolen,where the enormity of the fraud actuallychanged the course of the election and

the people who then were elected were inthe postition to enforce or not to enforcethe statute.

Mr. TOWER. Is it not true, in the in-stance of election fraud, in elections in-volving people running for Federal of-fice, that almost inevitably those thathave been brought to justice under anyexisting laws have been brought to jus-tice under the aegis of a Federal investi-gation or a Federal prosecution ratherthan by the State?

Mr. BROCK. That is correct, to thebest of my knowledge.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, will the gen-tleman from Tennessee yield?

Mr. BROCK. I yield.Mr. COOK. May I suggest to the Sen-

ator from Tennessee, relative to his re-sponse to the Senator from Arizona afew moments ago, that there is one thingin here that gives rme a problem. I wishhe would consider, although the titlesays "Intended to be proposed by Mr.BROCK * * *"-it goes on to say " * *and general election campaigns for Fed-eral elective office * * *" I would say tothe Senator from Tennessee that in thebody of his amendment as such, it shallbe a part of the bill, but it does not say"for Federal elections." I am wondering,because at least in my State we do haveoff-year elections, where we have elec-tions for members of the State legisla-ture, the State senate, and for the gov-ernorship, I am concerned as to the over-all constitutionality of this amendment,unless he would consider, on line 4, page2, where it reads:

"(a) No person shall * * *-Then add, in elections held for the

purpose of Federal officials'such as theSenate, Congress, the President, and theVice President.

I am wondering whether I could con-vince the Senator from Tennessee thatthat language should be In there, so thatwe do not have the problem of interfer-ing with State election laws in thoseyears when elections are held on a state-wide basis and when no Federal electionsare up.

Mr. BROCK. Of course that languageshould be in there. The Senator is abso-lutely right. I appreciate his suggestion.If I may, Mr. President, I ask unanimousconsent to modify my amendment onpage 2, line 4, to add after the word"shall" the words: "in a Federal elec-tion."

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.HELMS). Will the Senator please send hisproposed modification to the desk.

Mr. BROCK. If that language will suitthe Senator from Kentucky.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to the modification of theamendment of the Senator from Ten-nessee?

Without objection, the modification isso made.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I thank theSenator from Tennessee. I must say thatthat resolves the problem. Without thatlanguage in there, we were risking get-ting into a rather serious question inregard to State constitutionality and alsowith regard to the Constitution of theUnited States, by the way.

Mr. BROCK. I appreciate the Senator's

diligence. I have no intention of inter-fering with any State process. We havea real responsibility to maintain thesanctity of the ballot box in Federalelections.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, do I cor-rectly understand that the effect of theSenator's modification will be to narrowthe effect of the proposed amendment toelections for Federal offices only?

Mr. BROCK. That is correct.Mr. TOWER. It would not apply to any

State, county, or local election then?Mr. BROCK. That is right. That was

the amendment's intention. The Senatorhas pointed it out.correctly. We were notspecific enough.

Mr. COOK. If I may enlarge on thata little, under the Constitution of theUnited States, we do not have the rightto prescribe the rules and regulations forthe conduct of State and local elections.

Mr. TOWER. That is correct. As anold States' Righter, I would concur withthat.

Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I reservethe remainder of my time.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, does theSenator from Tennessee have any objec-tion if he might withdraw the call forthe yeas and nays and just have a voicevote?

Mr. BROCK. I would be delighted towithdraw the call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent to withdraw the yeas and anys onmy amendment.

The PRESIDING OFPICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears none, andit is so ordered. The yeas and nays arevacated.

Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I yieldback the reminder oa rmy time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yieldback the remainder ot-my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All timeon this amendment has been yieldedback.

The question is on agreeing to amend-ment No. 1099, as modified, of the Sena-tor from Tennessee (Mr. BROCK).

The amendment, as modified, wasagreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 1104

Mr. BROCK. Mr.' President, I now callup my amendment No. 1104 and ask thatit be stated.


The assistant legislative clerk read asfollows:

ILLEGAL CONTEISUTIONS AND UNEXPENDEDFUNDS

SEC. 317. (a) Any contribution received bya candidate or political committee in connec-tion with any election for Federal office inexcess of the contribution limitations estab-lished by this Act shall be forfeited to theUnited States Treasury.

(b) Any political committee having unex-pended funds in excess of the amount neces-sary to pay its campaign expenditures withinthirty days after a general election shalldeposit those funds in the United StatesTreasury or transfer them to a national com-mittee.

Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, thisamendment attempts to deal again withwhat I view as perhaps the inadvertentabsence of existing law, dealing withleftover funds after a campaign. It may

S 4721 ·

IS 4722Ibe there are those who disagree, but,it seems to me this bill is not puttingsufficient emphasis on the politicalparties. I would like very much to see aprovision made for any leftover fundsafter a campaign, where there is notsufficient challenge to use all the moneyraised. I would like to see that moneyeither revert to the Federal Treasury, ifthat is the wish of the candidate, or re-vert to his national party.

It seems to me that would be a meas-ure to strengthen the role of the partiesand something we need to be concernedwith in the process of this bill.

It does one other thing, and I shouldpoint it out, that is to say, that any con-tribution received in excess of the ceil-ing shall be automatically rebated to theTreasury because then, in effect, it is anillegal contribution. Tiiere is no provi-sion in the existing language to deal withthat particular situation. I would suggestthat illegal or excess contributions ofthe statute limits should obviously bedirected to the Federal Treasury.

I would hope that this amendmentmight receive the same warm supportmy previous one did.

Mr. President, I reserve the i'emaiunderof my tinie.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will theSenator from Tennessee yield for a ques-tion?

Mr. BROCK. I yield.Mr. CLARK. If a candidate chooses

not to use Federal money and he col-lects a certain amount of private money,and he has a hundred dollars left overafter a campaign or $100,000 left over,all the money he raised personally wouldgo back to the Federal treasury?

Mr. BROCK. Or to his national party.It would be at his option.

Mr. CLARK. So it would not just bethe Federal money that was expended,but all the private money he raised thatis left over as well.

Mr. BROCK, That is right. I raised theissue because we have had problems -inthe past. I think it would be in the in-terest of Members of the House and theSenate to have this safeguard, to affordthem a justification for dealing logicallywith this excess fund.,

BMr. COOK. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. BROCK. I yield.Mr. COOK. I am a little concerned

about the language on page 2. Obviously,if we have Federal financing of electionsand he has held Federal funds, thosemust go back to the Treasury. There is noquestion about that.

Mr. BROCK. That is right.Mr. COOK. But under the Senator's

amendment, I am not sure that is whatit says. I read from page 2 of the Sena-tor's amendment:

.. shall deposit those funds in the UnitedStates Treasury or transfer them to a na-tional committee.

What bothers me is that we cannotleave the assumption that funds thathave been allocated under a Federal pro-gram to subsidize elections could be sub-ject in any way to a choice of whetherthey would go back to the Treasury or toa national committee.

CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD - SENATE

I am not really prepared to. give anysubstitute language, although it doesbother me because I think the Senatorhas an either/or with unexpended fundsregardless of the source. That does botherme. I believe the chairman of the com-mittee wants to raise that point, also.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, 1will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BROCK. I yield.Mr. HUDDLESTON. I have never been

in a situation in which I have had todeal with a surplus of funds.

Mr. BROCK. Neither have I.Mr. HUDDLESTON. I wonder whether

it would not be well to have another op-tion, whereby the candidate might be/able to return, on a pro rata basis, hisexcess funds to those who had contri-buted, if such an arrangement werespelled out in his solicitation of thefunds.

Mr. BROCK. Personally, I would liketo see that. The problem is more mechan-ical than in principle. I think it is al-most impossible to divide on a pro ratabasis $500 among 10,000 people who con-tributed. I had 10,000 contributors in mycampaign in 1970, and it was a matter ofgreat pride to me that we were able toestablish that broad a base.

In all honesty, I do not know how wecould locate those people and return the3 or 4 cents that some of them wouldget as a pro rata share, and that is whyI did not include it in the amendment.

The Senator from Kentucky has raiseda valid point. In light of that, I think itmight be the better part of wisdom if Iwithdrew the amendment and considerthat as a possible alternative.

Until I can rewrite it, Mr. President, Iwill withdraw the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment is withdrawn.

ANTIHIJACKING ACT OF 1974

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I ask theChair to lay before the Senate a messagefrom the House of Representatives onS. 39.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.HELMS) laid before the Senate theamendments of the House of Representa-tives to the bill (S. 39) to amend theFederal Aviation Act of 1958 to providea more effective program to prevent air-craft piracy, and for other purposes,which were to strike out all after theenacting clause and insert:

TITLE I-ANTIHIJACKING ACT OF 1974'SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the

"Antihijacking Act of 1974".SEC. 102. Section 101(32) of the Federal

Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1301(32)),relating to the definition of the term "specialaircraft jurisdiction of the United States",is amended to read as follows:

"(32) The term 'special aircraft jurisdic-tion of the United States' includes-

"(a) civil aircraft of the United States;"(b) aircraft of the national defense forces

of the United States:;."(c) any other aircraft within the United

States;"(d) any other aircraft outside the United

States-"(i) that has its next scheduled destina-

tion or last point of departure in the UnitedStates, if that aircraft next actually lands inthe United States; or

March 28, 1974"(ii) having 'an offense', as defined in the

Convention for the Suppression of UnlawfulSeizure of Aircraft, committed aboard, if thataircraft lands in the United States with thealleged offender still aboard; and

"(e) other aircraft leased without crew toa lessee who has his principal place of busi-ness in the United States, or if none, who hashis permanent residence in the United States;while that aircraft is in flight, which is fromthe moment when all external doors are:losed following embarkation until the mo-ment when one such door is opened for dis-embarkation or in the case of a forced land-ing, until the competent authorities takeover the responsibility for the aircraft andfor the persons and property aboard.".

SEC. 103. (a) Paragraph (2) of subsection(i) of section 902 of such Act (49 U.S.C.1472), relating to the definition of the term"aircraft piracy", is amended by striking out"threat of force or violence and" inserting inlieu thereof "threat of force or violence, or byany other form of intimidation, and".

(b) Section 902 of such Act is furtheramended by redesignating subsections (n)and (o) as subsections (o) and (p), respec-tively, and by inserting immediately aftersubsection (m) the following new subsec-tion:

"AIRCRAFT PIRACY OUTSIDE SPECIAL AIRCRAFTJURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES

"(n) (l Whoever abroad an aircraft 'flight outside the special aircraft jurisdtion of the United States commits 'an dafense', as defined in the Convention for theSuppresion of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft,and is afterward found in the United Statesshall be punished-

"(A) by imprisonment for not less thantwenty years: or

"(B) if the death of another person re-sults from the commission or attemptedcommission of the offense, by death (imprisonment for life.

"(2) A person commits 'an offense', asdefined in the Convention for the Suppres-sion of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft when,while aboard an aircraft in flight, he-

"(A) unlawfully, by force or threat there-of, or by any other form of intimidation,seizes, or exercises control of, that aircraft,or attempts to perform any such act; or

"(B) is an 'accomplice of a person whoperforms or attempts to perform any suchact.

"(3) This subsection shall only be applic-table if the place of takeoff or the place o]actual landing of the aircraft on boardwhich the offense, as defined in paragi(2) of this subsection, is committed iuated outside the territory of the Statregistration of that aircraft.

"(4) For purposes of this subsection anaircraft is considered to be in flight fromthe moment when all the external doors areclosed following embarkation until themoment when one such door is opened fordisembarkation, or in the case of a forcedlanding, until the competent authoritiestake over responsibility for the aircraft andfor the persons and property aboard.".

(c) Subsection (o) of such section 902,as so redesignated by subsection (b) ofthis section, is amended by striking out "sub-sections (i) through (m)" and inserting inlieu thereof "subsections (i) through (n)".

SEC. 104. (a) Section 902(i) (1) of the Fed-eral Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1472(i)(1)) is amended to read as follows:

"(1) Whoever commits or attempts tocommit aircraft piracy, as herein defined,shall be punished-

"(A) by imprisonment for not less thantwenty years; or

"(B) if the death of another person re-sults from the commission or attemptedcommission of the offense, by death or byimprisonment for life.".

(b) Section 902(i) of such Act is further

March 2:8, 1974 Camended by adding at the end thereof th(following new paragraph:

"(3) An attempt to commit aircraft piracYshall be within the special aircraft Jurisdic.tion of the United States even though theaircraft is not in flight at the time of suckattempt if the aircraft would have beerwithin the special aircraft Jurisdiction of theUnited States had the offense of aircraftpiracy been completed.".

SEC. 105. Section 903 of the Federal Avia-tion Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1473), relating tovenue ,and prosecution of offenses, isamended by adding at the end thereof thefollowing new subsection:"PROCEDURE IN RESPECT OF PENALTY FOR AIR-

CRAFT PIRACY"(c) (1) A person shall be subjected to the

penalty of death for any offense prohibitedby section 902(i) or 902(n) of this Act onlyif a hearing is held in accordance with thissubsection.

"(2) When a defendant is found guilty ofor pleads guilty to anl offense under section902(i) or 902

(n) of this Act for which one ofthe sentences provided is death, the Judgewho presided at the trial or before whom theguilty plea was entered shall conduct a sepa-rate sentencing hearing to determine theexistence or nonexistence of the factors setforth in paragraphs (6) and (7), for the pur-

anose of determining the sentence to be im-_a~,sed. The hearing shall not be held if the

qg_ ernment stipulates that none of the_ravating factors Set forth in paragraph

(7) exists or that one or more of the miti-gating factors set forth in paragraph (6)exists. The hearings shall be conducted-

"(A) before the Jury which determinedthe defendant's guilt;

"(B) before a jury impaneled for the pur-pose of the hearing if-

"(i) the defendant was convicted upon aplea of guilty;

"(ii) the defendant was convicted after atrial before the court sitting without a Jury;or

"(iii) the jury which determined the de-fendant's guilt has been discharged by thecourt for good cause; or

"(C) before the court alone, upon themotion of the defendant and with the ap-proval of the court and of the Government.

"(3) In the sentencing hearing the courtshall disclose to the defendant or his counselall material contained in any presentencereport, if one has been prepared, except such,Material as the court determines is requiredco be withheld for the protection of human

or for the protection of the national se-y.· Any presentence information with-

_yfrom the defendant shall not be consid-ered in determining the existence or thenonexistence of the factors set forth in para-graph (6) or (7). Any information relevantto any of the mitigating factors set forth inparagraph (6) may be presented by eitherthe Government or the defendant, regardlessof its admissibility under the rules govern-ing admission of evidence at criminal trials;but the admissibility of information relevantto any of the aggravating factors set forth inparagraph (7) shall be governed by the rulesgoverning the admission of evidence at crim-inal trials. The Government and the defend-ant shall be permitted to rebut any informa-tion received at the hearing, and shall begiven fair opportunity to establish the exist-ence of any of the factors set forth in para-graph (6) or (7). The burden of establish-ing the existence of any of the factors setforth in paragraph (7) is on the Government.The burden of establishing the existence ofany of the factors set forth in paragraph (6)is on the defendant.

"(4) The jury, if there is no jury, thecourt shall return a special verdict settingforth its findings as to the existence or non-existence of each of the factors set forth inparagraph (6) and as to the existence or

)NGRESSIONAL' RECORD - SENATEe nonexistence of each of the factors-set fort]

in paragraph (7).y "(5) If the jury or, if there is no Jury, th,- court finds by a preponderance of the infore mation that one or more of the factors se

forth in paragraph (7) exists and that nonof the factors set forth in paragraph (6) ex

e ists, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. If the jury or, if there is no jury

the court finds that none of the aggravating- factors set forth in paragraph (7) exists, o:

finds that one or more of the mitigating facs tors set forth in paragraph (6) exists, this court shall not sentence the defendant t(

death but shall impose any other sentence* provided for the offense for which the de.

fendant was convicted."(6) The court shall not impose the sen.

tence of death on the defendant if the jurJor, if there is no jury, the court finds by aspecial verdict as provided in paragraph (4)that at the time of the offense-

"(A) he was under the age of eighteen;* "(B) his capacity to appreciate the wrong-fulness of his conduct or to conform hi,conduct to the requirements of law was sig-nificantly impaired, but not so impaired asto constitute a defense to prosecution;

"(C) he was under unusual and substan-tial duress, although not such duress as toconstitute a defense to prosecution;

"(D) he was a principal (as defined in sec-tion 2(a) of title 18 of the United StatesCode) in the offense, which was committedby another, but his participation was rela-tively minor, although not so minor as toconstitute a defense to prosecution; or

"(E) he could not reasonably have fore-seen that his conduct in the course of thecommission of the offense for which he wasconvicted would cause, or would create agrave risk of causing death to another per-son.

"(7) If no factor set forth in paragraph(6) is present, the court shall impose thesentence of death on the defendant if theJury or, if there is no jury, the court findsby a special verdict as provided in paragraph(4) that-

"(A) the death of another person resultedfrom the commission of the offense but afterthe defendant had seized or exercised con-trol of the aircraft; or

"(B) the death of another person resultedfrom the commission or attempted commis-sion of the offense, and -

"(i) the defendant has been convicted ofanother Federal or State offense (committedeither before or at the time of the com-mission or attempted commission of the of-fense) for which a sentence of life imprison-ment or death was imposable;

"(ii) the defendant has previously beenconvicted of two or more State or Federal of-fenses with a penalty of more than one yearimprisonment (committed on different oc-casions before the time of the commission orattempted commission of the offense), in-volving the infliction of serious bodily in-Jury upon another person;

"(iii) in the commission or attemptedcommnission of the offense, the defendantknowingly created a grave risk of death toanother person in addition to the victim ofthe offense or attempted offense; or

"(iv) the defendant committed or at-tempted to commit the offense in an especi-ally heinous, cruel, or depraved manner."

SEC. 106. Title XI of such Act (49 U.S.C.1501-1513) is amended by adding at the endthereof the following new sectionS:

"SUSPENSIOn Or AIR SERVICEs"SEC. 1114. (a) Whenever the President de-

termines that a foreign nation is acting in amanner inconsistent with the Convention forthe Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of -Air-craft, or if he determines that a foreign na-tion permits the use of territory under itsjurisdiction as a base of operations or train-ing or as a sanctuary for, or in any way arms,

h aids, or abets, any terrorist organizationwhich knowingly uses the illegal seizure of

e aircraft or the threat thereof as an instru-- ment of policy, he may, without notice ort hearing and for as long as he determinese necessary to assure the security of aircraft- against unlawful seizure, suspend (1) thet right of any air carrier or foreign air carrier

to engage in the foreign air transportation,g and the right of any person to operate aircraftr in foreign air commerce, to and from that for-- eign nation, and (2) the right of any foreigne air carrier to engage in foreign air trans-o portation, and the right of any foreign per-e son to operate aircraft in foreign air com-- merce, between the United States and any

foreign nation which maintains air servicebetween itself and that foreign nation. Not-

y withstanding section 1102 of this Act, thePresident's authority to suspend rights un-der this section shall .be d~emed to be a con-dition. to any certificate of public conven-ience and necessity or foreign air carrier orforeign aircraft permit issued by the CivilAeronautics Board and any air carrier oper-ating certificate or foreign air carrier operat-ing specification issued by the Secretary ofTransportation.

"(b) It shall be unlawful for any air car-rier or foreign air carrier tb engage in for-eign air transportation, or for any person tooperate aircraft in foreign air commerce, inviolation of the suspension of rights by thePresident under this section.

"SECURITY STANDARDS IN FOREIGN AIRTRANSPORTATION

"SEC. 1115 (a) Not later than 30 days afterthe date of enactment of this section, theSecretary of State shall notify each nationwith which the United States has a bilateralair transport agreement or, in the absence ofsuch agreement, each nation whose airlineor airlines hold a foreign air carrier permit orpermits issued pursuant to section 402 of thisAct; of the provisions of subsection (b) ofthis section.

"(b) In any case where the Secretary ofTransportation, after consultation with thecompetent aeronautical authorities of a for-eign nation with which the United States hasa bilateral air transport agreement and inaccordance with the provisions of that agree-ment or, in the absence of such agreement, ofa nation whose airline or airlines hold aforeign air carrier permit or permits issuedpursuant to section 402 of this Act, finds thatsuch nation does not effectively maintainand administer security measures relating totransportation of persons or property or mailin foreign air transportation that are equalto or above the minimum standards whichare established pursuant to the Conventionon International Civil Aviation, he shallnotify that nation of such finding and thesteps considered necessary to bring the se-curity measures of that nation to standardsat least equal to the minimum standards ofsuch. convention. In the event of failure ofthat nation to take such steps, the Secretaryof Transportation, with the approval of theSecretary of State, may withhold, revoke, orimpose conditions on the operating authorityof the airline or airlines of that nation.".

SEC. 107. The first sentence of section 901(a) (1) of such Act (49 U.S.C. 1471(a) (1)),relating to civil penalties, is amended by in-serting ", or of section 1114," immediately be-fore "of this Act".

SEC. 108. Subsection (a) of section 1007 ofsuch Act (49 U.S.C. 1487), relating to judicialenforcement, is amended by inserting "or, inthe case of a violation of section 1114 of thisAct, the Attorney General," immediatelyafter "duly authorized agents,".

SEC. 109. (a) That portion of the table ofcontents contained in the first section of theFederal Aviation Act of 1958 which appearsunder the side heading"Sec. 902. Criminal penalties."is amended by striking out-

S 4723

S 4724* "(n) Investigations by Federal Bureau of

Investigation."(o) Interference with aircraft accident

investigations,"and inserting in lieu thereof-

"(n) Aircraft piracy outside special air-craft jurisdiction of the United States.

"(o) Investigations by Federal Bureau ofInvestigation. accident

"(p) Interference with aircraft accidentinvestigation.".

(b) That portion of such table of contentswhich appears under the side heading"Sec. 903. Venue and prosecution of offenses."is amended by adding at the end thereofthe following new Item:

"(c) Procedure in respect of penalty foraircraft piracy.".

(c) That portion of such table of contentswhich appears under the center heading"TITLE XI-MISCELLANEOUS" is amended byadding at the end thereof the following newitems:"Sec. 1114. Suspension of air services."Sec. 1115. Security standards in foreign air

transportation.".TITLE fi--AIR TRANSPORTATION

SECURITY ACT OF 1974SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the

"Air Transportation Security Act of 1974".SEC. 202. Title UII of the Federal -Aviation

Act of 1958 (49 UT. SC. 1341-1355), relating toorganization of the Federal Aviation Admin-istration and the powers and duties of theAdministrator, is amended by adding at theend thereof the following new sections:

"SCREENING OF PASSENGERS

·"PROCEDURES AND FACILITIES

"SEC. 315. (a) The Administrator shallprescribe or continue in effect reasonableregulations requiring that all passengers andall property intended to be carried in the air-craft cabin in air transportation or intra-state air transportation be screened byweapon-detecting procedures or facilities em-ployed or operated by employees of the aircarrier, intrastate air carriers, or foreign aircarrier prior to boarding the aircraft for suchtransportation. Such regulations shall in-clude such provisions as the Administratormay deem necessary to assure that personstraveling in air transportation or intrastateair transportation will receive courteouS andefficient treatment in connection with theadministration of any provision of this Actinvolving the screening of persons and prop-erty to assure safety in air transportation orintrastate air transportation. One year afterthe date of enactment of this section or afterthe effective date of such regulations, which-ever is later, the Administrator may alter oramend such regulations, requiring a con-tinuation of such screening only to the ex-tent deemed necessary to assure securityagainst acts of criminal violence and aircraftpiracy in air transportation and intrastate airtransportation. The Administrator shall sub-mit semiannual reports to tlhe Congress con-cerning the effectiveness of screening proce-dures under this subsection and shall advisethe Congress of any regulations or amend-ments thereto to be prescribed pursuant tothis subsection at least thirty days in advanceof their effective date, unless he determinesthat ean emergency exists which requires thatsuch regulations or amendments take effectin less than thirty days and notifies the Con-gress of his determination. Notwithstandingany other provision of law, the memorandumof the Federal Aviation Administrator, datedMarch 29, 1973, regarding the use of X-raysystems in airport terminal areas, shall re-main in full force and effect until modified,terminated, superseded, set aside, or repealedafter the date of enactment of this section bythe Administrator.

"EXEMPTION AUTHORITY

"(b) The Administrator may exempt, inwhole or in part, air transportation opera-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

tions, other than those scheduled passengeroperations performed by air carriers engaginpgin interstate, overseas, or foreign air trans-portation under a certificate of public con-venience and necessity issued by the CivilAeronautics Board under section 401 of thisAct, from the provisions of this section.

"AmI TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

"RULES AND REGULATIONS

"SEC. 316. (a) (1) The Administrator ofthe Federal Aviation Administration shallprescribe such reasonable rules and regula-tions requiring such practices, methods, andprocedures, or governing the design, mate-rials, and construction of aircraft, as he maydeem necessary to protect persons and prop-erty aboard aircraft operating in air trans-portation or intrastate air transportationagainst acts of criminal violenfce and air-craft piracy.

"(2) In prescribing and amending rulesand regulations under paragraph (1) of thissubsection, the Administrator shall-

"(A) consult with the Secretary of Trans-portation, the Attorney General, and suchother Federal, State, and local agencies ashe may deem appropriate;

"(B) consider whether any proposed ruleor regulation is consistent with protection ofpassengers in air transportation or intrastateair transportation against acts of criminalviolence and aircraft piracy and the publicinterest in the promotion of air transporta-tion and intrastate air transportation;

"(C) to the maximum extent practicable,require uniform procedures for the inspec-tion, detention, and search of persons andproperty in air transportation and intrastateair transportation to assure their safety andto assure that they will receive courteousand efficient treatment, by air carriers, theiragents and employees, and by Federal, State,and local law-enforcement personnel engagedin carrying out any air transportation secu-rity program established under this section;and

"(D) consider the extent to which anyproposed rule or regulation will contributeto carrying out the purposes of this section.

"PERSONNEL

"(b) Regulations prescribed under sub-section (a) of this section shall requireoperators of airports regularly serving aircarriers certificated by the Civil AeronauticsBoard to establish air transportation secu-rity programs providing a law enforcementpresence and capability at such airports ade-quate to insure the safety of persons travel-ing in air transportation or intrastate airtransportation from acts of criminal violenceand aircraft piracy. Such regulations shallauthorize such airport operators to utilizethe services of qualified State, local, andprivate law-enforcement personnel whoseservices are made available by their em-ployers on a cost reimbursable basis. In anycase in which the Administrator determines,after receipt of notification from an airportoperator in such form as the Administratormay prescribe, that qualified State, local, andprivate law-enforcement personnel are notavailable in sufficient numbers to carry outthe provisions of subsection (a) of this sec-tion, the Administrator may, by order, au-thorize such airport operator to utilize, on areimbursable basis, the services of-

"(1) personnel employed by any otherFederal department or agency, with theconsent of the head of such department oragency; and

"(2) personnel employed directly by theAdministrator;at the airport concerned in such numbersand for such period of time as the Adminis-trator may deem necessary 'to supplementsuch State, local, and private law-enforce-ment personnel. In malKing the determina-tions referred to in the preceding sentencethe Administrator shall take into considera-tion-

March 2:8, 1974"(A) the number of passengers enplaned at

such airport;"(B) the extent of anticipated risk of crimn-

inal violence and aircraft piracy at such air-port or to the air carrier aircraft operationsat such airport; and

"(C) the availability at such airport ofqualified State or local law enforcement per-sonnel.

'TRAINING

"(c) The Administrator shall providetraining for personnel employed by him tocarry out any air transportation securityprogram established under this section andfor other personnel, including State, local,and private law enforcement personnel,whose services may be utilized in carrying outany such air transportation security pro-gram. The Administrator shall prescribe uni-form standards with respect to training re-quired to be provided personnel whose serv-ices are nntilized to enforce any such airtransportation security program, includingState, local, and private law enforcement per-sonnel, and uniform standards with respectto minimum qualifications for personnel eli-gible to receive such training."RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMATION

"(d) (1) The Administrator shall conductsuch research (including behavioral re-msearch) and development as he may deem snpropriate to develop, modify, test, and ev_uate systems, procedures, facilities, and dovices to protect persons and property aboardaircraft in air transportation or intrastateair transportation against acts of criminalviolence and aircraft piracy. Contracts maybe entered into under this subsection with-out regard to section 3709 of the RevisedStatutes of the United States (41 U.S.C. 5)or any other provision of law requiring ad-vertising, and without regard to section3643 of the Revised Statutes of the UnitedStates (31 U.S.C. 529), relating to advancesof public money.

"(2) Notwithstanding section 552 of title5, United States Code, relating to freedomof information, the Administrator shall pre-scribe such regulations as he may deem nec-essary to prohibit disclosure of any infor-mation obtained or developed in the conductof research and development activities underthis subsection if, in the opinion of the Ad-ministrator, the disclosure of such informa-tion-

"(A) would constitute an unwarranted in-1

vasion of personal privacy (including,not limited to, information contained inpersonnel, medical, or similar file): ;

"(B) would reveal trade secrets or privi-leged or confidential commercial or financialinformation obtained from any person; or

"(C) would be detrimental to the safety ofpersons traveling in air transportation.Nothing in this subsection shall be con-strued to authorize the withholding ofinformation from the duly authorized com-mittees of-the Congress.

"OVERALL FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY

"(e) (1) Except as otherwise specificallyprovided by law, no power, function, or dutyof the Administrator of the Federal AviationAdministration under this section shail beassigned or transferred to any other Federaldepartment or agency.

"(2) Notwithstanding any other provisionof law, the Administrator of the FederalAviation Administration shall have exclusiveresponsibility for the direction of any lawenforcement activity affecting the safety ofpersons aboard aircraft involved in the com-mission of an offense under section 901 (1)or 902(n) of this Act. Other Federal depart-ments and agencies shall, upon request bythe Administrator, provide such assistanceas may be necessary to carry out the pur-poses of this paragraph.

March 2:8, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE"DEINrrMoN

"(f) For the purposes of this section, theterm 'law enforcement personnel' meansindividuals-

"(1) authorized to carry and use firearms,"(2) vested with such police power of

arrest as the Administrator deems necessaryto carry out this section, and

"(3) identifiable by appropriate indicia ofauthority."..

SEC. 203. Section 1111 of the Federal Avia-tion Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1511), relating toauthority to refuse transportation, isamended to read as follows:

"AUTHRorrY To REFUSE TRANSPORTATION

"SEC. 1111. (a) The Administrator shall,by regulation, require any air carrier, intra-state air carrier, or foreign air carrier to re-fuse to transport-

"(1) any person who does not consent to a, search of his person, as prescribed in section

315(a) of this Act, to determine whether heis unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon,explosive, or other destructive substance, or

"(2) any property of any person who doesnot consent to a search or inspection of suchproperty to determine whether it unlaw-fully contains a dangerous weapon, ex-plosive, or other destructive substance.Subject to reasonable rules and regulationsLrescribed by the Administrator, any such

rier may also refuse transportation of anger or property when, in the opinion

flhe carrier, such transportation would orFilght be inimical to safety of flight.

"(b) Any agreement for the carriage ofpersons or property in air transportation orintrastate air transportation by an air carrier,intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier,for compensation or hire shall be deemed toinclude an agreement that such carriage shallbe refused when consent to search such per-sons or inspect such property for the pur-poses enumerated in subsection (a) of thissection Is not given.".

SEC. 204. Title XI of the Federal AviationAct of 1958 (49 t.S.C. 1501-1513) is amendedby adding at the end thereof the followingnew section:

"LIABILrTY FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY

"SEC. 1116. The Civil Aeronautics Boardshall issue such regulations or orders as maybe necessary to require that any air carrierreceiving for transportation as baggage anyproperty of a person traveling in air trans-

rtation, which property cannot lawfullycarried by such person in the aircraft

bin by reason of section 902(1) of this Act,make available to such person, at a rea-

le charge, a policy of insurance oondi-to pay, within the amount of such

insurance amounts for which such air car-rier may become liable for the full actual lossor damage to such property caused by suchair carrier.".

SEc. 205. Section 101 of the Federal Aviation'Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1301), relating to defi-nitions, is amended by redesignating para-graphs (22) through (36) as paragraphs (24)through (38), respectively, and by insertingImmediately after paragraph (21) the follow-ing new paragraphs:

"(22) 'Intrastate air carrier' means anycitizen of the United States who undertakes,whether directly or indirectly or by a lease orany other arrangement, to engage solely inintrastate air transportation.

"(23) 'Intrastate air transportation' meansthe carriage of persons or property as a com-mon carrier for compensationr or hire, byturbojet-powered aircraft capable of carry-ing thirty or more persons, wholly within thesame State of the United States.".

SEC. 206. (a) That portion of the table ofcontents contained in the first section of theFederal Aviation Act of 1958 which appearsunder the center heading: "TITLE III-OR-GANIZATION OF AGENCY AND POWERS AND Du-TIES OF ADMINIs

T RATOR' is amended by add-

ing at the end thereof the following newitems:

'Sec. 315. Screening of passengers in airtransportation.

"(a) Procedures and facilities."(b) Exemption authority.

"Sec. 316. Air transportation security."(a) Rules and regulations."(b) Personnel."(c) Training."(d) Research and development; confiden-

tial information ."(e) Overall Federal responsibility."(f) Definition."(b) That portion of such table of contents

which appears under the center heading"TITLE XI-MISCELLANEOUS" is amended byadding at the end thereof the following newitem:"Sec. 1116. Liability for certain property.".

And amend the title so as to read: "AnAct to amend the Federal Aviation Act of1958 to implement'the Convention for theSuppression of Unlawful Seizure of Air-craft; to provide a more effective pro-gram to prevent aircraft piracy; and forother purposes."

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I movethat the Senate disagree to the amend-ment of the House on S. 39 and requesta conference with the House on the dis-agreeing votes of the two Houses thereon,and that the Chair be authorized to ap-point the conferees on the part of theSenate.

The motion was agreed to; and thePresiding Officer appointed Mr. MAGNU-SON, Mr. CANNON, Mr. HARTKE, Mr. PEAR-SON, and Mr. CooK conferees on the partof the Senate.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Repre-sentatives by Mr. Berry, one of its read-ing clerks, informed the Senate that,pursuant to the provisions of section10(a), Public Law 93-179, the Speakerhad appointed Mrs. BOGGS and Mr. BUT-LER as members of the American Revo-lution Bicentennial Board, on the partof the House.

The message announced that the Househad disagreed to the amendments of theSenate to the bill (H.R. 7724) to amendthe Public Health Service Act to estab-lish a national program of biomedicalresearch fellowships, traineeships, andtraining to assure the continued excel-lence of biomedical research in the UnitedStates, and for other purposes; agreedto the conference asked by the Senateon the disagreeing votes of the twoHouses thereon, and that Mr. STAGGERS,Mr. ROGERS, Mr. SATTERFIELD, Mr. DEVINE,and Mr. NELSEN were appointed man-agers on the part of the House at theconference.


The Senate continued with the con-sideration of the bill (S. 3044) to amendthe Federal Election Campaign Act of1971 to provide for public financing ofprimary and general election campaignsfor Federal elective office, and to amendcertain other provisions of law relatingto the financing and conduct of suchcampaigns.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billis open to further amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I sug-gest the absence of a quorum.


The second assistant legislative clerkproceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HASKELL. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order for thequorum call be rescinded.


Mr. HASKELL. Mr. President, I wishto address a question to the distinguishedmanager of the bill.

Mr. CANNON. Yes.Mr. HASKELL. I would like to ask

the floor manager of the bill as to hisinterpretation of the bill as applied to aparticular situation. Assume that a mul-tiple candidate committee engages in cer-tain expenses in connection with thefund raising for a multitude of differentcandidates. The concern expressed is thatpossibly the bill would be interpreted toallocate as a contribution to any candi-date raising funds from that committeea pro rata share of expenses incurred inraising those funds.

I would like to ask the Senator's inter-pretation and intention in that situationand whether the legislation would be soapplied.

Mr. CANNON. Do I understand theSenator to mean a general committeethat is widespread in scope and that isnot a political campaign committee ofthe candidate?

Mr. HASKELL. That is correct.Mr. CANNON. It is the intention as to

that type committee in the solicitationof funds that the expense of solicitationcould not be charged to the candidatebecause that committee may be contrib-uting to many, many candidates andthey are limited in the amount theycould contribute to the candidate, butthe candidate himself would have to in-clude in his expense itemization thecost they expended in raising those par-ticular funds.

On the other hand, if a candidate'sown campaign committee that he desig-nates is out raising money for him, obvi-6usly those expenses would be chargeableto the amount he can spend in his elec-tion.

Mr. HASKELL. I thank the distin-guished Senator from Nevada. That isthe way I interpret the legislation. Thereare Members who expressed some con-cern. I think this makes the record veryclear.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence ofa quorum.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, willthe Senator withhold that request?

Mr. HASKELL. I withhold my request.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Tennessee is recognized.AMENDMENT NO. 1105

Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I call upmy amendment No. 1105.


The amendment was stated as follows:On page 64, between lines 5 and 6, insert

the following:"SUSPENSION OF FRANK FOR MASS MAILINGS

IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ELECTIONS

"SEC. 318. Notwithstanding any other pro-vision of law, no Senator, Representative,

S 4725

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 2:8, 1974

Resident Commissioner, or Delegate shallmake any mass mailing of a newsletter ormailing with a simplified form of addressunder the frank under section 3210 of title39, United States Code, during the sixty daysimmediately preceding the date on whichany election is held in which he is a can-didate."



Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, willthe Senator from Tennessee yield?

Mr. BROCK. I yield.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,

would the Senator be amenable to a 20-minute time limitation on the amend-ment, the time to be divided in the usualfashion between the sponsor of theamendment and the manager of thebill?

Mr. BROCK. I am.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

make that request.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, the time limit will be set ac-cordingly.

Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, thisamendment would simply extend the cur-rent limitation on franking from 28 days,which we passed in this body last Decem-ber, which was a good first step, to 60days, for mass mailing. We debated thismatter last year in the campaign reformbill. I raise the question again becauseone of the most damning criticisms ofthis bill, and one that I share, is that itstill largely remains an incumbent bill.One of the participants in a symposiumat the Kennedy Center, in which I alsoparticipated, estimated that the incum-bency is worth $600,000 over 2 years.That amount of money would have to beraised to equal the public relations as-sets that an incumbent has through mail,and the rest.

One distinct advantage to Members isthe unlimited use of the frank, right upto the last month of the election. I be-lieve it is important that we try as bestwe can to guarantee fairness in the po-litical process.

I also believe that we should providefor people who challenge office holders,now and in the future, a reasonable op-portunity to make that effort and to havesome chance of success.

I reserve the remainder of my time.Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yield

myself 2 minutes.I find no great difficulty with this

amendment. I just simply point out tomy colleagues that it has been only a fewmonths since we acted on this particularpoint and we limited it to 28 days priorto the election with reference to the send-ing out of newsletters under the frank.I would point out that the law prohibitsnow mailing that is related to politicalactivities under the frank, in any event,so I see no particular harm in amendingthis to 60 days. The Senate has neverbeen involved in mass mailing to box-holders, such as the House. This may beof difficulty in the other body, but I wouldhave no objection to it if the Senatorwants an increase in the period of 32days over the action which we took a fewmonths ago.

Mr. BROCK. I thank the Senator. HePoints out that the problem with theboxholder frank is with the House andnot' with the Senate, but I think it Isimportant that we point out the poten-tial for abuse here and, at least for thisbody, express our desire that every per-son should have access to the politicalprocess and should have, as much as wecan guarantee it, full and free oppor-tunity to seek his own election.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yieldback the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I yieldback the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All timeon the amendment of the Senator fromTennessee having been yielded back, thequestion is on agreeing to the amend-ment.

The amendment was agreed to.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill

is open to further amendment.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

suggest the absence of a quorum. Therewill be no further votes tonight, I willsay for the information of Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.- Theclerk will call the roll.


Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent that the order for thequorum call be rescinded.


Mr. BROCK. Mr. President,. I askunanimous consent that two members ofmy staff, Mr. J. V. Crockett and Mr. JimGeorge, be given access to the floor dur-ing the course of debate on this bill.


Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I suggestthe absence of a quorum.



Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order for thequorum call be rescinded.


JOINT REFERRAL OF S. 3213 TO COM-MITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONSAND COMMITTEE ON BANKING,HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRSMr. BROCK. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that S. 3213; which Iintroduced earlier this month, and whichwas referred to the Committee on For-eign Relations, be jointly referred to thatcommittee and to the Banking, Housingand Urban Affairs Committee; I have dis-cussed this with the acting chairman ofthe Foreign Relations Committee, whoalso happens to be chairman of the Bank-ing, Housing and Urban Affairs Commit-tee, and he has expressed his willingness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if the Sen-ator will yield, what is the bill about?

Mr. BROCK. This bill would supportthe establishment of an internationaleconomic policy board to advise Con-gress on matters of international policy.

Mr. JAVITS. As a matter of efficiency,if the bill were referred to both com-mittees, so that either could hold it up,would the Senator want to have it re-ferred seriatim, or to both at the sametime?

Mr. BROCK. The chairman of theBanking, Housing and Urban AffairsCommittee has indicated that the chair-man of the Foreign Relations Committeehad no particular interest in this legis-lation, but he did not want to lose anyjurisdictional right, which I fully under-stand and support.

So may I amend the request to askthat the bill be referred to the Bank-ing, Housing and Urban Affairs Commit-tee?

Mr. JAVITS. I would object to that,because I do not a-ree with the chair-man, with all respect. I think one of ourbig failures, and other members of thecommittee are present, such as the Sena-tor from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD), hasbeen the failure to realize the criticalimpact on foreign policy of economicpolicy. I would just as soon the Senatorleave it as he has put it.

Mr. BROCK. Would referral seriatibe preferable?

Mr. JAVITS. No; leave it as it is.have the explanation. Leave it as it is.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, the bill will be so referred.

EXECUTIVE SESSION* Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate gointo executive session..

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider executive business.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Iyield to the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.COOK).

U.S. COAST GUARDMr. COOK. Mr. President, I ask the

Chair to have considered sundry nomi-nations in the U.S. Coast Guard whichllwere reported earlier today, and askunanimous consent that they be csidered en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.BENNETT) Without objection, it is so or-dered.

The second assistant legislative clerkread the nomination of Rear Admiral-William F. Rea III, to be commander,Atlantic area, and Rear Admiral JosephJ. McClelland, to be commander, Pacificarea.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, the nominations will be con-sidered and confirmed en bloc.

The second assistant legislative clerkread the nominations of the followingnamed officers for promotion to thegrade of rear admiral: Rober I. Price,Winford W. Barrow, James P. Stewart,G. H. Patrick Bursley, Robert W. DurfeY,and James S. Gracey.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, the nominations will be con-sidered and confirmed en bloc.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I requestthat the President of the United Statesbe immediately notified of the confirmwation of the nominations.

S 4726

march 28, 1974 congressional record -senate' s 4701congressional record -senate march 28, 1974...

Documents