Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "7637616",
    "label": "Cabinet Meeting - 2/19/76 (4)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7637616"
}

{
    "id": "7637616",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7637616",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Cabinet Meeting - 2/19/76 (4)",
    "description": "This file contains includes legislative status reports from departments and agencies.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7637616",
    "collections": [
        "John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)",
        "John Marsh's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Cabinet meetings",
        "Legislation",
        "Legislative liaison"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/16/6376/7637616/content/library/document/0067/7637616.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/16/6376/7637616/content/library/document/0067/7637616.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/16/6376/7637616/content/library/document/0067/7637616.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7637616",
    "naId": 7637616,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-02-29",
        "month": 2,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-02-01",
        "month": 2,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/16/6376/7637616/content/library/document/0067/7637616.pdf",
    "mediaId": "46c3623ebd906e44",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 7, folder \"Cabinet Meeting - 2/19/76 (4)\" of the\nJohn Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 7 of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nCONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY\nWeekly Report\nVol. XXXIII No. 52\nPages 2837-2904\nDec. 27, 1975\nWHAT CONGRESS\nDID IN 1975\nSummary\nA year of confrontation produced vetoes,\nfew solid accomplishments (2839)\nLegislation\nMajor action on foreign policy (2852),\nenergy (2850), economic affairs (2847)\nBudget\nThe new congressional budget system\nsurvives first year of tests (2863)\nPolitics\nLabor coalition seeks partisan role\nwithout assistance from Meany (2881)\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\n1414 22nd Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20037\n(202) 296-6800\nFORD is QERAL LIBRARY\nAppropriations in 1st Session, 94th Congress\nInside Congress\nFor fiscal year 1976, in thousands of dollars\nAS OF THE END OF THE 1ST SESSION\nCONGRESSIONAL FINALE: CONFLICT, COMPROMISE\nBudget authority (authority to commit funds) In this type.\nThe first session of the 94th Congress ended on the\nCongress would be unable to enact \"programs and policies\nOutlays (funds provided by these bills to be spent or obligated in fiscal 1976) in this type.\nsame note of conflict that had typified its relations with the\nthat will return us to full employment, economic prosperity\nFord administration throughout 1975.\nand durable social peace and progress.\" Despite the biggest\nSOURCE: Congressional Budget Office\nDuring the final, frazzling 72 hours of the session, the\nDemocratic majority in 10 years, Albert conceded that \"try\nRepublican President vetoed two major bills passed by the\nas we might frankly we cannot expect to reach these\nAdministration\nFinal\nWeekly\nDemocratic Congress. A congressional attempt to override\ngoals\" in 1975. This hardly sounded like the Albert who, a\nRequest\nHouse\nSenate\nAction\nReport\none of the vetoes, of a proposed extension of the 1975 tax\nfew months earlier, had responded to the President's\nPage\ncut, fell 17 votes short in the House. An 11th-hour com-\nlegislative proposals by presenting to the country a\npromise was then passed, with assurances that it would be\nLegislative Branch (HR 6950-PL 94-59)\n$ 853,765\n$ 698,100\n1625\n\"national agenda for economic action\" to be implemented\n$ 825,374\n$ 827,547\nsigned.\n761,784\nby Congress.\n615,948\n735,284\n737,284\nMeanwhile, several Republican senators staged a\nEducation Division, HEW (HR 5901-\nshort-lived and unsuccessful filibuster against a proposal to\n3,806,621\n4,781,277\n5,119,160\n4,916,961¹\n1948\nLegislative Deadlock\nPL 94-94)\n1,324,748\n1,654,748\n1,761,748\nrestrict Ford's power to intervene in the Angolan civil war.\n1,701,748\nMembers finally went home for Christmas at the end\nAgriculture and related agencies\n14,221,608\n11,047,263\n11,092,283\n11,061,282\n2239\nof the day on Dec. 19. Behind them was a year of disagree-\nThe legislative stalemate encompassed many areas,\nbut the focal points were energy and economic policies. Of\n(HR 8561-PL 94-122)\n10,921,266\n7,752,526\n7,769,171\n7,745,171\nment with the executive branch over most of the problems\nbesetting the nation. Among the major ones were the\nthe 15 bills that Ford had vetoed by Dec. 23, six directly in-\nvolved these two issues. Not one of them was overridden.\nDistrict of Columbia\n507,841\neconomy, energy, foreign policy, defense costs and waning\n410,243\npublic confidence in government.\nFar from coming up with a national program to deal with\nFord had vetoed 15 bills and promised to veto a 16th.\nthe recession and the energy crisis, Congress and the Presi-\nTransportation and related\n4,230,886\n3,654,355\n4,104,424\n3,888,866\n2547\ndent became enmeshed in side issues, albeit critical ones:\nCongress was able to override only three of them. The ses-\nagencies (HR 8365-PL 94-134)\n3,206,393\n2,977,080\n3,235,108\n3,178,008\nsion was marked by much posturing and pre-1976 election\nwhether to extend existing price controls on domestically\nHousing and Urban Development, Space,\n48,779,570\n42,366,024\n50,275,314\n49,344,914\n2172\npoliticking by both parties and at both ends of Penn-\nproduced petroleum products, which were to expire Aug. 31,\nand whether to extend to 1976 the tax cut enacted earlier\nScience, Veterans (HR 8070-PL 94-116)\n19,966,693\n18,524,893\n20,045,693\n19,969,193\nsylvania Avenue. Democrats were saying that their tax cuts\nand economic policies had saved the nation from a 1930s-\nthat was supposed to be a one-shot, emergency measure to\nrevive the economy.\nLabor, Health, Education and Welfare and\n36,266,355\n35,979,641\n36,272,522\n36,073,748\n2731\nstyle depression. Republicans warned that a radical\nrelated agencies (HR 8069)\n28,630,480\n28,473,536\n28,652,688\n28,480,688\nDemocratic Congress would spend the country into\nEnergy Policy\nbankruptcy, while Ford rarely escaped a week without the\nInterior and related agencies (HR 8773)\n4,079,098\n4,101,962\n4,304,340\n4,234,621\n2772\nlegislative branch taking a position opposed to what he con-\nNo subject consumed more of Congress' time than did\n2,766,763\n2,790,188\n2,905,123\n2,855,813\nceived as the national interest.\nenergy legislation, particularly bills to cut energy consump-\ntion. Although the time spent on the subject was\nState, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary and\n5,722,145\n5,671,669\n6,188,253\n5,958,676\n2104\nExuberance to Frustration\nimpressive, the legislation enacted fell short of what had\nrelated agencies (HR 8121-PL 94-121)\n4,050,735\n4,004,107\n4,240,337\n4,146,337\nbeen promised.\nDespite all the bravado, the disappointment of the con-\nDefense Department (HR 9861)\n97,694,635\n90,219,045\n90,721,789\n90,466,961²\n2813\ngressional leadership with the session was summed up by\nFord's energy policy, basically, was to reduce energy\n67,232,702\n63,953,702\n64,472,702\n64,305,702\nSenate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D Mont.) the day\nuse and at the same time increase domestic production by\nbefore adjournment: \"It has not been easy for the legislative\nraising oil prices. Democrats, unwilling to accept the Ford\nForeign Aid\n5,694,341\n2415\nbranch to make its will prevail.\" That assessment was not\nprogram of imposing higher tariffs on imported oil and\n2,240,538\nthe way the Democrats had planned it in January, when the\nhigher prices for U.S.-produced crude, sought a strategy\nMilitary Construction (HR 10029)\n3,518,723\n3,660,295\n3,585,014\n2571\n94th convened. With their ranks swelled the previous\nthat would defer economically painful actions until after\n4,109,020\n835,789\n829,889\nNovember by one of the biggest election victories since the\nthe recession abated, and then would raise fuel prices on the\n822,789\n828,789\nNew Deal, congressional Democrats were calling for alter-\nleast vital uses of energy.\nPublic Works, Energy (HR 8122)\n7,365,562\n7,225,401\nnatives to the Ford administration's programs that would\nBut the Democrats could not agree, even among\n7,454,261\n7,440,913\n2769\n3,983,190\n3,879,390\n4,095,800\ninitiate a new era of so-called \"congressional government.\"\nthemselves, on the issues of oil prices or conservation\n4,071,300\nRepublicans, on the other hand, led by Ford, were\nmeasures. The clearest example of this was on an energy\nTreasury, Postal Service and\n6,330,463\n6,265,532\n6,338,985\n6,314,070\nwarning the country that the 2-to-1 Democratic majority in\ntax bill that was supposed to drastically cut gasoline con-\nGeneral Government (HR 8597-PL 94-91)\n5,956,122\n5,909,122\n6,003,122\n5,968,122\n1784\nthe House and better than three-fifths advantage in the\nContinuing Resolution (H J Res 733-\n1,625,000\n2,004,800\n2,379,800\n2,379,800\n2777\nSenate would lead to a \"veto-proof\" Congress that would\ndoom the President's economic recovery and energy\nIndex to Legislation\nPL 94-41)\n1,625,000\n1,979,800\n2,329,800\n2,329,800\nprograms. Congress had taken a series of actions during the\n1976 Supplemental\n12,157,060\n7,820,306\n10,334,348\n10,298,883\nlast years of the Nixon administration to curtail the power\nAgriculture\n2842\nForeign Policy/\n(HR 10647)\n7,597,892\n5,249,059\n5,430,792\n5,414,292\n2775\nof the presidency and, at the same time, to claim a greater\nCongress and\nNational Security\n2852\nrole for itself in domestic and foreign policy-making.\nGovernment\n2842\nHealth/Education/\nHouse\nSenate\nNeither the enthusiasm of the Democrats nor the dire\nConsumer Affairs\n2844\nWelfare\n2855\n1. Veto overridden Sept. 10.\nCrime and Justice\n2845\n2 Final vote pending in House.\nDemocrats\n290\npredictions of the Republicans was warranted by the\nHousing/Community\n62*\nEconomic Affairs\n2847\nDevelopment\n2857\nIncludes Harry F. Byrd Jr. elected as an Independent.\nRepublicans\n145\n38**\nrecord of the first session. By mid-summer, it was clear\nEnergy and\n** Includes James L Buckley elected as a Conservative.\nVacancies\nTransportation and\n0\n0\nthat a stalemate had set in on crucial issues. A frustrated\nEnvironment\n2850\nCommunications\n2858\nPublished weekly by Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1414 22nd Street, N.W.,\nphotocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system. Second rights\nHouse Speaker Carl Albert (D Okla.) was conceding that\nWashington, D.C. 20037. All reproduction rights, quotations, broadcasting, publication,\nare reserved, Including use of Congressional Quarterly material in campaign\nreserved for current editorial clients. No part of this publication may be reproduced or\nsupplements, advertisements and handbooks without permission. Rates are furnished\ntransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including\non request. Second class postage paid at Washington, D.C.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2839\nInside Congress 2\nInside Congress 3\nsumption by levying a 20-cents-a-gallon additional tax\nsubsidies, emergency employment and oil price controls in-\nwhenever consumption increased above 1973 levels. But on\nSession Summary\ndicated that the legislative stalemate was by no means all-\na 345-72 House vote in June, the provision was stripped\npervasive. In addition to these, there were many other\nRecorded Votes\nfrom the bill. Only 67 of 278 voting Democrats supported\nmeasures, such as the energy policy act, aid to New York,\nThe first session of the 94th Congress, which con-\nthe Ways and Means Committee that drafted the bill. Their\nretention of the food stamp program and a Social Security\nThe first session of the 94th Congress set new\nrecommendations were to have formed the basic con-\nvened at noon Jan. 14, 1975, adjourned Dec. 19. The\nincrease, that Ford had difficulty accepting but signed into\nrecords for the number of votes taken in one session by\ngressional alternative to Ford's plan for promoting U.S.\nHouse adjourned at 8:11 p.m., the Senate at 8:45 p.m.\nlaw anyway. Thus there were areas of accommodation\nthe House and the Senate. The House took 612 votes\nenergy independence.\nThe session ran 340 days, which was six days longer\nbeneath the surface and hidden by the attention given the\nand the Senate 602, for a total of 1,214 for the year.\nSome members said the vote merely reflected the lack\nthan the 334 days of the second session of the 93rd\nvetoes where accommodation was feasible and productive.\nThis surpassed the previous record of 1,135 set in 1973.\nCongress. The first session of the 94th was the 17th\nof consensus in the country on energy issues which pitted\nIn that year the House took 541 votes and the Senate\none region against the other, divided producer and con-\nlongest in history.\nForeign Policy\n594.\nsumer states and set oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric\nThe Senate was in session 178 days and the House\nwas in 173 days during the year. Congress took several\nIn perhaps no other field did Congress exert as much\nThe number of votes in the House jumped by 75\nadvocates against each other. Others argued that the con-\npressure on the executive as it did in foreign affairs and\ncompared to 1974 and by 71 over the previous record.\ngressional leadership was at fault, that on national\nshort breaks and a month-long recess during August.\nproblems such as the energy crisis, it was up to the\nThere were 17,015 public bills and resolutions in-\ndefense. Here, more than in any other area, the early\nThe increase in House voting in recent years reflected\ntroduced during the session, slightly less than the\npredictions of a return to congressional government were\nthe impact of the procedural changes established by\nleadership to persuade Congress to make policy in the\nclosest to the mark.\nthe Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, which per-\nabsence of a national consensus. Congress and the White\nnumber introduced during the first session of the 93rd\nThe session began with Congress resolutely opposed to\nmitted votes on amendments for the first time, and of\nHouse were deadlocked on fundamental energy questions,\nCongress.\nwith Ford unable to sell his programs and the Democratic\nAs of the end of the session, President Ford had\nthe President's request for more military aid to the\nthe electronic voting system installed in 1973. The\nsigned 158 bills into law. He had vetoed 15 bills, of\nfoundering regime in South Vietnam and ended with an\nHouse voted more often than the Senate for the first\nmajority unable to draft viable alternatives.\nwhich three were overridden and six were sustained.\nequally firm \"no\" to U.S. involvement in the civil war in the\ntime in memory.\nA partial breakthrough occurred in October, when the\nAfrican nation of Angola.\nThe increasing amount of time spent on voting led\ntwo sides reached a compromise on a temporary oil price\nIn between, Congress forced on the administration first\nto efforts in the House during 1975 to reduce the\ncontrol bill that reinstated the old domestic pricing system\na total, and then a partial, embargo on arms deliveries to\nnumber of votes. (Background, Weekly Report p. 2663)\nthrough Nov. 15. This came only after two earlier bills to ex-\nTurkey, the result of that nation's use of American weapons\ntend controls were vetoed. A second interim measure ex-\nespecially hard hit by the economic downturn, an end to\nin its 1974 invasion of Cyprus. Intended for Turkey's\nYear\nHouse\nSenate\nTotal\ntended controls until Dec. 15. These were only stopgap\ncertain tax shelters, and other proposals aimed at closing\ndefense, their use in the 1974 invasion violated U.S. foreign\nsolutions, however.\ntax loopholes for big business and individuals in the higher\naid laws.\n1975\n612\n602\n1,214\nAfter the gasoline tax increase was knocked out of the\nincome brackets.\nThis was just the first sample of a new attitude in\n1974\n537\n544\n1,081\nenergy tax bill, Democrats turned to the Energy Policy and\nFord, who in late 1974 had called for a tax increase to\nCongress on foreign policy questions. In September, it in-\n1973\n541\n594\n1,135\nConservation Act, the product of a year's work by several\ncombat inflation, in March reluctantly agreed to the tax cut\nsisted on a thorough examination of Secretary of State\n1972\n329\n532\n861\ncommittees. The bill was a composite of four Senate bills,\npackage drafted by the Democrats made retroactive to Jan.\nHenry A. Kissinger's request for authority to station\n1971\n320\n423\n743\nincluding modifications of the vetoed bills. This time there\n1. He had preferred a one-time, $16-billion tax rebate on\nAmerican civilians in the Sinai as part of the ad-\n1970\n266\n418\n684\nwas no attempt to add an energy tax. Instead, controls on\n1975 taxes as a short-term solution to halt the deepening\nministration's Middle East agreement between Israel and\n1969\n177\n245\n422\ndomestically produced oil were continued for at least three\nrecession. Instead, he got a bill totaling $22.8-billion in new\nEgypt. And it exacted a promise from Kissinger that there\n1968\n233\n291\n514\nyears, and the President was given new powers to control\ntax reductions as well as provisions ending the oil and gas\nwould be no secret commitments made with either nation.\n1967\n245\n315\n560\nthe flow of energy supplies and standby authority that he\ndepletion allowances for corporations and curbing mul-\nFord also was forced to modify a sale of missiles to Jor-\n1966\n193\n235\n428\ncould use during an energy shortage. The bill also created a\ntinational corporations' tax preferences.\ndan, delay construction of a proposed U.S. refueling facility\n1965\n201\n258\n459\nnational strategic oil reserve. Ford was opposed to many\nFord and his advisers insisted that it was just as im-\non the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia and proceed\nsections of the bill, particularly continuation of oil price\nportant to fight inflation as to reduce taxes. For this reason,\nslowly in negotiations for a new Panama Canal treaty. New\ncontrols, but signed it anyway after the session had ended.\nhe vetoed as too inflationary the Democrats' bill to create\nconcern over the amount of arms being sold or given to\nrestrictions to an appropriations bill aimed at avoiding\nNot so lucky was a comprehensive strip mining control\nmore than one million jobs; the veto was sustained by\nforeign countries by the United States delayed action on the\nmilitary involvement until after the war was over, the 1975\nbill that would have set minimum federal standards for\nCongress even though the national unemployment rate was\nannual foreign military aid authorization and sparked a\ndefense bill was the first legislative instrument to express\nsurface mining of coal and for reclamation of previously\nclimbing to its high of 9.2 per cent in May. Ford subsequent-\nreassessment of the military sales program.\ncongressional policy on Angola. In the 1960s, both the\nstripped and abandoned coal lands. The measure, almost\nly made an about-face and agreed to a compromise version\nCloser to home, the federal government's intelligence\nJohnson and Nixon administrations challenged Congress to\nidentical to one pocket-vetoed in 1974, was vetoed a second\nthat had a lower price tag but contained many of the same\nand security apparatus came under unprecedented con-\napprove language prohibiting use of military funds in the\ntime. The override attempt failed by three votes, one of four\njobs programs.\ngressional scrutiny. Although the violations of law by the\nVietnam conflict. Such action, they were fond of repeating,\noverride failures in May and June that shocked the\nThe division between Congress and White House was\nCIA, FBI and other government agencies uncovered by\nwas the only effective way to bring the war to a close.\nDemocrats and ended the euphoria that marked the\napparent again in late summer as Democrats pressed for a\nselect committees of the House and Senate went un-\nThe defense bill was a harbinger of other develop-\nsession's early months, when many House procedures were\none-year extension of the 1975 tax cut. Ford countered with\nchallenged, administration critics of the investigations\nments: the Ford administration's acquiescence in a\nstreamlined and the aging chairmen of three committees\na $28-billion tax cut package, coupled with an equivalent\nmaintained that in several instances, Congress was engag-\nlevel of defense spending-about $7-billion below the Pen-\nwere deposed.\nreduction in federal spending resulting in a $395-billion\ning in \"McCarthy-era\" tactics.\ntagon's original request-that was one of the irritations\nOn the administration side of the ledger, energy\nspending ceiling for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 1976,\nThis charge was directed, in particular, at two House\nbetween the White House and Defense Secretary James R.\nlegislation that Ford wanted but did not get before adjourn-\naccording to his budget projections. It was the ad-\ncommittees that voted to cite Kissinger and Commerce\nment included deregulation of new natural gas, federal\nministration's position that any further tax cut had to be\nSchlesinger that led to his replacement in the Nov. 2\nSecretary Rogers C.B. Morton for contempt of Congress for\nCabinet shakeup.\nI\nguidelines for oil and gas development on the outer con-\naccompanied by an equal cut in spending or a revenue in-\ntheir failure to comply with requests for certain classified\ncrease if inflation was to be checked. Democrats were dis-\n-By Michael D. Wormser\ntinental shelf and a delay in implementation of air pollution\ndocuments. Last-minute compromises averted floor votes\ncontrol deadlines mandated by the 1970 Clean Air Act.\nmayed, but went ahead and approved an extension without\non the citations. Never in the nation's history had a cabinet\nthe spending ceiling. The result was another veto. But the\nmember been cited for contempt by either house.\nSummary of Legislation\nEconomic Policy\nappealing election-year tax break was too tempting for both\nThe \"no\" on deeper U.S. involvement in Angola was\nsides, and the final day's accommodation was struck.\nDifferences with Ford were just as strong on what\ncast by the Senate on the last day of the session, and the\nFollowing, in alphabetical order, is a summary of ma-\nsteps to take to cure the twin economic ills of inflation and\nissue delayed a final vote in the House on the $90.5-billion\njor legislation enacted and legislation on which action was\nrecession. There was even a difference of opinion on which\nCompromises\ndefense appropriations bill until the second session con-\nnot completed during the first session (bills on which action\nproblem should be given priority attention. The Democrats\nWhile the President gave the impression of being very\nvened in 1976.\nwas completed but not containing public law numbers had\nwere calling for a massive tax cut, emergency jobs for the\ntough on federal spending, taxes and energy conservation,\nUnlike the congressional response to the Vietnam ex-\nnot been signed by the President as of Dec. 22 and were sub-\nunemployed, housing construction subsidies for an industry\nthe tax cut compromise as well as several others on housing\nperience, in which Congress delayed attaching meaningful\nject to being vetoed).\nPAGE 2840-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2841\nInside Congress 5\nInside Congress 4\nSeniority Changes. Earlier, junior senators succeeded\nafter-was the modification of the cloture rule (Rule 22) to\ndecided to give the speaker the power to nominate all\nAgriculture\npermit 60 senators to end a filibuster on a bill or amend-\nin winning Senate passage of legislation (S Res 60) that\nDemocratic members of the Rules Committee, subject to\nmade significant inroads in the Senate's seniority system\nment and bring the issue to a vote.\ncaucus approval.\nACTION COMPLETED\nUnder the rules change, a vote of three-fifths of the en-\nby permitting newer members to hire additional staff to\nThe caucus also:\nEmergency Farm Bill. The House May 13 failed to\ntire Senate membership (60 if there are no vacancies) is re-\nhelp them with their committee duties.\nPartially restored proxy voting in committees-a prac-\nBy voice vote, the Senate in June approved a com-\nquired to end a filibuster on any matter except a proposed\ntice Democrats had long used to control committee ac-\noverride President Ford's first veto of the 94th Congress.\nchange in the Standing Rules of the Senate.\npromise offered by Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.) to allow\ntivities by allowing a committee member to collect the prox-\nThe 245-182 vote was 40 votes short of the two-thirds ma-\nThe old Rule 22, in effect since 1917 with only minor\neach senator up to $101,925 to hire staff specifically to\nies of absent colleagues. Subsequently approved by the\njority needed to override Ford's veto of HR 4296, which\nassist them with committee assignments.\nHouse.\nwould have raised price supports for the 1975 crops of\nchange, required a two-thirds majority of senators present\nSenate Democrats in January had taken another action\nwheat, cotton, corn and other feed grains and provided for\nand voting to end debate.\nPartially backed away from a reform adopted in the\ndirected at the seniority system-the selection of com-\nAdvocates of changing Rule 22 to make it easier to end\nfall of 1974 that guaranteed increased staffing for minority\nquarterly adjustments in dairy price supports. The House\nmittee chairmen-when they voted in their caucus to select\nhad passed the bill March 20 and the Senate March 26.\nfilibusters began their 1975 drive soon after the 94th\nmembers of committees. Subsequently approved by the\nchairmen by secret ballot whenever one-fifth of the caucus\nHouse.\nSupporters of the bill claimed it was needed to avoid a\nCongress convened Jan. 14. The actual floor battle began in\nmembership requested it.\nFebruary and consumed three weeks of debate before the\nRecommended approval of an amendment to House\npotential cost-price squeeze caused by an expected record\nThe change was adopted by voice vote, and it went into\nRule 28 to require that all House-Senate conference\n1975 crop which would cause prices to fall while production\nchange was approved March 7.\neffect Jan. 20. But it did not affect the selection of com-\ncosts continued to rise. Ford said the bill would add $1.8-\nMuch of that time was spent in overcoming the delay-\nmeetings be open to the public. The proposal, subsequently\nmittee chairmen for the 94th Congress.\napproved by the House, required Senate approval before it\nbillion to the fiscal 1976 federal deficit and undermine ex-\ning tactics of opponents, led by Sen. James B. Allen (D\nThe rules change made it easier for senators to depose\nisting market-oriented farm policies. (Weekly Report p.\nAla.). Although he lost in the end, Allen led an able anti-\ncould go into effect.\na chairman without fear of retribution. Under the\nrules change campaign by skillful use of debate and\nAdopted a minority staffing compromise that allowed\n1045)\nprocedure, a list of the senators nominated by the\nTobacco Price Supports. Congress did not attempt to\nparliamentary tactics that often confounded senators\neach subcommittee chairman and ranking minority\nDemocratic Steering Committee to be committee chairmen\npushing the change.\nmember to hire one staff person to work on their subcom-\noverride Ford's Sept. 30 veto of HR 9497, which would have\nwould be distributed to all Democrats. Democrats then\nAs in most previous attempts to change Rule 22, the\nmittees. Subsequently approved by the House. (Weekly\nincreased tobacco price support levels. Supporters claimed\ncentral issue in 1975 was whether the Senate could change\ncould check the names of any nominee for chairman they\nReport p. 3247)\nthe bill was needed to keep pace with higher costs of tobacco\nits rules at the beginning of a new Congress by majority\nwished to subject to a secret ballot. If at least 20 per cent of\nApproved a change in the caucus rules to prevent the\nproduction and provide growers with greater security, but\nthe caucus members wanted a secret vote on a nominee it\nvote without debate on the change itself being subject to\ncalling of special caucuses on short notice. Under the\nFord said the bill would hamper tobacco exports and in-\nRule 22.\nwould be held automatically two days later. (Weekly Report\nchange, the caucus agenda had to be given to members five\ncrease federal spending. (Weekly Report p. 2147)\nAdvocates of the revision, led by Sen. Walter F. Mon-\np. 213)\ndays before a meeting; the same rule already applied to\nMilk Price Supports. In the last days of the session,\ndale (D Minn.) and Sen. James B. Pearson (R Kan.), said\nHouse Rules, Committee Changes. House Democrats\nregularly scheduled sessions. The aim was to prevent the\nCongress cleared S J Res 121, calling for quarterly ad-\nthis was possible under the Constitution, that the Senate\nconsummated a six-year drive to reform the operations and\ncalling of snap caucus meetings as happened March 12\njustments of the support price for milk until March 31,\ncould be organized anew after every election. Opponents\nstructure of the House at the party's caucuses held in\nwhen 50 freshmen forced a session on Indochina.\n1978, and an increase in the support price to a minimum of\nmaintained that the Senate was a continuing body because\nDecember 1974 and in January.\nAgreed to open its meetings to the public when\n85 per cent of parity. The House adopted the conference\nonly one-third of the membership is elected every two years\nThe caucus changes went to the heart of the House's\ndebating and voting on legislative policies, unless a caucus\nreport Dec. 17 and the Senate Dec. 18. President Ford\nand, therefore, the rules go on from one Congress to the\npower structure by transferring the task of making com-\nmajority voted on the record and in public to close the\nvetoed two previous congressional attempts to provide\nmittee assignments from the Democrats on the Ways and\nnext.\nsession. Sponsors' purpose in submitting the change was to\nquarterly milk price adjustments. (Weekly Report p. 2892)\nThis dispute gave rise to efforts by the Mondale-\nMeans Committee to the Steering and Policy Committee,\nslow down caucus activity in taking positions on legislative\nPearson forces to get a key ruling from the Senate's\na party unit controlled by the Democratic leadership.\nquestions.\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\npresiding officer-the Vice President-that the Senate\nThe caucus continued its efforts started in previous\nEnded a long-standing caucus rule providing that by a\ncould in effect ignore the filibuster rule at the beginning of\nyears to make the committee chairmen more accountable\ntwo-thirds vote it could bind its members on a floor vote on\na new Congress when it was changing its rules. Anti-\nby providing the Steering and Policy Committee with\nlegislation. That change did not affect the rule that allowed\nRice Production. After an unsuccessful attempt in\n1974, the House Dec. 16 passed a bill (HR 8529) suspending\nfilibuster proponents in the past had never succeeded in\nauthority to nominate the chairmen at the beginning of\nthe caucus to instruct Democratic committee members to\nthe marketing quota system for rice, establishing a target\ngetting and sustaining this key ruling. In 1975 they did and\neach session of Congress. And it decided to make all\nreport legislation. (Weekly Report p. 1956)\nthey did not. At first, they did get such a ruling from Vice\nnominees subject to automatic secret ballot election by the\nIn a related development, the caucus, and subsequently\nprice system and authorizing a rice research program.\nAlthough the Senate reported a similar bill (S 2260) Dec. 15,\nPresident Nelson A. Rockefeller, and it was sustained by\ncaucus. This paved the way for the defeat of three senior\nthe full House, in January voted to abolish the House Inter-\nthe full Senate. The ruling, however, provoked a bitter con-\nchairmen and the end of the absolute seniority system for\nnal Security Committee-until 1969 known as the House\nthere was no Senate vote on either bill by the end of the\nsession. (Weekly Report p. 2891)\nservative outcry against Rockefeller.\nselecting chairmen. The three deposed in 1975 were F.\nUn-American Activities Committee. In doing so, the House\nAs the debate wore on, conservatives managed, they\nEdward Hebert (La.) of the Armed Services Committee,\ntransferred its jurisdiction to the House Judiciary Com-\nthought, to get the ruling changed. Whether in fact they did\nWright Patman (Texas) of the Banking, Currency and\nmittee. (Weekly Report p. 117)\nBeef Promotion. The House Dec. 15 recommitted the\nprobably will depend on how future Senates look upon the\nHousing Committee and W. R. Poage (Texas) of the\nNew Hampshire Seat. The Senate disposed of a\nBeef Research and Promotion Act (HR 7656) to conference\nby a 263-112 vote. The bill, which would authorize cattle\nactions that were taken in 1975.\nAgriculture Committee.\nmajor 1974 election dispute, the Wyman-Durkin contest in\nproducers to tax themselves in order to promote beef con-\nThe change in Rule 22 (S Res 4) was obtained through\nVarious reasons were given for their defeat, but there\nNew Hampshire, by declaring the seat vacant effective\nwas little doubt that the three had been poorly received by\nAug. 8 after a filibuster thwarted efforts to determine a\nsumption through advertising, information programs and\ntwo successful cloture votes. The first, on March 5, ended\nresearch, was passed overwhelmingly by the House Oct. 2.\ndebate on the pending motion to bring S Res 4 before the\nthe 75 freshman Democrats. The freshmen had interviewed\nwinner. The Senate had been considering the issue since\nSenate, the second ended debate on the resolution itself.\nthe committee chairmen in order to decide whom they\nJanuary. Durkin won in a rerun of the election Sept. 16 and\nHowever, House members objected to a Senate\namendment, upheld in conference, which changed\nBoth succeeded by identical 73-21 votes. Then, S Res 4 was\nwould support. Each of the deposed chairmen was accused\ntook office two days later. The Senate voted Dec. 10 to\nadopted March 7 by a 56-27 vote. (Weekly Report p. 545)\nof autocratic actions that denied equal and fair treatment\naward Durkin and Wyman over $293,000 to cover personal\nprovisions for the referendum by which cattle producers\nOpen Committee Sessions. Almost three years after\nto other committee members. It was the first rejection of a\nexpenses and legal fees incurred by them during the Sen-\nwould vote on the program. House members claimed the\nnew voting formula was weighted too heavily in favor of\nthe House voted in March 1973 to open up its committee\ncommittee chairman since 1967 when Adam Clayton Powell\nate's inconclusive seven-month investigation. (Weekly Re-\nlarge cattle producers. (Weekly Report p. 2790)\nbill-drafting sessions to the public and the press, the Senate\n(D N.Y. 1945-71) was deposed. Before Powell, the last time\nport p. 1710)\nNov. 5 adopted similar rules (S Res 9). At the same time,\nthe House dumped a committee chairman was in 1925.\nPay Raises. Members of Congress, military personnel\nthe Senate voted to require open conference committee\nIn a related action, the caucus decided to require all the\nand top officials and white-collar employees of the federal\nCongress and Government\nsessions on bills unless a majority of conferees from either\nsubcommittee chairmen of the House Appropriations Com-\ngovernment received a 5 per cent pay raise Oct. 1 after\nthe House or the Senate voted to close them. The House had\nmittee to stand for election along with the other House com-\nCongress rejected attempts to replace it with a higher in-\nACTION COMPLETED\nvoted for the change in January. (Weekly Report p. 2413)\nmittee chairmen.\ncrease. The House cleared the way for President Ford's\nThe victory was the culmination of a \"Government in\nIn other actions, the caucus expanded the size of the\nproposed 5 per cent pay raise when it voted to reject a\nFilibuster Rule. An important change in Senate\nthe Sunshine\" battle led by Lawton Chiles (D Fla.) and\nWays and Means Committee from 25 to 37 members, which\nresolution (H Res 688) to disapprove Ford's salary proposal\nprocedures adopted in 1975-and the most sought\nWilliam V. Roth Jr. (R Del.).\nresulted in the addition of several liberals to the panel, and\nand replace it with an 8.66 per cent pay raise recommended\nPAGE 2842-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2843\nInside Congress 6\nInside Congress 7\nby the Advisory Committee on Federal Pay. The Senate\nCopyright Law Revision. Renewing a legislative ef-\nSept. 18 rejected S Res 239, a related resolution to dis-\nfort that had been waged unsuccessfully since 1961, the\nConsumer Product Safety. House and Senate con-\nCrime and Justice\napprove the President's pay plan. If either house had\nSenate Judiciary Committee Nov. 20 reported unanimously\nferees were appointed but had not met by year's end to\nadopted a disapproval resolution, the higher pay raise\na bill (S 22) to revise the U.S. copyright laws.\nresolve differences between two bills (S 644, HR 6844)\nACTION COMPLETED\nwould have taken effect. (Weekly Report p. 2126)\nThe bill for the first time would require royalty\nproviding the first fine tuning of the 1972 law that created\nCongress July 30 had cleared a bill (HR 2559-PL 94-\npayments by operators of cable television systems and\nthe Consumer Product Safety Commission and reauthoriz-\njukeboxes, who previously had been exempted from\ning funds for the agency. Both measures would prohibit the\nVoting Rights. Congress reaffirmed its guarantee of\n82) granting members and other top government officials\ncopyright liability. Other controversial provisions would\ncommission from regulating firearms, ammunition and\nthe right to vote for blacks and expanded that guarantee to\nan automatic cost-of-living pay increase every year similar\nto that already in use for Civil Service employees. It went\nlimit the copying of copyrighted works by schools and\ncigarettes. But the House voted for several amendments not\nSpanish-speaking Americans and certain other language\ninto effect Oct. 1, with a 5 per cent raise the first year.\nlibraries.\nin the Senate bill, including a provision that would allow\nminorities when it extended the Voting Rights Act of 1965\nCongress to review and veto every rule and regulation\nfor seven years (HR 6219-PL 94-73). Passage came after\nFinal action came only five days after the proposal first\nThe House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Civil\nsurfaced publicly, when the Senate Post Office and Civil\nproposed by the commission. (Weekly Report p. 2321)\nthe House turned back attempts to weaken the legislation\nLiberties and the Administration of Justice completed\nand the Senate overcame a filibuster attempt.\nService Committee attached it to a minor House-passed\nhearings on its own copyright bill (HR 2223) Dec. 4. (Weekly\nNo-Fault Auto Insurance. Supporters of national no-\nUnder the extension legislation, covered jurisdictions,\npostal service bill. The Senate passed the combined bill by a\nReport p. 2659)\nfault auto insurance legislation won an important victory in\nincluding all or parts of seven deep South states, must still\n58-29 vote July 29, and the House July 30 cleared the\nLobby Law Revision. The Senate Government\nOctober when a House subcommittee narrowly approved a\nsubmit any proposed changes in their election laws to the\nmeasure by a one-vote margin, 214-213. The bill had strong\nOperations Committee, the House Judiciary Subcommittee\nbill (HR 9650) and sent it to the full Interstate and Foreign\nattorney general who could veto those changes if he found\nWhite House backing.\non Administrative Law and Governmental Relations, and\nCommerce Committee. A similar measure (S 354) was\nthat they discriminated against blacks.\nThose affected by the legislation had not had a pay\nthe House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct all\napproved by the Senate Commerce Committee in July, but\nThe bill extended that same preclearance protection to\nraise since March 1969, and advocates of the bill maintained\nheld hearings on proposed changes in the federal lobbying\nSenate sponsors held off on bringing it to the floor until the\nsubstantial numbers of Spanish-speaking Americans,\nthat an adjustment in top-level salaries was long overdue.\nlaws during 1975.\nHouse moved and then decided the end-of-the year schedule\nAmerican Indians, Asian-Americans and Alaskan natives.\nOpponents, however, charged that the measure would allow\nThe most progress was made by the Senate panel,\nwas too crowded to bring the bill up.\nIn addition, for the first time it required bilingual elections\nmembers of Congress henceforth to receive regular pay\nwhich held hearings in May and November and planned to\nThe legislation, which is likely to reach the full House\nin areas with significant numbers of language minorities\nraises tied to the cost of living without having to vote on the\nbegin markup of legislation early in 1976. (Weekly Report p.\nand Senate in early 1976, would set up a nationwide in-\nwhose illiteracy rate was higher than the national average.\nraises. (Weekly Report p. 1683)\n2797)\nsurance system that would compensate auto accident vic-\n(Weekly Report p. 1666)\nCongressional Buildings. Congress in 1975 refused to\nHatch Act Revision. The House Oct. 21 passed a bill\ntims regardless of fault. It is supported by consumer, labor\nRules of Criminal Procedure. Barely meeting a self-\ngo ahead with construction of a fourth House office\n(HR 8617) that would give the nation's 2.8 million federal\nand some insurance groups and opposed most vigorously by\nimposed Aug. 1 deadline, Congress July 30 cleared HR 6799\nbuilding. Funds for acquisition of land and preliminary\ngovernment employees the right to participate in partisan\nthe Association of Trial Lawyers of America. The Senate\n(PL 94-64), revising the Federal Rules of Criminal\nplanning were denied during consideration of the fiscal 1976\nelection campaigns and to run for office. The bill to amend\npassed a no-fault bill in 1974 but it died in a House subcom-\nProcedure. The rules set standards in federal criminal cases\nlegislative branch appropriations bill (HR 6950-PL\nthe Hatch Act, which had prohibited political activities\nmittee. (Weekly Report p. 2403)\nfor pre-trial, trial and post-trial situations such as plea\nFor the first time in four year, there was no effort made by\nby federal employees since 1939, also was reported Dec. 5 by\nbargaining, summonses and arrest warrants.\nthe House to approve an extension of the west front of the\nthe Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee. Senate\nAntitrust Activities. The Senate in December\nThe Supreme Court had submitted proposed changes in\nCapitol. The House leadership, which had fought hard for\naction on the bill was expected early in 1976. The measure\napproved a bill (S 1136) to increase funding authorizations\nthe rules of procedure to Congress in April 1974. Those\nthe project in the past in the face of Senate opposition, did\nfaced an almost certain presidential veto. (Weekly Report p.\nfor federal antitrust activities and establish a three-year\nchanges would have become effective automatically unless\nnot reintroduce its proposal because work could not have\n2894)\ngrant program to help states improve their antitrust en-\nCongress revised them.\nbeen completed in time for the Bicentennial celebrations.\nforcement efforts. (Weekly Report p. 2880)\nThe House passed HR 6799 June 23, making 35 changes\n(Weekly Report p. 1625)\nConsumer Affairs\nA more comprehensive measure (S 1284) aimed at\nin the court's revisions including a major change in a new\nMetric Conversion. More than a century after it\nstrengthening the government's hand in prosecuting anti-\nrule regulating defense of alibis. The Senate version, passed\nlegalized use of metric measurements in the United States,\ntrust cases was still awaiting action by the Senate\nACTION COMPLETED\nJuly 17, retained many of the House modifications, in-\nCongress Dec. 11 gave final approval to legislation (HR\nJudiciary Committee at year's end. In July, the House\ncluding the chief ones. (Weekly Report p. 1667)\n8674-PL 94-168) establishing a national board to coordi-\nJudiciary Committee approved one title of that measure as\nnate voluntary conversion to the metric system. The final\nFair Trade. With almost no opposition, Congress\na separate bill (HR 8532) authorizing state attorneys\nbill was considerably weaker than earlier proposals that\napproved legislation (HR 6971-PL 94-145) repealing\ngeneral to bring antitrust suits to recover damages on\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\nwould have mandated national use of the metric system\nfederal exemptions that protected state \"fair trade\" laws\nbehalf of citizens. The House Rules Committee shelved the\nfrom challenge under the antitrust laws. The laws allowed\nbill in November after a flurry of business lobbying against\nCriminal Code Revision. The Senate continued its\nwithin 10 years. (Weekly Report p. 2759)\nmanufacturers to dictate minimum retail prices for their\nit, but sponsors said they would try again to bring the bill to\nfive-year effort to revise and reform the federal criminal\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\nproducts. President Ford and Congress agreed that this\nthe floor early in 1976. (Weekly Report p. 2542)\ncode as the Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and\npractice amounted to \"legalized price fixing\" that was\nProcedures reported S 1 to the full committee Oct. 21. This\nVoter Registration. Postcard voter registration\ncosting consumers about $2-billion a year. (Weekly Report\nFood Labeling and Inspection. Subcommittees of the\n750-page revised version of the bill was described by the\nlegislation failed to reach the House floor in 1975 but\np. 2642)\nSenate Commerce and Labor and Public Welfare Com-\nsubcommittee as a consolidation of two bills (S 1 and S\nappeared headed toward passage in 1976. The House Ad-\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\nmittees completed joint hearings in June on a comprehen-\n1400) that died at the end of the 93rd Congress. The draft\nsive food safety and labeling proposal (S 641) similar to a\nreceived major opposition from lawyers and civil liber-\nministration Committee Nov. 7 approved a bill (HR 1686) to\nConsumer Protection Agency. The Senate broke a\nbill passed by the Senate in 1974 and on a less stringent ver-\ntarians who claimed the bill would weaken individual\nestablish a nationwide postcard voter registration system\nfor federal elections. The action revived legislation that was\nfilibuster in May to pass the long-debated consumer protec-\nsion drafted by food industry groups (S 1168). No other ac-\nfreedoms. There was no House action on criminal code bills\nkilled in the House in 1974. (Weekly Report p. 2464)\ntion agency bill (S 200). The House passed a similar version\ntion was taken in the Senate or House. (Weekly Report p.\n(HR 333, HR 3907, HR 10850) pending before the Judiciary\n1181)\nSubcommittee on Criminal Justice. (Weekly Report p. 2385)\nGovernment in the Sunshine. Congress did not com-\n(HR 7575) in November by a slim nine-vote margin that\nGun Control. Despite two apparent attempts to\nplete action on legislation (S 5, HR 11007) to require that\nsurprised and disappointed supporters who were hoping for\nCredit Cards. The House passed a bill (HR 10561) in\nassassinate President Ford, the House Judiciary Subcom-\nmost meetings of independent federal agencies be open to\na margin sufficient to overcome an expected veto. Spon-\nNovember that would prohibit retailers from adding a sur-\nmittee on Crime Nov. 20 reported a relatively weak gun con-\nthe public. Under the bill, meetings could be closed for dis-\nsors in both chambers, hoping for a change in the political\ncharge to items purchased with credit cards. It was in-\ntrol bill (HR 11193) to the full committee calling for man-\ncussions of specified sensitive matters.\nwinds, decided not to convene a conference until 1976.\ntended to clear up confusion about the intent of the 1974\ndatory sentencing for persons using firearms to commit\nS 5, a companion bill to a Senate resolution dealing\nThey predicted a compromise bill would go to the White\nFair Credit Billing Act, but consumer advocates were\nfederal felonies and increased license fees for handgun\nwith open committee sessions, was passed by the Senate\nHouse in early spring.\ndivided on the question of whether such surcharges are any\nmanufacturers and dealers.\nNov. 6, but the House did not act on its version before ad-\nThe legislation would create an independent consumer\ndifferent from discounts for cash-paying customers-which\nThe House bill did not ban the cheap, easily concealable\njournment. The House Government Operations Subcom-\nadvocacy agency to represent consumer interests before\nthe law allowed for the first time. A bill to expressly\nhandguns known as \"Saturday Night Specials\" or require a\nmittee on Government Information and Individual Rights\nother federal agencies and the courts. President Ford said\nauthorize surcharges for credit card purchases was pending\nwaiting period for handgun sales. Those provisions were in-\nheld mark-up sessions on HR 11007 in December. It was ex-\nsuch a new agency would be unnecessary and inflationary.\nbefore a subcommittee of the Senate Banking, Housing and\ncluded in draft legislation reported to the full committee by\npected to be reported in January. (Weekly Report p. 2464)\n(Weekly Report p. 2451)\nUrban Affairs Committee. (Weekly Report p. 2542)\nthe Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Juvenile Delin-\nPAGE 2844-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2845\nInside Congress 8\nInside Congress 9\njudicial districts was reported by the Senate Judiciary Com-\npermanent exemption allowing small producers to keep\nmittee Sept. 24 but never reached the floor. Reportedly, the\ntaking the depletion allowance. (Weekly Report p. 631)\nMajor Nominations in 1975\nleadership did not call it up because several senators\nTax Cut Extension. After three months of maneuver-\nplanned to offer amendments to restrict the power of the\ning with President Ford over federal spending curbs,\ncourt in busing cases. (Weekly Report p. 2130)\nCongress Dec. 19 cleared a six-month tax cut extension (HR\nThe following major and controversial\nGeorge Bush, director, Central Intelligence Agen-\n9968-PL 94-164) that continued 1975 reductions at an $8.4-\nnominations were acted upon by the Senate during the\ncy; approved in committee by a 12-4 vote Dec. 18.\nsession. Of a total 3,439 civilian nominations submitted\n(Weekly Report p. 2816)\nEconomic Affairs\nbillion level through June 30, 1976.\nCongress completed action on the tax cuts, however,\nby President Ford, 234 were returned, six withdrawn\nJoseph Coors, member of the board, Corporation\nfor various reasons and 178 remain pending for con-\nACTION COMPLETED\nonly after House and Senate Democrats agreed to a closely\nfor Public Broadcasting; tabled in committee by an 11-6\nhedged commitment to cut fiscal 1977 outlays to offset\nsideration in the second session of the 94th Congress.\nvote Oct. 30. (Weekly Report p. 2342)\nfurther revenue losses if the tax reductions were continued\nNathanial Davis, ambassador to Switzerland; con-\nTax Cuts. Moving quickly to counter a deep economic\nbeyond the first half of 1976. Ford accepted that com-\nCABINET\nfirmed by voice vote Nov. 19.\nrecession, Congress March 26 cleared a $22.8-billion\npromise, although Congress had refused his demand for a\nRogers C. B. Morton, commerce secretary; con-\nJack M. Eckerd, administrator, General Services\nemergency tax cut to bolster consumer and business\nflat $395-billion ceiling. (Spending ceiling, p. 2848)\nfirmed by voice vote April 25. (Weekly Report p. 935)\nAdministration; confirmed by voice vote Nov. 14.\npurchasing power.\nThat commitment to restrain spending was accepted\nElliot L. Richardson, commerce secretary;\n(Weekly Report p. 2545)\nPresident Ford March 29 signed the measure (HR\nafter the House Dec. 18 by a 265-157 vote upheld Ford's veto\nconfirmed by voice vote Dec. (Weekly Report 2777)\nWilliam Kendrick, member, Equal Employment\n2166-PL 94-12) into law, nonetheless protesting con-\nof an earlier six-month tax cut extension (HR 5559) that\nDonald Rumsfeld, defense secretary; confirmed\nOpportunity Commission; returned to the President\ngressional actions that went far beyond his own $16-billion\nlacked any spending language.\n95-2, Nov. 18. (Weekly Report p. 2575)\nDec. 19.\ntax cut proposal in both size and scope.\nThe House Dec. 4 had passed a full-year, $15.5-billion\nF. David Mathews, health, education and welfare\nJames T. Lynn, director, Office of Management\nIn its final form, HR 2166 put a Democratic stamp on\ntax cut extension as part of comprehensive tax revision\nsecretary; confirmed by voice vote July 22. (Weekly\nand Budget; confirmed by voice vote Feb. 5. (Weekly\nthe tax reduction program that was the federal\nlegislation (HR 10612). Deferring action on the bill, the\nReport p. 1620)\nReport p. 309)\ngovernment's primary response to a severe economic\nSenate Finance Committee drew up an $8-billion, six-\nCarla A. Hills, housing and urban development\nDaniel P. Moynihan, ambassador to the United\ndecline. The measure accordingly shifted the tax cuts\nmonth extension, through the rest of fiscal 1976, and\nsecretary; confirmed 85-5 March 5. (Weekly Report p.\nNations; confirmed by voice vote June 9. (Weekly\ntoward lower income levels, repealed the percentage deple-\noffered that as a compromise with Ford.\n482)\nReport p. 1216)\ntion allowance for major oil companies and carried several\nThe Senate passed that version, written into a minor\nStanley K. Hathaway, interior secretary; con-\nBetty Southard Murphy, chairman, National\ncontroversial provisions written in by the Senate.\nHouse-passed bill (HR 5559), on Dec. 15. The House and\nfirmed 60-36, June 11; resigned July 25. (Weekly Report\nLabor Relations Board; confirmed by voice vote Feb. 6.\nAs Congress pushed to enact the bill before its Easter\nSenate Dec. 17 agreed to a conference report providing a\np. 1648)\nJames F. Hooper III, director, Tennessee Valley\nrecess, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Russell B.\nmodified six-month extension, but Ford promptly vetoed\nThomas S. Kleppe, interior secretary; confirmed\nAuthority; returned to the President Dec. 19. (Weekly\nLong (D La.) forced House conferees to accept scaled-down\nthe bill. The House sustained the veto the next day.\nby voice vote Oct. 9 (Weekly Report p. 2207)\nReport p. 2789)\nversions of several Senate amendments that had pushed the\nEdward H. Levi, Attorney General; confirmed by\nJohn E. Robson, chairman, Civil Aeronautics\nThe Finance Committee revived the compromise tax\nbill's potential cost above $30-billion.\ncuts, linked to the spending restraint language, as\nvoice vote Feb. 5. (Weekly Report p. 309)\nBoard; confirmed by voice vote April 18. (Weekly\nThe House Feb. 27 had passed a $19.9-billion version of\namendments to another minor House-passed bill (HR 9968).\nJohn T. Dunlop, labor secretary; confirmed by\nReport p. 980)\nHR 2166 that would have cut individual income taxes by\nThe Senate passed it by a 72-7 vote, and the House\nvoice vote March 6. (Weekly Report p. 505)\nLaurence Silberman, ambassador to Yugoslavia;\n$16.2-billion and business taxes another $3.6-billion. Ford\nfollowed suit by a 372-10 margin after rewriting the\nWilliam T. Coleman Jr., transportation secretary;\nconfirmed by voice vote May 7.\nhad proposed a one-shot $12-billion rebate of 1974 personal\nspending provision. The Senate then concurred in that\nconfirmed by voice vote March 3. (Weekly Report p.\nEarl J. Silbert, U.S. attorney for the District of\ntaxes, but the House accepted the Ways and Means Com-\nmodification, and cleared the bill. (Weekly Report p. 2763)\n482)\nColumbia; confirmed 84-12 Oct. 8. (Weekly Report p.\nmittee's proposal coupling $8.1-billion in 1974 tax refunds\nBudget Control. Congress completed the first use of\n2174)\nwith another $8.1-billion in reduced 1975 tax withholding.\nNeil O. Staebler, member, Federal Election Com-\nits new budget procedures by enacting a spending ceiling\nSUPREME COURT\nWhile accepting the committee's proposals for cutting\nand a tax floor for fiscal year 1976.\nmission; confirmed by voice vote April 10; motion to\nJohn Paul Stevens, associate justice; confirmed 98-\nbusiness taxes, the House overrode Chairman Al Ullman's\nrecommit nomination to committee for further con-\nThe second concurrent resolution on the budget (H Con\n0, Dec. 17. (Weekly Report p. 2698)\n(D Ore.) objections by tacking on a depletion repeal amend-\nsideration previously defeated 24-58. (Weekly Report p.\nRes 466) cleared Dec. 12, replaced targets set in May in the\nment offered by dissident Ways and Means members.\nfirst concurrent resolution (H Con Res 218) with a ceiling of\nEXECUTIVE BRANCH\n765)\nThe issue was forced by the House Democratic Caucus,\n$374.9-billion for outlays and a floor of $300.8-billion for\nMISCELLANEOUS\nwhich voted 153-98 to instruct the House Rules Committee\nrevenues, with a resulting $74.1-billion deficit.\nBen B. Blackburn, chairman, Federal Home Loan\nto allow a floor vote on amendments repealing the depletion\nBank Board; rejected in committee by a 5-8 vote Nov.\nThomas J. Meskill, judge for the Second Circuit\nThe second resolution locked Congress into the\nallowance, effective in 1975. In a long-sought victory for tax\nprescribed amounts of spending and revenue for the rest of\n12. (Weekly Report p. 2447)\nCourt of Appeals; confirmed 54-36 April 22. (Weekly\nrevision advocates, the full House accepted the amendment\nthe fiscal year. However, spending still could rise as a result\nIsabel A. Burgess, member, National Transporta-\nReport p. 893)\nby a 248-163 vote.\nof increases in \"uncontrollable\" items such as entitlement\ntion Safety Board (renomination); rejected in com-\nAlton D. Slay, promoted to Lieutenant General;\nIn the Senate, the Finance Committee restructured the\nconfirmed 49-42 Oct. 28. (Weekly Report p. 2332)\nprograms and possible revisions by Congress of the\nmittee by a 7-11 vote Nov. 13. (Weekly Report p. 2550)\nHouse bill's tax reductions and raised the total cut by $9.3-\nspending totals.\nbillion. Under Long's guidance, the panel dropped depletion\nCongress did not completely implement the new\nrepeal provisions but tacked on other controversial\nbudgetary procedures, mandated by the Congressional\nquency Dec. 1. The Senate bill also restricted multiple gun\nthe Justice Department and to set standards for parole\nmeasures, including a 5 per cent tax credit for buyers of un-\nBudget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (PL 93-344).\npurchases and provided for an additional penalty of five to\nprocedures aimed at more definitive and equitable treat-\nsold new homes.\nAs part of a \"trial run,\" it skipped setting binding spending\n15 years imprisonment for any person convicted of commis-\nment of prisoners bogged down in conference at the end of\nAfter complicated floor maneuvering, the Senate\nceilings on the 16 functional categories of the budget, such\nsion of a felony while armed with a firearm. The penalty\nthe session. The bill passed the House May 21 and the\npassed HR 2166 with several additional provisions, in-\nas defense and health. However, the House and Senate\nwould be mandatory for a second offense. (Weekly Report\nSenate Sept. 16. Despite holding what one House subcom-\ncluding $100 bonus payments to federal benefit recipients, a\nBudget Committees did propose targets for each of these\np. 1599)\nmittee aide described as \"marathon\" sessions, conferees\ncrackdown on foreign tax benefits for major oil companies\nareas.\nFBI Director's Tenure. For the second year in a row,\nremained in disagreement. Chief differences between the\nand depletion repeal with a permanent exemption for small\nPredictably, the new procedure had rough sledding at\nthe Senate passed legislation (S 1172) limiting the director\nHouse and Senate versions concerned whether to shift the\noil and gas producers.\nseveral points during the year. House Republicans opposed\nof the FBI to one 10-year term of office. The House again\nburden of proof for determining suitability for parole from\nAlthough the House-Senate conferees scaled the tax\nthe size of the deficit, while many liberals were unhappy\ntook no action. The bill was intended to avoid a repeat of a\nthe prisoner to the parole board and whether to give credit\ncuts back down to $22.8-billion, Long allied with liberal\nabout cuts in social programs. In the Senate,\nsituation such as former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's 48-\nfor time spent outside of prison if a prisoner violated parole\nSenate conferees to preserve most controversial Senate\nAppropriations Committee Chairman John L. McClellan (D\nyear tenure. (Weekly Report p. 627)\nand was re-incarcerated. (Weekly Report p. 2130)\nprovisions. In its final form, therefore, the bill included\nArk.) criticized the process as \"confusing.\"\nParole Reorganization. A bill (HR 5727) to establish a\nFederal District Judgeships. Legislation (S 287) to\nscaled-down versions of both the home-buying credit and\nCongress missed the deadline for adoption of the sec-\nU.S. Parole Commission as an independent agency within\ncreate 45 additional district court judgeships in 40 federal\nfederal bonus payments, as well as a more limited but still\nond resolution by three months. This raised questions as to\nPAGE 2846-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2847\nInside Congress 10\nInside Congress 11\nwhether work could be completed on schedule for the 1977\nfinancial institutions and upheld the SEC order that\na separate bill that carried its version of extended tax cuts\nJobless Benefits Revision. The House Ways and\nbudget, when the procedures would be fully implemented.\nabolished fixed commission rates on May 1, 1975.\nto the Senate floor. (Tax cut action, p. 2847)\nMeans Committee Dec. 16 reported a bill (HR 10210) to\n(Weekly Report p. 2795)\nThe measure was based on conclusions reached in 1972\nThe bill's most controversial tax revision components\nrevise the nation's unemployment compensation system,\nDebt Limit. Congress three times extended the tem-\nby separate studies of securities industry problems by the\nwould crack down on tax shelter investments, tighten the\nbut the House took no further action in the first session.\nporary federal debt ceiling, although the House twice\nHouse Interstate and Foreign Commerce Subcommittee on\nminimum tax on preference income and curb exporting tax\ndefeated an initial measure before accepting a more limited\nincentives.\nAs reported, the bill extended jobless benefits protec-\nCommerce and Finance and by the Senate Banking, Hous-\ntion to most farm workers, domestics and state and local\nextension.\ning and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities. (Week-\nOther provisions would revise capital tains taxes,\ngovernment employees. To place the heavily indebted\nOn those occasions, House members used the debt limit\nly Report p. 1126)\nes, end some foreign tax preferences, simplify various in-\nsystem on firmer financial footing, the measure raised the\nbill to cast token votes against federal deficits. In a more\nJobless Aid Extension. Congress June 26 cleared\ndividual tax deductions, restrict some business deductions\ntaxable wage base to $8,000, from $4,200, annually and\nserious debate, however, the House approved a final 1975\nemergency legislation (HR 6900-PL 94-45) extending the\nand make administrative and technical tax changes.\nraised the federal tax rate to 0.7 per cent as of Jan. 1, 1976.\nextension that Republicans were trying to use as a vehicle\nperiod in which most of the nation's jobless workers could\nTo assure committee approval of HR 10612, Ways and\nThe rate would fall back to 0.5 per cent in 1982 or sooner if\nfor the $395-billion fiscal 1977 spending ceiling demanded\ncollect up to a year and three months of unemployment\nMeans Committee Democrats agreed on floor procedures\nby President Ford. (Spending limit, see below)\nbenefits. The bill also increased the number of homes that\nallowing their liberal members to offer floor amendments\nloans from the general Treasury were repaid before then.\nThe bill also established a national commission to make an\nIn February, Congress enacted a $531-billion debt limit\ncould qualify for a special federal tax credit.\nto tighten some provisions as written by the full panel. The\nthrough June 30 (HR 2634-PL after the House aban-\nHouse accepted three proposals, which further tightened\nin-depth study and report on the unemployment compensa-\nPL 94-45 continued through the end of 1975 a tem-\ntion system.\ndoned its tentative plan to use the measure as a vehicle for\nporary program that gave jobless workers covered under\nthe minimum tax provisions, deleted repeal of\na\nwithholding tax on foreigners' portfolio investments and\nNot included was a provision, sought by labor and op-\nblocking President Ford's $1 oil import fee. (Energy action,\nthe regular federal-state compensation system up to 65\nposed by business, that would set minimum jobless benefit\np. 2850)\nweeks of unemployment benefits. After Jan. 1, 1976, the\nremoved a controversial provision allowing capital loss\npayments. The administration had also endorsed a\nThe House Ways and Means Committee had linked\nduration of a jobless worker's benefits would depend on the\ncarrybacks worth $167-million to wealthy investors, in-\nminimum benefit. Without that controversial provision, it\nprovisions suspending the President's import fee powers to\nseverity of unemployment in his state.\ncluding industrialist H. Ross Perot. (Weekly Report p. 2626)\nseemed sure that the bill would be approved when it came\nthe debt limit increase in hopes of avoiding a presidential\nThe bill extended through the end of 1976 a second tem-\nveto. That strategy followed the Senate's long-standing tac-\nporary compensation program which paid benefits to\nFinancial Institutions. The Senate took a first step\nto the floor.\ntic of adding controversial measures to debt limit bills that\nworkers not normally covered by the regular federal-state\ntoward revamping the U.S. financial system by passing\nThe bill would have made emergency fiscal 1975\nwide-ranging legislation (S 1267) to make banks and thrift\nprogram-mainly farm workers, domestics and state and\nappropriations of $5.3-billion. Of that amount, $2.3-billion\nmust be enacted to allow the Treasury to keep funding\ninstitutions more competitive.\ngovernment operations.\nlocal government employees. Such jobless workers would be\nwas designated for direct job creation, including 180,000 ad-\nAs passed by the Senate Dec. 11, S 1267 would broaden\nHouse leaders had second thoughts about that tactic,\neligible for 39 weeks of benefits. (Weekly Report p. 1425)\nditional public service jobs and 840,000 summer jobs for\nthe powers of commercial banks, savings and loans\nyouths.\nhowever, and the Rules Committee split the initial measure\nJobs Funds. The House June 4 sustained President\n(HR 1767) into two. Both the House and Senate then passed\nFord's veto of a Democratic-sponsored appropriations bill\nassociations and other financial institutions, allowing them\nThe remaining funds were earmarked for various\nthe debt limit bill without amendments.\nto offer more diversified services and broaden their lending\npublic works programs and other federal construction\n(HR 4481) aimed at creating more than one million jobs in\nactivities. Its basic purpose was to assure a steadier flow of\nIn June, the House rejected by a 175-225 vote the Ways\nboth the public and private sectors. Consideration of the bill\nprograms which were expected to generate additional jobs\nand Means Committee proposals (HR 7545) for a $616.1-\ncame as the national unemployment level was climbing to\nprivate savings into financial institutions, and through\nin the private sector.\nbillion temporary debt limit through fiscal 1976. The com-\nits May 1975 high of 9.2 per cent.\nthem to housing and other credit-needing purposes.\nFord said the bill came too late to aid the economy's\nmittee came back with a $577-billion limit through Nov. 15\nKey provisions extended federal interest rate ceilings,\nrecovery and would only contribute to inflation.\nauthorized interest on checking accounts and nationwide\n(HR 8030-PL 94-47), which was accepted by a 223-196 vote\nThe House sustained his veto on a 277-145 vote, five\nuse of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts and\nin the House and a 72-21 vote in the Senate.\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\nvotes short of the two-thirds necessary to override. Twenty-\nAs that Nov. 15 expiration date neared, the House\nallowed thrift institutions to hold checking accounts.\ntwo Democrats voted to sustain. (Weekly Report p. 1159)\nagain balked at extension, this time defeating by a 178-217\nSpending Ceiling. Congress refused President Ford's\nRelated provisions to be taken up as separate legislation\nCongress subsequently enacted appropriations for\nvote the committee's proposal for a $597-billion ceiling\ndemand for a $395-billion ceiling on fiscal 1977 spending as\nwould end tax preferences for savings and loan associations\npublic service and summer youth jobs. (Weekly Report p.\nthrough March 31, 1976 (HR 10049). That set the stage for\na condition for extending 1975 tax reductions into 1976.\nand introduce a tax credit for mortgage lending by financial\n1390, 1234)\ninstitutions.\nRepublican efforts to trade their support for a follow-up\nAfter the House Dec. 18 sustained Ford's veto of a com-\nThe House deferred action on most of the bill's\nCommon-Site Picketing. Fulfilling a long-sought\n$595-billion ceiling through March 15, 1976, for a House\npromise six-month tax cut extension, Congress agreed to\nprovisions until 1976, pending completion of a massive\nlegislative goal of organized labor, Congress Dec. 15 cleared\nfloor vote on a spending ceiling.\ncompromise language making a conditional commitment to\nThe House blocked that maneuver, voting by a 221-185\nhold down outlays if the tax reductions were extended\nfinancial institutions study by its Banking, Currency and\na bill (HR 5900) that would allow a local union with a\ngrievance against one contractor to picket all of the other\nmargin against permitting the Republicans to offer a\nagain. Coupled with a substitute six-month extension, that\nHousing Committee. (Weekly Report p. 2870)\ncontractors or subcontractors at the same construction site.\nspending limit amendment to the debt ceiling bill. With\nmeasure was cleared Dec. 19. (Tax bill, p. 2847)\nPublic Works. The House delayed until 1976 final ac-\nThe legislation would overturn a 1951 Supreme Court deci-\nHouse leaders mustering Democratic votes, the House then\nThat closely hedged promise to curb spending fell far\ntion on a controversial bill (HR 5247) that would authorize\npassed the $595-billion debt ceiling by a 213-198 vote. The\n$6.1-billion for job-creating public works projects and anti-\nsion which ruled such picketing an illegal secondary\nshort of Ford's initial proposal for a $395-billion spending\nboycott.\nSenate quickly cleared the bill (HR 10585-PL 94-132) by\nlimit linked to a $28-billion tax cut proposal. It also skirted\nrecession aid to cities.\nBut the bill was adamantly opposed by contractors and\nvoice vote. (Weekly Report p. 2435, 1408, 354)\na firm commitment to cut spending a dollar for every dollar\nAlthough the Senate had adopted the conference report\nother businessmen, and as the first session closed, it was\nSecurities Overhaul. Congress May 22 completed a\nin tax cuts.\non the bill in the final days of the session, House supporters\nunclear whether President Ford would sign it into law.\nfour-year review of the nation's securities industry by\nThe final version carefully reserved the right of\ndecided to hold off action because some controversial parts\nCongress to adjust total spending, moreover, after deter-\nof the bill might need special clearance from the Rules Com-\nEarlier in the year, Ford had publicly and privately\nclearing legislation 249-PL to encourage develop-\nment of a national system for buying and selling stocks.\nmining through its newly created budget procedures that\nmittee.\nagreed to sign the bill if certain conditions, including the es-\ntablishment of a construction industry collective bargain-\nThrough far-reaching changes in federal securities\neconomic conditions or changed circumstances required\nIn addition, President Ford was expected to veto the\ning committee to hold down negotiation strife, were met.\nregulatory laws, the measure was expected to clear the way\nhigher or lower outlays. (Weekly Report p. 2763)\nbill and the House wanted an opportunity to attempt to\nfor integration of existing securities markets into a more\nTax Revision. The Senate Finance Committee put off\noverride.\nCongress agreed with those conditions, but growing opposi-\ntion to the bill prompted a filibuster in the Senate.\nopen and competitive system. Without spelling out the ex-\naction on a massive tax revision measure (HR 10612) that\nThe final version of the bill authorized $2.5-billion to\nact form of that system, the legislation removed federal\nthe House passed Dec. 4.\nfully federally fund a variety of public works projects. It\nOpponents, including many Republican politicians,\nhoped to convince Ford to veto the bill by suggesting that he\nregulations and industry practices that restricted investors'\nThe product of several years' study by the House Ways\nauthorized $1.5-billion in anti-recession aid to help finan-\naccess to the nation's 13 stock exchanges and the over-the-\nand Means Committee, the 674-page omnibus bill included a\ncially pressed cities sustain vital services and prevent\ncould lose valuable political support and campaign con-\ntributions to Republican presidential contender Ronald\ncounter market in corporate stocks.\nbroad range of tax law changes, some simplifying existing\nlayoffs. Another $1.4-billion was authorized for wastewater\nReagan if he signed the bill.\nThe measure strengthened the Securities and Ex-\nprovisions but others cracking down on abuses.\ntreatment grants while $500-million was authorized to con-\nchange Commission's (SEC) oversight powers and man-\nTo bolster House floor support for those measures, the\ntinue the Job Opportunities Program for an additional nine\nSupporters of the bill, including Labor Secretary John\nT. Dunlop, dismissed opponents' arguments that the\ndated significant changes in the way stock exchanges\ncommittee in reporting HR 10612 linked them to politically\nmonths. Finally, the bill set aside $100-million for grants to\nlegislation would lead to more strikes. In fact, Dunlop said,\noperate. Controversial provisions prohibited exchange\npopular extension of 1975 tax reductions. While technically\nurban areas to assist with job-creating redevelopment.\nconstruction industry negotiations in 1976 would be \"un-\nmembers from buying and selling stocks for affiliated\nnever acting on HR 10612, the Finance Committee reported\nplans. (Weekly Report p. 2792)\nmitigated hell\" without the legislation.\nPAGE 2848-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibit whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2849\nInside Congress 12\nInside Congress 13\nEnergy and Environment\nwhich was expected to hear arguments in the case early in\nautomobiles, an excise tax on business use of oil and natural\nderegulation of new natural gas (S 2310). The deregulation\n1976. (Weekly Report p. 517)\ngas, an energy trust fund and various tax incentives for\nlanguage was added to the measure on the floor, over the\nACTION COMPLETED\nPesticide Regulation. After months of delay and con-\nhome and business energy conservation.\nobjections of the leadership. S 2310 as introduced provided\ntroversy, Congress cleared legislation (HR 8841-PL 94-\nThe committee reported that package by a narrow 19-\nonly emergency relief to curtailed pipelines during the ex-\n140) in late November extending the Environmental Protec-\n16 margin, with all 12 Republicans opposing the measure\npected shortages of the winter of 1975-76. The emergency\nEnergy Policy. Congress Dec. 17 sent President Ford\ntion Agency's (EPA) pesticide regulation program through\nbecause it ignored Ford's demand for a windfall profits tax\nprovisions, retained in the bill passed by the Senate, tem-\nan omnibus energy policy bill, the product of a year's work\nMarch 1977.\nkeyed to oil price decontrol.\nporarily exempted such pipelines from federal price con-\nby a variety of congressional committees to reconcile the\nSeveral interim extensions for the Federal Insecticide,\nIn sending HR 6860 to the floor, the panel un-\ntrols, allowing them to buy fuel in the unregulated in-\nregional, jurisdictional, philosophical and political interests\nFungicide and Rodenticide Act were passed during the year\nderestimated congressional resistence to raising gasoline\ntrastate market where federal price ceilings do not apply.\nwhich clashed on the energy issue.\nwhile Congress wrestled with the complaints of farm and\ntaxes, especially among new House members who cam-\nThe House did not debate a natural gas bill before the\nA composite of four Senate bills approved in April and\nchemical industry groups that the agency had been\npaigned against such taxes in 1974. The House dismantled\nrecess. The Commerce Committee, refusing to consider the\nJuly (S 622, S 1883, S 349, S 677) and an omnibus House\noverzealous in protecting the environment and insensitive\nthe package on the floor, stripping out the 20 cents standby\nlong-range issue in tandem with emergency-relief\nmeasure approved after marathon consideration in\nto their needs. The final compromise, which satisfied\ntax by a stunning 345-72 vote. After taking out a companion\nmeasures, Dec. 15 reported out an emergency bill (HR\nSeptember (HR 7014), the final bill (S 622) set out a con-\nneither environmentalists nor EPA critics, set up a formal\n3 cents gasoline tax to finance the trust fund and then sub-\n9464). A rule was granted for consideration of HR 9464,\ngressional energy program to move the nation toward\nprocedure for Agriculture Department comment on EPA\nstituting mandatory efficiency standards for the\nmaking in order a substitute combining both issues, but the\nenergy independence.\npesticide actions and stretched out the timetable for the\nautomobile taxes, the House passed the remaining\nHouse did not take up the bill before the end of the session.\nAmong its major provisions were those granting the\nagency's new program of registration and classification of\nprovisions by a 291-130 vote. (Weekly Report p. 1638)\nIn reporting the bill, the committee conceded that the\nPresident new powers to control the flow of energy supplies\npesticides. (Weekly Report p. 2551)\nLand Use. Congress did not act on land use planning in\npredicted shortfall of natural gas supplies was less severe\nand materials; providing standby authorities to exercise in\nNuclear Insurance. Congress Dec. 17 cleared for the\n1975. Consideration was blocked when the House Interior\nthan expected, reducing the impetus for congressional ac-\nan energy emergency; creating a national strategic reserve\nWhite House a 10-year extension of the federal program of\nCommittee refused to report such legislation to the full\ntion. (Weekly Report p. 2768)\nof oil for insulation against a future oil embargo; setting\ninsurance for the nuclear power industry in the event of a\nHouse. After an intense lobbying campaign and a month of\nNaval Petroleum Reserves. Congress recessed its\nmandatory fuel efficiency standards for automobiles; con-\nnuclear power accident. The bill (HR 8631-PL 94-000),\nwork drafting such a bill (HR 3510), the committee refused,\n1975 session without completing action on the question of\ntinuing federal controls on the price of domestic oil for at\napproved by the House Dec. 8 and the Senate Dec. 16, ex-\nin mid-July, to order the bill reported. The motion to report\nwhether or not oil and gas from reserves set aside decades\nleast three years; and authorizing government audits to\ntended coverage of the combined federal/private insurance\nthe bill failed by a four-vote margin. HR 3510 would have\nearlier for the exclusive use of the military should now be\nverify information submitted to federal agencies by energy\nprogram to all plants licensed before Aug. 1, 1987. The law\nprovided federal aid to states which were willing to set up\nproduced and used for more general purposes. The effort of\nproducers and distributors.\nwould otherwise have expired Aug. 1, 1977.\nsystematic procedures for classifying land according to in-\nconferees to resolve the differences between House and\nThe oil industry, unhappy with the oil pricing sections\nThe major controversy during consideration of the bill\ndustrial, agricultural, environmental or other uses. Par-\nSenate versions of a bill (HR 49) authorizing some produc-\nof the bill, mounted an intensive lobbying campaign to per-\nfocused on the industry liability limit contained in the law.\nticipation by states would have been voluntary, but op-\ntion from these reserves was complicated by controversy\nsuade the President to veto the measure. But on Dec. 22\nUnder the limit, the industry could not be liable for more\nponents of the bill criticized it as the first step toward\nover whether the Department of Defense or the Depart-\nFord ended weeks of suspense and announced that he would\nthan $560-million in damages, no matter how extensive the\nfederal zoning of private property. (Weekly Report p. 1520)\nment of Interior should oversee such development.\nsign it. (Weekly Report p. 2766)\ninjuries caused by a nuclear accident. Efforts to eliminate\nEnergy Corporation. President Ford sent Congress in\nThe House in July approved HR 49, which transferred\nStrip Mining. For the second consecutive year, a\nthis limit from the law were defeated in both chambers.\nOctober his proposal (S 2532, HR 10267) for a $100-billion\nthis authority to the Interior Department and authorized\npresidential veto halted enactment of a bill providing for\n(Weekly Report p. 2773)\ngovernment corporation to stimulate commercial develop-\nexploration and production from three of the four reserves,\nment of new energy sources such as solar energy and syn-\nexcluding the largest, the Alaskan reserve. Later in the\nfederal regulation of surface mining for coal and for\nthetic fuels. The plan, which was developed by the staff of\nmonth the Senate approved an amended bill which retained\nreclamation of previously stripped and abandoned coal\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\nVice President Nelson A. Rockefeller, was received coolly\nPentagon control of such production and allowed more\nlands. In 1974, President Ford pocket-vetoed such a bill (S\nEnergy Taxes. The Senate Finance Committee\nby members of both parties and was expected to die in com-\nlimited production from the three reserves. Conferees met\n425). In May 1975, Congress cleared a similar bill (HR 25)\nsidetracked a stripped-down energy tax measure (HR 6860)\nmittee. (Weekly Report p. 2237)\nseveral times in December, but failed to reach agreement\nfor the White House, and President Ford vetoed it May 20,\nthat the House had passed June 19.\nClean Air. The Senate Public Works Committee and\nbefore the end of the session. (Weekly Report p. 1658)\nsaying that it would cost too much in lost jobs and lost coal\nAs House Ways and Means Committee members\nHouse Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee were\nContinental Shelf Development. Congress in 1975 did\nproduction. The House June 10 failed by three votes to\nacknowledged, the bill at best was only a start toward a\nstill wrestling at year's end with complex and controversial\nnot complete action on several measures intended to set\noverride the veto, 278-143.\nnational energy policy, especially after the House turned\nlegislation amending the 1970 Clean Air Act. The bills,\nguidelines for the development of oil and gas resources\nThe Senate in July added provisions similar to those of\ndown the gasoline tax increase that was its toughest conser-\nreported in draft form from subcommittees of the two pan-\nlocated on the Outer Continental Shelf and to provide some\nHR 25, but affecting only public lands, to its bill (S 391)\nvation incentive.\nels, would stretch out timetables for compliance with pollu-\nform of aid to coastal states affected by this development.\nrevising federal coal leasing policies. The House Interior\nThe Finance Committee rewrote some provisions\ntion limits on cars and industrial plants-but not to the ex-\nThe Senate in July approved two bills designed to\nCommittee in November refused to add similar language,\nbefore Congress recessed in August, but Chairman Russell\ntent requested by the Ford administration and many of the\nachieve these purposes (S 521, S 586), one in the form of\naffecting public and private lands, to its version of the coal\nB. Long (D La.) let the matter lie thereafter as Congress\naffected industries. (Weekly Report p. 2449)\namendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of\nleasing bill (HR 6721), but in December did put the strip\ndebated oil price decontrol and other energy issues.\nToxic Substances. Legislation to set up a comprehen-\n1953, the other as amendments to the Coastal Zone Manage-\nmining measure back on its agenda for consideration early\nWhen the Ways and Means panel started debating\nsive regulatory scheme for screening and controlling toxic\nment Act of 1972. The House, earlier in the year, had set up\nin 1976. (Weekly Report p. 1255, 964)\nenergy tax measures in March, their recommendations\nchemicals entering the environment, first proposed in 1971\na new Ad Hoc Select Committee on the Outer Continental\nOil Import Fee Suspension. Congress did not attempt\nwere expected to form the basic congressional alternative to\nand passed in differing versions by the House and Senate in\nShelf, to consider another similar measure (HR 6218). The\nto override President Ford's veto of a bill (HR 1767)\nPresident Ford's plan for promoting U.S. energy in-\nthe two previous Congresses, began to move again in 1975.\nselect committee held hearings but did not report that\nsuspending for 90 days his authority to impose increased\ndependence by raising the price to consumers.\nThe House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Subcom-\nmeasure before the end of the session. (Weekly Report p.\nimport fees on foreign oil. Ford imposed the first of three\nWorking from draft proposals drawn up by its\nmittee on Consumer Protection and Finance approved a bill\n1765)\nplanned $1-per-barrel increases in this import fee Feb. 1.\nDemocratic majority, the panel opted for a phased-in\n(HR 10318) in December but the full committee did not have\nSynthetic Fuel Loan Guarantees. Congress in 1975\nCongress sent the suspension bill to the White House Feb.\napproach to protect the nation's sinking economy from the\ntime to act. The Senate Commerce Committee began work\nrefused to approve an administration-backed program of\n19. Ford vetoed the bill March 4, but congressional leaders\njolt that rising energy prices might deliver. Searching for\non its version (S 776) in July and then put off further action\nfederal loan guarantees to encourage the commercialization\npostponed a vote to override the veto in exchange for Ford's\nan energy-saving strategy, moreover, they settled on gas-\non the controversial bill until 1976, when it is expected to be\nof synthetic fuels synthesized from wood, coal, oil shale and\nextension of his deadline for Congress to come up with a\noline tax increases to discourage use of gasoline by private\na priority item.\nother natural resources. The Senate in July included a $6-\ncomprehensive energy bill.\nautomobiles.\nEnvironmentalists and labor groups support a strong\nbillion loan guarantee program in the bill (HR 3474)\nFord added a second $1 increase June 1, but never im-\nAfter weeks of strenuous bargaining, the panel agreed\nbill, while the chemical industry favors less stringent\nauthorizing funds for energy research and development\nposed the third. Congress never voted on overriding the veto\nto an omnibus measure built around a standby 20 cents per\nregulation.\nprograms in fiscal 1976. But the House in December\nof HR 1767, but a federal court in August ruled that Ford\ngallon gasoline tax that would be automatically triggered as\nNatural Gas. Congress in 1975 addressed the issue of\nadopted a motion striking out the loan guarantee program\nhad overstepped the authority delegated to him by\ngasoline consumption rose. The bill also established oil im-\nnatural gas deregulation for the first time in years, but\nfrom the conference version of HR 3474, and sending the\nCongress in imposing the import fees in the first place. The\nport quotas and duties intended to replace President Ford's\nrecessed without resolving the long-running controversy. In\nbill back to the Senate without this provision. In order to\nadministration appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court,\ntwo $1 oil import fees, lenient taxes on inefficient\nOctober, the Senate passed a bill providing for eventual\nclear the authorization bill before the end of the session, the\nPAGE 2850-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2851\nInside Congress 14\nInside Congress 15\nSenate accepted the House action, killing the synthetic\nCongress to lift it. Twice the Senate had passed\nBesides authorizing spending for economic development\nReacting to news stories that the CIA had violated its\nfuels loan guarantee program for 1975. (Weekly Report p.\nlegislation-both times by one-vote margins-to ease the\nprograms abroad, the bill provided for disaster assistance,\ncharter by spying on U.S. citizens during the Vietnam war\n2770)\nembargo, but the House had remained adamant in its op-\nvoluntary contributions to U.N. organizations and aid to\nperiod, the Senate Jan. 27 established an 11-member select\nposition to any softening of the prohibition.\nCyprus and the former Portuguese colonies in Africa. A\ncommittee to determine whether the CIA, FBI and other\nAs sent to the President, 2230 represented only a par-\nceiling on fiscal 1976 economic aid to Chile was imposed.\nlaw enforcement and intelligence agencies had engaged in\nForeign Policy/National Security\ntial lifting of the aid embargo. It permitted 1) the delivery\nHR 9005 also barred development aid to countries that\n\"illegal, improper or unethical activities.\" (Weekly Report,\nof about $185-million worth of equipment contracted for by\ndiscriminated against U.S. employees and officers and es-\np. 240)\nACTION COMPLETED\nthe Turks before the embargo took effect; 2) commercial\ntablished a procedure for cutting off aid to countries that\nCreation of the select committee marked the first time\ncash sales; and 3) U.S. government sales, guarantees and\nviolated their citizens' basic human rights. The bill made\nCongress had approved a thorough probe of the activities\nIndochina Aid. The last chapter of U.S. involvement in\ncredits for equipment considered necessary for Turkey's\npolicy changes in the PL 480 (Food for Peace) program and\nof the intelligence community. Although the CIA was es-\nSoutheast Asia ended May 21 when Congress cleared for the\nresponsibilities to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization\nestablished a ratio between so-called \"political\" and\ntablished by the National Security Act of 1947, Congress\nPresident a bill (HR 6755-PL 94-23) authorizing $455-\n(NATO). The latter would be permitted only after enact-\n\"humanitarian\" food sales abroad. (Weekly Report p. 2705)\nhad either rejected or ignored over the years nearly 200\nmillion for assistance programs for Vietnamese and Cam-\nment of the fiscal 1976 foreign military sales act authoriza-\nlegislative proposals to strengthen its oversight of the\nbodian refugees who fled their countries before the Com-\ntion bill. A number of conditions were attached to the\nPanama Canal. Congress used the fiscal 1976\nagency.\nmunist victories and resettled in the United States.\ndeliveries and future sales, and the President was directed\nappropriations bill for the State, Justice and Commerce\nOn the Senate side, the select committee headed by\nIn an unusual procedure, Congress had cleared the\nto consider the military and economic aid needs of Greece.\nDepartments (HR 8121-PL 94-121) as a legislative vehicle\nFrank Church (D Idaho) investigated and held public\nappropriations bill (HR 6894-PL 94-24), providing $405-\nThe bill also authorized $65,640,000 for fiscal 1976 for the\nfor expressing its concern over the direction of State\nhearings on a long list of intelligence abuses: illegal sur-\nmillion for the resettlement effort, in advance of the\nBoard for International Broadcasting, which oversees the\nDepartment talks with Panama on a new treaty covering\nveillance of U.S. citizens, drug experimentation on in-\nauthorization. The bill paid for the transportation of the\noperations of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. (Status\ncanal ownership and operations.\ndividuals, political spying, opening of the U.S. mails,\nrefugees from their home countries, their initial care and\nof foreign military sales bill, see p. 2854)\nIt gave final approval to the bill Oct. 8 after resolving a\nassassination plots, covert attempts to topple foreign\nlodging in this country, and social services, medical care\nThe House passed the bill Oct. 2 by a vote of 237-176.\nHouse-Senate disagreement over the use of State Depart-\ngovernments and attempts to cover up many of these ac-\nDuring floor debate, members explained they were\nment funds in the continuing negotiations over a treaty.\nand welfare they might need later. (Weekly Report p. 1075)\ntivities.\nCongress took up the refugee aid bill after the House\nswitching from their earlier support for the total embargo\nAs cleared, the bill stated the sense of Congress that\nThe committee completed four months of public\nMay 1 rejected 162-246 the conference report on another bill\nbecause of Turkey's takeover of U.S. and NATO bases in\n\"any new Panama Canal treaty or agreement must protect\nhearings in December after issuing a series of preliminary\n(HR 6096) that would have given belated congressional\nAugust, the resulting chill in Washington-Ankara relations\nthe vital interests of the United States in the Canal Zone\nreports on CIA covert activities in Chile, U.S. assassination\napproval to President Ford's use of U.S. troops in the final\nand the threat of permanent damage to the NATO alliance.\nand in the operation, maintenance, property and defense of\nplots against foreign leaders and FBI attempts to disrupt\nthe Panama Canal.\"\nwithdrawal of Americans and Vietnamese from Saigon\nThe Senate passed the House version the following day,\nAmerican protest groups and movements, in particular\nbefore the Communist victory April 30. The bill also would\ncompleting action.\nThe House had originally approved much stronger\ncivilian and veteran groups protesting the Vietnam war in\nhave authorized $327-million for the evacuation costs and\nBefore the October votes, the House and Senate had\nlanguage barring the use of funds for any negotiations that\nthe 1960s.\nfor humanitarian assistance for the thousands of refugees.\ntaken these actions in 1975: 1) The Senate May 19 passed 41-\nwould lead to the \"relinquishment\" of any U.S. rights in the\nWith a final report required after the committee's\n40 a bill (S 846) to lift the embargo under certain conditions;\nCanal Zone. (Weekly Report p. 2185)\nHouse members objected that the provisions relating\nauthorization expires Feb. 29, 1976, the panel in mid-\nto the use of troops were moot after the Communist victory\n2) the House July 24 rejected 206-223 a revised version of S\nMilitary Construction-Diego Garcia. A $3,585,014,-\nDecember began considering the recommendations for\nand might set a bad precedent for future troop com-\n846; 3) the Senate July 31 passed 47-46 the bill (S 2230) con-\n000 military construction bill (HR 10029-PL 94-138)\nlegislation it would present to the Senate to prevent future\nmitments. They also complained that the refugee assistance\ntaining the partial lifting of the embargo and the broad-\ncleared by Congress Nov. 19 included $13.8-million for con-\nabuses by federal intelligence and law enforcement agen-\nprogram was too vague and undefined, and that to\ncasting board's authorization; 4) efforts to bring the bill to a\nstruction of refueling facilities on Diego Garcia, a British-\ncies.\nauthorize funds would be providing a \"blank check\" until\nvote in the House before the Aug. 1 recess failed in a series\nowned atoll in the Indian Ocean leased to the Defense\nA parallel investigation also was underway in the\nmore definite plans were available. (Weekly Report p. 904)\nof floor maneuvers, delaying House action until the Oct. 2\nDepartment.\nHouse, but that probe was beset with numerous\nThe rapid sequence of events in Cambodia and South\nvote. (Weekly Report p. 2186)\nThe appropriations bill, however, prevented the expen-\norganizational and procedural problems throughout the\nVietnam had generated congressional action on a number of\nSinai Accord. Congress gave final approval Oct. 9 to\nditure of all but $250,000 of the Diego Garcia funds until\nyear. The investigation first was assigned to a 10-member\nbills whose provisions reflected the changing military con-\nthe stationing of up to 200 American civilians in the Sinai\nApril 15, 1976, at which time the Ford administration was\nselect intelligence committee that was created on Feb. 19\nditions, with a variety of committees considering separate\nas part of an Egyptian-Israeli peace accord negotiated in\nrequired to submit a report to Congress on the results of\nand chaired by Rep. Lucien N. Nedzi (D Mich.). (Weekly\nbills dealing with Ford's military aid requests, refugee\nSeptember by Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. The\nU.S. efforts to initiate negotiations with the Soviet Union to\nReport p. 366)\nassistance, troop authority and appropriations. As they\nHouse and Senate had considered the ramifications of a\nrestrain the arms race in the Indian Ocean.\nThis panel, however, made little progress because of a\nwere overtaken by events, the bills were dropped or revised.\nU.S. presence in the Middle East intermittently for more\nCritics of the Pentagon's plans to expand the U.S. base\ndispute between Nedzi and other committee Democrats. As\nThe refugee resettlement aid was the end result of\nthan a month before giving their approval to the resolution\nat Diego Garcia have managed to hold off the project since\na result, the House July 17 dissolved the Nedzi panel and\nFord's April 10 request to Congress for $722-million in\n(H J Res 683-PL 94-110) authorizing the President to im-\nit was first proposed in 1970. On July 28, however, it ap-\ntransferred the job to a new committee with the same in-\nmilitary aid and $250-million in humanitarian assistance\nplement that provision of the peace accord.\npeared that construction would soon begin. At that time,\nvestigating mandate, appointed a new chairman, Rep. Otis\nfor the then-tottering Saigon government. The House and\nSome members were concerned that approval of the\nthe Senate voted down, 43-53, a resolution introduced by\nG. Pike (D N.Y.), and three additional members.\nSenate Armed Services Committees rejected the military\nAmerican monitors would commit the United States to a\nSenate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D Mont.) to pre-\nBeginning a series of public hearings in August, the\naid. In addition, Ford had asked for $222-million in ad-\nmore active role in the Middle East and imply acceptance of\nvent the Pentagon from building a new 640,000-barrel fuel\ncommittee focused on the cost of U.S. intelligence\nditional military assistance for Cambodia; Congress,\npossible promises that Kissinger may have made to Egypt\nstorage facility that could supply an aircraft carrier task\noperations; in September, the panel turned to evaluating\nhowever, took no vote on the request before Cambodia fell\nand Israel without the knowledge of Congress. Supporters\nforce for 28 days. (Weekly Report p. 1718)\nthe quality of intelligence provided U.S. leaders by the CIA\nto the Communists April 16. (Weekly Report p. 835)\nof the resolution argued, however, that the two countries\nThe construction bill also provided $1.2-billion for\nand the other agencies.\nArms to Turkey. In a victory for President Ford,\nhad insisted on the presence of the Americans as a condi-\nmilitary housing projects, the largest item, and contained\nThroughout the late summer and fall, however, the\nCongress reversed itself Oct. 3 and cleared a bill (S\ntion of their acceptance of the peace agreement and that re-\nadditional funds for dozens of new military facilities in the\ncommittee often was thwarted in its attempts to obtain in-\n2230-PL 94-104) partially ending an eight-month prohibi-\njection of the resolution by Congress would jeopardize the\nUnited States and overseas. (Weekly Report p. 2571)\ntelligence data and reports from the executive branch.\ntion on military aid and arms shipments to Turkey.\nprospect for peace in the region.\nNumerous subpoenas were issued by the committee, and in\nA total ban, which had been approved by Congress in\nThe resolution was adopted overwhelmingly by both\nIntelligence Committees. After almost three decades\nlate November the panel voted to hold Secretary of State\n1974, took effect Feb. 5, 1975. It was in reaction to the\nhouses, but only after it was amended to include a number\nof operating in closely guarded secrecy, the Central\nHenry A. Kissinger in contempt of Congress. A last-minute\nTurkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974 in which U.S.-\nof restrictions on the stationing of the Americans. (Weekly\nIntelligence Agency came under unprecedented public and\ncompromise between the White House and the House panel\nsupplied armaments, intended for the defense of Turkey,\nReport p. 2151)\ncongressional scrutiny in 1975. The Federal Bureau of\ndissolved the contempt issue.\nwere employed in violation of U.S. foreign aid laws. The in-\nEconomic Aid. A two-year, $3.1-billion foreign\nInvestigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the\nLike the Senate investigation, the House probe reached\nvasion followed a Greek-inspired overthrow of the Cypriot\neconomic aid authorization (HR 9005-PL was sent\nNational Security Agency and other executive branch in-\nthe recommendation stage. The committee's mandate\ngovernment.\nto President Ford Dec. 9. Final action on the bill marked the\ntelligence organizations also were subjected to critical ex-\nwould expire Jan. 31, and a final report was then expected.\nThe Ford administration had fought the embargo for\nfirst time both houses had agreed to separating develop-\namination by the Senate and House Select Intelligence\nContempt Citations. Compromises between the ex-\nmore than a year and had tried several times to induce\nment assistance from military and security supporting aid.\nCommittees.\necutive branch and two House committees prevented\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2852-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2853\nInside Congress 17\nInside Congress - 16\nRequired the Defense Department to begin disman-\ndesegregating schools is ordered by courts, and it appeared\ncontempt-of-Congress citations against two cabinet\nthree committees because of its broad impact if enacted.\ntling the $6-billion Safeguard anti-ballistic missile (ABM)\nthe only way they could be prevented from ordering busing\nsecretaries from reaching the House floor in the closing\nCommerce and Armed Services Committees reported it\nsystem because the military determined that it was ob-\nwould be through a constitutional amendment barring the\ndays of the session. The controversy over congressional\nfavorably; Foreign Relations had reported it adversely.\nsolete.\npractice. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on\naccess to executive branch records involved Secretary of\nAlthough the Senate had easily passed a similar bill in\nAppropriated $87-million for acquisition of initial\nseveral such amendments in 1975, but took no further ac-\nState Henry A. Kissinger and the House Select Intelligence\n1974 over administration objections, a closer vote was ex-\nparts and materials needed to build the B-1 strategic\ntion. In the House, a move to have the Democratic Caucus\nCommittee, and Commerce Secretary Rogers C.B. Morton\npected when the bill came up in 1976. A companion bill (HR\nbomber, although Congress had not reached a decision on\ninstruct Democratic members of the House Judiciary Com-\nand the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Com-\n200) was passed by the House Oct. 9. Supporters of the bill\nwhether the plane should go into production.\nmittee to report out a constitutional amendment barring\nmittee.\nargued that it was necessary to protect the economically en-\nAppropriated $132-million for continued research and\nbusing failed. (Weekly Report p. 2525)\nThe intelligence panel, headed by Rep. Otis G. Pike (D\ndangered U.S. fishing industry; opponents countered that it\ndevelopment of the Navy's F-18 combat fighter over the ob-\nSex Discrimination. Supporters of federal sex dis-\nN.Y.), voted Nov. 14 to issue three contempt citations\nwould adversely affect U.S. foreign relations and violate in-\njections of congressional critics who wanted the Navy to\ncrimination regulations won the game when a House com-\nagainst Kissinger. They were in response to his refusal to\nternational law. (p. 2895)\nconsider an alternative aircraft.\nmittee refused to overturn several of the regulations, in-\nhand over records on State Department requests to the\nRhodesian Chrome. An effort to stop the controversial\nAppropriated $251.2-million in fiscal 1976 for construc-\ncluding one that was intended to put women on an equal\nCentral Intelligence Agency for covert actions, and\nimportation of chromium ore from Rhodesia failed Sept. 25\ntion of four aircraft (AWACS) equipped with sophisticated\nfooting with men in intercollegiate sports.\nNational Security Council documents dealing with Soviet\nwhen the House rejected a bill (HR 1287) that would have\ntechnological instruments to monitor and control any\nIt was the first test of a new procedure that gave\ncompliance with the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty\npermitted the President to bring the United States back\nfuture battlefield action in Europe.\nCongress 45 days to review and disapprove any federal\n(SALT) and with the NSC's Forty Committee's considera-\ninto compliance with U.N. economic sanctions against the\nCut $37-million from the Pentagon's fiscal 1976 $97-\nregulations dealing with education programs. The sex bias\ntion of covert activities abroad.\nwhite minority government. A similar bill had failed in the\nmillion advertising budget request because of the large\nrules prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in a wide\nPike announced Dec. 2 that the committee had received\n93rd Congress when the House did not act on a Senate-\nnumber of volunteers applying for military service caused\nrange of school practices-from admission policies to hous-\n\"substantial compliance\" with its requests for the NSC\npassed measure. The U.N. sanctions had been imposed in\nby high unemployment levels.\ning and employment practices to sports.\nrecords; the White House had made most of the Forty Com-\n1966, but Congress passed the so-called Byrd amendment in\nThe House Education and Labor Committee referred\nmittee papers available for inspection and had sent the\n1971 that had the effect of permitting the Rhodesian ore im-\nHealth, Education and Welfare\nback to subcommittee a resolution (H Con Res 330) that\nSALT documents to the committee. Pike said the com-\nports in violation of the U.N. sanctions. The amendment\nwould have disapproved regulations dealing with grievance\nmittee would not press those two citations. Finally, on Dec.\nwas named for its sponsor, Sen. Harry F. Byrd Jr. (Ind Va.).\nACTION COMPLETED\nprocedures and school evaluations. It also referred back to\n10, he announced that substantial compliance also had been\nThe bulk of the opposition to HR 1287 came from a conser-\nsubcommittee a bill (HR 8395) that would have exempted\nreached on access to the State Department records, making\nvative coalition of southern Democrats and Republicans.\nEducation for the Handicapped. In the major educa-\nrevenue-producing intercollegiate sports from the\nthat citation \"moot.\" President Ford claimed executive\n(Weekly Report p. 2106)\ntion legislation passed in 1975, Congress cleared a bill (S\nregulations. Several male-dominated collegiate athletic\nprivilege in denying the records to the committee, but the\nDefense Appropriations-Angola Aid. An 11th hour\n6-PL 94-142) making an important new federal commit-\norganizations had claimed that compliance with the\ncompromise allowed several committee members and staff\nSenate battle aimed at shutting off U.S. military aid to two\nment to the education of handicapped children.\nregulations would spell doom for revenue-producing sports,\naides to receive oral briefings on the contents. (Weekly\nfactions fighting a communist-backed group in the Angola\nS 6 sought to assure the nation's eight million handi-\nwhile women's organizations contended that women were\nReport p. 2711)\ncivil war held up final congressional action on the $90.5-\ncapped children a free and appropriate public school\nbeing excluded from opportunities to compete athletically.\nThe second clash was averted Dec. 8 when Morton\nbillion fiscal 1976 defense appropriations bill 9861) un-\neducation by expanding the authorization of appropriations\nThe House committee action killed both the resolution\nagreed to turn over to a House Commerce subcommittee\ntil January.\nand requiring school districts to educate or provide\nand the bill. The Senate Labor and Public Welfare Subcom-\nCommerce Department records on U.S. companies that had\nThe House Dec. 12 approved the conference report on\nequivalent appropriate services to all handicapped children\nmittee on Education held hearings on a similar bill 2106)\nbeen asked to join the Arab boycott of Israel. Morton agreed\nthe bill, which the State Department said contained $28-\naged 3-21 by 1980. If the full authorization level were\nregarding revenue-producing sports but took no further ac-\nto deliver. the records to the Subcommittee on Oversight\nmillion for the U.S.-backed Angolan forces, but when the\nappropriated, the federal government by fiscal 1982 would\ntion. (Weekly Report p. 1484)\nand Investigations after its chairman, John E. Moss (D\nbill reached the Senate floor Dec. 15, a coalition of senators\nprovide up to 20 per cent of the additional cost of educating\nHealth Services. After overriding a presidential veto\nCalif.), assured him they would be treated \"in consonance\nled by John V. Tunney (D Calif.) insisted that an amend-\nhandicapped children, at an estimated cost of $3.2-billion a\nby a wide margin, Congress in July renewed funding\nwith their asserted confidentiality.\" The action came on the\nment be added banning the use of any funds in HR 9861 for\nyear.\nauthority for a number of politically popular health ser-\neve of a full committee vote on the subcommittee's\nthe civil war in the African nation.\nPresident Ford signed the bill reluctantly, saying it\nvices and nurse training programs. President Ford, who\nrecommendation to cite Morton for his defiance of a July 28\nThis proposal was debated in open and secret sessions\nraised false expectations since Congress could not\nhad pocket vetoed similar legislation in late 1974, argued\nsubpoena for the information. (Weekly Report p. 2708)\nover a four-day period, filibustered by Republicans at the\nappropriate the full amounts authorized and still expect to\nthat the bill was too expensive.\ndirection of the White House, but finally approved Dec. 19\nbring federal spending under control. He said his ad-\nAs cleared, the measure PL 94-63) authorized a total of\non a 54-22 vote.\nministration would offer amendments to make the bill\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\n$1.4-billion in fiscal 1976-77 for family planning, communi-\nThe amendment, which was attached to one of six in\nmore realistic. (Weekly Report p. 2591)\nty mental health centers and other health services\nForeign Military Aid. Neither the House Inter-\ntechnical disagreement between House and Senate con-\nBusing. A major congressional turnaround on the\nprograms. It also authorized $553-million in fiscal 1976-78\nnational Relations nor Senate Foreign Relations Com-\nferees, then was rushed to the House, but Speaker Carl\nissue of forced busing occurred when several northern\nfor nurse training programs. The programs originally ex-\nmittee completed markup of bills authorizing fiscal 1976\nAlbert (D Okla.) said there was no time to debate the\nSenate Democrats, usually considered liberal on civil rights\npired in mid-1974. (Weekly Report p. 1668)\nfunding for foreign military and security supporting\nAngola issue with adjournment only hours away.\nissues, joined traditional opponents to fashion the toughest\nDevelopmental Disabilities. Congress completed ac-\nThe fiscal 1976 defense bill, the largest in U.S. history,\nassistance. Among other programs, the bills would\nanti-busing language yet approved by Congress.\ntion in late September on legislation (PL 94-103) expanding\nauthorize spending for military aid grants and training;\nprovided funds for Pentagon weapons programs, research\nThe final amendment, added to an appropriations bill\nfederal efforts to help the mentally retarded and others suf-\nsecurity supporting assistance for the Middle East\nand development projects, maintenance and operations,\nfor the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and\nfering from health problems known as developmental dis-\ncountries, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and\nmilitary and civilian salaries as well as retirement benefits.\nWelfare (HR 8069), would bar HEW from ordering any\nabilities. The final version dropped Senate-passed\nfor American civilians in the Sinai to monitor the Egyptian-\nAlthough the bill fell $7.4-billion below the fiscal 1976\npublic school student bused beyond the school closest to his\nprovisions that would have set detailed requirements for in-\nIsraeli peace accord; U.S. government and commercial arms\nfunding level requested by the Ford administration, it was\nhome. The language was stiffer than that passed in 1974,\nstitutions caring for the mentally retarded, but required\nsales and proposed aid and sales to Greece and Turkey.\n$7-billion larger than the amount appropriated by Congress\nwhich barred busing beyond the school next closest to the\nstates to protect the rights of these individuals. (Weekly\nfor defense in fiscal 1975.\n(Weekly Report p. 2817)\nstudent's home. The House easily agreed to the Senate's\nReport p. 2039)\nAs a result, action on the fiscal 1976 appropriations bill\nMost of this amount, according to the Pentagon, was\namendment after defeating by a wide margin an attempt to\nOlder Americans Act. Rebuffing an administration\nfor both economic and military foreign aid was delayed\nneeded to keep pace with inflated costs of labor and\nwater it down.\nproposal to end special employment programs for older\npending passage of the authorization measure. The fiscal\nmaterials, but some \"real growth\" was also anticipated.\nIt was uncertain at year's end whether the amendment\nworkers, Congress cleared legislation (PL 94-135) in\n1975 appropriations bill (HR 4592-PL 94-11) had not\nAs agreed to by a House-Senate conference committee\nwould take effect, however, since President Ford Dec. 19\nNovember extending jobs, nutrition and other programs for\ncleared until March 24, 1975, three-fourths of the way into\nDec. 11, HR 9861:\nvetoed HR 8069 on grounds that it exceeded his budget re-\nthe elderly through fiscal 1978. The bill also banned un-\nReduced the administration's secret budget request for\nthe fiscal year. (Weekly Report p. 645)\nquests. The House scheduled an override attempt for Jan.\nreasonable discrimination on the basis of age in federally\nintelligence activities by $168-million. This was the first\n27.\nfunded programs and placed new emphasis on transpor-\nFishing Limits. A controversial bill (S 961) to extend\ntime that Congress had revealed any over-all funding deci-\nEven if it becomes law, the amendment would have\ntation, home health, counseling and housing repair\nthe U.S. fishing zone to 200 miles from the U.S. coastline\nsion affecting the federal government's foreign intelligence\nlittle real effect, since most busing for the purpose of\nprograms serving older Americans. (Weekly Report p. 2593)\nFORD\nawaited action in the Senate after it had been considered by\nactivities.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2855\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2854-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole in part except by aditorial clients\nInside Congress 18\nInside Congress 19\nChild Nutrition Programs. Congress Oct. 7 overrode\nThe House passed legislation (HR 5546) in July that\nstantial bloc in Congress opposed the bill on grounds that\nPresident's plan through Congress in five days. The\nPresident Ford's veto of HR 4222, a bill to amend and ex-\nwould require medical students to repay some federal aid if\ncamp safety should be left to the states. (Weekly Report p.\nPresident's position changed some minds, but opposition to\n2641)\ntend the school lunch and other child nutrition programs.\nthey did not practice in doctor-shortage areas after\nany kind of aid remained strong in southern and farm\nSocial Security. The House Ways and Means Subcom-\nThe 397-18 House vote was the largest override margin of\ngraduation. The House rebuffed a drive by medical schools\nstates. (Weekly Report p. 2699)\nand the American Medical Association to kill the repay-\nmittee on Social Security held several hearings early in the\nthe year. The Senate vote was 79-13 to override.\nEmergency Housing Aid. Congress scaled down\nyear on the financing of the nation's primary retirement\nThe bill (PL 94-105) extended existing non-school food\nment requirement.\nlegislation written to help the housing industry out of its\nprograms and expanded the school lunch and breakfast\nAfter holding sporadic hearings on health manpower\nprogram. Several studies have indicated that the system\nslump after the House voted 268-157 in June to sustain\nproblems during the fall, the Senate Labor and Public\ncould go broke if changes in the financing or benefit pay-\nprograms. It increased the income eligibility level for\nPresident Ford's veto of a broader aid measure backed by\nWelfare Health Subcommittee was getting ready to draft\nment structure are not made within the next few years.\nreduced-price lunches-those costing a maximum of 20\nthe Democratic congressional leadership. The final version\nits version of the bill by the end of 1975.\nThe subcommittee plans to continue hearings in 1976.\ncents-and made children of unemployed parents eligible\n(Weekly Report p. 1302)\n(PL 94-50), cleared right after the veto, allowed the Depart-\nfor free and reduced-price lunches.\nA major administration policy shift cleared the way for\nment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to buy up\nFord wanted Congress to implement his block-grant\na possible compromise on the controversial legislation. The\nAlso early in 1975 Congress refused to act on a\n$10-billion in mortgages carrying below-market interest\napproach to child nutrition rather than extending the ex-\nadministration agreed in September to support a bill that\nproposal by President Ford to put a 5 per cent ceiling on\nrates, freeing private funds for mortgage lending at sub-\nisting categorical programs. He said HR 4222 exceeded his\nwould cut off basic federal aid to medical schools that did\ncost-of-living increases in Social Security benefits as an\nsidized interest rates.\nbudget request by $1.2-billion and extended federal sub-\nnot reserve some of their first-year positions for students\neconomy measure. Benefits thus went up 8 per cent on July\nDemocrats argued that increasing housing production\nwho agreed voluntarily to practice in doctor-shortage areas.\n1. (Weekly Report p. 439)\nsidies to non-needy children. (Weekly Report p. 2161)\nwould help bring the country out of the recession and\nHigher Education. Subcommittees in both the House\nFood Stamps. The first legislative measure cleared by\n(Weekly Report p. 2121)\nreduce unemployment. The unemployment rate in the con-\nand Senate began markups on legislation to amend and ex-\nthe 94th Congress (HR 1589-PL 94-4) barred the\nHealth Maintenance Organizations. The House\nstruction industry stood at almost 22 per cent in May, and\ntend the federal higher education laws, including student\nAgriculture Department from requiring users to pay more\npassed a bill (HR 9019) in November that would ease re-\nnew housing starts fell to their lowest level in 28 years.\nassistance programs. In the House, the Education and\ntoward the cost of food stamps. The bill became law without\nquirements for federally funded health maintenance\nThe vetoed bill would have provided several types of\norganizations (HMOs), alternative health care groups that\nLabor Postsecondary Education Committee was working on\nPresident Ford's signature. He had proposed the change in\nassistance ranging from mortgage purchases to cash down\na bill (HR 3471) dealing solely with student grant and loan\nthe law to make it more equitable and to hold down federal\ncharge patients a set periodic fee paid in advance instead of\npayment subsidies for middle-income homebuyers. Ford\nprograms. It also had completed hearings on a bill (HR\nspending, but only 46 members of the House and Senate\na fee for each service actually provided. Sponsors argued\nargued that the bill would cost too much and take too long\nthat the requirements made HMO plans too expensive to\n3470) dealing with institutional aid and other programs.\nvoted to sustain his position, making a veto futile.\nto put into effect. Key House members in the housing field\nIn the Senate, the Labor and Public Welfare Education\nCongress did not complete the major overhaul of the\ncompete with traditional health insurance policies.\nwho opposed the original legislation put together the second\nfood stamp program it had planned in 1975. Although\nThe Senate Labor and Public Welfare Health Subcom-\nSubcommittee had begun markup of an omnibus education\nbill as a Ford-backed alternative to the leadership's\nbill 2657) that also would extend the National Institute of\nmembers agreed that reform was imperative, a $200,000\nmittee started hearings on the bill in 1975, but took no\nproposal. (Weekly Report p. 1435)\nEducation and the Vocational Education Act. Vocational\nstudy of the program by the House Agriculture Committee\nfurther action. Some observers believed that Edward M.\nKennedy (D Mass.), subcommittee chairman, would prefer\neducation in the House is under the jurisdiction of the\nVariable Rate Mortgages. While it did not complete\nwas not complete and the Senate Agriculture Committee\nhad not begun to mark up legislation despite having held\ngiving HMOs subsidies to meet the requirements instead of\nEducation and Labor Elementary, Secondary and\nany formal action, Congress effectively blocked a\nVocational Education Subcommittee, which held extensive\nregulatory proposal to allow lenders to make mortgage\nextensive hearings. Action from both committees had been\ndropping the required standards. (Weekly Report p. 2471)\nexpected by the end of the year. (Weekly Report p. 305)\nhearings on the program in 1975 and may hold more in 1976\nloans carrying interest rates that would float up and down\nMedical Malpractice. Congress briefly considered\nbefore drafting a final bill. (Weekly Report p. 1035)\nwith the market over the life of the loan. Almost all\nproposals that would have established federal programs to\nmortgages carry fixed interest rates, and opponents of the\nhelp doctors cope with the increasing unavailability and ris-\nproposal argued that floating rates would hurt the con-\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\ning cost of medical malpractice insurance, but there was no\nHousing/Community Development\nsumer.\nserious push for them. Insurers, doctors and lawyers all\nThe House passed a bill (HR 6209) to block the proposal\nNational Health Insurance. Political and financial\nagreed that the problem should be addressed by the states.\nACTION COMPLETED\nin May, and the Senate approved a similar, but non-\nrealities stalled congressional action on national health in-\n(Weekly Report p. 771)\nbinding, resolution in June. Given congressional sentiment,\nsurance proposals again in 1975. Leery of the budget impact\nAbortion. In a setback for abortion opponents, a\nAid to New York City. After one of the most heated\nthe Federal Home Loan Bank Board decided not to put its\nof a major new social program, the administration\nSenate Judiciary subcommittee Sept. 17 rejected proposed\nlegislative battles of the year, Congress Dec. 6 approved\nproposal into effect without further discussion with\nwithdrew its support for health insurance legislation and\nconstitutional amendments to overturn a 1973 Supreme\nfederal loan assistance for financially ailing New York City.\nCongress. (Weekly Report p. 1296)\nmajor interest groups did not pressure Congress for speedy\nCourt decision striking down state restrictions on abortion.\naction.\nAlthough the city and New York state had taken drastic\nReal Estate Settlement. Acting just before ad-\nThe subcommittee was not expected to reconsider the issue,\nWhile neither panel made any substantive decisions,\nsteps to reduce the city's spending needs, New York had\njournment, Congress Dec. 19 cleared legislation (S 2327)\nshifting the spotlight to a House Judiciary subcommittee.\nthe Health Subcommittees of both the House Ways and\nbeen expected to default without federal aid.\nrelaxing requirements of a 1974 law (PL 93-533) designed to\nThe House subcommittee may open hearings on the issue in\nThe final version of the bill (PL 94-143) allowed the\ngive consumers more information about the settlement\nMeans and House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Com-\nearly 1976. (Weekly Report p. 1988)\nmittees held hearings on various health insurance\nfederal government to loan New York up to $2.3-billion a\ncharges connected to buying or selling a home.\nproposals, staking out their conflicting jurisdictional claims\nDES. Attempting to resolve a lingering public health\nyear through mid-1978 to cover the city's seasonal cash flow\nThe bill eliminated a provision of the 1974 law requir-\nover the issue. The Ways and Means subcommittee held\ncontroversy, the Senate in September passed a bill (S 963)\nproblems. New York would have to repay the loans each\ning mortgage lenders to give homebuyers a detailed list of\npanel discussions with experts during the summer, asked\nto suspend the use of diethylstilbestrol (DES) as a growth\nyear with interest.\nsettlement charges at least 12 days before actual\ninterest groups for their views during a month of hearings\nstimulant in livestock until the government determined\nAlthough city officials first sought federal help in May,\nsettlement. Instead, lenders simply would have to make\nin November and planned more hearings in early 1976 in\nthat the drug does not pose a serious cancer threat to\nCongress showed little interest in the subject until the fall,\navailable to homebuyers whatever cost information they\nseveral cities across the country. Establishing its interest in\nhumans. The House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Sub-\nafter New York's near brushes with financial collapse\nhad on the day before settlement. Lenders, who had\nthe subject, the Commerce subcommittee held a short set of\ncommittee on Health and the Environment began hearings\nreceived widespread publicity. Congressional supporters of\nflooded Congress with complaints about the law, had\nhearings in December. (Weekly Report p. 2527)\non a similar bill (HR 9837) in December but did not com-\nNew York aid then began to argue that the national\nargued that the 12-day advance disclosure requirement\nRelated legislation (HR 5970, S 625) to provide health\nplete action. A second title of the Senate-passed measure,\neconomic impact of a city default might prove disastrous.\ncreated unnecessary paperwork, increased lending costs\ninsurance for unemployed workers was approved by House\nwhich was approved with little publicity, would increase\nOpponents objected vehemently to the use of federal dollars\nand caused moving delays. (Weekly Report p. 2779)\nand Senate committees in early 1975, but sponsors never\nthe autonomy of the Food and Drug Administration within\nto bail out a city that had spent with mismanaged abandon\n\"Redlining\" Disclosure. Congress gave final\npushed for further action because of jurisdictional\nthe Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (Weekly\nfor years.\napproval Dec. 18 to a bill (S 1281) requiring lenders to dis-\nproblems and administration opposition. (Weekly Report p.\nReport p. 1955)\nPresident Ford stood with the opponents until late\nclose how much mortgage money they provide urban areas.\n1091)\nCamp Safety. Long-debated legislation to require\nNovember, when he decided to back limited federal\nDisclosure was designed to prevent lenders from\nHealth Manpower. Congress postponed final decisions\nstates to adopt safety and health regulations for youth\nassistance to maintain essential services. Ford argued that\n\"redlining,\" or discriminating arbitrarily against certain\non key health manpower issues until 1976 as debate con-\ncamps or submit to federally enforced standards was\nthe city and state had done all they could to bring New\ncity neighborhoods in their lending practices.\ntinued over controversial proposals that would condition\npassed by the House in April and reported in amended form\nYork's financial problems under control. Recognizing that\nCommunity groups in some cities argued that\nfederal aid to medical schools on efforts to ease doctor\nin November by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Com-\nother aid proposals they had prepared stood little chance of\n\"redlining\" was a significant cause of urban decline.\nshortages in rural and inner-city areas.\nmittee (HR 46, S 422). The Ford administration and a sub-\nbecoming law, supporters of aid to New York rushed the\nLenders denied arbitrary discrimination, and Republican\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2856-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2857\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nInside Congress 20\nInside Congress 21\nIncluded in S 2718 was $2.4-billion for high-speed\nAirport Development-SST Flights. Having\npassenger service in the Northeast corridor between\napproved a six-month ban on U.S. landings by the British-\nPresidential Vetoes, 94th Congress\nWashington, D.C. and Boston.\nFrench Concorde supersonic jet transport, the House Dec.\nEarlier in the session, Congress approved legislation (S\n18 passed legislation (HR 9771) authorizing $4-billion for\n281-PL 94-5) authorizing $347-million in emergency\nairport development and other aviation projects over a five-\n(Through Dec. 23)\ngrants and loans for the bankrupt Penn Central and other\nyear period, fiscal 1976-80.\nfinancially ailing Northeast and Midwest railroads un-\n1. HR 1767 (Oil Import Fees)\nHouse overrode Sept. 9; Senate overrode Sept. 10.\nThe narrow 199-188 vote adopting the anti-Concorde\ndergoing reorganization. (Weekly Report p. 461)\namendment was the first successful attempt by either\nVetoed: March 4\n(Weekly Report p. 1948)\nAmtrak. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation\nhouse of Congress to deny landing rights to the giant\nNo override attempt.\n9. S 66 (Health Services)\n(Amtrak) got its first multi-year authorization when\nBritish-French airliner. The ban would not apply to Dulles\n2. HR 4296 (Emergency Farm Bill)\nVetoed: July 26\nCongress May 13 cleared a bill (HR 4975-PL 94-25) to\nInternational Airport near Washington, D.C. The bill also\nVetoed: May 1\nSenate overrode July 26; House overrode July 29.\nauthorize $1,118,000,000 through Sept. 30, 1977, for the cor-\nopened the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for airport ter-\nHouse sustained May 13. (Override attempt,\n(Weekly Report p. 1668)\nporation. The authorization included $63-million in\nminal development and facilities servicing, revised the for-\nWeekly Report p. 1045)\n10. S 1849 (Oil Price Decontrol)\nemergency supplemental funds for fiscal 1975. (Weekly\nmula for distribution of trust fund monies and authorized\n3. HR 25 (Strip Mining)\nVetoed: Sept. 9\nReport p. 1046)\ntransportation department approval of long-term projects.\nVetoed: May 20\nSenate sustained Sept. 10. (Override attempt,\nHighway Jobs. Congress May 22 cleared legislation\nCompanion legislation was pending in the Senate\nHouse sustained June 10. (Override attempt,\nWeekly Report p. 1939)\n(HR 3786-PL 94-30) to temporarily increase to 100 per cent\nCommerce Aviation Subcommittee at adjournment. (Week-\nly Report p. 2900)\nWeekly Report p. 1255)\n11. HR 9497 (Tobacco Price Supports)\nthe federal support to states for certain highway and mass\ntransit programs. The bill was designed to reduce un-\nAttempts in both houses to amend the transportation\n4. HR 4481 (Emergency Employment Appropriations)\nVetoed: Sept. 30\nemployment and accelerate highway construction to ease\nappropriations bill (HR 8365-PL 94-134) to prevent the\nVetoed: May 28\nNo override attempt.\nthe effects of the recession.\nConcorde from landing at U.S. airports were narrowly\nHouse sustained June 4. (Override attempt,\n12. HR 4222 (School Lunch)\nStates could receive up to 100 per cent financing for\ndefeated. Unless HR 9771 were enacted within the six-\nWeekly Report p. 1159)\nVetoed: Oct. 3\nprojects approved between Feb. 12, 1975, and Sept. 30, 1975.\nmonth ban, a decision on a British-French application to be\n5. HR 5537 (Tourism Promotion)\nHouse overrode Oct. 7; Senate overrode Oct. 7.\n(Weekly Report p. 1154)\nallowed to make six flights daily to the United States would\nVetoed: May 28\n(Weekly Report p. 2161)\nPublic Broadcasting. Giving public broadcasting a\nbe left to Transportation Secretary William T. Coleman Jr.,\nNo override attempt.\n13. HR 12 (Foreign Missions)\nprize sought since 1967, Congress Dec. 17 cleared for the\nwho had said he would make his decision by Feb. 4. (Weekly\nReport p. 2682)\n6. HR 4485 (Emergency Housing)\nVetoed: Nov. 29\nPresident a bill (HR 6461-PL 94-000) authorizing long-\nVetoed: June 24\nNo override attempt.\nrange funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting\nHouse sustained June 25. (Override attempt,\n(CPB).\nPostal Reorganization. In response to mounting com-\n14. HR 5559 (Tax Cuts)\nWeekly Report p. 1353)\nVetoed: Dec. 17\nDesigned to free public broadcasting from political\nplaints about the inefficiency of the U.S. Postal Service, the\nHouse Oct. 30 passed a bill (HR 8603) to return the financial\n7. HR 4035 (Oil Pricing)\nHouse sustained Dec. 18 (Override Attempt,\npressures, the bill authorized total funding of $634-million\nVetoed: July 21\nWeekly Report p. 2763)\nfor the CPB over a four-year period (fiscal 1976-80).\ncontrol of the agency to Congress. In 1970 Congress\nNo override attempt.\nStations would receive funds under a matching formula un-\napproved legislation reorganizing the postal service and giv-\n15. HR 8069 (Labor-HEW Appropriations)\ning it independent financial status. The Senate did not act\nder which the federal government would contribute $1 for\n8. HR 5901 (Education Appropriations)\nVetoed: Dec. 19. Override attempt set for Jan.\non HR 8603 in 1975, but the Senate Post Office and Civil\neach $2.50 raised by the public broadcasting stations.\nVetoed: July 25\n27, 1976 (Weekly Report p. 2763)\nHouse-Senate conferees rejected a controversial provi-\nService planned to hold hearings on the bill early in 1976.\n(Weekly Report p. 2341)\nsion added on the House floor that would have specified\nthat the anti-job discrimination portions of the 1964 Civil\nRegulatory Reform. Congress failed to take action in\nRights Act applied to the CPB. (Weekly Report p. 2787)\nopponents called the bill a step toward mandatory alloca-\ntion on similar legislation in case a federal loan program did\n1975 on the Ford administration's proposals to lessen\ntion of credit. (Weekly Report p. 2779)\nnot prevent a New York default. (Weekly Report p. 2702)\nfederal regulation of the airline and trucking industries,\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\nbut did include some of the President's regulatory reform\nproposals for the railroad industry in an omnibus rail bill (S\nACTION NOT COMPLETED\n2718). (See action completed)\nTransportation/Communications\nHighway Program-Trust Fund. Dispute over the\nFord presented to Congress his plans to loosen federal\n\"Countercyclical\" Aid. House conferees agreed in\nHighway Trust Fund went unresolved in 1975 as the House\nregulation of the railroads on May 19, his airline proposals\nDecember to accept a Senate-passed proposal that would\nACTION COMPLETED\nand Senate completed action on widely varying versions of\non Oct. 8 and his trucking and bus deregulation reforms on\nauthorize a new grant program of \"countercyclical\" aid to\nlegislation to extend the federal highway program for two\nNov. 13. His trucking and bus proposal, labeled the Motor\nhelp state and local governments combat recession. Spon-\nRail Revitalization. Congress Dec. 19 cleared for the\nyears (fiscal 1977 and 1978).\nCarrier Reform Act (HR 10909), would give the industries\nsors of the proposal argued that state and local tax in-\nPresident a bill (S 2718) authorizing up to $6.5-billion in\nCritics of the trust fund, which in 1973 was opened for\nbroader rate-setting flexibility, end their antitrust exemp-\ncreases and service cutbacks would counteract federal ef-\nfinancial assistance-grants and loans-for the nation's ail-\nthe first time to some mass transit funding, had hoped that\ntions for ratesetting and price-fixing, and open the in-\nforts to stimulate the economy.\ning railroads. Spokesmen for President Ford announced he\nthe 94th Congress would abolish the trust fund or\ndustries to new competitors. Hearings were planned in 1976\nThe grants would go to state and local governments\nwould veto the measure.\nreorganize it as part of a new national transportation\nby the House Public Works and Transportation Subcom-\nwith unemployment rates higher than 6 per cent only when\nThe bill would lessen federal regulation of the rail\npolicy. But with warnings of nearly depleted funds for state\nmittee on Surface Transportation and the Senate\nthe national unemployment rate exceeded 6 per cent. The\nsystem, giving the railroads more flexibility in setting\nhighway programs, the highway lobby won an extension of\nCommerce Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.\ntotal cost of the 15-month program would be $1.9-billion if\nfreight rates.\nthe federal programs, and the trust fund, for two years.\nthe national rate stayed at its November level of 8.3 per\nAlthough the legislation would provide funds for all\nThe Senate bill (S 2711), passed Dec. 12, featured a con-\nRailroad Jobs. Although both the House and Senate\ncent.\nrailroads, a large portion of the aid ($2.1-billion) would go to\nsolidation of existing narrow programs, increased flexibili-\npassed legislation (S 1730) authorizing federal grants to put\nThe House held up final action on the proposal, part of\nthe Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), the govern-\nty for urban highway programs and a new trust fund ap-\nunemployed workers into jobs repairing and upgrading the\na local public works bill (HR 5247), until January. The bill\nment agency created to operate the bankrupt Penn Central\nportionment formula to expedite completion of the Inter-\nnation's railroads, the bill was not sent to a House-Senate\nfaces an almost certain veto. (Weekly Report p. 2792)\nand other bankrupt Northeast and Midwest railroads\nstate Highway System. The interstate system received\nconference committee to resolve differences before ad-\nMunicipal Bankruptcies. House-Senate conferees did\nbeginning in February 1976. (Weekly Report p. 2737)\npriority attention in the House bill (HR 8235), which in-\njournment.\nnot finish action before the end of the year on legislation\nCongress gave the go-ahead to the reorganization of the\ncreased the existing funding levels for the system and ex-\nThe House-passed bill would provide $240-million in\n(HR 10624) that would make it easier for cities like New\nseven bankrupt Northeast and Midwest railroads by not\ntended the authorization for interstate construction\nfederal grants, the Senate version authorized $700-million\nYork to adjust repayment of their debts through municipal\ndisapproving before a Nov. 10 deadline the final system\nthrough 1988. Efforts to resolve the differing versions were\nin grants and another $100-million in federally guaranteed\nbankruptcy proceedings. President Ford had requested ac-\nplan for Conrail. (Weekly Report p. 2469)\nput off until the second session. (Weekly Report p. 2785)\nloans.\nPAGE 2858-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2859\nEnergy and Environment 2\n$1-billion for the operating expenses of the nuclear\nwas intended to consolidate these laws, remove the conflicts\nEnergy and Environment\nmaterials research and development program, plus $25-\nand fill in gaps in the authority they provide.\nmillion for additional uranium enrichment production\nfacilities and $103-million for additional radioactive waste\nMajor Provisions\nstorage tanks.\nAs reported, S 507 gave the secretary of interior flex-\nFORD ENDS STALEMATE, SIGNS ENERGY BILL\n$985-million for national security programs operating\nible powers with which to manage the national resource\nexpenses, including $897-million for weapons systems,\nlands. He was required to develop comprehensive land use\n$71.4-million for laser fusion, and $16.6-million for nuclear\nplans for the lands, to maintain an up-to-date inventory on\n\"This legislation. puts into place the first elements of a\nwithin three years the rising prices allowed by PL 94-163\nmaterials security.\nthem and their resources and to identify resource lands\ncomprehensive national energy policy,\" said President Ford\nwould result in the United States importing some 200,000\nIn addition, HR 3474:\nwith potential as wilderness sites. He was given authority\nDec. 22, announcing his decision to sign S 622 (PL 94-163),\nbarrels per day less than had been projected.\nAuthorized ERDA, for all nuclear programs and all\nto acquire or sell resource lands, but was required to\nthe Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Congress had\nnon-nuclear programs except fossil fuel programs, to begin\nreserve mineral interests.\ncleared the omnibus energy bill for the White House Dec.\nFinal Provisions:\nconstruction design work without specific congressional\nThe bill established a working capital fund of $3-\n17. (Weekly Report p. 2766, 2689)\nauthorization: provided that funds provided by Congress\nmillion to finance programs and services of the Bureau of\n\"The time has come to end the long debate over\nwould remain available until expended; authorized ERDA\nLand Management. In addition, the bill authorized $40-\nnational energy policy,\" Ford said, explaining why he opted\nENERGY RESEARCH\nto transfer funds to other agencies.\nmillion for development of a comprehensive long-range land\nfor signing the bill in the face of intense opposition from\nAllowed general reprogramming of funds for non-\nuse plan for the California desert national resource lands.\nconservative Republicans, oil-state representatives and the\nCongress late in December cleared legislation (HR\nnuclear programs, with congressional notification, so long\nS 507 also amended the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to\noil industry. The bill was \"by no means perfect,\" Ford con-\n3474) authorizing $5-billion in appropriations in fiscal 1976\nas no major category was decreased by more than 10 per\nincrease to 60 per cent from 37.5 per cent the state share of\nceded, but it \"provides a foundation upon which we can\nfor energy research and development. The bill authorized a\ncent.\nmineral leasing revenues paid under that law, reducing to\nbuild a more comprehensive program.\" He urged Congress\nproportional amount, totaling $1.27-billion, in the transi-\nAmended the 1974 Federal Non-Nuclear Energy\n30 per cent from 52.5 per cent the amount of revenues paid\nto act in 1976 on other pending energy bills, including one\ntion quarter, July through September 1976. (Weekly Report\nResearch and Development Act of 1974 to direct ERDA to\ninto the fund for reclamation of federal lands where\nwhich would end federal price controls on new natural gas.\np. 2770)\nset up a central source of information on all non-nuclear\nminerals were under development. The bill authorized loans\n(Weekly Report p. 2768, 2292)\nAs cleared by Congress, HR 3474 authorized for major\nenergy resources and technology.\nto the states and their subdivisions to help them provide the\nMost controversial of the provisions of S 622 were those\nenergy research and development programs in fiscal 1976:\nRenamed the Holifield National Laboratory at Oak\npublic facilities needed to cope with the impact of mineral\nwhich required Ford to continue federal controls on the\n$498-million for fossil fuel research and development\nRidge, Tenn., as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,\ndevelopment.\nprice of domestic oil. In addition, the bill required an exten-\nincluding: $117.6-million for work to produce liquid fuel\ndesignating the heavy ion research facility there as the\nsion of those controls to \"new\" oil, which is presently not\nfrom coal (including $20-million for advance work on a\nHolifield Heavy Ion Research Facility.\nFinal Action:\nsubject to federal price controls. This extension was re-\ndemonstration plant); $144-million for work to produce a\nForbade the air transport of plutonium by ERDA-ex-\nquired by language setting $7.66 as the average maximum\ngas-like fuel from coal (of which $35-million was for ad-\ncept as required for medical application, national security,\nper-barrel price for domestic oil, $1.09 below the present\nvance work on two demonstration plants); $43-million for\npublic health and safety or emergency maintenance, or to\nHELLS CANYON AREA\naverage. Administration officials indicated that this\nresearch on the extraction and utilization of natural gas and\npreserve the chemical, physical or isotopic properties of the\naverage would be attained initially by retaining the $5.25-\noil; $34.5-million for magnetohydrodynamics, and $19-\nmaterial-until ERDA certified to Congress that a safe con-\nCongress Dec. 19 cleared for the White House a bill (S\nper-barrel price ceiling for \"old\" oil-about two-thirds of\nmillion for in situ processing of oil shale. (The House had\ntainer had been developed and tested which would not rup-\n322) to establish the Hells Canyon National Recreation\nthe oil produced in the United States-and by holding the\nstruck from the conference report on HR 3474 two con-\nture if the airplane crashed and exploded.\nArea in Oregon, Idaho and Washington state to preserve\nprice of \"new\" oil to $11.28 per barrel. \"New\" oil sells at up\ntroversial sections: one authorizing loan guarantees for\nAmended the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955\nthe last free-flowing stretch of the Snake River.\nto $14 per barrel.\ncommercial development of synthetic fuel-including liquid\nto included Roane and Anderson counties, Tenn., in the\n\"This is the end of an almost quarter-of-a-century\nBy signing the bill, President Ford acknowledged\nand gaseous fuels from coal; the other authorizing a\nassistance payment programs authorized by that law.\nbattle to preserve Hells Canyon,\" said Sen. Robert W.\ndefeat-at least for the short term-of his effort to reduce\ncooperative federal-private demonstration of in situ\n(Congress and the Nation Vol. I p. 289)\nPackwood (R Ore.) during final Senate consideration of the\nconsumption of oil and increase domestic production by\ndevelopment of oil shale. Weekly Report p. 2770)\n-By Elder Witt\nbill Dec. 12. Passage of the bill, and its expected signing by\nallowing the prices of this fuel to rise. This \"conservation-\n$173-million for solar energy research and\nPresident Ford, ended a long effort by conservation and en-\nby-price\" philosophy had marked the major difference\ndevelopment, including: $48-million for solar heating and\nCommittee Action:\nvironmental groups to protect the last 101 miles of the river\nbetween the administration approach to the energy\ncooling, $32-million for solar thermal projects (including\nfrom being dammed by electric utilities in order to increase\nproblem and that taken by congressional Democrats. Ford\n$10-million for work on two test facilities), $36-million for\nalso said that he was removing, effective Dec. 22, the $2-\nwork on photovoltaic conversion, $22-million for wind\nLAND MANAGEMENT\nhydroelectric generating capacity for that area.\n(Background, earlier action, Weekly Report p. 2602)\nper-barrel oil import fee which he had imposed in two\nenergy conversion, and $11.5-million for ocean thermal\nAs sent to the White House, S 322 set up a 662,000-acre\nstages earlier in the year to make imported oil more expen-\nenergy conversion.\nThe Senate Interior Committee Dec. 18 reported the\nHells Canyon National Recreation Area along 68 miles of\nsive and thereby to reduce its volume and spur Congress\n$56-million for research and development on geother-\nNational Resource Lands Management Act (S 507-S Rept\nthe Snake River on the Oregon-Idaho border. It included\ninto action. (Weekly Report p. 2400)\nmal energy (including $10-million for advance work on two\n94-583). The Senate did not act on S 507 before adjourning\nthis segment of the river in the Wild and Scenic Rivers\nThere had been estimates that the price rollback re-\ngeothermal power plants).\nits 1975 session.\nSystem, along with the headwaters of the nearby Rapid\nquired by S 622 would result in a 2-3 cents per gallon drop in\n$156-million for energy conservation research and\nAs reported, S 507 was virtually identical to S 424, a\nRiver in Idaho. The bill also placed another 33 miles of the\nconsumer prices. But Federal Energy Administrator Frank\ndevelopment, including: $55-million for end-use conser-\nbill approved by the Senate in July 1974 which died at the\nriver under study for possible eventual inclusion in the\nG. Zarb said Dec. 22 that consumers would see little, if any,\nvation, $31-million for energy storage systems, $25-million\nend of the 93rd Congress because the House took no action.\nsystem, and provided that part of the national recreation\ndecrease in the price they paid for fuel due to increased\nfor advanced transportation storage systems, and $15-\n(Detailed provisions, 1974 Almanac p. 806)\narea would be set aside as wilderness.\ncosts, especially in imported oil, which producers can pass\nmillion for urban waste conversion.\nS 322 also expressly forbade the Federal Power Com-\nthrough to consumers. If President Ford had not signed S\n$158-million for fusion energy research and develop-\nBackground\nmission (FPC) to license any new dams or water projects in\n622, all federal price controls on domestic oil would have ex-\nment operating expenses, plus $23-million for the Tokamak\nSixty per cent of all federally owned property is ad-\nthe recreation area and deauthorized one dam already\npired, allowing fuel costs to rise rapidly. Under S 622, the\nfusion test reactor and $27-million for intense neutron\nministered as \"national resource lands\" by the secretary of\napproved for this stretch of the river. S 322 authorized\naverage per-barrel domestic oil price can rise up to 10 per\nsource facilities.\ninterior through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).\n$21.5-million for land acquisition and facility development.\ncent a year. All price controls will expire after 40 months,\n$506-million for fission energy research and develop-\nAlthough this is the largest of several federal land systems,\nFinal action came when the House by voice vote Dec. 19\nunless Congress acts to extend them.\nment operating expenses, including a $123-million ceiling\ntotalling 448 million acres, no single law sets out a state-\naccepted two technical Senate amendments to the House\nA White House fact sheet released Dec. 22 indicated\nfor work on the proposed Clinch River demonstration plant\nment of the purposes, goals and authority guiding its\nversion of S 322. The Senate had added the two\nthat the extension of price controls would produce an in-\nin the liquid metal fast breeder reactor program.\nmanagement and use. Instead, more than 3,000 public land\namendments by voice vote Dec. 12. The Senate had first\ncrease, in the short term, of up to 150,000 barrels per day in\n$222-million for the operating expenses of the naval\nlaws, often conflicting, incomplete and inadequate, set out\napproved the bill June 2; the House had approved its ver-\nthe amount of oil imported into the United States, but that\nreactor research and development program.\nthe statutory basis for administration of these lands. S 507\nsion Nov. 18.\nPAGE 2860-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited WHOM or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2861\nHousing and Community Development\nEconomic Affairs\nCONGRESS CLEARS REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT BILL\nNEW BUDGET SYSTEM SURVIVES FIRST YEAR INTACT\nAfter House-Senate conferees worked out a last-\nthe range of charges likely to be paid when they applied in\nThe final score is not in, and probably will not be for\nown goals. In 1975, House Republicans almost solidly op-\nminute compromise, Congress Dec. 19 sent the President\nwriting for a mortgage loan.\nat least a few years, but Congress' attempt to launch a\nposed because they did not want to hold down social spend-\nlegislation (S 2327) that would repeal provisions of a 1974\nRepealed provisions of a 1974 law 93-533) requiring\nrevolutionary new federal budgeting system appears to\ning. These same forces could emerge in the future to\nlaw (PL 93-533) giving homebuyers the right to find out\nlenders to disclose exact settlement costs at least 12 days\nhave succeeded.\nthe versions of the resolution.)\nwhat real estate settlement charges they must pay at least\nbefore actual settlement; instead, required the person con-\nThe effort in 1975 was the first serious one in decades\nAt various points, some liberal Democrats were op-\n12 days before they complete the sale transaction. Common\nducting the settlement to make available for a homebuyer's\nto coordinate all federal spending and taxing-the heart of\nposed because they did not want to hold down social spend-\nsettlement charges, such as title insurance premiums, real\ninspection whatever exact charge information he had on\nfederal government activities.\ning. These same forces could emerge in the future to\nestate commissions and lawyers' fees, can add thousands\nhand one business day before settlement.\nCongress completed the first use of its new budget tools\nplague the new system.\nof dollars to the cost of buying a house.\nRepealed provisions of the 1974 law barring lenders\nDec. 12 by placing a ceiling of $374.9-billion on spending and\nThe ceilings themselves contained a large hole.\nWhile repealing the 12-day advance disclosure re-\nfrom making a loan commitment if the seller did not inform\na floor of $300.8-billion under revenues in fiscal 1976.\nSpending could exceed the limits because of unforeseen\nquirement, the final version of S 2327 required lenders to\nthe buyer of the previous purchase price of a house bought\nThe resulting deficit of $74.1-billion was the largest in\nrises in the \"uncontrollable\" parts of the federal budget\ngive homebuyers an estimated range of settlement charges\nwithin the last two years that was not used as a place of\nhistory. It astounded fiscal conservatives and displeased\nsuch as Social Security and unemployment payments.\nwhen they applied for a mortgage loan. Homebuyers also\nresidence by the seller.\nsome pro-spending liberals who believed Congress should\nIn 1975, Congress enacted the ceiling almost three\ncould find out whatever actual charges had been set at least\nClarified that provisions of the 1974 law prohibiting\ndo more to pump up the economy and reduce un-\nmonths after the deadline that had been set for approval of\none business day before settlement.\nkickbacks between those in the real estate industry did not\nemployment. In spite of these differences, key conser-\nthe resolution. That slippage raised doubts about whether\nOther provisions of the bill killed requirements of the\napply to cooperative brokerage and referral arrangements\nvatives and liberals in both houses came to the rescue of the\nCongress could stay on schedule in 1976 when the entire\n1974 law designed to disclose excessive profits by real estate\nof real estate agents.\nnew budgeting system at critical points and prevented it\nsystem will be in operation.\nspeculators and streamlined the paperwork involved in\nModified provisions of the 1974 law barring lenders\nfrom being wrecked the first year in operation.\nNevertheless, participants in the process were pleased.\npreparing a list of charges for use at settlement.\nfrom collecting and holding in escrow more than one\nThe new tools were created by Congress in 1974 to halt\nMuskie described the $300.8-billion ceiling as an \"historic\nLenders had led a persuasive lobbying campaign\nmonths' worth of advance property taxes and insurance\na long slide in congressional influence on government\nleap forward.' He added, \"This congressional budget con-\nagainst the requirements of the 1974 bill. They argued that\npremiums to allow two months' worth of escrow payments.\nspending. There were many persons in Washington who\ntrol is in force a full year earlier than contemplated. What\nthe law created unnecessary paperwork, increased lending\nExpanded the authority of the Department of Housing\nthought the system would collapse under the weight of\nwas intended as a trial year has turned out to be a\ncosts and caused moving delays.\nand Urban Development (HUD) to implement the 1974 act.\ncongressional power rivalries and political logrolling.\nmeaningful implementation of the Budget Act.\"\nOpponents of the bill claimed that it would make it im-\nProvided that the changes in the 1974 law would take\nIt appears, after the first year of operation, that the\npossible for consumers to shop for the least expensive\neffect upon enactment; allowed HUD to suspend the new\ndoubters misjudged the determination of key members of\ndisclosure requirements for up to six months.\nNew System Created\nsettlement services, the purpose of the original 12-day ad-\nCongress to make the system work. Among those key\nvance disclosure requirement. \"This bill is an out-and-out\nplayers were Sens. Edmund S. Muskie (D Maine) and Henry\nAdoption of the second resolution in December was an\nreal estate industry triumph over the homebuying public,\"\nFLOOD AREA MORTGAGES\nBellmon (R Okla.) and Reps. Brock Adams (D Wash.) and\nimportant milestone for Congress. The Senate and House\ncomplained Rep. Leonor K. Sullivan (D Mo.).\nParren J. Mitchell (D Md.). Muskie and Adams are\nhad been plagued for years with a disjointed\nThe House ignored this argument and voted\nTemporarily resolving a House-Senate dispute,\nchairmen of the newly created Senate and House Budget\nappropriations process that gave no over-all control of\noverwhelmingly Nov. 17 to repeal the 12-day advance dis-\nCongress Dec. 19 cleared a resolution (S J Res 157) to post-\nCommittees.\ngovernment funding to any unit on Capitol Hill or even to\nclosure requirement and simply require lenders to give\npone a ban on mortgage lending for existing property in\nAs a result of their determination, Congress in\nthe entire Congress itself. Unlike the executive branch,\nhomebuyers a range of possible charges when they applied\nflood-prone communities that had not adopted land use\nDecember cleared H Con Res 466, which specified for the\nwhere the Office of Management and Budget had final over-\nfor a loan. The Senate insisted Dec. 8 that homebuyers\nstandards set by the Department of Housing and Urban\nfirst time the total size of the federal budget. Passage of the\nall control of federal spending, Congress dispersed the\nshould have the chance to find out exact charges at least one\nDevelopment under the national flood insurance program.\nmeasure, called the second concurrent resolution on the\nfederal budget proposals to a variety of committees and\nday before settlement. (Senate action, Weekly Report p.\nThe resolution would delay the mortgage lending ban,\nbudget, limited future congressional action on spending and\nsubcommittees-each power centers unto themselves.\n2704, House action, Weekly Report p. 2524)\nscheduled to take effect Jan. 1, to March 1, 1976.\nrevenue bills. Subsequent legislation that punctures the\nAs federal spending mushroomed in the 1950s and\nHouse-Senate conferees resolved the stalemate Dec. 19\nThe House had maneuvered Dec. 16 to avoid going to\nspending limits, creates new future spending authority\n1960s, it became increasingly evident that Congress was\nby deciding to give homebuyers the right to find out\nconference before adjournment on a Senate committee\nbeyond that authorized in the resolution or violates the\nwhatever exact charges had been fixed by the day before\nproposal (HR 9852) that would relax the mortgage lending\nrevenue requirements could be ruled out of order in either\nsettlement. The conference compromise did not require\nban. After the House acted, Senate opponents of the ban\nchamber and thus be killed.\nlenders, or others conducting a settlement, to make any\nsearched for a way to prevent it from taking effect on Jan.\nThe resolution was an act of self-discipline. It took\nspecial effort to gather charge information by the day\n1. (Background, Weekly Report p. 2780)\neffect without the President's signature and could be\nbefore settlement. The compromise also did not require\nThe Senate and then the House approved the com-\nrevised at any time Congress saw fit.\nlenders to disclose any information in advance unless the\npromise resolution to delay the ban by voice votes on Dec.\nThe resolution did not include use of all the budget con-\nhomebuyer requested it.\n19, whisking the measure through Congress on the last day\ntrol devices Congress created in 1974. But it invoked the\nThe Senate and then the House adopted the report (H\nof the session. The delay gave Congress time to consider the\nbasic ones. It put into effect binding spending and revenue\nRept 94-769) on the conference agreement by voice votes on\ntype of changes contained in HR 9852 in early 1976.\ncontrols that had not been scheduled to take effect until a\nDec. 19, completing action before adjournment.\nIn an effort to hold down the federal cost of disaster\nyear later.\nThe President was expected to sign the bill.\naid, a 1973 flood insurance act (PL 93-234) required\ndesignated flood-prone areas to participate in the federal\nProblems Ahead\nProvisions\nflood insurance program and applied the mortgage lending\nAs cleared for the President, S 2327:\nban to non-participating communities that had not adopted\nAlthough the system appeared to work the first year,\nAllowed regional variations in the items included on a\nland use standards designed to reduce flood damage. A 1975\nthere remained pitfalls for the future that could wreck it.\nSen. Edmund S. Muskie\nRep. Brock Adams\nstandard form setting forth settlement charges.\nhousing law (PL 94-50) had delayed the effective date of the\nProbably the most serious was the reluctance of\nRequired lenders to give homebuyers a booklet describ-\nban for mortgages on existing property to Jan. 1. (1973 act,\nideological and political blocs in Congress to accept the dis-\nLed fight for new budget system\ning common settlement charges and good faith estimates of\n1973 A Imanac p. 667; housing bill, Weekly Report p. 1435) I\ncipline of budget controls when that interfered with their\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2862-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2863\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nEconomic Affairs 2\nEconomic Affairs 3\nThe Budget Act also required members for the first\n'Crosswalk' Problem\nMuskie: 'You'll Have to Watch Us'\ntime to make choices and thereby set priorities. For ex-\nample, if Congress calls for more spending for health\nThe committees decided to omit the functional\nCongressional Budget Deadlines\nWashington lobbyists, who showed little interest\nprograms, it now must increase revenues through higher\ncategory ceilings from the resolutions for practical as well\ntaxes, accept a larger deficit or balance the addition by\nas political reasons. The budget process gave rise to a\nOctober-December: Congressional Budget Office\nin congressional budget reform in 1974, began paying\ncutting other programs.\ntechnical problem that Congress had never before had to\nsubmits five-year projection of current spending as\nmore attention as the new system was readied for its\nSo Congress in 1975 began viewing the federal budget\nconcern itself with: the different ways in which the Presi-\nsoon as possible after Oct. 1.\nfirst year of full operation in 1976.\nas a balloon, which when squeezed in one place would pop\ndent and Congress traditionally viewed the budget.\nNov. 10: President submits current services\n\"There weren't many people lobbying on (the 1974\nup in another. \"People are seeing for the first time where all\nThe Office of Management and Budget (OMB) groups\nbudget.\nBudget Act) when it passed because there weren't too\nthe money is going, and I'm not sure they like it,\" said\ngovernment spending programs into the 16 functional\nDec. 31: Joint Economic Committee reports\nmany people who understood it,\" said Richard Warden,\nHouse Budget Committee Chairman Adams.\ncategories. These include, for example, \"Income Security,\"\nanalysis of current services budget to budget com-\nassistant legislative director for the United Auto\nThe Budget Act mandated a set of deadlines imposing\nwhich comprises such programs as Social Security and un-\nmittees.\nWorkers (UAW).\nmajor changes in Congress' appropriations schedule. The\nemployment benefits; \"Community and Regional\nLate January: President submits budget (15 days\nBut nearly 100 lobbyists showed up for a budget\ndate for the beginning of the fiscal year-July 1-was\nDevelopment,\" including urban renewal, housing and some\nafter Congress convenes).\ncontrol conference organized by the labor-backed Coun-\npushed back to Oct. 1. This was to allow Congress time to\nrural development programs; and \"General Government,\" a\nLate January-March: Budget committees hold\ncil on National Priorities and Resources in early\ncomplete the entire budget process before the fiscal year\ncatch-all category that contains the legislative and ex-\nhearings and begin work on first budget resolution.\nDecember 1975.\nbegan. It had been decades since Congress enacted its\necutive branch budgets.\nMarch 15: All legislative committees submit es-\nAt one point a National Education Association lob-\nappropriations by July 1. But the act also moved up action\nCongress appropriates funds through 15 spending bills,\ntimates and views to budget committees.\nbyist complained to Senate Budget Committee\non appropriations and authorizations bills in order to make\nmost of which also cover a variety of programs. But the\nApril 15: Budget committees report first\nChairman Edmund S. Muskie (D Maine) that not\nthem conform to the deadlines for the two resolutions.\nappropriations bills and the functional categories do not\nresolution.\nenough funds had been allowed for education\n(Schedule, box p. 2865)\nmatch. One of OMB's categories may include all or parts of\nMay 15: Committees must report authorization\nprograms. She asked if further reductions were likely.\nfour or five different appropriations bills, while any single\nbills by this date.\n\"You'll have to watch us,\" Muskie replied.\n1975 Plan\nappropriations bill may comprise parts of six or seven of the\nMay 15: Congress completes action on first\nOMB categories.\nresolution. Before adoption of the first resolution,\nThe tedious job of matching bills with categories is\npoorly equipped to handle almost infinite demands for\nThe Budget Act did not make the new process man-\nneither house may consider new budget authority or\ncalled \"crosswalking.\" It is necessary if the targets and\ndatory until fiscal year 1977, beginning Oct. 1, 1976. But it\nspending authority bills, revenue changes, or debt limit\nfederal spending with the finite resources of the Treasury.\nceilings Congress imposes on the categories are to be split\ndid permit earlier use of the mechanism for the fiscal 1976\nchanges.\nThe question was whether Congress could create and stick\ninto targets for individual bills.\nbudget.\nMay 15 through the 7th day after Labor Day:\nto a system of establishing budget ceilings and spending\nBudget Committee Chairmen Muskie and Adams\nIn order to acquaint Congress with the procedures, the\nattributed their decision not to include the functional\nCongress completes action on all budget and spending\npriorities, and relate both in a rational manner to govern-\nbudget committees and the congressional leadership\nauthority bills.\nment revenues.\ncategories in the fiscal 1976 resolutions primarily to this\nThe attempt was made in the Congressional Budget\ndecided to implement major parts of the Budget Act for\nBefore reporting first regular appropriations bill,\ncrosswalk problem. They noted that the process would be\nand Impoundment Control Act of 1974 93-344). The law\nfiscal 1976. But they feared that the new timetable would be\nthe House Appropriations Committee, \"to extent prac-\neasier the following year, since they then would have a list\nset up House and Senate Budget Committees to formulate\ndisruptive enough in itself, without the added burden of ex-\nticable,\" marks up all regular appropriations bills and\nof how the bills fit into the functional categories.\nover-all spending and tax goals, and a Congressional Budget\npected heated disputes over division of spending among\nsubmits a summary report to House, comparing\nOffice (CBO) to provide Congress with technical informa-\nvarious budget programs.\nOther Handicaps\nproposed outlays and budget authority levels with\nThus, the most significant part of the 1975 implemen-\nfirst resolution targets.\ntion about the economy and the budget. (1974 Almanac p.\nIn deciding to make 1975 more than just a trial run of\ntation plan, announced March 3, involved the 16 individual\nCBO issues periodic scorekeeping reports compar-\n145)\nthe procedures, the budget committees began work on the\nareas of the budget, called \"functional categories.\" Under\ning congressional action with first resolution.\nThe law also created a complicated set of deadlines for\nfiscal 1976 budget with several other big handicaps.\nthe plan, the first budget resolution, setting targets, was to\nReports on new budget authority and tax expen-\ncongressional action on the budget. The key dates each year\nbe enacted as provided in the law. But it was to contain only\nThe committees had to operate without benefit of a key\nditure bills must contain comparisons with first\nare May 15, when Congress is supposed to have completed\nelement called for by the Budget Act: a current services\naction on a first concurrent resolution containing budget\nthe five total budget figures: outlays, budget authority,\nresolution, and five-year projections.\nbudget. That is a projection by the Office of Management\nrevenue, deficit and the amount of the public debt.\n\"As possible,\" a CBO cost analysis and five-year\ntargets to guide committees as they process fiscal legisla-\ntion during the summer months, and Sept. 15, when\nSpending targets for the 16 individual categories, such as\nand Budget of growth in the federal budget during the up-\nprojection will accompany all reported public bills, ex-\ndefense and health, were to be left out of the resolution.\ncoming fiscal year based on the current fiscal year, assum-\ncept appropriation bills.\nCongress is to replace the targets with spending ceilings\ning no changes in policy.\nThe March plan also called for adoption of the second\nAugust: Budget committees prepare second\nand a floor on revenues in the second concurrent resolution.\nresolution no later than Sept. 15 \"if practicable.\" The second\nThe object of the report is to give Congress a base line\nbudget resolution and report.\nIf the amounts adopted in the fall differ from those\nmeasure was to replace the budget targets with binding\nfrom which to measure proposed changes in spending and\nSept. 15: Congress completes action on second\nadopted during the summer in actual spending and tax\ntax law. It is due Nov. 10, about a month after the current\nbills, Congress must reconcile the amounts before adjourn-\nlimits. But it was not to contain ceilings for the individual\nresolution. Thereafter, neither house may consider any\ncategories. Later, in July, the budget committees an-\nfiscal year begins and two months before the budget com-\nbill or amendment, or conference report, that results in\ning. Once this reconciliation process is completed, the\nlimits in the second resolution become binding.\nnounced that they had decided to proceed with the second\nmittees each year are to begin hearings on the first resolu-\nan increase over outlay or budget authority figures, or\ntion for the next fiscal year.\nresolution.\na reduction in revenues, beyond the amounts in the\nDeadlines the committees decided to omit included the\nAnother impediment was the lack of a functioning\nsecond resolution.\nSweeping Reform\nApril 1 CBO submission to the panels of a report on fiscal\nCongressional Budget Office, the new agency that was to\nSept. 25: Congress completes action on reconcilia-\npolicy and budget alternatives; the May 15 deadline by\nprovide Congress with expert economic and budgetary\ntion bill or another resolution. Congress may not ad-\nguidance.\nThe process was a sweeping reform designed to focus\nwhich time the legislative committees had to report all\njourn until it completes action on the second resolution\nprogram authorizations for the upcoming year; and the\nIt began operating in the late spring, but there was\nCongress' attention in a systematic way on two broad\nand reconciliation measure, if any.\nbudgetary concerns: national fiscal policy and national\ndeadline for Congress to complete action on all spending\ndelay in choosing a director and the agency did not begin\nOct. 1: Fiscal year begins.\nbills seven days after Labor Day.\nproviding useful information until well into the year.\npriorities.\nAll these deadlines were important to bringing\nIn the absence of a functioning CBO, the budget com-\nThe process requires members of Congress for the first\nmittees relied on an interim task force headed by Samuel\ntime to vote on a deficit. Instead of treating spending and\nappropriations and authorization activities in line with the\ntioning without the budget committees-or the new budget\nnew budget mechanism. But the committees were afraid of\nM. Cohn, former assistant director of the Office of Manage-\ntax measures individually and separately, Congress is\nprocess.\nimposing too much reform too quickly. \"We want flexibility\nment and Budget. The task force included budget experts in\nforced to compare total spending with total receipts. In do-\nThe most threatening problem the process faced in\nas we come to the first political crunch in this process, to\nthe General Accounting Office and the Library of Congress'\n1975, however, and the one that nearly torpedoed it, was the\ning so, Congress must confront such fiscal policy issues as\nCongressional Research Service.\nthe effect of the budget on inflation, unemployment and\navoid creating abrasions or brittleness,\" one Senate staffer\nstate of the economy. Congress had to vote on a budget\nStill another problem was that by early spring the\nsaid.\ndeficit while the nation was in a deep recession. \"They were\neconomic growth.\ntraditional appropriations process had already begun func-\nrequired to vote on the largest deficit in history,\" CBO\nPAGE 2864-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2865\nEconomic Affairs 4\nEconomic Affairs 5\nDirector Alice M. Rivlin said. \"They had never voted on a\nnearly defeated the resolution. The vote was 200-196.\ndeficit before.\"\n(Weekly Report p. 899)\nThe same forces came together again Dec. 12 for the\nImpoundment Law Creates New Headaches in Congress\nHow It Worked\nHouse vote on the final version of the second resolution\nsetting the spending ceiling. The margin of passage\nOne part of the new congressional budget law was a\nThe genesis of these disputes was in the various\nAs the year unfolded, it became apparent that the\nnarrowed to 189-187. (Weekly Report p. 2795)\ndirect product of former President Nixon's repeated\nanti-impoundment proposals in Congress in 1973 and\nprocess would face its most serious test in the House.\n\"The country desperately needs evidence that the\nattempts to block federal programs he opposed by refus-\n1974 that led to a hybrid compromise in Title X. The\nHouse Budget Committee staffers attributed the\nCongress is at least preparing to bring mounting federal\ning to spend money Congress had appropriated. That ef-\nHouse asserted that Title X created new authority for\nproblems that arose in that chamber partly to the nature of\nspending under control,\" Latta said just before the Dec. 12\nfort-Title x of PL 93-344-may have produced even\nfund withholding and allowed the President to propose\nthe House, where members stand for election every two\nvote. \"This resolution does nothing to provide such\nmore headaches for Congress.\ndeferrals for reasons other than administrative\nyears and thus are more closely attuned to such politically\nevidence. It once again postpones the time when this\nThere is disagreement, even within Congress, about\nhousekeeping, but gave Congress the mechanisms to\nsensitive issues as the size of the deficit and the unemploy-\nCongress must accept such responsibility and get down to\nexactly what Title X was intended to accomplish and did\noverturn these actions. Deferring spending for purely\nment rate. House members generally seemed less willing\nthe necessary task of meaningful budget control.\"\naccomplish. But there is considerable agreement that it\nmanagerial reasons was allowed under the old govern-\nthan senators to bend their economic beliefs to compromise\nHowever, the Budget Committee Chairman Adams had\ncreated additional paperwork that often unnecessarily\nment budgeting procedures that PL 93-344 replaced.\nfor the sake of allowing the new budget procedures to\npicked up important early support from committee member\nconsumes staff time. Congressional and executive\nThe Senate, on the other hand, argues that Title X\nsucceed.\nParren J. Mitchell (Md.), a liberal Democrat who had op-\nbranch employees who must deal with Title X generally\ndid not allow the President to defer spending for policy\nEarly in the process, Muskie gained the key support of\nposed the first resolution on the original vote, saying the\nagree that the compromise language in the title is vague\nreasons. The new law gave the General Accounting Of-\nthe Senate Budget Committee's ranking Republican, Henry\ntargets did not provide enough economic stimulus. Mitchell\nin many respects and is without sufficient legislative\nfice, an arm of Congress, the power to review presiden-\nBellmon (Okla.), a fiscal conservative. Bellmon's continued\nlater changed his mind after serving on the Senate-House\nhistory to explain Congress' intent.\ntial proposals and rule on their appropriateness. After\nsupport of the committee's recommendations for targets\nconference to resolve differences between the versions\nstudying this dispute, the GAO's Comptroller General,\nand ceilings, along with the support of most of the other\napproved by the two chambers. \"Despite the fact that I\nRescissions and Deferrals\nElmer B. Staats, in late 1974 supported the House view\ncommittee Republicans, encouraged many Senate\nthink that there is not enough stimulus, I recognize that we\nof the matter. The Senate, however, was unconvinced\nRepublicans to follow suit. This substantial minority\nhave preserved [the amount contained in the original House\nUnder current interpretation of the law, there are\nand the issue continued.\nbacking, coupled with the overwhelming Democratic sup-\nversion],\" Mitchell said. He added that he was \"very happy\"\ntwo methods for Congress to review the President's\nThe alternative argument is that the President's\nport for the resolutions, allowed the measures to pass the\nto support the conference version.\nproposal to delay or cancel spending-actions that were\nbasic budgetary powers are being whittled away. The\nSenate by comfortable margins. (Weekly Report p. 2745,\nMitchell and another committee Democrat whose posi-\ncalled impoundment during President Nixon's days but\ncriticism here is that under Title X previously hidden\n2511, 899)\ntion had been watched by House liberals, Elizabeth\nwere given other designations under the 1974 budget\nbudget juggling maneuvers of the executive branch are\nIn a September interview, Bellmon acknowledged that\nHoltzman (N.Y.), continued to support the resolutions\nlaw.\nnow exposed to public and congressional view and\nhis support in the committee was alienating some of his\nthrough the rest of the year. Without their backing, it\nIf the President wants to withhold funds tem-\ntherefore to scrutiny. This exposure, along with\nconservative constituents. \"Most of them would like to see\nseemed possible the resolutions would have been defeated,\nporarily, perhaps because immediate expenditure would\nCongress' power to block presidential anti-spending\nthe deficit reduced immediately,' he said. \"But as you work\nthus conceivably destroying the process.\nbe impractical, he can propose to defer their spending\nproposals, worries some observers-generally officials\nwith the budget you begin to realize that the objective is to\nuntil a later time. The President's deferral stands unless\nin the executive branch. They fear that Title X, along\nhave the smallest budget we realistically can over the long\nFunctional Categories\noverturned by a resolution of either the Senate or\nwith other new congressional authority provided in PL\nhaul, and by tightening down now, we wind up with a\nWhile leaving the functional categories out of the\nHouse.\n93-344, may tip spending power toward Congress by\ndeeper recession and a larger total deficit.\"\nresolutions on which Congress voted, the budget com-\nIf the President believes money should not be spent\ndestroying presidential control over the federal budget.\nBellmon added, \"In my opinion this budget process is of\nmittees decided to include targets for each category in the\nat all, he may propose a rescission. In this case, both the\nThe changes, these critics argue, encourage executive\nvital importance, and I was willing to give a little in order to\nreports accompanying the resolutions. The category targets\nHouse and Senate must approve the action within 45\nagencies and departments to develop close ties with con-\nhold the committee together and set the stage for effective\nwere not binding but showed how the committees arrived at\ndays. If the two houses do not act, the President must\ngressional appropriations subcommittees that have the\nwork by the committee in future years.\"\nthe spending totals. They also were starting points for the\nrelease the funds at the end of the 45 days. Some con-\npower now to overturn presidential decisions on spend-\nBy contrast, substantial House GOP opposition to the\ntask of setting guidelines for individual spending bills.\ngressional critics see this as one fault in Title x because\ning. \"What we're talking about here is congressional\nresolutions, led by the ranking minority member of the\nAfter passage of the first resolution, the functional\nthe President can block spending for almost seven\ngovernment-and chaos,\" one executive branch budget\nHouse Budget Committee, Delbert L. Latta (Ohio),\ntargets became a key element in the appropriations\nweeks; Congress cannot force the expenditures to be\nofficial said.\nthreatened enactment in that chamber. In the House vote\nprocess. The House Appropriations Committee turned\nmade during that period.\nAnother criticism, probably the complaint most\non the first resolution May 1, an almost solid bloc of\nrepeatedly to the conference report on the first resolution\noften heard in the first year of Title X operation, is that\nRepublicans and 35 southern Democrats, most of whom ob-\nfor guidance as it processed individual spending bills. \"The\nthe requirements of the law were generating a mountain\njected to the size of the deficit target, coalesced with\nOther Criticisms\nquestion of whether a bill is above or below the resolution\"\nof paperwork. The complaint is that Title X requires for-\nDemocratic liberals who believed the targets did not\ncame up \"all the time,\" according to Adams. \"The chairmen\nmal action on administrative matters and other\nprovide enough stimulus for the economy. Together they\ncall me up and ask me.\"\nBut the criticisms and the questions go far beyond\nminutiae that were never brought through the system in\nMuskie kept the report's figures constantly before the\nthat. A basic one is whether Title X created new\nthe past. For example, Title x requires executive branch\nSenate when bills reached the floor for votes. \"We treat the\nauthority-that is, gave the President new powers-to\nbudget officials to report to Congress many com-\nresolution as if it did have functional categories,\" a Senate\nwithhold funds and cancel or greatly delay con-\nparatively trivial amounts of money, some totaling only\naide said.\ngressionally approved spending. The other side of this\na few thousand dollars, that are withheld purely for\nissue is whether Title X and other parts of the new con-\nreasons of managerial efficiency. A GAO spokesman es-\nStyles\ngressional budget law are eroding the President's fun-\ntimated that as much as 50 per cent of all deferrals fall\ndamental power to direct and control federal spending.\ninto this category.\nAs the year progressed, the two committees and their\nchairmen developed contrasting styles. In the House,\nAdams generally operated behind the scenes, meeting with\nappropriations subcommittee chiefs to keep them aware of\nAs a result, Adams' work received less public notice.\nThe crosswalk procedure remained troublesome, par-\nthe targets.\nMuskie became a steady presence on the floor of the\nticularly in the Senate. After the House would pass a bill\nBecause all spending bills originate in the House,\nSenate whenever bills affecting spending came up. For each\nand send it to the Senate, a Senate committee often would\nAdams felt the critical point for influencing legislation was\nbill he presented an analysis of how the measure fit into the\nprepare its recommendations the same day. In some in-\nin these subcommittees as the bills were being drafted. Sup-\ntargets and how passage might affect bills that remained to\nstances the bill would go straight to the Senate floor for a\nported by intense Budget Committee staff work, Adams\nbe voted on in the same functional category. Although he\nvote. In neither case would the Budget Committee have\nSen. Henry Bellmon\nRep. Delbert L. Latta\nkept in close touch with the chairmen. \"We've already done\nrarely actively opposed a bill, he always made plain what\ntime to prepare its analysis of whether the measure con-\nConservatives who split on budget resolution\nour work before the bills get to the floor,\" Adams said.\nits impact would be on the over-all budget.\nformed to the target. \"It's something of a problem to get\nPAGE 2866-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2867\nEconomic Affairs 6\nEconomic Affairs 7\npeople to think in terms of the categories instead of just the\nThe positions of the budget committees on bills also\ndeficit. But the budget committees insisted that their\nkey compromise between the House and Senate versions of\nappropriations bills,\" said a Senate aide. When the time\nhelped the House and Senate override Ford's vetoes of the\nhigher deficit was due almost entirely to more realistic\nthe resolution, Congress agreed to replace these targets\ncame to vote, however, Muskie generally stepped in to pre-\nchild nutrition bill and the education appropriations bill\nspending estimates.\nwith binding limits during the spring of 1976.\nsent his analysis.\n(HR 5901).\nAt one point during consideration of the resolution,\nMuskie termed the final product of the process \"a very\nThe complexities of crosswalking often dumbfounded\nFord had maintained that the nutrition bill still was\nranking Senate Budget Committee Republican Bellmon\ntight budget.\" He said the $74.1-billion deficit was \"the\nsome members nevertheless, including Senate\ntoo expensive, despite House and Senate cuts resulting\ndeclared that the $60-billion figure was \"phony\" and\nlowest possible under the circumstances.\"\nAppropriations Committee Chairman John L. McClellan (D\nfrom budget committee pressures. The veto was overridden\ncharged a \"lack of candor on the part of the Office of\nBellmon agreed. But he and others in the House and\nArk.). McClellan, who had been critical of the process from\n397-18 in the House and 79-13 in the Senate. (Weekly Report\nManagement and Budget and the President.\"\nSenate called for Congress in 1976 to review entitlement\nthe beginning because it infringed on his jurisdictional\np. 2161)\nThe narrow 200-196 vote in the House had come May 1\nprograms and other budget \"uncontrollables\" that had\nauthority, clashed with Muskie over the problem Sept. 17\nAlthough spending in the education bill was well below\nas that chamber adopted its original version of the\npushed spending estimates up so far above Congress' spring\nduring debate on the appropriations bill for the Departments\nthe first resolution target, it was higher than the amount\nresolution. In a rare display of force moments before the\nprojections.\nof Labor and Health, Education and Welfare (HR 8069).\nFord had requested. Adams and Muskie argued that allow-\nvote, Speaker Carl Albert (D Okla.), Majority Leader\n(Weekly Report p. 1984)\ning the veto to stand would repeal priorities Congress had\nThomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D Mass.) and Democratic Caucus\nOutlook\nMuskie had risen to give a 10-minute explanation of\nset in the first resolution. The override vote was 379-41 in\nChairman Phillip Burton (D Calif.) had risen in rapid\ncrosswalking and to explain that the bill contained funds\nthe House and 88-12 in the Senate. (Weekly Report p. 1948)\nsuccession to urge passage. They warned that defeat of the\nIt seemed likely that Congress would revise the budget\nmeasure might destroy the whole budget process.\nauthority ceiling in 1976 to include the $2.3-billion in\nspread over a half-dozen functional categories. He was\nfederal loans to New York that Ford signed into law Dec. 9\nabout to declare whether the bill complied with the targets\nWhat It Accomplished\nin the first budget resolution when McClellan interjected:\nInterim\n10481-PL 94-143). (Weekly Report p. 2699)\n\"Why did the Committee on the Budget find it\nAt several points during 1975 Rep. Holtzman and other\nThe budget mechanism's worst enemy in 1976 might be\nThe two budget committees, along with the\nliberals complained that the new budget process was more\nCongress itself. Political battles were sure to take place\nnecessary to make the process so confusing? I do not un-\nCongressional Budget Office, spent the interim period\nderstand how it works. Why could the committee not follow\nan arithmetical exercise in toting up the requests of the\nover setting budget priorities in the 16 functional\nbetween the first and second resolutions tracking various\nthe appropriation bill so its analysis would be simple, un-\nPresident and the actions of the appropriations committees\ncategories. And, having missed the Sept. 15 deadline for ac-\nspending measures.\nderstandable, and we would all know what we are doing and\nthan it was a congressional effort at setting national\ntion on the second resolution in 1975 by three months,\nCBO and the Senate Budget Committee issued separate\nwhat we are expected to do?\"\nCongress seemed headed for trouble in meeting the full set\npriorities.\nscorekeeping reports showing how congressional action\n\"It is not quite that black and white,\" Muskie replied.\nThere was no question that the spending levels in the\nof deadlines that will be operating in 1976.\ncompared with the first resolution. Most bills came in at or\n\"What we've got here is a kind of timetable that\nsecond resolution were higher than those requested by the\nbelow the targets.\nnobody's ever lived by before, the kind of process that was\nInroads\nPresident in almost every category, both in his original\nDuring the same period, the budget committees divided\nFebruary budget proposal and in later re-estimates by the\nnever created before, and an attempt/to impose this on an\nIn the face of resistance from powerful senators such\ninto \"task forces,\" which essentially served as subcom-\ninstitution that's almost 200 years old and that's generated\nas McClellan, the team of Muskie and Bellmon startled\nOffice of Management and Budget. Defense and foreign aid\nmittees. The House's seven panels and the Senate's four\nconsiderable momentum and habits over those years,\"\nmany by their influence on floor action.\nwere the only categories that were lower.\nreflected the larger House membership as well as the House\nMuskie told Congressional Quarterly.\nMuskie took the floor July 10 to state that an amend-\nThe second resolution's over-all outlay ceiling was $8.4-\ncommittee's somewhat more detailed approach to func-\nment offered by George McGovern (D S.D.) to the school\nbillion higher than OMB's Oct. 21 projection of costs and\ntional categories. Muskie had maintained that the com-\n-By Donald Smith\nlunch program (HR 4222) would add at least $150-million to\n$25.5-billion higher than the President's original request.\nmittees should not deal too explicitly with the categories so\nthe bill which, he said, already was $300-million over the\nMuch of the reason for the rising costs was inflation and\nas not to preempt the appropriations subcommittees in\nbudget target. \"The painful reality that led to the enact-\nhigher recession-related spending on such programs as un-\nrecommending individual pieces of legislation.\nFinal Action:\nment of the Budget Act is that we cannot meet all our\nemployment benefits and welfare.\nThe task force system produced some uncongressional\ndemands all at once all the time,\" said Muskie. \"We must\nCongress projected major net spending increases over\nterminology and protocols, particularly in the Senate.\nSMALL BUSINESS RELIEF ACT\nestablish priorities.\"\nthe President's budget in the education, manpower and\nInstead of hearings, the Senate task forces called their\nThe Senate defeated the amendment, 29-61, prompting\nsocial services category-$3-billion more than the $17.9-\nsessions \"seminars.\" In order to avoid the atmosphere of\nCongress Dec. 17 cleared for the President a bill (HR\nthe bill's floor manager, James B. Allen (D Ala.), to declare\nbillion OMB Oct. 21 projection; health-$2-billion more\nconfrontation that often accompanies hearings, members of\n5541) to help small businesses that sustained financial\nthat the Budget Committee \"has earned its keep today.\"\nthan the $30.9-billion OMB estimate; and veterans benefits\nthe committee and witnesses shared long tables arranged\nIn another instance, the Senate Aug. 1 rejected on a 42-\nand services-$900-million more than the OMB figure of\nhardships because of inflation and energy shortages while\nmore like conferences. The members' regular platform\nfederal price controls were in effect from 1971 to 1974.\n48 vote a conference report on the fiscal 1976 weapons\n$19.1-billion.\nseats were taken over by staff members and the press.\nThe defense category suffered a net loss of $400-million\nThe bill would allow a federal agency holding a fixed-\nprocurement bill (HR 6674) after Muskie declared that the\nmeasure \"will inevitably bust the budget target for national\nfrom the $91.6-billion OMB estimate. Foreign aid was\nSecond Resolution\nprice contract with a small business to terminate the con-\ntract without penalty if the business could show that it had\ndefense.\"\ndecreased by $200-million from $5.1-billion.\nThe Senate adopted the final version of the second\nlost money or was likely to do so because of cost increases\nBellmon and other conservatives then joined Muskie in\nThe budget committees pointed out that the bulk of all\nresolution containing the firm spending ceiling Dec. 11 by a\ndue to inflation.\nan unusual alliance opposing a senator who usually gets his\nthe increases over the OMB projection reflected Congress'\ncomfortable 74-19 margin.\nThe agency could modify the contract to accommodate\nway-Armed Services Committee Chairman John C. Sten-\ndetermination that government programs would cost more\nIn the House, the coalition of Republicans, and conser-\nhigher prices if the modification would not cost as much as\nnis (D Miss.). Bellmon declared that he supported a strong\nthan OMB estimated because of the recession.\nvative Democrats opposed to the size of the deficit com-\nThe deficit projected by the second resolution, $5.6-\ncancelling the contract and procuring the goods from\nnational defense. But, he added, \"This country must be as\nbined with liberal Democrats who wanted the budget to\nanother source.\nprepared economically as it is militarily.\"\nbillion higher than the Oct. 21 OMB estimate, also hinged\nreflect more stimulus to come within two votes of defeating\nThe bill also authorized agencies to extend contract\nDuring the debate, Muskie also pledged to speak out\nlargely on the accuracy of forecasts. For example, OMB\nthe resolution, 189-187.\nagain against a conference version of the school lunch\nassumed the government would earn $6-billion from leases\ndeadlines if energy shortages had caused delays. The bill\nSpending in almost all categories in the second resolu-\nto companies exploring the Outer Continental Shelf for new\napplied only to contracts signed between Aug. 15, 1971, and\nprogram, which contained some of the same elements of the\ntion rose over the first-resolution targets, adding up to a\noil supplies. After much debate, Congress decided the most\nOct. 31, 1974, the period in which federal price controls\nMcGovern amendment. (Weekly Report p. 1737)\ntotal increase of $7.9-billion in outlays. Again, the com-\nthe government would receive was $4.5-billion.\nwere in effect. HR 5541 was scheduled to expire Sept. 30,\nThe debate over the weapons bill brought into focus the\nmittees attributed the rises almost entirely to re-estimates\n1976.\neffect of Congress' new budget approach. A Senate Budget\nFirst Resolution\nof \"uncontrollable\" budget items. \"This is why we met all\nThe House passed the bill April 22 on a 402-0 vote. The\nCommittee aide noted, \"Stennis was saying basically, 'Look,\nthe targets and the outlay figure went up,' Adams ex-\nSenate did not take action until Oct. 30 when it passed an\nthe Senate bill was lower than the House bill, it went to con-\nCongress adopted the first resolution May 14-one day\nplained.\namended bill, 82-10, and requested a conference. (House ac-\nference, we (the Senate conferees) fought hard, we split the\nahead of schedule. The measure (H Con Res 218) set targets\nAs approved, the resolution contained non-binding\ntion, Weekly Report p. 865)\ndifference, and that's what the process is all about.' Muskie\nof $367-billion for total spending, and $298.2-billion for\ntargets for spending, revenue, budget authority, deficit and\nHouse-Senate conferees filed their report (H Rept 94-\nwas saying, 'No, the process has been revised, the limits\nrevenues, with a resulting deficit of $68.8-billion.\nthe public debt for the transition quarter. That is the period\n724) Dec. 12. The House adopted it by voice vote Dec. 15.\nthat we enacted in May are enforced both for the House and\nOn March 29, Ford had announced on nationwide\nbetween July 1 and Sept. 30, 1976, when the government\nThe Senate adopted it by voice vote Dec. 17, clearing the\nthe Senate.\"\ntelevision that he was determined to adhere to a $60-billion\nswitches to a new fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. As part of a\nbill for the President.\nPAGE 2868-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2869\nEconomic Affairs 9\nEconomic Affairs 8\nSenate Passage:\nProxmire's proposal was adopted as a substitute for\nanother amendment by John G. Tower (R Texas), top-\nTax Cut Passage:\nFINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS\nranking Republican on the Financial Institutions Subcom-\nmittee, and John Sparkman (D Ala.), the full panel's former\nHOW THE 'GRINCH' FAILED TO STEAL CHRISTMAS\nchairman. Their proposal would have deferred repeal of the\nThe Senate Dec. 11 endorsed a substantial broadening\nchecking account interest ban for five and one-half years\nof bank and thrift institution powers to make the nation's\nand required a Treasury study of the potential impact.\nA lot of closed door negotiating-and a little bit of slap-\nyear he had been demanding. (Background, Weekly Report\nfinancial system more efficient and competitive.\nThe Tower-Sparkman proposal would have delayed\nstick-marked the maneuverings that led to the enactment\np. 2763, 2155)\nBy a 79-14 vote, the Senate sent the House its version\npayment of interest on checking accounts at least until\nDec. 19 of a six-month tax cut extension combined with a\nAs House debate on the veto reached an end Dec. 18,\nof wide-ranging federal regulatory revisions designed to\n1982, compared to 1977 or 1978 under the committee bill.\nnon-binding congressional pledge to hold down federal\nMajority Leader Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D Mass.) said: \"Let\nassure a steadier flow of private savings into financial in-\nWith Tower's and Sparkman's support, Proxmire's amend-\nspending.\nme tell this house the complete facts of life as they are right\nstitutions-and through them to the nation's housing\nment split the difference by repealing the prohibition in\nSenate Finance Committee Chairman Russell B. Long\nnow, Mr. Minority Leader and members on that side. I had\nmarket.\n1978 or in 1980.\n(D La.) may have best summed up the prevailing mood\nan idea that this was going to be a friendly veto and I think\nThe House, whose Banking, Currency and Housing\nwhen he noted that neither the President nor Congress\nmany on the minority side did. I am kind of surprised at the\nCommittee was conducting a massive financial industry\nNOW Accounts\nwanted to be \"accused of being the grinch that stole Christ-\nopposition from the minority side to this. Let me just say\nstudy, was expected to defer action on most of the\nmeasure's complicated provisions until 1976.\nAfter accepting that compromise, the Senate by a 37-55\nmas.\"\nthis to the minority leader. There is no capitulation. This is\nvote defeated Jesse A. Helms' N.C.) proposal to apply the\nThere were substantial differences of opinion as to\nit.\"\nWhile making some changes through floor\namendments, the Senate for the most part accepted its\nsame dates to repeal of the existing prohibition on\nwhether the President or Congress came off best in the ex-\nMoments after the vote, an angry House Ways and\nnegotiable order of withdrawal accounts outside of New\nchange. And there was much dispute about whether the\nMeans Committee Chairman Al Ullman (D Ore.) said:\nBanking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee's\nEngland states.\nanti-spending language under consideration actually meant\n\"We're not going to take up this matter again\" in 1975.\nrecommendations for allowing banks, savings and loan\nSince NOW accounts essentially amounted to checking\nanything.\nassociations and similar financial institutions to offer more\ndiversified services and expand their lending activities.\naccounts that pay interest, Helms argued that they should\nBut it could not be contested that without some sort of\nNot 'It'\ngo into nationwide use only at the same time that the\nbill being passed by Congress and signed by the President,\nBut the Dec. 18 vote was not \"it.\" Congress did take up\nThe panel's legislation in turn was based on the Ford\ngeneral ban on checking account interest was ended.\npersonal and corporate federal income taxes would rise Jan.\nadministration's sweeping proposals for revamping the\nthe matter again in 1975 and the Democratic leadership was\nSubcommittee Chairman Thomas J. McIntyre (D N.H.)\n1. And, as Sen. Long noted, no one wanted to be seen as the\nforced to eat its words.\nU.S. banking system along lines suggested by President\nopposed Helms' amendment, arguing that NOW accounts\n\"grinch\" who caused the tax increase.\nNixon's Commission on Financial Structure and Regulation\nMembers and lobbyists who worked on the issue told\nin 1971. (Background, Senate committee bill, Weekly\nwere subject to regulatory requirements that allowed banks\nCongressional Quarterly that a key part of the Democratic\nto delay paying savings withdrawals for up to 30 days. But\nImpasse\nleadership's arguments before the override vote was that\nReport p. 2630)\nKey provisions of the measure accepted by the Senate\n\"while there is a technical difference between NOWs and\nthis was going to be Congress' last chance to extend the tax\nwould allow federally regulated thrift institutions to hold\nchecking accounts,\" Helms insisted, \"there is no real\nAs late as midday Dec. 18, there seemed to be little\nreductions. There were to be no more votes.\nchecking accounts, remove restrictions on negotiable order\ndifference.\"\nchance of action in time to avoid a January tax increase.\nRepublican leaders, on the other hand, were reassuring\nof withdrawal (NOW) accounts, broaden credit union\nThe House that day failed by 17 votes (265-157) to override\nthe members on their side of the aisle that if the veto was\nlending powers and permit all financial institutions to pay\nOther Changes\nFord's veto of a six-month extension of the tax reductions\nsustained, there still was time to pass a compromise bill\ninterest on checking accounts.\nThe Senate stripped out two provisions of S 1267 to\n(HR 5559). He had vetoed the measure because it did not\nthat extended the cuts and incorporated the sort of anti-\nOther provisions would allow banks to hold corporate\nprotect the jurisdictions of other Senate committees.\ncontain the $395-billion spending ceiling for the 1977 fiscal\nspending language the President was seeking.\nsavings accounts and make more real estate loans. The bill\nWith the banking committee's support, the Senate by\nalso would repeal interest rate ceilings on home mortgages\nvoice vote adopted:\nbacked by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).\nMcIntyre's amendment to drop provisions repealing\nThe measure also extended for five and one-half years\ntax preferences accorded savings and loan associations and\nIndividual Tax Cuts Under Final Bill\nthe existing Regulation Q authority for federal agencies to\nsubstituting a new tax credit for mortgage loan interest\nearnings. While allowing referral of those measures to the\n(Full-Year Effect of Six-Month Tax Cut Extensions)\nset interest rate ceilings on time deposits with a differential\ngiving thrift institutions a competitive advantage over\nSenate Finance Committee, the amendment expressly\nbanks. (Interim extension, Weekly Report p. 2779)\nmade the bill's other provisions effective only upon enact-\nTax Liability\nment of the related tax law changes.\nRichard (Dick) Stone's (D Fla.) amendment to delete\nMarried Couple,\nMarried Couple,\nMarried Couple,\nMarried Couple,\nSenate Floor Action\nprovisions repealing interest rate limits on mortgage loans\nSingle Person\nNo Dependents\nOne Dependent\nTwo Dependents\nFour Dependents\nguaranteed by the Veterans Administration (VA). That left\nAdjusted\nThe Senate agreed to several revisions in S 1267, all\nthe VA interest ceiling issue for study by the Senate\nGross\n1974\nReduc-\n1974\nReduc-\n1974\nReduc-\n1974\nReduc-\n1974\nReduc-\nproposed or endorsed by the top-ranking members of the\nVeterans Affairs Committee.\nIncome\nLaw\ntion\nLaw\ntion\nLaw\ntion\nLaw\ntion\nLaw\ntion\nBanking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and its\nMaking other largely technical changes in S 1267, the\nSubcommittee on Financial Institutions.\nSenate by voice vote accepted Sparkman's amendments to\n$ 3,000\n$\n138*\n$ 95\n$ 28*\n$ 28\n$300\n$300\n$300\nCompromising differences among the panel's leaders,\nspecifically include loans for mobile homes and for home\n5,000\n491\n127\n322\n192\n$ 208\n508\n$\n98\n398\n300\nthe Senate by voice vote accepted Chairman William Prox-\nconstruction tied to long-term mortgages within the un-\n6,000\n681\n147\n484\n200\n362\n429\n245\n445\n$\n28\n228\n8,000\n1,087\n182\n837\n229\n694\n239\nlimited residential lending category spelled out for savings\n559\n265\n312\n312\nmire's (D Wis.) amendment to delay for at least an ad-\n10,000\n1,482\n151\n1,152\n204\n1,010\n189\n867\n216\n586\n278\nditional year the repeal of an existing prohibition on\nand loan associations.\n12,500\n1,996\n180\n1,573\n177\n1,408\n163\n1,261\n147\n976\n210\ninterest-paying checking accounts.\nTo encourage savings and loan associations to broaden\n15,000\n2,549\n180\n2,029\n180\n1,864\n180\n1,699\n180\n1,371\n210\ntheir investment base-while retaining their traditional\n17,500\n3,145\n180\n2,516\n180\n2,329\n180\n2,156\n180\n1,826\n210\nChecking Account Interest\nrole as primary source of home mortgage loans-S 1267\n20,000\n3,784\n180\n3,035\n180\n2,848\n180\n2,660\n180\n2,285\n210\nwould allow them to place up to 30 per cent of their assets in\n25,000\n5,230\n180\n4,170\n180\nUnder Proxmire's proposal, financial institutions could\n3,960\n180\n3,750\n180\n3,330\n210\nshorter term non-residential loans and investments.\n30,000\n6,850\n180\n5,468\n180\n5,228\n180\n4,988\n180\n4,508\n210\nstart paying interest on checking accounts on Jan. 1, 1978,\nSparkman's amendments excluded from that 30 per cent\n35,000\n8,625\n180\n6,938\n180\n6,668\n180\n6,398\n180\n5,858\n210\nunless the Federal Reserve Board found reason to delay\nlimit mobile home loans and also construction loans for\n40,000\n10,515\n180\n8,543\n180\n8,251\n180\n7,958\n180\n7,373\n210\ntheir use for two additional years until 1980. As written by\nthe committee, the bill would have permitted interest-\nhomes on which an institution also held long-term\n*Assuming Deductible Personal\npaying checking accounts starting in 1977, with Federal\nmortgages.\nExpenses of 17 Per Cent of Income\nSOURCE: Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.\nReserve authority to impose a one-year delay.\n-By Tom Arrandale\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2871\nPAGE 2870-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole in part except by editorial clients\nEconomic Affairs 10\nEconomic Affairs - 11\nWith the failure of the override effort, the House\n\"escape clause\" voiding the spending limitation in the event\nappeared to be following through on the Democratic\nof changing economic conditions or other unforeseen cir-\nAmendment Text\nShortly thereafter, the anti-spending language was\nleaders' vows. The House cancelled its formal recess and\ncumstances.\"\nadopted 82-0 and the package cleared for the House 73-7.\nplans were made to hold pro-forma meetings until the\nSen. Walter F. Mondale (D Minn.) proposed some\n(Vote 598 and 599, p. 2898)\nbeginning of the new session in January. This would have\nminor wording changes suggested by Budget Committee\nThe following is the text of the \"anti-spending\"\nprevented the President from calling the members back for\nChairman Edmund S. Muskie (D Maine). One change was\namendment to HR 9968 approved by the Senate\nHouse Reaction\na special session to deal with a tax cut extension.\nagreed to by the Finance Committee. However, Long balked\nFinance Committee Dec. 19:\nThe House did not gree the measure with quite the\nBut, according to Rep. Barber B. Conable Jr. (R N.Y.),\nat specifically mentioning the phrase \"tax reform\" as a\nCongress shares the President's determination to\nsame good humor as the Senate.\nsecond-ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Com-\nway to increase revenues and thereby reduce the spending\nreduce spending levels in order to reduce the national\nSpeaker Carl Albert (D Okla.) was upset. O'Neill was\nmittee and chairman of the House Republican Policy Com-\ncuts.\ndeficit.\nupset. Ullman was upset. House Budget Committee\nmittee, the Republicans felt certain that they held a suf-\n\"You mean 'tax increases' don't you?\" Long said. \"A\nCongress affirms its commitments to the\nChairman Brock Adams (D Wash.) was upset. Democratic\nficient political advantage on the issue to force a com-\n'tax reform' is a tax increase you approve of.\" The com-\nprocedures established by the Congressional Budget\nfreshmen who had hoped the leadership would show\npromise.\nmittee then decided to go along with the language as\nand Impoundment Control Act of 1974.\nfirmness on the issue were upset.\nproposed by Long (with the one change) and to tie up any\nIf the Congress recommends a continuation of the\nAlso unhappy were AFL-CIO lobbyists, who did not\nStriking a Bargain\nloose ends in floor debate.\ntax reduction provided by this act for the remainder of\nwant to see the Republicans who voted to sustain the veto\nThat evening, work began on just such a compromise.\nRoth moved to add the language to the tax cut and all\nthe calendar year 1976, Congress shall provide for\nLong and Conable went to the White House to discuss the\n12 committee members present voted \"aye.\" After a brief\nreductions in the level of spending which would\n\"get off the hook.\" The labor lobbyists were urging the\nHouse to send the tax bill back to the White House with no\nmoment of procedural confusion, the panel voted on the\notherwise occur by $1.00 for each $1.00 of tax reduction\nsituation. They were accompanied by Sen. William V. Roth\n(from the 1974 tax rate levels) provided in the fiscal\nspending language.\nJr. (R Del.), a member of the Finance Committee, and by\nquestion of linking the taxation-spending package to HR\nyear 1977, provided, however, That nothing shall\nKen Young, number-two man in the AFL-CIO's\nRep. Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D La.), a member of the Ways\n9968. This gave Sen. Carl T. Curtis (R Neb.) the opportunity\npreclude the right of the Congress to pass a resolution\nlegislative department, worried that even a vague con-\nand Means Committee. Waggonner is regarded as a leader of\nhe wanted to vote against the tax cut. The motion passed 11-\ncontaining a higher or lower expenditure figure if the\ncessiion on spending would give the Republicans a club to\nthe southern Democrats who back the administration on\n1, with Curtis the lone dissenter.\nCongress concludes that this is warranted by changing\nuse in next year's budget debate.\nfiscal matters.\neconomic conditions or other unforeseen circum-\nUllman and Adams met with Albert and O'Neill to plot\nAs a result of that session, a move began to revive the\nFloor Action\nstances. [Emphasis in original]\nstrategy. Woodworth was put to work along with budget\ntax cut extension by linking it with language that would call\nAbout an hour later, the package was ready for Senate\nThis is the final text of the \"anti-spending\"\ncommittee staff to draft another amendment. \"Right now I\nfor spending reductions, but not set a specific ceiling.\nfloor debate. In general, the discussions centered on three\nlanguage as written by members of the House Ways\ndon't even know where the deal is being made,\" a senior\nSenate Democrats had flatly rejected such a ceiling in a\npoints: 1) establishing legislative history that the spending\nand Means and Budget Committees and approved by\nWays and Means Democrat observed that morning, \"but I\nlunchtime caucus that day. But, Long noted, \"as far as I'm\nlimitation did not mean much, 2) establishing that the\nthe House and Senate later Dec. 19:\nassume someone is making one.\"\nconcerned the rest of it is negotiable.\"\nWhite House would sign the measure and 3) congratulating\nCongress is determined to continue the tax reduc-\nEventually, the members of the Ways and Means and\nLong said the White House did not draft his spending-\neveryone concerned for having worked out the agreement.\ntion for the first 6 months of 1976 in order to assure\nBudget Committees were assembled behind the closed\nreduction proposals. The language was put together, he\n\"We should keep in mind,\" Curtis said, \"that a ceiling\ncontinued economic recovery.\ndoors of one of the Speaker's rooms to go over the draft.\nsaid, by Laurence N. Woodworth, the staff director for the\nof a figure, or words committing us to restrain spending,\nCongress is also determined to continue to control\n\"This isn't a meeting,' Ullman told a reporter, \"we're just\nJoint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.\nare all about the same because none of them have any\nspending levels in order to reduce the national deficit.\nhaving an informal discussion.\"\nWoodworth is the chief draftsman for Ways and Means and\nauthority beyond the statute and they are of limited\nCongress reaffirms its commitments to the\nFinance Committees' tax bills.\nauthority.\" Although Curtis was speaking against the bill,\nprocedures established by the Congressional Budget\nWhite House aides apparently did indicate that Ford\nhis arguments were echoed by many of the measure's\nand Impoundment Control Act of 1974 under which it\nRepublicans Pleased\nwould sign a compromise bill but the commitment was con-\nhas already established a binding spending ceiling for\nproponents.\nOne of the participants who were happy with the turn\nthe fiscal year 1976.\ntingent upon wording of the spending provision satisfactory\nMuskie did much of the talking during the debate and\nof events was Republican Conable. He noted that the\nIf the Congress adopts a continuation of the tax\nto the President.\nmost of what he had to say was to point out why the Senate\nreduction provided by this act beyond June 30, 1976,\nDemocrats might not be happy about the compromise but\nand House Budget Committees did not have to pay a great\nand if economic conditions warrant doing so, Congress\nthey were \"boxed in.\" In any case, \"the beauty of the\nCommittee Meeting\ndeal of attention to the spending language when they went\nshall provide, through the procedures in the budget act,\narrangement,\" he added, \"is that both sides can go away\nThe Senate Finance Committee assembled at 10:30 the\nto work on the 1977 budget.\nfor reductions in the level of spending in the fiscal year\nclaiming a great victory.\"\nnext morning (Dec. 19) to consider a spending-taxation\nAmong other things, Muskie said that the nature of the\n1977 below what would otherwise occur, equal to any\nConfronted with a taxation-spending package, the\npackage. And it was pretty clear that a bargain was being\n$28-billion budget cuts Ford plans to announce in connec-\nadditional reduction in taxes (from the 1974 tax rate\nDemocrats could vote against the spending ceiling without\nstruck.\ntion with his 1977 budget would constitute one of the \"un-\nlevels) provided for the fiscal year 1977: Provided,\nalso voting against the tax cut. Still, they could claim to\nLong proposed that an anti-spending amendment be\nforeseen circumstances\" in the spending bill's escape clause,\nhowever, That nothing shall preclude the right of the\nhave forced the President to abandon his $395-billion\nadded to the conference committee version of the six-month\nbecause the President has not yet disclosed those cuts.\nCongress to pass a budget resolution containing a\nceiling, while the Republicans could say the Democrats had\nhigher or lower expenditure figure if the Congress con-\nextension. This, in turn, would be added as an amendment\ncludes that this is warranted by economic conditions or\naccepted the \"$1 for $1\" spending cut.\nto yet another obscure House-passed bill pending in the\nStarting Point\nunforeseen circumstances. [Emphasis in original]\nSome House Democrats caught the spirit immediately.\nSenate. The chosen vehicle was a bill (HR 9968) to finance\nSaid Joseph E. Karth of Minnesota: \"This represents a\nAnother point that emerged in the debate was that\nthe rebuilding of the American Falls Dam in Idaho. And,\nterrible defeat for the President. He's had to back away\nCongress was not committed to any specific starting point\nAsked by Sen. Frank E. Moss (D Utah) whether the\nfrom everything he's insisted on.\"\nfor good measure, Long had the Canadian railroad car\nfor calculating spending cuts. Ford's proposal is based on\nlegislation (vetoed along with the tax cut) thrown into the\nlanguage was \"meaningless,\" Muskie replied: \"I do not wish\nOthers, such as Abner J. Mikva of Illinois, were less\nreducing projected budget increases so all calculations have\npackage.\nto be made on the basis of estimates.\nto overstress things. I do not wish to discourage the Presi-\npleased: \"Of course the language is meaningless, but how\nThe three-paragraph spending amendment said that\nOMB puts the 1977 fiscal year \"current services\ndent from signing the bill. But let me say that I think he\ndoes it look if we said yesterday that we must not allow any\n\"Congress shares the President's determination\" to hold\nhim.\" preserves all our prerogatives. It may mean something to\ninterference with the budget process but today we go ahead\nbudget\" (what federal spending would be with no change in\ndown the national debt by reducing spending and affirmed\nand do just that?\" After about an hour, the committee\nexisting programs) at $423-billion. Subtracting the\nCongress' commitment to the new congressional budget\nmembers ended their \"discussion\" in the Speaker's rooms\nPresident's $28-billion cut from $423-billion yields the $395-\nprocess. (Amendment Text, box p. 2873)\nWhimsical Note\nby agreeing on substitute spending language.\nbillion ceiling.\nHowever, the current tax reductions are at an annual\n$1 for $1'\nThe Senate's tone in all this was occasionally whim-\nWhite House Sounded Out\nrate of approximately $16-billion, which would mean a\nsical. For example, Sen. John 0. Pastore (D R.I.) rose after\nThe amendment also said that Congress would reduce\n$407-billion ceiling. Further, Muskie challenges the $423-\nthe debate had been in progress for awhile to say: \"I am\nThe draft was discussed with White House lobbyists\nspending \"$1 for each $1\" of future tax cuts. Committee\nbillion base figure and says it could be as high as $430-\nafraid that unless we stop complimenting one another and\nand, apparently, with the President. Asked whether Ford\ndebate made clear that the \"$1 for $1\" phrase was the\nbillion. With a continuation of the existing cuts that means\nget this bill to a vote, there will not be enough time for the\napproved the new language, Ullman said only: \"The Presi-\n\"equivalent\" for the $395-billion ceiling. There also was an\na $414-billion ceiling.\nHouse to join us in this venture.\"\ndent hasn't said he wouldn't sign it.\"\nThe House version of the spending limitation said little\nPAGE 2872-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2873\nEconomic Affairs 12\nEconomic Affairs 13\nmore than the Senate text. There was a change in emphasis\n\"We're going to accept the House language,\" said Long.\nAs passed by the Senate, S 2498:\nto suggest that if Congress acted in response to the measure\n\"They're trying to say the same thing as us but the tone\nEstablished within the Small Business Administration\nit would be because Congress wanted to. The \"$1 for $1\"\nisn't nearly as much in the Christmas spirit as ours.\"\nan office of export development, to be headed by an assis-\nCommon-Site Picketing Veto\nphrase gave way to an \"equal to\" wording. But, by and\nRoth and Scott said the President had not said outright\ntant administrator, to promote small business interests in\nlarge, the House version differed only in slightly more\nthat he would sign the bill. \"The President made clear what\nexport markets.\nApparently heeding political warnings from his\nawkward syntax.\nhe wanted,\" Scott went on to say. \"If that is carried out,\nIncreased funds available for SBA's pollution control\nown party, President Ford Dec. 22 announced that he\nthere is no obstacle to his signing it.\"\nequipment lease program to $25-million from $10-million;\nwould veto HR 5900, the common-site picketing bill.\nHouse Debate\nOn the floor, Roth, Long and Curtis dominated the\nestablished a new program to let small business finance\nLong sought by labor, the measure would have\nHouse debate did not quite follow the same lines as the\nproceedings, establishing the legislative history the White\npollution control equipment through sale of tax-exempt in-\nallowed a local union with a grievance against one con-\nSenate's. Ullman and Adams sought to demonstrate that\nHouse requested. Muskie was present to listen but took no\ndustrial revenue bonds.\ntractor to picket all other contractors or subcontractors\nthe language would not interfere with the House's\nactive part. And Waggoner came over from the House to\nEstablished a National Commission on Small Business\nat the same construction site. Such picketing had been\nprerogatives or the budget process. However, this was\nkeep an eye on the Senate proceedings.\nto study factors affecting small business and to report to\nruled an illegal secondary boycott in 1951 by the\noffset by the Republicans (and Waggonner) who sought to\nWith all that taken care of, the Senate agreed to the\nCongress with legislative recommendations within two\nSupreme Court; HR 5900 would effectively overturn\nemphasize the measure's endorsement of spending reduc-\nHouse version by voice vote. The President signed the bill\nyears; the commission would be composed of 11 members\nthat holding. (Final provisions, Weekly Report p. 2742)\ntions.\nDec. 23.\nappointed by the President.\nAs late as September, Ford had indicated publicly\nThe Republicans' efforts were impeded somewhat by\n-By Al Gordon\nRequired the President to make a study of all federal\nthat he would sign the bill if certain conditions were\nuncertainty as to whether the White House wanted the\ndisaster loan authorities and to report his recommen-\nmet. Those conditions, including the establishment of a\nHouse language or the Senate language. Rhodes announced\ndations to Congress by April 30, 1976.\nConstruction Industry Collective Bargaining Com-\nfinally that the White House preferred the Senate's draft.\nUnfinished Business:\nIncreased the amount small business investment com-\nmittee to bring stability to wage negotiations in the\nHowever, the Republican leaders said they would go along\npanies could borrow from the government to 300 per cent\nbuilding trades, were incorporated into the final bill.\nwith the House version.\nfrom 200 per cent of private capital; increased the amount\nBut contractors and other businessmen opposed\nOnce again, O'Neill had a key statement to make. He\nSBA AMENDMENTS\nsmall business investment companies could borrow in \"ven-\nthe bill, mounting an impressive mail campaign urging\nnoted that \"I was determined yesterday that the final vote\nture capital\" from the government to 400 per cent from 300\nFord to veto the bill. Perhaps more significant were\non the veto would be the final vote.\" However, he warned\nCongress did not complete action in 1975 on a bill (S\nper cent of private capital.\nwarnings from fellow Republicans that a decision to\nthe Democrats who were unhappy with the new bill that\n2498) making several changes in the authority of the Small\nPermitted small business investment companies to be\nsign the bill could drive valuable political support and\nthe economic consequences of letting taxes increase would\nBusiness Administration (SBA). The House and Senate\nunincorporated entities; allowed banks to own 100 per cent\ncampaign contributions to Ronald Reagan.\nbe unacceptable. And he said the new draft enabled the\napproved differing versions of the measure and the\nof a small business' voting common stock.\nIn his message announcing his intention to veto\nHouse to have \"input\" into the spending limitation.\ndifferences were to be resolved in a conference in 1976.\nAuthorized SBA loans to local development companies\nthe bill, Ford acknowledged that he had said he would\nHR 9968 then was adopted, 372-10. (Vote 611, p. 2898)\nto acquire existing plant facilities.\nsign HR 5900 if certain conditions were met, and that\nBut that did not settle the matter.\nSenate Action\nIncreased the maximum amount of economic oppor-\nthose conditions had been fulfilled. Nonetheless, he\ntunity loans to a small business to $100,000 from $50,000;\nsaid, \"after detailed study of the bill and after exten-\nThe Senate passed S 2498 Dec. 12 by a 69-5 vote. (Vote\nOne More Try\n580, Weekly Report p. 2827)\nincreased the maximum amount of local development com-\nsive consultations with others, I have most reluctantly\nThe White House made one more push to change the\nThe bill was reported Oct. 8 by the Banking, Housing\npany loans to $500,000 from $350,000; increased the max-\nconcluded that I must veto the bill. Unfortunately, my\nand Urban Affairs Committee (S Rept 94-420), was referred\nimum amount of regular SBA loans to $500,000 from\nearlier optimism that this bill provided a resolution\nlanguage as the measure went back to the Senate for con-\n$350,000.\ncurrence in the House's amendment.\nthen to the Commerce Committee, and was reported by that\nwhich would have the support of all parties was un-\nHouse leaders had said they were presenting their\ncommittee Nov. 26 (S Rept 94-501).\nMade certain small farms and ranches eligible for\nfounded. As a result, I cannot in good conscience sign\nassistance from the SBA.\nAs passed, the bill established an office of export\nthis measure, given the lack of agreement among the\nlanguage on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. They would not go to\nconference on the matter, nor would they entertain another\ndevelopment within the SBA, set up a National Commission\nvarious parties to the historical dispute over the impact\nHouse Action\nvote. And the question of the House's willingness to deal\non Small Business, and eased funding for the acquisition of\nof this bill on the construction industry.\"\nfurther was rapidly becoming academic. Members were\npollution control equipment by small businesses.\nThe House passed S 2498 by voice vote Dec. 17 after\nOne potential consequence of Ford's action was the\nleaving town for the Christmas recess. The possibility for a\nPrior to passing the bill, the Senate adopted, 50-25, an\namending it to substitute the text of a narrower bill (HR\nresignation of Labor Secretary John T. Dunlop, the\nHouse quorum was rapidly vanishing and, indeed, an ad-\namendment by Jacob K. Javits (R N.Y.) and Gaylord Nelson\n9056) that it had passed Oct. 6 by voice vote under suspen-\nprime proponent of the collective bargaining com-\n(D Wis.) that would enable certain small farms and ranches\nsion of the rules.\nmittee and the only Presidential adviser to urge Ford\njournment resolution had been adopted and sent to the\nSenate.\nto qualify for assistance from the SBA. (Vote 577, Weekly\nThe House bill, reported from the Small Business Com-\nto sign the bill. Dunlop told reporters Dec. 17 that\nNevertheless, Long, Roth, Muskie, Budget Committee\nReport p. 2826)\nmittee Sept. 26 (H Rept 94-519) contained only the\nenactment of the bill would not lead to more strikes in\nranking minority member Henry Bellmon (R Okla.), Ma-\nA second Javits-Nelson amendment that would have\nprovisions making small farms and ranches eligible for\nthe construction industry and that building trades\njority Leader Mike Mansfield (D Mont.), Majority Whip\nprovided aid to small businesses adversely affected by dis-\nSBA assistance and authorizing sale of industrial revenue\nnegotiations in 1976 would be \"unmitigated hell\"\nRobert C. Byrd (D W.Va.) and Minority Leader Hugh Scott\nruption of service from a utility such as telephones,\nbonds to finance the cost of pollution control equipment for\nwithout the legislation. When asked if he would resign\n(R Pa.) were closeted behind the closed doors of one of the\nsmall businesses.\nif Ford vetoed the bill, Dunlop said, \"That's a matter\nelectricity, natural gas or water was defeated, 28-46. (Vote\nyou think about after the fact, not before.\"\nmajority leader's offices.\n578, Weekly Report p. 2826)\nJoining in the two-hour discussion of the next move\nThe Senate adopted an amendment by Quentin N. Bur-\nAlthough Ford vetoed the bill during the con-\nFinal Action:\ngressional adjournment, his veto did not constitute a\nwere White House lobbyists John O. Marsh Jr. and Max L.\ndick (D N.D.) that required the President to review all\nFriedersdorf.\nfederal disaster loan authorities and report to Congress by\npocket veto and Congress in 1976 would have an oppor-\nFinally, at approximately 7:30 p.m., a decision was\nApril 30, 1976, with legislative recommendations, including\nRENEGOTIATION ACT EXTENDED\ntunity to override it. An override, however, seemed\ndoubtful since neither the House nor the Senate\nreached. Muskie and Bellmon emerged first, pausing\npossible consolidation of some authorities. The amend-\nmomentarily to tell reporters: \"Apparently we will accept\nment, adopted by a 64-10 vote, replaced a provision of\nCongress Dec. 18 cleared for the President a bill (HR\napproved the conference report on the bill with a\nthe House language along with legislative history to make it\nthe committee bill which would have transferred SBA's\n11016) that would extend the Renegotiation Act of 1951 for\nmargin large enough to provide the two-thirds majori-\nclear that it's the same as the Senate language.\" Muskie's\ndisaster loan authority to the Department of Housing and\nnine months through Sept. 30, 1976. The act was scheduled\nty needed for an override. (House action, Weekly\ntone of voice indicated a certain amusement at the idea.\nUrban Development. (Vote 579, Weekly Report p. 2827)\nto expire Dec. 31.\nReport p. 2742, Senate action, Weekly Report p. 2796)\nLong then came out of the room and confirmed the\nBy voice votes, the Senate also adopted two other\nThe act established a renegotiation board to review all\ndeal, adding that the floor debate would be supplemented\namendments: one to increase the authorization for SBA\ndefense and defense-related contracts to ensure that con-\nsiderable opposition from Republicans on the committee\nwith a statement from Ullman. In a news conference earlier\nsurety bond guarantees to $56.5-million from $35-million,\ntractors were not receiving excessive profits. The House\nand further consideration was postponed until 1976.\nthat evening, Ullman and Adams had agreed that there was\nand one to allow SBA to make guarantee payments directly\nBanking, Currency and Housing Committee Dec. 9 reported\nLegislative Action\nno \"substantive\" difference between the House and Senate\nto the owner if the contractor and the surety company both\na bill (HR 10680-H Rept 94-699) making extensive reforms\nin the Renegotiation Act but the measure encountered con-\nThe House passed HR 11016 Dec. 15 on a 395-5 vote un-\nversions.\ndefaulted on their obligations.\nder suspension of the rules. The bill would have extended\nPAGE 2874-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2875\nEconomic Affairs 14\nthe act for six months, through June 30, 1976. (Vote 577, p.\n\"It is incredible that the President of the United States\n2820)\nis willing to advocate policies which could lead to rising un-\nHealth/Education/Welfare\nThe Senate passed the bill by voice vote Dec. 17 after\nemployment at a time when the unemployment rate is\namending it to authorize the nine-month extension. Finance\nalready above 8 per cent,\" Humphrey said.\nCommittee Chairman Russell B. Long (D La.) said his com-\nFord's press secretary, Ron Nessen, said the JEC\nmittee would need the additional time to develop reform\nreport was \"brought to you by the same people who brought\nlegislation because it was committed to spending the first\nyou the recession of 1975.\" He said the report reflected \"an\nHOUSE REJECTS MEDICARE 'BUY-IN' PROPOSAL\nhalf of 1976 on tax reform legislation. The House then\nincreasingly discredited philosophy\" that larger deficits\nagreed to the Senate amendment by voice vote Dec. 18,\nlead to increased prosperity.\nAfter throwing out a Senate proposal to allow in-\nclearing the bill for the President.\nI\nClarified provisions of a 1972 law (PL 92-603) so that\ndividuals under age 65 to buy into the Medicare program for\nOMB Report\nthey would not require medical peer review of the need for\nthe aged, Congress Dec. 19 cleared legislation (HR 10284)\nthe hospital admission of every Medicare and Medicaid\nThe OMB current services budget, released Nov. 10,\nmaking a number of changes in the Medicare program.\npatient.\nStaff Report:\nprojected that spending in fiscal 1977 would rise to at least\nFinal action came when the Senate agreed to accept House\nCorrected a technical error in existing law so that the\n$410.7-billion and as much as $414.5-billion, with no\nJOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE\nchanges in the heavily amended version of the bill passed by\nmonthly premium for physician services under Medicare\nchanges in policy.\nthe Senate Dec. 17. (Weekly Report p. 2783)\ncould increase to $7.20 from $6.70 on July 1, 1976.\nBased on current law, the deficit could range from $31-\nThe House refused to accept the Senate provisions that\nbillion to $51-billion, according to the OMB report. The\nwould have allowed individuals aged 60 to 64 to buy into the\nStipulated that states need not comply with an existing\nThe Joint Economic Committee (JEC) staff warned\nlaw requiring them to deduct, at the option of a welfare\nDec. 21 that President Ford's proposal to hold federal\nvariations were due to a range of assumptions about the\nMedicare program at cost. Most individuals did not qualify\ncourse the economy was likely to take.\nfor subsidized Medicare coverage until they reached age 65.\nrecipient, money needed to cover food stamp purchases\nspending to $395-billion in fiscal year 1977 \"could cause a\nfrom welfare checks until Oct. 1, 1976.\nsevere setback to economic recovery.\"\nThe JEC evaluation praised the OMB report as\nBut the House agreed to two other key Senate\nThe staff report maintained that spending was more\n\"professional and competent.\" However, staff director John\namendments modifying an existing law (PL 92-603) requir-\nlikely to rise to $420.3-billion without any changes in\nR. Stark said the JEC staff differed with OMB on some\ning local medical groups to set up professional standards\nHouse Action\nspending policy. And, it added, without major policy\neconomic assumptions and in some estimating techniques,\nreview organizations (PSROs) to monitor the quality of in-\nchanges, economic recovery \"is likely to sputter out by 1977,\nand that the JEC in some cases used more up-to-date infor-\npatient care received by Medicare and Medicaid patients.\nThe House voted 371-16 under suspension of the rules\nleaving unemployment on a very high plateau, probably\nmation provided by the Congressional Budget Office.\nThese amendments would give physician groups that had\nDec. 19 to amend the broadened Senate version of the\nabout 7½ per cent.\"\nHumphrey announced that he has asked OMB Director\nnot opposed the peer review program an extra two years to\noriginal House bill. The amendment retained some of the\nThe 47-page report was an evaluation of the Office of\nJames T. Lynn to submit an updated current services\nset up PSROs and enable doctors in a few states to place\nnew Senate provisions, reworked others and killed several\nManagement and Budget's (OMB) \"current services\nbudget along with Ford's fiscal 1977 budget proposal in\ncontrol of a PSRO program under a state medical society.\naltogether. (Vote 606, p. 2898)\nbudget,\" a forecast of fiscal 1977 federal spending based on\nJanuary 1976.\n.\nThe original House version of the bill, approved Nov.\nThe more important Senate amendments rejected by\ncurrent policy.\n-By Donald Smith\n17, would have made only minor changes in the Medicare\nthe House would have set up the Medicare \"buy-in\"\nBoth the OMB and JEC documents were part of\nprogram. (Weekly Report p. 2528)\nprogram and restricted the medical malpractice liability of\nCongress' budget-making procedures, which completed\nPSROs. Dan Rostenkowski (D Ill.), chairman of the Ways\ntheir first year of use in 1975. (Story, p. 2863)\nand Means Health Subcommittee, argued that the House\nAccording to the JEC report, the $395-billion spending\nPUBLIC LAWS\nProvisions\nshould limit the bill to non-controversial items or changes\nceiling, coupled with extension of the 1975 tax reduction\nneeded to extend deadlines under existing law. He said his\nthrough 1977, could cause the unemployment rate to rise to\n(Previous Public Laws, Weekly Report p. 2722)\nAs cleared for the President, HR 10284:\nsubcommittee would consider broader changes in the\nan average of 8.7 per cent by the end of the calendar year,\nStipulated that federal reimbursements to physicians\nMedicare program in early 1976.\nwith a higher inflation rate and a drop in the rate of real\nPL 94-131 (S 24)-Provide the necessary statuiory authority for imple-\nfor care of Medicare patients in fiscal 1976 could not be any\nThe Senate-passed amendments accepted by the House\neconomic growth to below 2 per cent.\nmenting the Patent Cooperation Treaty. McCLELLAN (D\nlower than comparable reimbursements in fiscal 1975.\nincluded those changing implementation of the PSRO\nHowever, an expansionary economic policy aimed at a\nArk.)-1/15/75-Senate Judiciary reported June 19, 1975 (S Rept\nExtended to Jan. 1, 1979, from Jan. 1, 1976, the\nprogram and making it clear that medical peer review com-\n94-215). Senate passed June 21. House Judiciary reported Oct. 29\nconstant 4 per cent rate of unemployment would result in a\n(H Rept 94-592). House passed Nov. 3. President signed Nov. 14, 1975.\nauthority of the Department of Health, Education and\nmittees did not need to monitor the hospital admission of\nfull employment surplus of $66-billion by 1981, the report\nPL 94-132 (HR 10585)-Increase by $195-billion the temporary public debt\nWelfare (HEW) to waive a requirement that rural hospitals\nevery Medicare patient. The House also insisted on its\nsaid. That amount would be available for new spending\nlimit until March 15, 1976. ULLMAN (D -11/5/75-House Ways\nprovide Medicare patients with the services of a registered\noriginal version of provisions included in both the House-\nprograms, tax cuts and a budget surplus.\nand Means reported Nov. 10, 1975 (H Rept 94-647). House passed Nov. 13.\nnurse around the clock.\nand Senate-passed measures.\nSenate passed Nov. 13. President signed Nov. 14, 1975.\nContrary to Ford administration warnings that\nPL 94-133 (S 2667)-Extend for one month until Dec. 15, 1975, the\nDirected HEW to poll doctors in states where the\nThe House provisions reaffirmed Dec. 19 gave rural\nincome-support programs would take up increasingly\nEmergency Petroleum Allocation Act. MANSFIELD (D Mont.) and\ndepartment had established more than one PSRO area as to\nhospitals another three years before they would have to\nlarger chunks of the gross national product (GNP), the\nJACKSON (D Wash.)-11/14/75-Senate passed Nov. 14, 1975. House\nwhether they preferred to establish a PSRO serving the en-\nprovide Medicare patients with round-the-clock care by a\nreport maintained that the ratio of entitlement programs to\npassed Nov. 14. President signed Nov. 14, 1975.\ntire state instead of several PSROs within the state; limited\nregistered nurse. The Senate voted to delay this require-\nPL 94-134 (HR 8365)-Make appropriations for the Department of Trans-\nthe GNP was likely to decline between 1975 and 1981.\nportation through Sept. 30, 1976 ALL (D Calif.)-6/26/75-House\nthe polling requirement to states where HEW had not\nment for only one year. The House also rejected a Senate\n\"The federal budget is not out of control,\" the report\nAppropriations reported June 26, 1975 (H Rept 94-331). House passed\ndesignated a group to serve as a conditional PSRO in any\nmove to require HEW to base increases in physician fees\ndeclared.\nJuly 10. Senate Appropriations reported July 22 Rept 94-291). Senate\nPSRO area within the state.\nunder Medicare on regional economic indices instead of a\nThe report said improvement of government efficiency\npassed, amended, July 25. Conference report filed in House Nov. 6 (H\nIf a majority of doctors responding to the poll in each\nnational index. Rostenkowski pointed out that HEW did not\nand productivity, along with tax revisions, could produce\nRept 94-636). House agreed to conference report Nov. 11. Senate agreed\nPSRO area within a state preferred the statewide approach,\nhave the data to develop regional indices in the near future.\nto conference report Nov. 12. President signed Nov. 24, 1975.\nfrom $30- to $35-billion by 1981.\nPL 94-135 (HR 3922)-Enact Older Americans Amendments of 1975.\ndirected HEW to establish a statewide PSRO area.\nWhile some House members grumbled that the Senate\nWhile an expansionary federal budget would leave\nBRADEMAS (D Ind.), PERKINS (D Ky.), QUIE (R Minn.), MEEDS (D\nAuthorized federal reimbursements for the cost of\nhad turned the bill into \"Christmas tree\" legislation, there\nroom for some increases in spending programs, full federal\nWash.), BELL (R Calif.), CHISHOLM (D N.Y.), PEYSER (R N.Y.),\nPSRO activities carried out directly by a PSRO as well as\nwas little debate over the House amendment.\nLEHMAN (D Fla.), JEFFORDS (R Vt.), CORNELL (D Wis.),\nsupport of a national health insurance plan would require\nPRESSLER (R S.D.), BEARD (R Tenn.), ERLENBORN (R Ill.),\nthose carried out by established hospital committees\nadditional tax support, the JEC staff declared.\nZEFERETTI (D N.Y.), ESCH (R Mich.), MILLER (D Calif.),\nselected by a PSRO to carry out the required review.\nSenate Action\nESHLEMAN (R Pa.), HALL (D Ill.), SARASIN Conn.), THOMPSON\nDelayed the effective date of HEW's authority to\nReaction\n(D N.J.), RISENHOOVER (D Okla.), DENT (D Pa.), GOODLING (R\ndesignate a PSRO not controlled by a professional medical\nPa.), DANIELS (D N.J.) and HAWKINS (D Calif.)-2/27/75-House\nJEC Chairman Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.)\ngroup to Jan. 1, 1978, from Jan. 1, 1976; reaffirmed HEW's\nThe Senate cleared the bill by accepting the House\nEducation and Labor reported March 14, 1975 (H Rept 94-67). House\npassed April 8, 1975. Senate Labor and Public Welfare reported June 25\nauthority to select a PSRO not controlled by physicians\namendment by voice vote later on Dec. 19, sending the bill\nsaid the report's prediction of an ending of economic\n(S Rept 94-254). Senate passed, amended, June 26. Conference report\nafter Jan. 1, 1976, in areas where the largest professional\nto the President on the last day of the session.\nrecovery was \"one of the most striking and disturbing con-\nfiled in House Nov. 17 (H Rept 94-670). House agreed to conference\nclusions reached by this study.\" He called Ford's proposed\nmedical group or the state medical society had voted to\nFinance Committee Chairman Russell B. Long (D La.)\nreport Nov. 19. Senate agreed to conference report Nov. 20. President\nspending ceiling \"a disaster.\"\nsigned Nov. 28, 1975.\noppose the program or had rejected a PSRO.\ntried to soothe Senate sponsors of amendments rejected by\nthe House by pointing out that the Ways and Means Com-\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGR QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2876-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2877\nHealth/Education/Welfare 3\nHealth/Education/Welfare - 2\nAt adjournment, the House had approved a version\nappropriate enough, grants to the states for reading\nmittee had promised to review these proposals in 1976. I\npersons who received welfare (Aid to Families with Depen-\nwhich would have extended the act for two years, through\nprogram leadership and training activities would have been\n-By Elizabeth Bowman\ndent Children). Long's amendment was adopted by voice\nfiscal 1978, while the Senate version would extend the act\nterminated unless HR 8304 was passed. (PL 93-380, 1974\nvote.\nfor only one year, through Sept. 30, 1977. A quick resolution\nA second amendment, by Mike Gravel (D Alaska),\nAlmanac p. 441)\nof the issue was expected when Congress returned.\nThe bill also authorized $4-million in fiscal 1976 and\nwould exempt certain state payments to Alaskans from the\n$18-million in fiscal 1977-78 for the Office of Education to\nBill Cleared:\ndefinition of income so their Social Security payments\nHouse Action\npay up to 50 per cent of the purchase price of inexpensive\nSOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS\nwould not be reduced. It was adopted by voice vote.\nFinally, the Senate adopted by voice vote an amend-\nThe House passed HR 11045 Dec. 15 by voice vote under\nbooks to be given to children to encourage them to read. The\nment by Frank Church (D Idaho) that would allow Idaho to\nsuspension of the rules. The bill authorized $740-million in\npurchasing would be arranged through contract with a\nCongress Dec. 19 cleared for the President a bill (HR\nissue tax-free bonds to finance the reconstruction of\nfiscal 1977 and $760-million in fiscal 1978 for matching\nprivate organization such as Reading Is Fundamental Inc.\n10727) aimed at reducing the backlog of cases appealing the\ngrants to the states to assist in vocational rehabilitation\nThe bill had been reported Dec. 12 by the House Education\nAmerican Falls Dam.\ngovernment's denial of Social Security benefits and making\nprograms for the physically and mentally handicapped.\nand Labor Committee (H Rept 94-720).\nother minor and technical changes in the Social Security\nFinal Action\nFiscal 1976 authorizations and appropriations totaled $720-\nAfter House passage, the bill was not referred to a\nmillion. The federal government provided 80 per cent of the\nSenate committee but was amended directly on the Senate\nlaws.\nA Senate-passed provision that would have amended\nfunds; the states, 20 per cent.\nfloor. The major Senate amendments provided for separate\nthe Work Incentive Program (WIN) was dropped from the\nThe bill then was returned to the House, which agreed\nThe bill also authorized $25-million in each of the two\nauthorizations for the two main grant programs under the\nDec. 19 to drop the WIN amendment and the American\nfiscal years for innovation and such sums as Congress\nNational Reading Improvement Act and stipulated that\nfinal version of the bill.\nThe House had passed HR 10727 Dec. 1 as emergency\nFalls Dam amendment. (A House version of the latter\nmight appropriate for several other supporting programs,\nonly 1 per cent, rather than 3 per cent, of the state grants\nlegislation in hopes of providing some quick relief to the\namendment-HR 9968-became the vehicle for the tax cut\nsuch as training, research and facilities construction.\ncould be used for administration. The Senate passed the bill\nnearly 105,000 persons who were appealing the federal\nlegislation.) The House also postponed for one year, until Jan. 1,\nThere was no opposition to the bill voiced on the House\nwith those amendments by voice vote Dec. 17.\ngovernment's decision not to award them Social Security\nfloor. Its supporters said it was necessary to pass the bill\nThe House by voice vote then agreed to the Senate\nretirement or disability benefits, Medicare payments,\n1978, the Senate provision allowing employers to report\nquickly so that states would know how much to allocate for\namendments Dec. 19, clearing the measure. There was little\nSupplemental Security Income (SSI) payments or black\nSocial Security wages annually rather than quarterly.\nmatching funds.\ndebate on the bill in either chamber.\nlung benefits. It often took months, even years, for the\nThe House then voted, 390-0, to suspend the rules and\nAccording to the House Education and Labor Com-\nThe administration opposed authorization of the book\nappeals process to be completed.\nagree with the Senate amendments to HR 10727 as\nmittee, which reported the bill Dec. 12 (H Rept 94-721), the\npurchasing program, contending that the federal govern-\nTo ease the backlog, the House version authorized SSI\namended. (Vote 607, p. 2898)\nact served 2,391,624 handicapped people and rehabilitated\nment should not fund a program that had received substan-\nhearing examiners to hear Social Security and Medicare\nLater in the day, the Senate agreed to the House\n324,039 in fiscal 1975.\ntial support from private contributors.\nclaims cases. It also gave applicants for SSI benefits the\namendments by voice vote, clearing the bill for the\nsame administrative and judicial rights enjoyed by\nPresident.\nSenate Action\napplicants for Social Security and Medicare benefits.\nThe Senate passed the bill by voice vote Dec. 19 after\nProvisions\nHEW NOTES\nFinally, it limited to 60 days the period of time in which\namending it to extend the act for only one year. The Senate\none could file an appeal of a denial of claim. (Story, Weekly\nversion also held authorizations at the fiscal 1976 levels, in-\nReport p. 2734)\nAs cleared, HR 10727:\ncluding $720-million for the state grant program, $42-\nGave applicants for SSI benefits the same ad-\nConference on Handicapped\nmillion for innovation, $32-million each for research and\nSenate Action\nministrative and judicial rights enjoyed by applicants for\ntraining, $20-million for special projects and $1.5-million\nThe Senate Dec. 17 by voice vote passed S Res 154, ex-\nSocial Security and Medicare benefits.\nfor the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Com-\ntending until December 1977 the time period in which the\nAuthorized hearing examiners for the Supplemental\npliance Board.\nPresident could convene a White House Conference on\nCommittee\nThe Senate Finance Committee made several changes\nSecurity Income and black lung benefits programs to hear\nJennings Randolph (D W.Va.), chairman of the Labor\nHandicapped Individuals. The House, however, did not act\nSocial Security and Medicare claims cases.\nand Public Welfare Subcommittee on the Handicapped,\nand the resolution was not cleared before adjournment.\nin the House version before reporting the bill (S Rept 94-\nDecreased, after Feb. 29, 1976, to 60 days, from six\nsaid his subcommittee would undertake a thorough review\nThe conference had been authorized in 1974 under a bill\n550) on Dec. 12. It:\nmonths, the amount of time an applicant had to appeal\nof the rehabilitation act in late January. The House Educa-\n(PL 93-516) extending the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. That\nPostponed the effective date of the 60-day limitation\ndenial of a Social Security or Medicare benefits claim; in-\ntion and Labor Committee also planned hearings.\nI\nbill gave the President two years to call a conference. But\nfor filing appeals until March 1, 1976.\ncreased to 60 days, from 30 days, the time period for appeal-\nPresident Ford did not appoint the conference planning\nCut back on employers' tax reporting requirements by\nallowing annual, rather than quarterly, reporting of Social\ning denial of a Supplemental Security Income claim.\nAllowed annual, rather than quarterly, reporting of\nBill Cleared:\ncouncil for 10 months, giving it only 14 months at the most\nto put together the conference, which also entailed smaller\nSecurity wages.\nSocial Security wages after Jan. 1, 1978.\nconferences at the state level. The council considered that\nRequired the Department of Health, Education and\nRequired the Department of Health, Education and\nREADING IMPROVEMENT\ntime period inadequate and recommended that the con-\nWelfare (HEW) to give 18 months' advance notice before\nWelfare to give 18 months' notice before making any\nference be postponed until September 1977.\nmaking any changes in the way state and local governments\nchanges in the way state and local governments deposited\nCongress Dec. 19 cleared for the President a bill (HR\ndeposited Social Security contributions.\nSocial Security contributions.\n8304) that would continue federal funding for reading im-\nAdvertising by Doctors\nMade technical changes regarding coverage for certain\nExempted certain state payments to Alaskans from the\nprovement programs and provide a new program of federal\nThe Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competi-\npolice and firemen in West Virginia.\ndefinition of income to allow them to receive their full\nsubsidies to buy inexpensive books for distribution to\ntion filed a complaint Dec. 22 accusing the American\nSocial Security benefits.\nchildren.\nMedical Association (AMA) of hindering competition il-\nFloor Action\nMade technical changes regarding Social Security\nFinal action came when the House agreed by voice vote\nlegally by barring its members from advertising their fees.\nThe Senate agreed to the Finance Committee\ncoverage for certain police and firemen in West Virginia.\nto Senate amendments to the original House bill.\nAn administrative law hearing on the complaint was\namendments Dec. 17 by voice vote after adopting three\nThe House version, passed Dec. 15 by voice vote under\nscheduled for Feb. 9, 1976.\namendments on the floor.\nThe most significant of the three was offered by\nAction Not Completed:\nsuspension of the rules, made technical changes to\nBecause the AMA and state and local medical societies\nauthorize the U.S. Office of Education under the authority\nprohibited their members from advertising under their\nRussell B. Long (D La.), chairman of the Finance Com-\nof the new National Reading Improvement Act to continue\ncodes of ethics, the complaint alleged that doctors' fees\nmittee. It would direct persons required to register for the\nWork Incentive Program to actively seek work and es-\nREHABILITATION ACT\nto fund the types of reading projects carried out under the\n\"have been stabilized, fixed or otherwise interfered with;\nold Right to Read program. The National Reading Improve-\ncompetition between medical doctors in the provision of\ntablish an employment search program to assist them. The\nCongress did not complete action on a bill (HR 11045)\nment Act, enacted as part of the Education Amendments of\nsuch [medical] services has been hindered, restrained,\namendment would affect about 650,000 persons registered\nthat would extend the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The act\n1974 (PL 93-380), replaced the Right to Read program but\nforeclosed and frustrated.\" The bureau also argued that\nin the WIN program but not enrolled in any WIN\nplacement, training, or employment program. The WIN\nhad been extended through fiscal 1976 in 1974. (1974\nonly allowed certain state grants if a certain amount of\npatients had been deprived of information that would help\nmoney was appropriated. Since Congress did not\nthem choose a doctor.\nprogram was designed to give job training and experience to\nAlmanac p. 428)\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2879\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2878-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole part except by editorial clients\nHealth/Education/Welfare 4\nTEXT OF FORD VETO OF LABOR-HEW FUNDS BILL\nPolitics\nFollowing is the White House text\nbillion total in this bill add significantly to\nadopted. In addition, the increases provided\nof President Ford's Dec. 19 veto of HR\nthe already burdensome Federal deficits\nfor this year would raise expectations for\n8069, a bill making fiscal 1976\nexpected this year and next, but the in-\nnext year's budget and make the job of\nappropriations for the Departments of\ndividual increases themselves are un-\nrestraining spending that much more dif-\njustified, unnecessary, and unwise. This\nficult. Thus, this bill would contribute to\nLABOR AND THE DEMOCRATS: A TENUOUS ROMANCE\nLabor and Health, Education and\nbill is, therefore, inconsistent with fiscal\nexcessive deficits and needless inflationary\nWelfare and related agencies. (Story,\ndiscipline and with effective restraint on\npressures.\nGeorge Meany may have taken the AFL-CIO out of\nWeekly Report p. 2731)\nFurthermore, if this bill became law, it\nThe Road to New York\nthe growth of government.\nDemocratic Party politics, but much of organized labor is\nI am not impressed by the argument\nwould increase permanent Federal employ-\nthat H.R. 8069 is in line with the Congress'\nment by 8,000 people. I find it most difficult\nnot leaving. Unions may be more important to the\nTO THE HOUSE OF REPRESEN-\nTATIVES:\nto believe the majority of the American\nnominating process in 1976 than they have been in any re-\nThe goals of the coalition are simple. Its members want\nsecond concurrent resolution on the budget\nto be part of the convention decisions in New York City next\nI return without my approval H.R.\nand is, therefore, in some sense proper.\npeople favor increasing the number of\ncent election year.\n8069, the Departments of Labor and\nWhat this argument does not say is that the\nLabor activity is obvious in nearly all the early\nsummer on the Democratic Party's platform and nominee.\nemployees on the Federal payroll, whether\n\"It makes no sense to us that we would go into a crucial\nHealth, Education, and Welfare Appropria-\nresolution, which expresses the Congress'\nby Congressional direction or by other\nprimary and caucus states-in Iowa, where unions are\ntion Act, 1976.\nview of appropriate budget restraint,\nmeans. On the contrary, I believe the\ndividing their support a half dozen ways to get as many\npresidential year and have nobody on the convention floor\noverwhelming majority agree with my view\nlabor-minded delegates to the national convention as\nrepresenting labor,\" said Girard Clark, political director of\nAs you know, I have just vetoed H.R.\napproves a $50 billion, or 15 percent, in-\n5559, which would have extended for six\ncrease in Federal spending in one year.\nthat there are already too many employees\npossible; in Florida, where labor is coalescing around\nthe public employees' union. AFSCME is a key participant\nmonths the temporary tax cut due to expire\nSuch an increase is not appropriate budget\nin the Federal Government.\nin the coalition.\nformer Democratic Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia in order\non New Year's Eve, because it was not ac-\nrestraint.\nI am returning this bill without my\nto deal Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace a serious setback;\nClark said the coalition's goal is 400 to 600 convention\ncompanied by a limit on Federal spending\nEffective restraint on the growth of\nsignature and renewing my request to the\nthe Federal Government requires effective\nCongress to approve a ceiling on Federal\nin New Hampshire, where Democratic Sen. Birch Bayh of\ndelegates friendly to labor-union members, spouses of\nfor the next fiscal year. H.R. 8069 is a\nlimits on the growth of Federal spending.\nIndiana is gambling that labor endorsements will lift him to\nunion members, or persons who work closely with unions,\nclassic example of the unchecked spending\nspending as the best possible Christmas\nwhich I referred to in my earlier veto\nThis bill provides an opportunity for such\npresent for the American people.\nthe top of the liberal pack.\nsuch as labor lawyers. It is a realistic goal, coalition leaders\nthink. There are six million members in the nine coalition\nlimitation. By itself, this bill would add\nMany of these labor moves are local, the product of\nmessage.\nH.R. 8069 would provide nearly $1\n$382 million to this year's deficit and would\nGERALD R. FORD\ndecisions made as far down as the shop steward or business\nunions. There are 200 congressional districts in which the\nbillion more in spending authority than I\nmake next year's deficit $372 million more\nThe White House,\nagent level in the different states. But they also reflect a\nunions have a combined average of 20,000 members.\nhad requested. Not only would the $45\nthan if my recommendations had been\nDecember 19, 1975\nnational policy, made in Washington, D.C., by the\nUnion officials disagree about just what the target\nleadership of nine unions working together as the Labor\nnumber of labor delegates is, and some of them deny there\nCoalition Clearinghouse.\nis one. But they agree about one thing: It is more important\nSenate Passage:\nThe unions in the coalition are the Communications\nto get the labor people to New York than to get them to sup-\nwill remain an illusionary dream.\" (Justice Department\nWorkers of America (CWA), the United Auto Workers\nport anyone in particular before they arrive.\nappropriation, fiscal 1976, Weekly Report p. 2104)\nANTITRUST FUNDS\nCON: Roman L. Hruska (Neb.), ranking Republican on\n(UAW), the International Association of Machinists, the\n\"The whole theory we're working on,\" said Bill\nthe subcommittee, warned that the bill would undermine\nGraphic Arts International Union, the American Federa-\nHolayter, political director of the Machinists, \"is it doesn't\nThe Senate Dec. 12 passed by voice vote a bill (S 1136)\nappropriated funds\" by creating a seaparate funding\ntion of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME),\nmatter who you're for-we want delegates to the conven-\ntion.\"\ndesigned to increase funding for federal and state antitrust\ncategory for the Justice Department's antitrust division.\nthe International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine\nlaw enforcement.\nAnd he said it would upset \"the established division of\nWorkers, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, the\nReported jointly by the Commerce and Judiciary Com-\nresponsibilities between the authorizing committees and\nUnited Mine Workers (UMW) and the National Education\nConflicting Theories\nmittees, the measure would set specific authorization levels\nthe appropriations committees of Congress by setting max-\nAssociation (NEA). All but the UAW, UMW and NEA are\nIn some states, the coalition unions will cooperate in\nin fiscal 1976-78 for the Justice Department's Antitrust\nimum funding levels years in advance for relatively small\nAFL-CIO affiliates.\nsupporting a variety of candidates, placing labor friends on\nDivision and the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of\ncomponents of larger appropriations.\"\nNearly all the coalition unions played an active part in\nseveral different slates in the same primary or caucus. If\nCompetition and permit the two agencies to increase their\nThe Ford administration opposed the bill for similar\nthe \"Labor for McGovern\" movement in 1972, even after\nthe convention deadlocks, according to theory, the labor\nlitigation staffs.\nreasons.\nMeany, the AFL-CIO president, refused to support South\ndelegates can shed their first-ballot commitments and par-\nThe bill also included a three-year grant program to\nHruska added that the state grant program, which\nDakota Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic nominee.\nticipate in a labor caucus that could determine the eventual\nhelp states improve their antitrust efforts. A \"declaration\nwould provide up to $10-million a year in fiscal 1976-78, was\nOfficials of these unions have remained in close contact\nnominee.\nof policy\" section linking industrial overconcentration to\nan unnecessary new aid program that would mushroom in\nsince, in battles over party reform and at the midterm\nOne top labor official, whose union is not a member of\nunemployment, inflation and inefficiency was removed\nDemocratic conference in Kansas City, Mo., in late 1974.\nthe caucus, thinks the strategy is nonsense. \"My own\nfuture years.\nfrom the bill on the Senate floor. (Committee report, Week-\nBefore the bill was passed, the Senate approved by\nAnd when Meany announced in February 1974 that the\ntheory,\" he said, \"is that we ought to stay the hell out of\nly Report p. 2642)\nvoice vote Hruska's amendment striking the policy sec-\nAFL-CIO itself would not be involved in 1976 Democratic\npartisan politics. I think it was stupid to go to Kansas City\ntion. Hart said he agreed to the amendment only because\npolitics, the nine unions decided they would be.\nin 1974. We ought to sit back in our pristine purity and be\nFloor Debate\nthe session was almost over and he wanted the bill passed.\nwooed So you get two spots out of 30 delegates, or four\nspots out of 30-what does that mean? When you elect labor\nPRO: Philip A. Hart (D Mich.), chairman of the\nProvisions\ndelegates, they may or may not be willing to go the way\nJudiciary Sbucommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, ex-\nplained the theory behind the bill. \"Without adequate\nAs passed by the Senate, S 1136 would:\nlabor in Washington wants.\"\nfunding and staffing, it is unrealistic to expect effective en-\nAuthorize for the Justice Department's Antitrust Divi-\nBut that is a minority opinion. The people who formed\nforcement of the antitrust laws,\" he said. \"Continued\nsion\nand the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of\nthe Labor Coalition Clearinghouse believe that in a\nCompetition up to $25-million each in fiscal 1976; $6.25-\nbrokered convention, any bloc that can keep its stability can\nneglect will inexorably lead to ever increasing economic\nmillion for the transition period; $35-million in fiscal 1977\nbe decisive. And they are convinced labor is as likely to keep\nregulation, and possibly nationalization, of vast segments\nof the economy.\"\nand $45-million in fiscal 1978.\nthat stability as anyone else who will be at the convention.\nHart said that the $21.6-million appropriation\nAuthorize both agencies to hire an additional 25\nBut while they hope for that kind of role, the coalition's\nCongress gave the antitrust division in fiscal 1976-an in-\n\"supergrade\" employees to improve antitrust litigation ef-\nleaders are careful to play down its influence. \"It's not a\nfight with George Meany,\" said Mikel K. Miller, political\ncrease of almost $5-million over the previous year's\nforts.\ntotal-was a result of the publicity generated by hearings\nAuthorize the attorney general to distribute to the\ndirector of the Communications Workers. \"We have no goal\nstates up to $10-million a year in fiscal 1976-78 to provide\nof 500 delegates or 1,000 delegates. We don't have a can-\non S 1136. \"If Congress does not provide appropriate input\nGeorge Meany\nAlexander Barkan\nseed money for improvement of antitrust enforcement\ndidate already picked. We don't intend to take our delegates\nthrough the authorization process,\" he said, \"it is clear to\nLabor Leaders Watching and Waiting\nand impose our will on the convention We feel it is very\nme that adequate appropriations for antitrust enforcement\nprograms.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2880-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2881\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nPolitics 2\nPolitics 3\nimportant to become involved in the internal affairs of the\nwilling to say he believed it. \"It's nonsense,\" said one union\ndividual. He has mobilized most of the vice presidents and\nDemocratic Party.\"\nofficial, \"and I'll tell you why it's nonsense. We're just not\nother top officials of the Minnesota AFL-CIO in\nthat well-organized. It implies a discipline that we don't\nHumphrey's behalf. \"We're doing everything possible to get\n\"It doesn't matter\nCOPE's Stance\npossess. Do you think it could be done and not kept secret?\nHumphrey delegates to the convention,\" Roe told CQ.\nwho you're for-we\nThe AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education\nHow many hundreds of people would you have to silence to\nRoe, whose background is in the building trades, said\n(COPE), headed by Alexander Barkan, does not disown\ndo that? The labor movement is not the CIA.\"\nhe disagrees with Meany's attempt to take the federation\nwant delegates to the\nwhat the coalition unions are doing. Meany himself con-\nSomewhere between \"grand design\" and \"personal pi-\nout of the Democratic Party. \"I don't think we should let up\nconvention.\nque\" is the theory that most of those interviewed by CQ said\nat any time,\" he said. \"You can't turn this on and off like a\ndoned some union activity at his traditional Labor Day\nnews conference. Asked whether individual unions could\nthey believe. This theory is that the AFL-CIO decision was\nwater faucet.\"\nbased on the pragmatic judgment that there is little the\nBarkan made it clear in November that there would be\n-Bill Holayter, political\nencourage their members to run for delegate, the AFL-CIO\nnational federation can do at this point that the member\nno attempt to discipline Roe-that he was free to do\ndirector, International\npresident replied, \"I'm quite sure that a good many of them\ndo. Yes. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't.\"\nunions are not already doing. Could George Meany tell the\nwhatever he chose, even though COPE officially dis-\nAssociation of Machinists\nWhether that blessing extends to the coalition itself is\npresident of a strong affiliate union whom to support, or\napproved. Some observers think this case of leniency, and\nhard to say. \"What they're doing is their business,\" a COPE\neven whether to support anyone? The consensus is that he\nBarkan's willingness to talk about it in public, indicate that\nofficial told Congressional Quarterly. \"They're autonomous\nwould find it difficult.\nhe and Meany are backing down.\n\"There's not a hell of a lot that the labor movement,\ncandidate weaknesses-and comparing that with our own\norganizations. If they're all over the map, it minimizes\ntheir input anyway. And the indication is they will be all\neven united, could accomplish,\" the COPE official said. \"It's\nNo Change-Maybe\nstrengths and weaknesses to see where our opportunities\nlie.\"\nover the map.\" He said there was hardly any contact\nunlikely that the Democrats would nominate a candidate\nOfficials at COPE still say, however, that there will be\nunacceptable to the labor movement anyway.\" In his view,\nBeyond that, specifics of the coalition operation are\nbetween COPE and the coalition office a few blocks away.\nno change. \"There's nothing on the horizon that indicates\nCOPE would be wasting its time, money and prestige if it\nhard to obtain. Spokesmen declined to give the size of the\nthere'd be any change in this policy,\" one said. \"It's as likely\nstaff or to show a visitor around the office.\nHands Off for AFL-CIO\nspent the next six months trying to force the nomination of\nthat they'll call off the Bicentennial.\"\na contender only slightly better than his rivals.\n\"We're very leery of publicity,\" one spokesman ex-\nNevertheless, officials of unions within the coalition\nplained. \"We have been very cautious about responding to\nThe AFL-CIO has been officially out of party politics\ncontinue to speculate about the conditions, if any, under\nrequests for information. We're not going to try to mislead\nsince Feb. 18, when the federation's executive council\nA Little Brokering\nwhich Meany might decide to come in. \"My personal\nanybody. The thing we're trying to avoid is this: We don't\nadopted a resolution renouncing involvement in the\ntheory,\" said Clark of AFSCME, \"is that if Wallace poses a\nwant to have anyone think we're some big red machine roll-\nDemocrats' affairs until after a candidate was chosen.\nMeany has never been explicit about what the AFL-\nserious threat, they will get in to stop Wallace. If Wallace\ning across the land scooping up delegates We're not try-\nMeany said the convention is \"not the business of the AFL-\nCIO would do at a deadlocked convention. In fact, he has\ndoes not go great guns in Florida and Massachusetts, and\ning to operate the way some labor people have done in the\nCIO\" and that the federation would take no part in it. The\nimplied that he would permit the federation to participate\nstarts to fade, they may very well keep their present\npast, which is by press release.\"\nstay-out resolution was passed after several unions, most of\nin a labor caucus once the convention deadlocked. At his\nstance.\"\nOne important thing the coalition does is guarantee\nthem now coalition members, sought to place the entire\nLabor Day news conference, he said: \"Naturally, if there is\nOther coalition participants say they are not paying\nthat every union in it knows what the others are doing. No\ndelegate selection process on the executive council's agenda.\na large contingent of trade union members-members of\nmuch attention to the issue. \"I'm kind of unconcerned about\none union is likely to pull any surprises on another, even at\nWhy was the decision made? The simplest theory is\nthe AFL-CIO-at the Democratic national convention, we\nit,\" said Miller of the Communications Workers. \"If the\nthe local level. \"If the UAW retiree group in Florida is\nthat Meany was just angry-angry at the Democrats for\nwill certainly try to have some influence on it.\"\nAFL wants to reverse itself and get involved, that doesn't\ngetting ready to endorse Carter,\" Miller offered as an ex-\nrefusing to tone down some of their courting of minority\nThe COPE official went further than that. \"I think\nbother me. If they want to stay out, that doesn't bother me\nample, \"the rest of us know about that in advance. It's\ngroups, angry at Chairman Robert S. Strauss for ignoring\nthey'd be glad to get whatever help we could provide,\" he\neither.\"\nbasically a clearinghouse.\"\nMeany-Barkan advice, angry at Sen. Henry M. Jackson (D\nsaid of the nine coalition unions.\nWhat the coalition wants to do, however, is to bring in\nBeyond the clearinghouse level, though, there are basic\nWash.) for his views on trade with Communist nations.\nIn any case, the coalition is not only expecting a con-\nas many individual AFL-CIO unions as it can. Some of the\ndecisions to be made. A primary or caucus is coming up:\nThe COPE official who talked with CQ conceded that\nvention caucus, but planning for it. \"The coalition will ob-\nmost important AFL-CIO affiliates, such as the United\nShould the nine unions each throw their support to the\nthe Kansas City meeting had something to do with the\nviously have a caucus,\" said Clark of the AFSCME, \"more\nSteelworkers of America, the Amalgamated Clothing\nsame candidate? Should they scatter five ways? Should\ndecision. \"Kansas City isolated was not a hell of a lot,\" he\nthan one caucus. We'll have one on platform. And we'll stay\nWorkers and the American Federation of Teachers, started\nthey go with two candidates and leave the rest out?\nsaid. \"But it was the culmination of a general and continu-\nin touch as the first and second ballots progress.\"\nby doing just what Meany is doing-staying out. Some\nThe answer depends on the state. In the area around\ning repudiation of the labor movement by some elements\nSome observers think the coalition would dominate any\ncoalition people think they now see these and other unions\nMiami, the coalition is backing Carter to try to crush\nthat have gotten a foothold in the Democratic Party. We\nsuch labor caucus, even if COPE decided to participate.\nmoving closer to participation. The Amalgamated Meat-\nWallace-even though Jackson is also in the primary. But\nwon with Strauss' victory for party chairman, for which we\n\"The nine unions will have an advantage over the others,\"\ncutters, who are not involved in the coalition nationally, are\nin Montgomery County, Maryland, outside Washington,\nwere somewhat responsible. I think he'll concede that. It\nsaid David Cohen, president of Common Cause and a\nheavily involved in the delegate selection process in Iowa,\nD.C., Jackson is thought to have the best organization, so\nmay have been Pyrrhic. He seemed to lean over backward\nformer AFL-CIO lobbyist. \"They talk to one another all the\nwhere they are influential.\nthe coalition is trying to get its people on the Jackson\nto mollify the groups who had opposed his selection, at the\ntime. They build up a trust for one another. That gives them\n\"Meany's policy statement created a vacuum in labor\ndelegate slate. Not far away, in the city of Baltimore,\nexpense of those who had helped him.\"\na tremendous advantage. They may shape Barkan and\nactivity,\" Miller said. \"What we have found in our organiz-\nJackson and Sargent Shriver are expected to qualify for\nBut in the wake of Kansas City, the labor official said,\nMeany's agenda.\"\ning is that other labor unions outside the coalition want to\ndelegates. The coalition is working with both.\nthe federation acted rationally-not because of some per-\nIt is the possibility that the coalition might eclipse\nwork with us. They're interested in platform. They're in-\nIn Iowa, unions are active in virtually every campaign.\nsonal quirk on Meany's part. \"The personal pique theory is\nCOPE at the convention that leads some labor officials to\nterested in who the nominee is.\"\nThe Communications Workers and Meatcutters are for\npreposterous,\" he insisted. \"It may or may not be true that\npredict a change in the hands-off policy sometime before\nBayh. The influential head of the state UAW, Edris (Soap)\nMeany is personally piqued at what happened. But he\nnext July. \"I think Meany's an able, shrewd old guy,\" said\nthe political director of one coalition union. \"He's not going\nThe 'Boiler Room'\nOwens, is for Carter. There is support for Jackson among\ndoesn't act out of pique.\"\nthe building trades unions. Labor is traditionally active\nto get himself into a position of powerlessness.\"\nwithin the Democratic Party in Iowa; in 1972, about a third\nThe Deadlock Theory\nAnother union political director was even more\nAt the moment, however, the center of national labor\nof the state's national convention delegates had labor con-\nThe opposite theory is that the AFL-CIO is not out of\nspecific. \"My theory is that by February-which will be too\ninfluence in the Democratic Party is the coalition, housed in\nnections.\npolitics at all; that it knows perfectly well whom it wants\nlate-George Meany will want to be involved in the process.\nthe building in Washington, D.C., that also serves as head-\nIn some areas of the South, the way to stop Wallace\nI perceive a softening of the position.\"\nquarters of the Communications Workers. The coalition of-\nfor President, Democratic Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of\nmay be to back Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.\nfice is a. little like the \"boiler room\" operation of a national\nMinnesota; and that the way to elect him is to see that the\nThe coalition will do that. \"There'll be places where we'll be\nRoe of Minnesota\npresidential campaign. There are regional desks and staff\nnomination process splinters badly, dictating a deadlocked\nwith Bentsen,\" Clark said. \"Head on head against Wallace?\nconvention, According to this theory, even the nine-union\nThis official cited the COPE reaction to statements\nassistants who spend their time gathering and updating in-\nYou bet we will.\"\nmade by David Roe, president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO,\ntelligence about primaries and caucuses around the nation.\ncoalition may fit in with the Meany-Barkan grand design.\n\"The strategy is complex,\" Clarke told Congressional\nMany people around organized labor say they have\nthat he supports Humphrey and will work for him in the\n\"We discuss, almost on a daily basis,\" Miller said,\nQuarterly, \"in that each state and district is a different can\nheard this theory discussed. But no one interviewed was\n\"what is happening in various states-candidate strengths,\nof worms.\"\npre-convention process. And Roe is not only acting as an in-\nPAGE 2882-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2883\nPolitics 4\nPolitics 5\nThe Local Level\nthat there is no vacuum of political power.\" At year's end,\nBayh and Carter had the majority of regional UAW en-\ndorsements. Bayh also had the support of a national UAW\nFor Attribution\nThere is no guarantee that the strategy worked out at\nCANDIDATES '76\nofficial, general counsel Steven Schlossberg.\ncoalition meetings in Washington will be the choice of union\nThe National Education Association, not generally\nSen. Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.), quoted in\npeople in the state or district involved. This limits what the\nidentified as a labor union, entered politics on a large scale\nthe Los Angeles Times on his decision to not be an ac-\ncoalition can do. \"All of our organizations can tell staff\nWest Virginia\nin 1974. It is at least as active in 1976, participating in the\ntive candidate for President:\nwhat to do,\" Miller said. \"Staff can't tell locals what to do.\nnine-union coalition. There are pockets of Bayh support in\n\"I wish I were 10 years younger and two campaigns\nJohn Hutchinson, the mayor of Charleston, announced\nThere is no way any of us can go into Muskogee, Okla., and\nthe NEA, as in most unions, and they have shown up in\nless. I'd go in there and chew them up.\"\nDec. 15 that he would seek the Democratic gubernatorial\norder our membership there to support [Fred R.] Harris.\"\nIowa. One thing the NEA does not share with some of its\nAlderman Vito Marzullo of Chicago, quoted in\nnomination. Hutchinson emphasized his opposition to\nMost observers interviewed agreed that the one sure\ncoalition colleagues is support for Carter. NEA members in\nthe Chicago Sun-Times on his reaction to the news that\npublic employee unions and promised to accelerate con-\nway to increase the number of union delegates at the\nGeorgia have complained to members in other states about\nnobody filed against him for 25th Ward com-\nstruction of the state highway system.\nnational convention is to excite union members locally.\nwhat they considered inadequate support for education dur-\nmitteeman.\nHutchinson was elected mayor in 1971 and re-elected to\n\"Labor is crucial whenever you have an individual union\ning Carter's years as governor of Georgia (1971-75). In\n\"This is the 19th time I've run for office without\na second four-year term in May 1975. His major com-\nguy who's willing to work his ass off,\" said Alan Baron, who\nMiami, where most coalition unions are settling on Carter\nopposition. How can I get opposition. I try to be as nas-\npetitors for the nomination are former Secretary of State\nwatches the unions and the presidential contest for Sen.\nas the alternative to Wallace, the NEA prefers Jackson.\nty as I can.\"\nJohn D. Rockefeller IV, who lost to Republican Gov. Arch\nMcGovern. \"That one guy is worth 100 guys who go to a\nThere is a great deal of support for Bayh among\nA. Moore Jr. in 1972, and former state party chairman\nmeeting.\"\nMachinists in different parts of the country. \"Bayh has\nJames M. Sprouse, whom Moore defeated in 1968.\nSome coalition participants fear that the absence of\nbeen very smart at making contacts,\" said Holayter. \"He\nGallup vs. Harris:\nAlso in the race are Ezra Graley, a leader of\nCOPE from the delegate selection process will make it\nknows as many of the machinists in the country as I do\ndemonstrations against the use of certain school textbooks;\nharder for the unions who are in the coalition to find the\nHe can pick up the phone and call our leadership in almost\nPOLLS IN CONFLICT\nH. John Rogers, a New Martinsville lawyer; Jess Shumate,\nsort of people Baron is talking about. Without COPE\na general contractor; and Powell Layne, a construction\nmachinery, Holayter said, it is harder for the coalition to\nany state.\"\nworker.\nPoliticians in both parties found themselves more than\noperate. \"They have access to members in every damn\nActive and Liberal\nMoore, currently under indictment for extortion, is\na little confused Christmas week after learning that a\nunion,\" he said. \"I don't have access to the Steelworkers\nGallup Poll contradicted nearly everything a Harris Survey\nchallenging constitutional provisions which bar him from\nor any union except our own.\"\nThe unions that decided to join the coalition differ from\nseeking a third term. (Weekly Report p. 2812)\nI\nhad told them about the 1976 presidential contest a few\nUnions seeking to scatter their support as part of a\nother unions in more than their desire to play a role in the\ndays before.\ndeliberate strategy are also likely to find candidates less\n1976 nomination process. For the most part, they are the\nOn Dec. 21, Gallup reported that both President Ford\nthan enthusiastic about it. While most of the Democratic\nmost active unions in lobbying as well as politics. Most have\nPennsylvania\nand former Gov. Ronald Reagan of California held substan-\ncontenders have accepted the coalition's desire to move in\ntheir own well-staffed lobbying operations, rather than\ntial leads over Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.) in trial\nTwo potentially strong candidates for the Democratic\nmore than one direction at the state level, they have com-\ndepending on the AFL-CIO's legislative department to work\npresidential heats. It had only been nine days since a Harris\nSenate nomination in Pennsylvania have taken themselves\nplained about such divisions at the local level. When it\nfor them on Capitol Hill.\npoll offered the stunning news that Humphrey ran well\nout of consideration for a 1976 campaign.\ncomes to small districts, candidates want the coalition to\nThe coalition unions are more issue-oriented than\nahead of both Ford and Reagan in similar trial heats he con-\nLt. Gov. Ernest P. Kline, 46, announced Dec. 16 that he\nsettle on one choice and stick with him.\nothers and usually more liberal. The rise of these unions\nducted. Gallup also reported that Reagan had surged ahead\ndid not feel that it would be appropriate for him to run for\n\"The candidates are not exactly excited about what\nwill have an important effect on Democratic politics for\nof Ford among Republican and independent voters; Harris\nanother office while Gov. Milton J. Shapp (D) was running\nwe're trying to do,\" Miller conceded. \"The candidates would\nyears to come.\nhad no results on that subject.\nfor President. Kline is thought to be interested in\nrather deal with our locals than to deal with us nationally\n\"The whole situation puts the unions more and more to\nBut the gross differences in the two sets of findings left\nsucceeding Shapp when the governor's second term expires\nThe quickest way to nullify our strategy nationally is to go\nthe left in the Democratic Party,\" said Alan Baron. \"The\npollsters and other political observers scrambling to explain\nin 1979.\nout and pick off our locals.\"\npolitically active unions are the most liberal ones. I've been\nhow two nationally known experts with similar methods\nAuditor General Robert Casey, 43, took himself out of\nThe Harris campaign already is seeking to do that, us-\nto a lot of political meetings, and I don't see any pipefitters\ncould come out so far apart.\nthe Senate race and also ruled out running for re-election to\ning the Service Employees, who have endorsed Harris.\nor plumbers.\"\nOne explanation was timing. Harris did his survey of\nhis present office, saying he wanted to spend more time\nWhenever a local official of that union comes out for\nInstead, the unions most likely to be conspicuous at a\n1,214 respondents during the last week of November,\nwith his family. Casey had run for governor in 1966 and\nHarris, this undermines the national coalition's effort to in-\npolitical caucus are ones whose work takes them beyond the\nfinding Humphrey ahead of Reagan, 50-43, and ahead of\n1970, losing the Democratic primary each time to Shapp.\ncrease its delegate strength by spreading labor support\ntraditional industrial base of organized labor-government\nFord, 52-41.\nWithout Kline or Casey, the current leading contenders\naround.\nemployees, service employees, communications workers\nGallup's survey was taken between Dec. 5 and Dec. 8.\nfor the Democratic nomination are Pittsburgh Mayor Pete\nThe Bayh campaign also has used this approach, es-\nand teachers. But it is dangerous to carry this reasoning too\nHis sampling of 1,078 respondents showed Ford leading\nFlaherty, 49, who lost to Republican Sen. Richard S.\npecially in New Hampshire, where officials of numerous\nfar. The Machinists and the Auto Workers are industrial\nHumphrey, 51-39, and Reagan leading Humphrey, 50-\nSchweiker in 1974, and Rep. William J. Green of\nunions have agreed to join a Labor for Bayh Committee.\nunions-and are among the most active politically. The\n42-nearly an exact reversal.\nPhiladelphia. Both are known to be interested, but neither\nBayh aide Bill Wise said he had seen no effort so far by the\nMachinists, in fact, bristle at the idea that they are joining\nBut about the only event of national significance that\nhas declared.\nunions to manipulate the candidates through divided sup-\nforces with \"left-wing\" unions.\nhappened between the two polls was Ford's trip to China,\nport. But he warned that the tactic would not be successful\n\"I get angry at people who call us new politics unions,\"\nand few observers thought that was sufficient to make the\nas a national strategy. \"In some places,\" Wise said, \"they're\nsaid Holayter. \"That's nonsense. The people we represent\ndifference.\nNorth Carolina\ngoing to be left holding an empty bag.\"\nare no different from the people the Steelworkers\nThere was some discussion of the sample itself. Gallup\nA black lawyer, Reginald L. Frazier, announced for the\nrepresent.\"\nused \"registered voters,\" while Harris used a narrower\nDemocratic gubernatorial nomination Dec. 17. He promised\nNevertheless, some observers of labor are becoming\ngroup he describes as \"likely voters.\" The refinements used\na strong campaign against crime if elected, including\nBeing Careful\naware of a division between the old-style AFL-CIO unions,\nby Harris could account for some of the difference,\n\"crime in high places\" as well as street crime.\ncommitted to bread-and-butter issues and New Deal poli-\nalthough the two have differed in methodology before\nLt. Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. is thought to be the front-\nMost of the coalition unions find it comfortable to avoid\ntics, and other unions more sympathetic to newer currents\nwithout arriving at opposite results.\nrunner for the Democratic nomination, but he faces poten-\na single commitment. The AFSCME was embarrassed in\nin liberal Democratic thought. \"These newer unions\nThe same week he presented his challenge to Harris,\ntially serious challenges from Edward M. O'Herron Jr., a\n1972 when it broke with other unions to give an early en-\nare more tolerant and more willing to live with some of\nGallup offered results of another poll comparing Ford,\nCharlotte drug executive, and Hargrove (Skipper) Bowles,\ndorsement to Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D Maine) and then\nthe post-New-Deal ideas,\" said David Cohen of Common\nReagan and Humphrey in tests of \"charisma\". Asked about\nthe 1972 nominee.\nsaw Muskie falter in the early primaries.\nCause. \"They have worked with the new forces; they can live\nthe personalities of eight presidential possibilities,\nGov. James E. Holshouser, the Republican who\nWilliam Dodds, the UAW political education director,\nwith them and adjust to them and shape some of them.\nrespondents gave the three men nearly equal ratings.\ndefeated Bowles in 1972, is ineligible for a second con-\nsaid the coalition has the full support of Leonard Woodcock,\nThey may or may not like some of these things, but I think\nHumphrey and Reagan drew a \"highly favorable\" rating\nsecutive term. The most active contender for the\nthe union president. \"He thinks we ought to be active with\nthey have a shot at shaping them.\"\nfrom 23 per cent, Ford from 22 per cent. Sen. Edward M.\nRepublican nomination is David T. Flaherty, Holshouser's\nas many friends as we can,\" Dodds said of Woodcock, \"so\n-By Alan Ehrenhalt\nKennedy (D Mass.) led with 33.\nsecretary of human resources.\nPAGE 2884-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2885\nPolitics 6\nPolitics 7\nNew York and Wisconsin primaries on April 6 and the\na $500 investment. The company initially employed two\nPresidential Campaign:\nPennsylvania primary three weeks later. Reece also indi-\nworkers, but it expanded quickly and became profitable.\ncated that Shapp is looking at the Oregon, California, New\nIn 1966, when Shapp made his first run for the gover-\nJersey and Ohio primaries (the last three on June 8), but\nnorship of Pennsylvania, he resigned as president and\nSHAPP: STILL INSISTING THAT HE IS SERIOUS\nthat the Pennsylvania primary April 27 is viewed as the\nchairman of the board of Jerrold and sold his 25 per cent\n\"watershed.\"\nshare. Jerrold then employed 2,100 workers in six plants in\nPennsylvania's 178 votes will make it the third-largest\nthe Philadelphia area, and Shapp's share sold for nearly\nMilton J. Shapp is an unusual politician. He plays the\ndelegation at the 1976 convention. While Shapp may not\n$10-million.\nviolin, writes poetry and songs and is the author of several\nwin the unbinding popularity vote in his home state, many\nIn 1971, during his first year as governor, Shapp listed\nunproduced Broadway musicals. He is also the governor of\nobservers believe that he should win a plurality of the\nhis personal worth at nearly $4-million. At a press con-\nthe nation's third largest state, Pennsylvania.\nSHA\ndelegates on the basis of his strong statewide organization.\nference in October 1975, Shapp revealed that his net worth\nAnd soon, he expects to be the front-runner for the\nAn impressive showing in the Pennsylvania primary would\nhad been $7.5-million in 1966 when he first ran for governor\nDemocratic presidential nomination, although a\nat least allow Shapp to go to the convention as a favorite\nbut had shrunk to $2.8-million by 1975.\nson.\nnationwide survey indicated that he was known by only\nHe first became involved in politics in 1960, when he\none-third of the country's Democratic voters in October\nBut the heart of any effective campaign is money, and\nwas statewide chairman of business and professional men\n1975. With little visible support outside Pennsylvania, and\nthis is an enormous problem for Shapp. In his campaigns\nfor Kennedy and Johnson. After President Kennedy's elec-\nwith an aura of corruption surrounding his administration,\nfor governor, he was able to contribute millions from his\ntion, Shapp became a consultant to the U.S. Commerce\nthe 63-year-old Shapp is regarded as one of the longest of\npersonal fortune. But under the new federal campaign\nDepartment, concerned primarily with setting up the area\nthe long shots in the crowded Democratic field.\nfinance law, a candidate and his family can contribute a\nredevelopment program. He also served as a consultant to\nA millionaire electronics manufacturer elected gover-\ntotal of only $50,000, a small fraction of the amount needed\nthe Peace Corps.\nnor as an opponent of political bosses, Shapp is presenting\nto run an effective presidential campaign. As of Sept. 30,\nhimself as an economic expert who can get the nation's\n1975, the Shapp campaign had reported receiving a total of\n1966 Campaign\nstagnant economy moving. He discerns an anti-\n$121,742. More than 80 per cent of the money came from\nWashington sentiment-a growing dissatisfaction by\nPennsylvania, including a $15,000 contribution from his\nShapp showed an increasing interest in state\nwife, Muriel.\ngovernment. In 1965, he undertook a detailed study of ma-\nvoters across the country with the federal government, es-\npecially Congress. As a governor, Shapp is counting on his\nMuch of the money came from Jewish and black voters\njor state issues, publishing reports on the Pennsylvania\nability to tap such a mood in competition with his\nand liberal groups, which, along with labor and women's\neconomy, transportation and organization of the state\ngovernment.\nchallengers for the nomination, many of whom are\norganizations, are expected to provide Shapp with his\nmembers of Congress.\nstrongest support. Reece foresees his candidate as running\nHe made his first run for office the next year, when he\nas an \"independent Democrat,\" pulling some liberal voters\nsought the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.\nThe Campaign\nfrom Arizona Rep. Morris K. Udall, some labor support\nAlthough party leaders appreciated Shapp's financial sup-\n\"I think in four to six months I'll be looked at as the\nfrom Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh and some Jewish support\nport, they did not take his candidacy seriously. They ig-\nstrongest contender in the race,\" Shapp declared Sept. 25\nfrom Washington Sen. Henry M. Jackson. Shapp is Jewish.\nnored him and endorsed State Sen. Robert P. Casey.\nLittle-known statewide, Shapp made his campaign a\nwhen he made his official announcement of a presidential\ncandidacy that had been known for months. It was a brash\nTATLER HILTON\nBusiness Career\nfight against the party bosses. His slogan: \"Man against the\nMachine.\"\nstatement for a man whose candidacy is considered by\nShapp was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1912, the son of\nShapp's extensive media campaign dramatically in-\nmost observers as, at best, a favorite-son effort-and not a\nYASHINGTON\nAaron Shapiro, a hardware wholesaler and traveling\ncreased his voter recognition, and his reform candidacy\nvery strong one at that. Even among some Pennsylvania\nsalesman. Shapp graduated from the Case Institute of\nattracted support from liberals, minority groups and large\nDemocrats, the response to Shapp's candidacy has not been\nTechnology with a degree in electrical engineering. As a\nsegments of the state's powerful organized labor\nencouraging. Several Democratic legislators, including the\nresult of religious bigotry, in his mid-20s he legally changed\nmovement. He gained the endorsement of the Pennsylvania\nstate senate majority leader, have called for Shapp's\nhis name from Shapiro to Shapp.\nAFL-CIO Executive Council.\nresignation as governor, and public comments from mem-\ndidates] have studied or understand the economy as deeply\nDuring World War II, Shapp served as an officer in the\nNearly all of Shapp's campaign money came out of his\nbers of the state Democratic congressional delegation have\nas I have,\" he said.\nArmy Signal Corps in Europe. After the war, he moved to\nown pocket, and he reported spending $1.4-million. It was\nbeen noncommittal.\nShapp alluded to his low-key rhetorical style and\nthe Philadelphia area, and, with his background in\nmoney well spent. In an upset, Shapp defeated Casey in the\nTo this widespread skepticism, Shapp has responded:\nlackluster appearance in his announcement speech: \"The\nengineering, became an entrepreneur in the fledgling cable\nprimary. He lost the November election to Republican Ray-\n\"That's the story of my life. People haven't taken me\nlast thing the American people need is another smiling\ntelevision industry. In 1948, he established the Jerrold\nmond P. Shafer, despite spending another $2.4-million of\nseriously.\" But if there is one personal trait that both\npolitician or spellbinding orator spewing political rhetoric.\"\nElectronics Corporation (titled after his middle name) with\nhis fortune.\nShapp's friends and critics acknowledge that he possesses,\nHe hopes to portray himself as the skillful administrator,\nit is persistence.\nand his campaign manager, Norval D. Reece, although\nWhy he is running for President is a matter of\nrecognizing his candidate's limitations, feels he can be\n1970 Election\nspeculation. Some political observers believe his candidacy\nsuccessful. \"Shapp is creative, innovative and highly per-\nShapp Staff, Advisers\nShapp remained highly visible after his defeat, testify-\nis an attempt to become a political power at the national\nsonable,\" said Reece. \"He's the best one-on-one I've\nlevel, to gain either the vice presidential nomination or a\nCampaign manager: Norval D. Reece, former special\ning on several occasions at congressional hearings. He\never seen. He's more persuasive in a small group or one-on-\ncabinet spot in a Democratic administration. Shapp denies\nassistant to the governor for intergovernmental relations;\nremained active in Pennsylvania politics, creating and\none situation than in mass meetings.\"\nall this, claiming his only interest is in the presidency.\nBut before he can go anywhere, Shapp must become\ncandidate for the Democratic senatorial nomination in 1970.\nbecoming chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Study\nCochairman: Henry A. Satterwhite of Bradford, Pa.,\nGroup, an organization that analyzed and proposed\nHis bid for the White House, one Harrisburg reporter\nbetter known. An October 1975 Gallup Poll ranked him\nboard chairman of Allegheny Airlines.\nsolutions to state problems. But he remained an adversary\nobserved, is consistent with Shapp's background. For the\n10th on a list of 14 possible Democratic candidates. But,\nFinance director: Bronson P. Clark Jr., of Vinal Haven,\nof the state party establishment, attending the 1968\npast decade he has been interested in national issues, fre-\nbecause of the long list of Democratic candidates and the\nMaine, and Washington, D.C., former executive vice president\nDemocratic convention as an anti-war delegate.\nquently going to Washington to attend conferences and to\nlarge number of undecided voters, he does not view his\nof Gilford Instrument Laboratories Inc. of Oberlin, Ohio, and\ntestify before congressional committees. His experience as\nlack of recognition as insurmountable.\nformer executive secretary of the American Friends Service\nIn 1970, Shapp again ran for the Democratic guber-\ngovernor has indicated to him that some problems at the\nCommittee.\nnatorial nomination, with Casey as his primary opponent.\nWhile Shapp is undertaking a national campaign, his\nstate level can only be solved by federal action.\nefforts are focusing on a few key primary states where he\nTreasurer: G. Thomas Miller, a Harrisburg attorney and\nIn a rematch of their 1966 race, Casey received the formal\nhopes strong showings will ignite his campaign. He is\nformer judge of the state court of common pleas.\nendorsement of party leaders, while Shapp stressed his in-\nShapp is offering a businesslike approach to the\nGovernor's executive assistant: Richard A. Doran, a\ndependence of the state party organization. Organized\nnation's economic problems as his chief qualification for\nplanning to compete for delegates in Massachusetts on\nformer assistant to Rep. William J. Green (D Pa.).\nlabor, which had been with Shapp four years earlier, was\nthe presidency. \"I don't think others [Democratic can-\nMarch 2, Florida on March 9, Illinois on March 16, the\nofficially neutral in the 1970 primary. In spite of the\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2886-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2887\nPolitics 8\nPolitics 9\nneutrality of the state labor leadership, many locals still\nHis political power was enhanced by a change in the\nflation through the country greater than the one we had\nsupported Shapp.\nstate constitution in the late 1960s, allowing him to run for\nwhen the Arabs lifted their embargo.\" He joined seven\nSpending about $1-million of his own fortune, Shapp\nShapp's Background\nre-election in 1974-the first Pennsylvania governor in the\nother northeastern governors, 10 utilities and Rep. Robert\nagain launched a media blitz in the final days of the\n20th century permitted to do so. Shapp's re-election effort\nF. Drinan (D Mass.) in bringing suit against the Ford plan.\nprimary. It helped produce another narrow victory over\nProfession: Electronics manufacturer.\nwas aided by the decisions of leading Democratic adver-\nOn Aug. 11, the plaintiffs received a favorable verdict from\nCasey.\nBorn: June 25, 1912, Cleveland, Ohio.\nsaries, such as Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo, not to run\nthe U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia,\nHome: Merion, Pa.\nHe ran his general election campaign completely in-\nagainst him. With minimal opposition, Shapp easily won\nwhich ruled that Ford had exceeded his legal authority in\nReligion: Jewish.\ndependent of the party organization. Shapp's election drive\nthe primary. In the general election, he defeated\nEducation: Case Institute of Technology, B.S., 1933.\nimposing the $2-a-barrel oil import fee. The White House\nwas assisted by the general unpopularity of the incumbent\nOffices: Governor of Pennsylvania since 1971.\nRepublican Andrew L. Lewis Jr. by a margin of 53.8 per\nappealed the decision to the Supreme Court.\nadministration. The state's faltering economy and ex-\nMilitary: Army, 1942-46; discharged as captain.\ncent to 45.2 per cent.\nShapp has opposed increasing the gasoline tax as a\npanded budget had brought an increased sales tax, and the\nMemberships: Jewish Community Relations Council,\nmethod of fuel conservation, arguing that it is unnecessary\nnecessity of a state income tax loomed. With the help of\nAmerican Jewish Council, United World Federalists, National\nThe Corruption Issue\nand penalizes people who need to drive. But in September,\nanother $1-million of his own money, he won in a landslide\nCouncil on Aging, Philadelphia Association for Retarded\nIn spite of its reform rhetoric, the Shapp administra-\nShapp indicated his support for an increased gasoline tax in\nover Republican Lt. Gov. Raymond J. Broderick.\nChildren Inc., VFW, Jewish War Veterans, B'nai B'rith,\ntion has been labeled by some observers as the most cor-\nPennsylvania as a revenue-raising measure.\nIt was a memorable victory. He became the first\nAmerican Legion.\nrupt in Pennsylvania history. By early October 1975, 23\nIn remarks Sept. 11, Shapp attacked natural gas com-\nJewish governor in Pennsylvania history. His margin of\nFamily: Wife, Muriel Matzkin; three children.\nstate officials had been convicted since Shapp took office,\npanies for claiming there was a gas shortage and urged\nvictory, more than 500,000 votes, was the largest ever\nand 29 others were under indictment. Among those con-\nFord to conduct an investigation. Shapp contended that the\nachieved by any Democratic candidate for governor of\nvicted was Frank Hilton, Shapp's 1970 campaign manager\nAmerican public would \"be ripped off to the tune of $36-\nPennsylvania.\nIn conjunction with the revenue bill, Shapp com-\nand later the state secretary of property and supplies, and\nbillion\" in 1975 by the natural gas companies.\nmissioned 85 business and professional experts to under-\nDemocratic State Treasurer William Casper-both con-\ntake an independent management review of the state's\nvicted of extortion. Among those under investigation for\nTransportation\nThe Governorship\nfiscal policy. The result was cutbacks in state spending and\nallegedly soliciting kickbacks were the Democratic state\nShapp has advocated a national rail trust fund as a\n\"Shapp was elected as an independent Democrat, and\na tax cut of $360-million in 1974.\nchairman, the secretary of revenue and officials in the\nspecific part of his national investment policy. Under this\nhe's viewed with some suspicion by the legislature. He's not\nAlthough he dealt decisively with the economic chaos\nRevenue Department, the Liquor Control Board and the\nproposal, the nation's railroads would receive $13-billion in\na club member. His interests are not the same as a majority\nthat engulfed the state government early in his ad-\nState Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs.\nfederal money over a six-year period. The money would be\nof the legislature.\" So said Norval Reece in an interview\nministration, Shapp was faced with a budget deficit in\nWhile there were signs of corruption in various parts\nspent for needed improvements such as track construction\nwith Congressional Quarterly. Shapp's presidential cam-\n1975-a significant problem, because he promised in his\nof the state government, Shapp himself was not implicated\nand repairs, electrification and new cars. Shapp estimates\npaign has produced even cooler relations with the legisla-\n1974 re-election campaign that he would not raise taxes.\nuntil August, when Michael Baker Jr., head of a large\nthat this program would create about 120,000 new jobs in\nture. His critics in state government have complained that\nWhile ruling out hikes in the income or sales taxes, the\nengineering firm that does business with the state,\nShapp administration won increases in the auto registra-\nrailroad construction and about twice as many in the steel\nhis frequent absences from Harrisburg have severely\ntestified before a Pittsburgh grand jury. He said that\ntion fees, although failing to gain desired jumps in the\nindustry. The federal government would apply a 4 per cent\nhampered the passage of his legislative requests.\ntwice during the 1970 campaign he personally had given\ncigarette and gasoline taxes.\nsurcharge on rail shipping bills, paying off the entire $13-\nExcept for one term of the general assembly (1973-\nShapp $10,000 in cash-money that did not show up in the\nExpanded programs for the elderly rank with\nbillion in 20 to 25 years.\n74), the Democrats have controlled both houses of the\nfinancial records of the campaign. Shapp appeared volun-\nlegislature during the Shapp administration. But the\neconomic reform as the greatest achievements claimed by\n-By Rhodes Cook\ntarily before the grand jury on Oct. 9 and, while he ad-\nDemocratic majorities have frequently been narrow, with\nthe Shapp administration. All money raised in the state\nmitted receiving the money from Baker, he denied any\nthe deciding votes cast by a group of conservative, rural\nlottery goes into programs for the elderly. The state sub-\nwrongdoing.\nDemocrats. \"He's a loner,\" said one statehouse reporter,\nsidizes free mass transportation for the aged, the first\nFannin to Retire\n\"who runs the state government close to his vest.\"\nstatewide program of its type in the nation. A tax break\nShapp's greatest problems have been with the state\nfor elderly property owners is also provided by the\nPositions on Issues\nThe Senate will lose one of its conservative\nsenate, which frequently has blocked confirmation of\nstate.\nbackbenchers in 1977 with the retirement of Paul J.\nShapp appointees. Only four hours after Shapp was sworn\nBut one statehouse correspondent noted that Shapp\nFollowing is a summary of Shapp's positions on var-\nFannin, two-term Republican from Arizona. Fannin,\nin as governor in 1971, the senate rejected his 10 choices for\nhas \"almost no record at all in the passage of major bills.\nious issues:\n68, said he \"could not continue for a third term the pace\ncabinet positions, in a protest over Shapp's failure to con-\nHe has put in very little.\" Rather than initiating many ad-\nof working more than 12 hours a day.\"\nsult with them. Shapp's choices were subsequently con-\nministration bills, Shapp has tended to support bills that\nEconomy\nA member of the Finance Committee, Fannin\nfirmed, but the incident set the tone for the chilliness that\nhave been introduced by legislators. As a consequence,\nwent to the Senate in 1965 after six years as governor\nmany of the most innovative aspects of his administration\n\"No other issues will really be solved unless we have a\nhas existed between the governor and the legislature.\nof Arizona. His voting record and speeches marked him\nhave been made by executive decree rather than by work\nhealthy economic base,\" Shapp declared in his presidential\nConfirmations have not been the only source of friction\nfrom the beginning as one of a handful of conservative\nbetween the governor and the legislature. Shapp has vetoed\nwith the legislature. Notable are a financial disclosure re-\nannouncement speech. \"Unless we stimulate the economy,\nideologues in the chamber.\nfour major bills approved by the legislature in the past two\nquirement for cabinet members, the establishment of a\nyou'll have a crisis in this country of such proportions that\nIt was organized labor that drew the loudest of\nyears. In 1974, he vetoed bills banning pornography,\nbank delivery system to curtail welfare fraud, and the use\nyou'll have an unstable government.\"\nFannin's criticisms. The Arizona senator offered a\nlimiting abortions and restoring the death penalty. In 1975,\nof independent management review commissions to\nShapp's plan to revive the nation's economy involves\nsteady stream of legislation and comments aimed at\nhe vetoed an anti-busing bill. The abortion and death penal-\nanalyze the efficiency of various parts of the state\nrevamping the federal budgetary system and establishing a\nreducing what he saw as the excessive power of large\nnational investment policy. \"The United States doesn't\nty bills were overridden by the legislature, and an attempt\ngovernment.\nunions.\nReece describes his candidate as one who \"goes where\nhave a true budget in the business sense,\" Shapp stated,\nto override the anti-busing veto fell short by only three\nAmong the changes Fannin recommended are ones\nvotes in the Senate.\nthe action is.\" This penchant for involvement brought\n\"but a cash flow sheet.\" He advocates creation of a budget\nthat would revoke the tax-exempt status of any union\nsystem that would separate government operating costs\nThe major achievement of the Shapp administration,\nShapp his first national exposure in February 1974, when\nthat uses membership dues for any political purpose,\nfrom long-term capital investment funds. The latter would\nmentioned by virtually all observers, has been restoration\nhe mediated negotiations between independent truckers\npartisan or otherwise; make featherbedding illegal, ex-\nbe freed for investment in private sectors of the economy,\nof fiscal stability in the state government. Pennsylvania\nand the White House over fuel prices and allocation.\ntend back-to-work injunctions imposed during strikes\naccording to Shapp, increasing jobs and stimulating about\nwas on the verge of bankruptcy when Shapp took office in\nWhile Shapp has not made a further impact\nunder the Taft-Hartley Act; and create a new federal\n$2.50 of private investment for each dollar invested by the\n1971, with a state debt in excess of $500-million.\nnationally, he has consolidated his political base in Penn-\ncourt to hear labor disputes.\ngovernment.\nBy March of that year, the legislature had passed a\nsylvania. Although he was an anti-organization candidate\nFannin was elected governor of Arizona in 1958,\n1.5-billion revenue bill supported by Shapp; at the heart of\nin 1966 and 1970, through his use of patronage and deals\nwhen most of the state government was still in\nEnergy\nthe measure was the state's first income tax. Although\nwith individual leaders, he now is the dominant figure in\nDemocratic hands. He was re-elected twice, then went\nShapp pushed for a graduated tax, he had to settle for a\nthe state's diverse Democratic Party. One veteran reporter\nShapp has opposed President Ford's fee on imported\non to the Senate in 1964 when Barry Goldwater retired\nflat-rate tax after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court\nin Harrisburg described Shapp as a shrewd politician who\noil. In January 1975, he termed it a \"blueprint for eco-\nto run for President.\ndeclared the graduated tax was unconstitutional.\n\"used the white knight image as long as he needed.\"\nnomic disaster\" that would create \"a shock wave of in-\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2888-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2889\nPolitics 10\nNot So Many This Time:\nLandrum Retires\nAgriculture\nRETIREMENT REPORT\nRep. Phil M. Landrum will leave the House after\nthe 94th Congress, having served 24 years and having\nWhile an unusually large number of representatives\nplaced his name on a piece of legislation certain to be\nwill be running for the Senate in 1976, a smaller number\nremembered long after he departs.\nHOUSE VOTES TO OPEN UP RICE PRODUCTION\nwill be retiring voluntarily than in the last three con-\nLandrum, now 68, was in his third term as a Geor-\ngressional elections.\ngia Democrat when he and then-Rep. Robert P. Griffin\nOnly 16 House members have so far announced their\n(R Mich.) drafted their\nThe House Dec. 16, by a 311-104 vote, passed a bill (HR\nThe bill \"would\nintentions to leave at the end of the current Congress. Ten\nbill to impose strict con-\n8529) to remove limitations on the production of rice. The\nof these are running for the Senate and six are retiring. In\nbill, unchanged from the version reported by the\nprovide for un-\ntrols on labor elections\n1974, 44 members chose to retire or run for other offices,\nand union finances. The\nAgriculture Committee Nov. 3, would suspend for two\nnecessary payments\ncompared to 35 in 1972 and 29 in 1970.\nLandrum-Griffin bill\nyears the marketing quota system for rice, establish a\nfrom an insufficient\nWhat is lacking in 1976 is the large corps of elderly\nbecame law in 1959 as\ntarget price system for the 1976 and 1977 rice crops and\nmembers leaving to escape unfavorable redistricting or\nfederal treasury to\nCongress chose it in\nauthorize $1-million for a rice research program.\ntake advantage of sizeable pension benefits. None of the six\npreference to the com-\n(Provisions, Weekly Report p. 2473)\nunwilling recipients\nHouse members retiring this time will be over 70 when his\npeting version drafted by\nA similar bill (HR 15263) was defeated by the House in\nto produce more of a\nterm ends.\nSen. John F. Kennedy (D\nthe waning days of the 93rd Congress. (1974 Almanac p.\ncommodity already in\nIn addition to the retirements, two House members\nMass.).\n232)\nwill be leaving early in 1976. Rep. Bob Casey (D Texas), con-\nThe measure, bitter-\nThe purpose of the bill, according to supporters, was to\nsurplus.\"\nfirmed by the Senate in December as a member of the\nly opposed by unions,\nestablish for rice the same market-oriented policy set up by\nFederal Maritime Commission, will leave the House on Jan.\nthe 1973 Agriculture Act (PL 93-86) for wheat, feed grains\n-Rep. Robert L. Leggett\ngave Landrum an in-\n(D Calif.)\n3. On Jan. 1, Rep. James F. Hastings (R N.Y.) will resign to\ndelible conservative\nand cotton. (1973 Almanac p. 287)\nreturn to private life as president of Associated Industries\nreputation and cost him\nBefore passing HR 8529 the House defeated a sub-\nof New York, a lobbying group based in Albany.\nsupport he needed in 1963 to win the place he wanted\nstitute bill and a motion to recommit.\ngovernment would either have to provide export subsidies\nBy Christmas, six senators had announced they would\non the House Ways and Means Committee. He finally\nto move the rice in foreign trade or store any excess at its\nretire at the end of the 94th Congress, including Republican\nmade it to Ways and Means in 1965, only after defusing\nFloor Debate\nown expense.\nleader Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania. A seventh retirement,\nliberal opposition by managing key parts of President\nDuring debate Dec. 10 and 16, House members\nCON: Opponents of HR 8529 complained that the bill\nthat of Sen. Hiram L. Fong (R Hawaii), is regarded as vir-\nJohnson's anti-poverty legislation on the House floor.\nrepeated many of the arguments for and against the legisla-\nwould begin giving federal subsidy payments to an\ntually certain. Fong, 68, has not made a formal announce-\nIn recent years, Landrum emerged as one of the\ntion that appeared in the Agriculture Committee report (H\nagricultural industry that had survived for years without\nment but has said privately he does not plan to run.\nmost influential of the southern Democrats in the\nRept 94-618). (Weekly Report p. 2483)\nthem.\nFollowing is an up-to-date list of the announced depar-\nHouse, taking good care of his state and sometimes\nPRO: In addition to claims that continuing the ex-\nRobert L. Leggett (D Calif.) said the bill \"would provide\ntures from both chambers, and the reasons for them:\nproviding the more liberal Democratic leadership with\nisting rice policy would raise consumer prices and lower rice\nfor unnecessary payments from an insufficient federal\nhelp on key issues at unexpected times.\nexports because of artificially high price support levels\ntreasury to unwilling recipients to produce more of a com-\nSENATE\nAs a member of Ways and Means, Landrum made\n(making U.S. rice non-competitive in world markets), sup-\nmodity already in surplus.\"\na great effort protecting the southern textile interests,\nporters charged that opponents of the legislation wanted to\nW. R. Poage (D Texas) also warned House members\nPaul J. Fannin (R Ariz.)\nRetiring at 68\nserving as chairman of the informal \"textile group\" of\nprotect the monopoly on rice production enjoyed by\nthat changing the rice program would ultimately affect the\nPhilip A. Hart (D Mich.)\nRetiring at 63\nmembers from textile producing states. He surprised\ntraditional growers. \"It has been a bonanza for allotment\ntobacco and peanut programs, the other remaining\nRoman L. Hruska (R Neb.)\nRetiring at 71\nmany of his southern colleagues in 1971 by calling for\nholders,\" said David R. Bowen (D Miss.), \"and I do not\nagricultural commodities with production limitations.\nJohn O. Pastore (D R.I.)\nRetiring at 68\nan immediate end to U.S. participation in the In-\nblame them for trying to hold onto it.\"\n.The very people who are going to vote today to destroy\nHugh Scott (R Pa.)\nRetiring at 75\ndochina war. He considered running for speaker\nBowen denied opponents' claims that the existing\nthe rice program are going to find that their peanut and\nStuart Symington (D Mo.)\nRetiring at 74\nagainst Carl Albert (Okla.) in 1973, but decided\nprogram had cost the government nothing, citing $314-\ntheir tobacco farmers are going to be destroyed in the same\nnot to.\nmillion in export subsidies needed between 1959 and 1973\ntidal wave...,\" he said.\nHOUSE\nbecause the cost of rice was not competitive in the world\nRunning for Senate\nCourt Approves:\nmarket.\nAmendments\nAlphonzo Bell (R Calif.)\nBill Alexander (D Ark.) added that under the existing\nHouse members adopted the Agriculture Committee\nBob Casey (D Texas)\nResigning Jan. 3, 1976\nprogram, loan rates for 1976 would rise to $9.35 per\namendments en bloc Dec. 16. All other amendments were\nMarvin L. Esch (R Mich.)\nRunning for Senate\nELECTION SUBSIDIES\nhundredweight, as compared to the $6 per hundredweight\ndefeated, including a John B. Breaux (D La.) amendment in\nEdwin D. Eshleman (R Pa.)\nRetiring at 55\nproposed in the bill. This would result in a tremendous cost\nthe nature of a substitute, which would have continued\nJames F. Hastings N.Y.)\nResigning Jan. 1, 1976\nThe Federal Election Commission announced its first\nto the government, other opponents argued, since the\nmarketing quotas and acreage allotments, deleted the\nH. John Heinz III (R Pa.)\nRunning for Senate\nsubsidy payments to presidential candidates Dec. 23, one\ntarget price concept and lowered the loan level to 60 per\nWilliam L. Hungate (D Mo.)\nRetiring at 53\nday after the Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction\ncent of parity, from 65 per cent, or $8 per hundredweight\nJohn Jarman (R Okla.)\nRetiring at 60\nsought against the payments on the grounds that the con-\n(whichever was higher).\nPhil M. Landrum (D Ga.)\nRetiring at 66\nstitutionality of the law providing for such subsidies has\nRunning for Senate\nnot been determined.\nThe existing rice\nBreaux defended his amendment as the \"proper\nJohn Y. McCollister (R Neb.)\napproach,\" adding, \"Let us not make the drastic experiment\nPatsy T. Mink (D Hawaii)\nRunning for Senate\nOn or after Jan. 1, the commission will be free to give\nprogram \"has been a\nof completely changing the program when we are getting\nCharles A. Mosher (R Ohio)\nRetiring at 69\n$492,030 to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D Texas), $374,422 to Presi-\nbonanza for allotment\nmore rice than we can possibly sell.\"\nJames G. O'Hara (D Mich.)\nRunning for Senate\ndent Ford and $214,050 to former Gov. Terry Sanford (D\nN.C.). Eight other candidates will only be eligible for $100,-\nholders, and I do not\nThe Breaux amendment had been introduced earlier as\nPeter A. Peyser (R N.Y.)\nRunning for Senate\nHR 4741 and was rejected by the Agriculture Committee.\nDonald W. Riegle Jr. (D Mich.)\nRunning for Senate\n000 at first because final figures on their campaign receipts\nblame them for trying\nTermed the \"Houston plan\", it had resulted from a series of\nPaul S. Sarbanes (D Md.)\nRunning for Senate\nare not yet in.\nto hold onto it.\nmeetings of U.S. rice producers held in Houston, Texas.\nHerman T. Schneebeli (R Pa.)\nRetiring at 68\nThe payments are authorized by the campaign law of\nOpponents said Breaux's amendment would be only a\nAlan Steelman (R Texas)\nRunning for Senate\n1974, whose constitutionality the Supreme Court is ex-\n-Rep. David R. Bowen\n\"token revision\" of the existing rice program, and \"a great\npected to rule on early in 1976.\n(D Miss.)\nblow\" to consumers and taxpayers. \"It simply provides for a\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2890-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2891\nAgriculture 2\ncontinuation of the current program by which the\nFinal Action:\nentrenched producers of rice in this country have a locked-\nGovernment Operations\nin monopoly on the production of rice,\" said Dawson Mathis\nMILK PRICE SUPPORTS\n(D Ga.).\nThe Breaux substitute was solidly defeated, 97-310.\nCongress Dec. 18 cleared S J Res 121, requiring\n(Vote 586, Weekly Report p. 2822)\nquarterly adjustments of the support price for milk and an\nSenate Passage:\nneed,\" such as special U.N. events or \"international in-\nFrederick Richmond N.Y.) offered an amendment to\nincrease in the support price to a minimum of 85 per cent of\ncidents\" requiring extra security measures.\nlimit the amount of deficiency payments (payments re-\nparity. But it delayed sending the bill to the President\nAuthorize up to $3.5-million in any fiscal year in\nceived if the price of rice falls below the target price) to\nbecause of a veto threat.\nFOREIGN MISSIONS PROTECTION\nfederal reimbursement to local and state governments if\n$20,000 instead of the $55,000 provided in the bill. Rich-\nTwo previous congressional attempts in the last year to\nthey chose to provide the protection themselves. The exact\nmond argued that it was unfair to treat rice producers more\nprovide for quarterly adjustments of the support price were\nThe Senate Dec. 18 cleared for President Ford's\namount would be set in an appropriations bill.\nfavorably than producers of other commodities, such as\nvetoed by President Ford. (Background, Weekly Report p.\nsignature a bill to authorize federal aid in certain cases to\nMake the measure retroactive to July 1, 1974, thus\nwheat and corn, who received only $20,000. He said $20,000\n2612)\nThe Senate passed its version of S J Res 121, calling\ncities having 20 or more foreign diplomatic missions.\nallowing reimbursement of about $750,000 to New York\nwould amply cover rice production costs and the larger pay-\nonly for quarterly adjustments, on Sept. 29 by voice vote.\nThe bill (HR 11184) was a slightly altered version of a\nCity for the visit of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat in the\nment would aid only large corporate rice growers, not small\nsimilar measure (HR 12) that Ford had vetoed Nov. 29 on\nfall of 1974.\nfarmers.\nThe House passed the bill Nov. 18, changing the termina-\nthe grounds that it would involve the federal government\nIncrease the authorized Executive Protective Service\nRichmond's amendment was opposed by members who\ntion date of the bill to March 31, 1978, and increasing the\ntoo heavily in local law enforcement. (Weekly Report p.\nforce from 850 officers to 1,200.\nargued that the other major commodity programs began\nprice support of milk to 85 per cent of parity.\n2667, 2661)\nHR 11184 did not include provisions in the original ver-\nwith a $55,000 limitation, which was later reduced to\nSenate conferees agreed to the House changes and the\n$20,000, and rice producers should be accorded the same\nconference report (H Rept 94-723) was filed Dec. 12, paving\nJames T. Lynn, director of the Office of Management\nsions of HR 12 for adding 10 high-level positions to the\nand Budget (OMB), declared in a letter to Sen. James L.\nSecret Service and creating statutory authority for the\nprivilege. They cited the high production costs of rice as an\nthe way for final action.\nBuckley (Cons-R that the compromise was acceptable\ndirector and deputy director of the Secret Service.\nadditional reason-$331 per acre, as compared to $127 for\nto the administration. But the new version contained no\nwheat and $183 for corn.\nProvisions\ndirect reference to the problem of federal-state relations\nFloor Action\nPaul Findley (R Ill.) told House members he became\nthat Ford had raised in his veto message.\nconvinced in subcommittee that \"if we did not [decrease\nAs cleared by Congress, S J Res 121 would:\nUnder the compromise, the bill made it more explicit\npayment limitations] by stages.. this legislation would not\nThe House Dec. 17 adopted the measure by voice vote\nRequire the secretary of agriculture until March 31,\nthat federal aid would be limited to cases involving official\nbe enacted. If that happened,\" Findley continued, \"the\nafter a brief explanation of the changes from HR 12 by Teno\n1978, to adjust the support price of milk at the beginning of\ndiplomatic business at permanent missions such as the\ngreat principle of freedom of planting would be lost,\nRoncalio (D Wyo.), chairman of the House Public Works\neach quarter, to reflect any change during the preceding\nUnited Nations, rather than applying to unofficial visits of\nperhaps for years.\"\nSubcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds.\nquarter in the index of prices paid by farmers for produc-\nforeign diplomats. It also required Congress to appropriate\nThe amendment was rejected by voice vote.\nThe Senate Public Works Committee Dec. 17 reported\ntion items, interest, taxes and wage rates. Under existing\nthe aid funds, instead of allowing the money to be disbursed\nThe House also rejected by voice vote an amendment\nthe language of HR 11184 in an identical bill (S 2796-S\nlaw, support price changes were keyed to a broader index of\nimmediately upon approval by the Treasury secretary of a\nby W. Henson Moore (R La.) to allow new growers, as well\nRept 94-573) introduced by Buckley.\nfamily living.\ncity's request.\nas traditional ones, to be included in any set-aside program\nThe Senate cleared the bill by voice vote Dec. 18.\nRequire the secretary to announce the new support\n\"Ford's comments in the veto message didn't necessari-\nimposed by the secretary of agriculture, thereby receiving\nBuckley declared that HR 11184 \"narrows the focus\" of the\nprices no later than 30 days before the beginning of each\nly jibe with OMB's position,\" said an amused congressional\nset-aside payments.\noriginal HR 12. He said OMB Director Lynn had assured\nJames P. Johnson (R Colo.) charged that under this\nquarter.\nstaff member. \"I guess when you veto legislation, you want\nhim that Ford would include in his forthcoming fiscal 1977\nIncrease the support price of milk to 85 per cent of\nto put it in the highest philosophical terms possible.\"\namendment, \"people in Colorado, who cannot grow rice\nbudget proposal a request for a $2-million appropriation to\nparity.\nThe compromise version was worked out between OMB\nbecause of the climate, will be paid not to grow rice.\"\nfinance reimbursements.\n-\nand two New York legislators described by sources as the\nJohnson added, \"This is the kind of amendment which is\n-By Donald Smith\nmischievous and does not really offer anything to the whole\nFinal Action\n\"prime movers\" of the bill-Buckley and Rep. Bella S.\nAbzug (D). The bill would primarily benefit New York\nFinal Action:\nprogram, because, the set-aside program only applies to\nHouse\nCity, the site of the United Nations.\nallotment holders and those who participate in the program\nAccording to congressional staff sources, the White\nand have an incentive to participate in the program.'\nThe House adopted the conference report on S J Res\nHouse apparently misunderstood the weight of Buckley's\nWOMEN'S CONFERENCE\n121 Dec. 17 by an overwhelming 307-111 vote. (Vote 595,\nRecommittal Motion\nsupport when Ford decided to veto the bill.\nWeekly Report p. 2824)\nBuckley acknowledged that the \"Abzug-Buckley\nCongress Dec. 11 cleared for the White House a bill\nThe House by a 102-311 vote defeated a motion by\nSupporters of the bill reiterated earlier arguments that\napproach may seem unusual to some.\" But he praised\n(HR 9924) authorizing $5-million for the organization and\nMoore to recommit HR 8529 to the Agriculture Committee,\nU.S. dairy farmers needed the legislation to save them from\nAbzug's efforts to clear the bill. Buckley, one of the most\nconvening of a National Women's Conference in 1976, to be\nand then passed the bill 311-104. (Votes 587, 588, Weekly\nthe current cost-price squeeze, help them plan and organize\nconservative members of Congress, and Abzug, one of\nset up by the National Commission on the Observance of\nReport p. 2822)\nI\ntheir production and keep them from going bankrupt. Sup-\nthe most liberal, usually find themselves on opposite\nInternational Women's Year, 1975.\n-By Mary Link\nporters denied that the bill would raise milk prices to con-\nsides of issues.\nFinal action came when the Senate by voice vote\nsumers or result in large increases in support payments.\napproved the bill which the House had passed Dec. 10, 252-\nThe Breaux amend-\nPaul Findley (R Ill.) opposed the bill, citing govern-\n162. (Vote 568, Weekly Report p. 2754)\nment estimates that the two-year cost to taxpayers would\nProvisions\nment \"simply pro-\nbe $530-million in support payments and the increased cost\nProvisions\nvides for a continua-\nto consumers would be $1.4-billion in higher milk prices.\nAs cleared, HR 11184 would:\nAs sent to the White House, HR 9924:\ntion of the current\nFindley told House members that Office of Management\nAllow the Treasury secretary to provide Executive\nExtended the life of the National Commission on the\nprogram by which\nand Budget Director James T. Lynn and Secretary of\nProtection Service details to metropolitan areas outside of\nObservance of International Women's Year and directed it\nAgriculture Earl L. Butz had promised to recommend a\nWashington where there were 20 or more diplomatic mis-\nto organize and convene a national women's conference in\nthe entrenched pro-\nveto to President Ford should the bill pass.\nsions. These areas included New York, Chicago, Los\n1976, preceded by state or regional conferences.\nducers of rice have\nAngeles, Houston, New Orleans, San Francisco and Miami.\nDirected the conference to assess the progress to date\na locked-in monopoly\nSenate\nThe service is the uniformed Secred Service force that\nin the private and public sectors in promoting equality\nThe Senate adopted the conference report Dec. 18 by\nprovides protection for the White House and diplomatic\nbetween men and women in all aspects of life; identify the\non the production of\nvoice vote with little debate. The bill was then held at the\nmissions in Washington.\nbarriers which prevent women from participating fully in\nrice.'\ndesk until Congress reconvenes Jan. 19, in order to avoid a\nProvide protection only at the request of the local\nnational life and recommend means for their removal as\n-Rep. Dawson Mathis\nFord pocket veto.\ngovernment or in the event of \"extraordinary protective\nwell as a timetable for achievement of such progress.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2892-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2893\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nGovernment Operations 2\nDirected the conference to set up a committee as a\nnearly identical measure Dec. 5. (House passage, Weekly\nmechanism for calling a second national women's con-\nReport p. 2270; veto outlook, Weekly Report p. 2470)\nference.\nHR 8617 would give federal employees the right to par-\nForeign Policy/National Security\nRequired the conference to report to the President and\nticipate in partisan election campaigns and to run for office,\nCongress within 120 days after the end of the conference;\nwhile strengthening laws prohibiting abuse of authority\nand provided for the termination of the commission 30 days\nand coercion of federal employees into non-voluntary\nlater, in no case later than March 31, 1978.\npolitical activity of any kind.\nAuthorized $5-million in funds for the conference;\nPartisan political activity by federal employees had\nSENATE To ACT ON 200-MILE FISHING LIMIT\nspecified that none of the funds should be used for lobbying.\nbeen prohibited since 1939 when Congress passed the Hatch\nAct. (Background, Weekly Report p. 1100)\nThe Senate laid the groundwork in the closing hours of\n(Nev.), McIntyre (N.H.), Nunn (Ga.), Leahy (Vt.) and Byrd\nBackground\nthe first session for action in 1976 on a controversial bill (S\n(Ind Va.), and Republicans Scott (Va.) and Taft (Ohio). Op-\nHR 9924 became controversial when it was first\nSenate Committee Action\n961) that would extend U.S. fishing limits to 200 miles,\nposing it were Democrats Stennis (Miss.), Culver (Iowa) and\nbrought to the House floor in October. It was criticized as a\nfrom the present 12.\nHart (Colo.), and Republicans Thurmond (S.C.), Tower\nvehicle for federal funding of lobbying activities in favor of\nThe Post Office and Civil Service Committee Nov. 19\nAfter preliminary debate on the final day of the session\n(Texas), Goldwater (Ariz.) and Bartlett (Okla.).\nthe Equal Rights Amendment. That amendment, approved\nordered HR 8617 reported by a vote of 7-2. Voting for the\nDec. 19, the bill was made the Senate's pending order of\nThe committee in its report argued that the United\nby Congress in 1972, has been ratified by 34 of the 38 states\nbill were: Chairman Gale W. McGee (D Wyo.), Jennings\nbusiness on its return Jan. 19.\nStates faced serious coastal fishing problems, making a\nnecessary to add it to the Constitution as the 27th\nRandolph (D W.Va.), Quentin N. Burdick (D N.D.), Frank\ncomprehensive conservation program \"sorely needed\"; that\nAmendment. (1972 Almanac p. 199)\nE. Moss (D Utah), Ernest F. Hollings (D S.C.), Patrick J.\nBackground on Controversy\nthe bill related strictly to fishery jurisdiction and did not\nProposed by Bella S. Abzug (D N.Y.), HR 9924 was\nLeahy (D Vt.) and Ted Stevens (R Alaska). Voting against\nS 961 would extend the U.S. fishing limit, effective\naffect other ocean interests; that it did not violate inter-\nreported unanimously by the House Government\nwere: Hiram L. Fong (R Hawaii) and Henry Bellmon (R\nSept. 30, 1976, to protect the American fishing industry\nnational law and that it would not affect negotiations at the\nOperations Committee (H Rept 94-562), but a move to sus-\nOkla.).\nwhich, the bill's backers said, had been hard hit in recent\nUnited Nations Law of the Sea Conference. It concluded\npend the rules and pass the bill Oct. 20 fell short of the two-\nIn its report (S Rept 94-512), filed Dec. 5, the committee\nyears by massive foreign fishing off U.S. shores. Foreign\nthat the bill was needed to protect vital U.S. fisheries in-\nthirds vote required. (Vote 457, Weekly Report p. 2284;\nsaid it did not see \"the continuance of a merit system in\nfishing would be strictly regulated in the new U.S. zone,\nterests and that national defense and security con-\nstory, Weekly Report p. 2401, 2267)\npublic employment as being dependent upon maintenance\nwith American ships having first option on available fish\nsiderations did not lessen the bill's \"urgent desirability.\"\nof the severe restrictions on employees' First Amendment\nstocks. In addition to widening the fishing zone, the bill\nTaft filed supplemental views deploring \"misleading\nHouse Passage\nrights that now exist.\"\nwould establish a federal fishery management program to\ninformation\" that U.S. representatives had given to the in-\nWhen HR 9924 was brought up Dec. 10, its opponents,\nThe committee agreed to one substantive amendment\nprotect and conserve U.S. fish stocks.\nternational community about the impact of the bill.\nled by Sam Steiger (R Ariz.) and Robert E. Bauman (R\nto the House-passed bill. The amendment provided that\nA similar bill had easily passed the Senate in 1974 by a\nIn minority views, Stennis, Thurmond, Tower and\nMd.), attempted to delay it further, charging that women\nnothing in the bill would authorize any employee to use in-\n68-27 vote. It died at the end of the session when the House\nBartlett explained their opposition to S 961. They\nmembers supporting the bill had incorrectly represented\nformation available to him because of his employment for\ntook no action. (1974 Almanac p. 563)\nacknowledged that U.S. coastal fishing problems deserved\nthe Republican National Committee among its backers.\nany purpose prohibited by law.\nBut the Senate vote in 1976 was expected to be much\n\"vigorous attention\" but called unilateral action by\nMillicent Fenwick N.J.) responded that the national com-\ncloser. The House Oct. 9 passed a companion bill (HR 200)\nCongress contrary to both international law and the ongo-\nmittee chairman was in favor of the conference.\nMinority Views\nby a lopsided margin of 208-101. (House action, Weekly\ning negotiations.\nThe rule under which the bill was considered was\nadopted, 369-31. (Vote 566, Weekly Report p. 2750)\nIn minority views, Fong and Bellmon said HR 8617\nReport p. 2153)\nThe bills were opposed by the Ford administration,\nCON: Foreign Relations\nDuring debate on HR 9924, opponents attempted to cut\nwould \"open up the entire federal government to partisan\npolitics by federal employees and concentrate excessive\nwhich argued that any action on fishery zones should be by\nThe Foreign Relations Committee filed its adverse\nback severely on its provisions. In each case such efforts\npolitical power in the hands of their leaders.\ninternational agreement, rather than a unilateral decision\nreport (S Rept 94-459) on the bill Nov. 18. It voted 7-6 to\nwere countered by compromise amendments offered by\n\"It would cripple and emasculate the Hatch Act-the\nby the United States. They also were opposed by segments\nreport the bill adversely. Opposing the bill were Democrats\nsupporters of the bill and adopted by the House.\nAmendments adopted included those which:\ncornerstone of the merit system-which has served this na-\nof the fishing industry, including tuna and shrimp interests\nMcGee (Wyo.), Humphrey (Minn.) and Clark (Iowa), and\ntion so well in banning partisan politics from the merit\nwho fish far off U.S. waters and feared that an extension of\nRepublicans Javits (N.Y.), Scott (Pa.), Percy (III.) and\nSpecified that no funds authorized by HR 9924 could be\nsystem and in shielding Civil Service workers from the\nthe U.S. boundaries would provoke retaliatory action by\nGriffin (Mich.). Democrats Mansfield (Mont.), Symington\nused for lobbying activities. Proposed by Elliott H. Levitas\nforeign countries.\n(Mo.), Pell (R.I.), McGovern (S.D.) and Biden (Del.), and\n(D Ga.), this amendment was adopted by voice vote.\npressures and threats of politicians.\"\nThe expansion was pushed primarily by members\nRepublican Pearson (Kan.) voted not to report the bill\nReduced the authorization to $5-million from $10-\nrepresenting coastal interests. Principal sponsors of the\nadversely.\nmillion. Proposed by Patsy T. Mink (D Hawaii) as a sub-\nFinal Action:\nbills were Rep. Gerry E. Studds (D Mass.) and Sen. Warren\nIn opposing the bill, the committee set out the\nstitute for a Steiger amendment cutting funds to $1-million,\nG. Magnuson (D Wash.). But even among representatives of\narguments that Ford administration witnesses made dur-\nthis amendment was adopted by a 28-16 standing vote.\ncoastal states there was not always a consensus. The two\ning its hearings and concluded that a multilateral ocean\nThe bill was then passed, 252-162.\nOVERSEAS VOTING RIGHTS\nAlaska senators, for example, took opposite sides on the\ntreaty offered the best protection and most effective long-\nissue, with Republican Ted Stevens supporting it and\nterm solution for U.S. fishing interests.\nSenate Action\nCongress Dec. 18 cleared for the President a bill (S 95)\nDemocrat Mike Gravel opposing it. A further indication of\nThe committee said it believed that passage of S 961\nThe Senate Dec. 11 approved HR 9924 without debate\nto assure American citizens who live outside of the United\nthe controversy was the referral of S 961 to three com-\nwould be \"inconsistent with the spirit\" of existing U.S. legal\nby voice vote, clearing the measure for the White House.\nStates the right to vote in federal elections.\nmittees and the closeness of their votes on it. After the\nobligations, particularly the 1958 Convention on the High\nFinal action came when the Senate by voice vote\nSenate Commerce Committee reported S 961 Oct. 7, it was\nSeas, which specifically mentioned fishing as an element of\naccepted House changes in the bill. S 95 originally was\nreferred to the Foreign Relations Committee and the\nhigh seas freedom. It also was concerned that the bill might\nAction Deferred:\npassed by the Senate May 15. It was passed by the House\nArmed Services Committee. (Commerce committee action,\nundermine the U.N. conference and cast doubt on U.S.\nDec. 10 with amendments. (House action, Weekly Report p.\nWeekly Report p. 2241)\ncredibility abroad on other sea and fishing issues. Disagree-\nHATCH ACT REVISION\n2777)\ning with the bill's supporters, the committee said that\nUnder S 95, no U.S. citizen could be denied the right to\n\"should the [U.N.] conference fail, there will be more than\nPRO: Armed Services\nvote in a state even if he did not maintain a residence there\nenough time to take unilateral action to protect our coastal\nThe Senate deferred action until 1976 on a House-\nThe Armed Services Committee filed its report (S Rept\nand did not intend to return there. These persons would\nresources.\"\npassed bill (HR 8617) that would give the nation's 2.8\nhave to file an application to vote no later than 30 days\n94-415) Dec. 8, after approving the bill 9-7. It had approved\nGriffin and McGee added their strongly held view that\nmillion federal employees new political rights.\nbefore an election.\nthe 1974 version by a two-vote margin as well. In approving\nit was \"absolutely essential\" that a solution be reached\nAlthough President Ford was reported ready to veto\nThe bill included an anti-voting fraud provision that\nit, the committee adopted an amendment offered by Robert\nthrough international agreement rather than unilateral ac-\nthe version of the bill approved by the House Oct. 21, the\nTaft Jr. (R Ohio) to delay the effective date of the bill until\nprovided for a $5,000 fine and a five-year prison term for\ntion, which they contended contained a number of dangers,\nSenate Post Office and Civil Service Committee reported a\nJan. 1, 1977. Voting to report the bill favorably were\nproviding false information.\nincluding the threat of having to use military force.\nI\nDemocrats Symington (Mo.), Jackson (Wash.), Cannon\n-By Judy Gardner\nPAGE 2894-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2895\nCorresponding to Congressional Record Votes 818, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 827, 828\nCQ House Votes 605-612\n607\n608\n609\n610\n612\n605\n606\n607\n608\n609\n610\n605\n606\n607\n608\n609\n610\n605\n909\n607\n608\n609\n610\nKEY\n606\n609\nKANSAS\n4 Randall\n77777777\nMartin\nYYYNNNYN\n7 Jones\nYYYYYY YN\nSebellus\n?YYNNN??\n5 Bolling\nYYYYYYYY\n10 Broyhill\nYYYYNNYN\n8 Ford\nY Voted for (yea)\nYYYYYYY?\n605. HR 9771. Airport and Airway Development. Passage of\nPaired for.\n5 Armstrong\nYNYNNYN\n2 Keys\nYYYYYYYY\n6 Litton\nYYYYYYYN\nTaylor\nYYYYYYYN\nTEXAS\nthe bill to authorize $4.76-billion for airport development and other\nf\nAnnounced for.\nCONNECTICUT\n3 Winn\nTaylor\nYYYYNNYN\nNORTH DAKOTA\n1 Patman\n?YYYYYYY\naviation activities for the five-year period, fiscal 1976-80. Passed\nN Voted against (nay).\nCotter\nYYYYYYY?\n4 Shriver\nYYYYNNYN\n8 Ichord\nY ? Y Y Y Y Y ?\nAL Andrews\nYYYYNNY?\n2 Wilson\n????????\nDodd\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Skubitz\nYYYNNNYN\n368-16: R 127-7; D 241-9 (ND 166-7; SD 75-2), Dec. 18, 1975. (Story,\nX Paired against.\n9 Hungate\nYYYYYYY?\nOHIO\n3 Collins\nYYYNNNNN\nAnnounced against.\n3 Giaimo\nYYYYYYNY\nKENTUCKY\n10 Burlison\nYYYYYYYN\nGradison\nYYYYNNYN\n4 Roberts\nYYYYYYYN\np.\n2899)\nP\nVoted \"present.\"\n4 McKinney\nYYYYNNYY\n1 Hubbard\nYYYYYYYY\nMONTANA\nClancy\nYNYYNNYN\n5 Steelman\nY?YYNNNN\nVoted \"present\" to avoid\nSarasin\nYYYYNNYY\n2 Natcher\nYYYYYYYY\nBaucus\nYYYYYYYY\nWhalen\nYYYYNNYY\n6 Teague\n? Y Y N N Y ? X\n606. HR 10824. Medicare Amendments. Rostenkowski (D Ill.)\npossible conflict of Interest.\n6 Moffett\nYYYYYYYY\n3 Mazzoli\nYYYYYYYN\n2 Melcher\nYYYYYY?1\nGuyer\nYYYYNNYN\n7 Archer\nYNYNNNNN\n?\nDid not vote or otherwise\nDELAWARE\n4 Snyder\nYYYYNNYN\nNEBRASKA\nLatta\nYYYYNNYN\n8 Eckhardt\nYYYYYYYY\nmotion to suspend the rules and adopt the resolution (H Res 943)\nmake position known.\nAL du Pont\nYTTNNYYY\n5 Carter\nYYYYNNYN\n1 Thone\nYYYNNNYN\nHarsha\nY2??777N\n9 Brooks\nYYYYYYYN\nproviding that the House concur, with further amendments, to the\nFLORIDA\n6 Breckinridge\nYYYYYYYY\n2 McCollister\nYNYYNNYN\nBrown\nYYYNNNYY\n10 Pickle\nYYYYYYYY\nSenate amendments to the bill to make changes in the Medicare\nSikes\n? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y\n7 Perkins\nYY7YYYYY\n3 Smith\nYYYYNN??\n8 Kindness\nYYYNNNYN\n11 Poage\nYYYYYY?2\nprogram for the aged and to modify medical peer review re-\n2 Fuqua\nY?777777\nLOUISIANA\nNEVADA\n9 Ashley\nYYYYYYYY\n12 Wright\nYYYYYYYY\n3 Bennett\nYYYYYYYN\nHebert\n2777777X\nAL Santini\nYYYYYYYY\n10 Miller\nYNYNNNYN\n13 Hightower\nYYYYYYYY\nquirements under the Medicare program and Medicaid program for\n607\n609\n610\nChappell\nYYYYYYYN\n2 Boggs\nYYYYYYYY\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n11 Stanton\nYYYYNNYN\n14 Young\nYYYYYYYY\nthe poor (thus clearing the bill for the President). Motion agreed to\nKelly\nNNYNNNYN\n3 Treen\nYNYNNNYN\n1 D'Amours\nYYYYYYYY\n12 Devine\nYYYNNNYN\n15 de la Garza\nYYYYYYYN\n371-16: R 116-13; D 255-3 175-1; SD Dec. 19, 1975. A two-\n6 Young\nNNYNNNYN\n4 Waggonner\nYYYYYYYN\n2 Cleveland\nYYYYNNY?\n13 Mosher\n7Y?Y7NYY\n16 White\nYYYYYYYN\n7 Gibbons\nNYYYY???\n5 Passman\nYYYYYYYY\nNEW JERSEY\n14 Seiberling\nYYYYYYYY\n17 Burleson\nYYYYYYYN\nthirds majority vote (258 in this case) is required for adoption under\nALABAMA\nHaley\nYYYYYYY?\n6 Moore\nYYYNNNYN\nFlorio\nYYYYYYYY\n15 Wylle\nYYYNNNYN\n18 Jordan\nYYYYYYYY\nsuspension of the rules. (Story, p. 2877)\n1 Edwards\nYYYYNNYN\nFrey\nYYYNNYN\n7 Breaux\nYYYYYYYY\n2 Hughes\nYYYYYYYY\n16 Regula\nYYYYNNYN\n19 Mahon\nYYYYYYYN\n2 Dickinson\nYYYNNNYN\n10 Bafalls\nYYYYNNYN\n8 Long\nYYYYYYYY\n3 Howard\nY ? ? Y Y Y Y Y\n17 Ashbrook\nYYYNNNYN\n20 Gonzalez\nYY?YNYYY\n607. HR 10727. Social Security Appeals. Burke (D Mass.) mo-\n3 Nichols\nYYYYYY? X\n11 Rogers\nYYYYYYYY\nMAINE\n4 Thompson\nYYYYYYYY\n18 Hays\nNYYYYY??\n21 Krueger\nYYYYYYYY\n? ? Y Y N N Y N\nYYYNNNYY\n5 Fenwick\nYYYYNNYY\n19 Carney\nYYYYYY??\n22 Casey\nYYYYYYYN\ntion to suspend the rules and adopt the resolution (H Res 944)\n4 Bevill\nYYYYYYYX\n12 Burke\n1 Emery\n5\nY ? ? ? Y Y Y Y\n13 Lehman\nYYYYYYY?\n2 Cohen\nYYYNNNYY\n6 Forsythe\nYYYYNNYY\n20 Stanton\nYYYYYYYY\n23 Kazen\nYYYYYYYN\nproviding that the House concur, with further amendments, to the\n6 Buchenan\nYYYYNNYN\n14 Pepper\nYYYYYYYY\nMARYLAND\n7 Maguire\nYYYYYYYY\n21 Stokes\nYYYYYYYN\n24 Milford\nYYYYNYYN\nSenate amendments to the bill to reduce the backlog of cases\n7 Flowers\nYYYYYYYN\n15 Fascell\nYYYYYYYY\n1 Bauman\nYNYNNYY\n8 Roe\n7272777Y\n22 Vanik\nYYYYYYYY\nUTAH\nappealing the denial of Social Security and other benefits, and to\nALASKA\nGEORGIA\n2 Long\nNYYYYYYY\n9 Helstoski\nYYYYYYYY\n23 Motti\nNYYNYN?X\n1 McKay\nYYYYYYYY\nAL Young\nY ? Y Y N N Y Y\nGinn\nYYYYYYYY\n3 Sarbanes\n?YYYYYYY\n10 Rodino\nYYYYYYYY\nOKLAHOMA\nHowe\nYYY???YY\nmake other minor changes in Social Security laws (thus clearing\nARIZONA\nMathis\nYYYYYYYN\n4 Holt\nYYYYNNYY\n11 Minish\nYYYYYYYY\nJones\nYYYYYY?7\nVERMONT\nthe bill for the President). Motion agreed to 390-0: R 132-0; D 258-0\nRhodes\nYYYYNNYN\nBrinkley\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Spellman\nYYYYYYYY\n12 Rinaldo\nYYYYNNYY\n2 Risenhoover\nYYYYYYY?\nAL Jeffords\nYYYNNNYY\n(ND 178-0; SD 80-0), Dec. 19, 1975. A two-thirds majority vote (260\nUdall\nYYY?YYY?\nLevitas\nYYYNNYYN\nByron\nYYYYYYYY\n13 Meyner\n?YYYYYYY\n3 Albert\nVIRGINIA\nStelger\nY ? ? ? ? ? ? ?\nYoung\nYYYYYYYN\n7 Mitchell\nYYYYYYYN\n14 Daniels\n7777777\nSteed\nYYYYYYYN\n1 Downing\nYYYYYYYN\nin this case) is required for adoption under suspension of the rules.\nConlan\nYYYNNNYN\nFlynt\n?YYYYYYN\n8 Gude\nYYYYNNYY\n15 Patten\nYYYYYYYY\nJarman\nYYYYNNYN\n2 Whitehurst\nYYYYNNYN\n(Story, p. 2878)\nARKANSAS\nMcDonald\nNNYNNNNN\nMASSACHUSETTS\nNEW MEXICO\nEnglish\nYYYYYYYN\n3 Satterfield\nYNYNYYYN\n1 Alexander\n? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y\nStuckey\nYYYYYNYN\n1 Conte\nYYYYNNYY\n1 Lujan\nYYYYNNYN\nOREGON\n4 Daniel\nYYYNNYN\n608. HR 8069. Labor-HEW Appropriations, Fiscal 1976. Flood\n2 Mills\nYYYYYYN\n9 Landrum\n????????\n2 Boland\nYYYYYYY?\n2 Runnels\nYYYYYYYN\nAuCoin\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Daniel\nYYYNNYYN\n3 Hammerschmidt)\nNYYNNYN\n10 Stephens\nY ? ? ? ? ? ?\nEarly\nYYYYYYYY\nNEW YORK\nUliman\nYYY??YY?\n6 Butler\nYYYYNNYN\n(D Pa.) motion to postpone until Jan. 27, 1976, an override attempt\n4 Thornton\n7 Y Y Y ? Y Y N\nHAWAII\nDrinan\nYYYYYYYY\n1 Pike\nYYYYYYYY\n3 Duncan\nYYYYYYYY\n7 Robinson\nYYYYNNYN\nof President Ford's veto of the bill appropriating $45-billion for the\nCALIFORNIA\n1 Matsunaga\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Tsongas\nYYYYYYYY\n2 Downey\nYYYYYYYY\nWeaver\nYYYYYYYY\n8 Harris\nYYYYYYYY\n2 Mink\nYYYYYYYY\nYYYYYYYY\nPENNSYLVANIA\nDepartments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare and\n1 Johnson\nY377777V\n6 Harrington\n777YYY??\n3 Ambro\n9 Wampler\nYYYNNNYN\n2 Clausen\nYYYNNNYN\nIDAHO\n7 Macdonald\n????????\nLent\nYYYNNYN\nBarrett\nYYYYYYYY\n10 Fisher\nYYYYYYYY\nrelated agencies for fiscal 1976 and the July-September 1976 transi-\n3 Moss\n????????\nSymms\nYYYNNNYN\nO'Neill\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Wydler\nYYYNNNYN\nNix\nYYYYYYY\nWASHINGTON\ntion period. Motion agreed to 319-71: R 73-60; D 246-11 (ND 171-4;\n4 Leggett\nYY77777V\n2 Hansen, G.\nYYYYNNYN\n9 Moakley\nYYYYYYYY\n6 Wolff\nYYYNYYY\nGreen\nYYYYYYYY\n1 Pritchard\nYYYYNNYN\nSD 75-7), Dec. 19, 1975.\n5 Burton,\n?YYYYYPN\nILLINOIS\n10 Heckler\nYYYYNNYY\n7 Addabbo\nYYYYYYYY\nEllberg\nYYYYYYYY\n2 Meeds\nYYYYYYYY\n6 Burton, P.\nYYYYYYY?\nMetcalfe\nYYYYYYYY\n11 Burke\nYYYYYYYY\n8 Rosenthal\nYYYY??YY\nSchulze\nYY YNNNYY\n3 Bonker\nYYYYYYYY\n7 Miller\nYYYYYYYN\n2 Murphy\nYYYYYYYY\n12 Studds\nYYYYYYYY\n9 Delaney\nYYYYYYYY\nYatron\nYYYYYYYY\n4 McCormack\nYYYY?YYY\n609. H Res 939. House Reports. Adoption of the resolution\n8 Dellums\nYYYYYYYN\n3 Russo\nNYYYYNYY\nMICHIGAN\n10 Biaggi\nYYYYYYYY\nEdgar\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Foley\nYYYYYYYY\nproviding for consideration of reports from the Rules Committee\n9 Stark\nY2722777\n4 Derwinski\nYYYYNNYN\nConyers\n2777777X\n11 Scheuer\nYYYYYYYY\n8 Blester\nYYYYNNYY\n6 Hicks\nNYYYYY??\non the same day as reported and providing for adoption of such\n10 Edwards\nYYYYYYY?\n5 Fary\nYYYYYYYY\n2 Esch\n? YY?N?YY\n12 Chisholm\nYYYYYYYN\n9 Shuster\nYYYNNNYY\n7 Adams\n? Y Y ? ? Y Y Y\n11 Ryan\nY7YYYYYY\n6 Hyde\nYYYNNNYN\n3 Brown\nYYYYNNNN\n13 Solarz\nYYYYYYYY\n10 McDade\nYYYYNNYY\nWEST VIRGINIA\nresolutions by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority\n12 McCloskey\n????????\n7 Collins\nYYYYYYYY\n4 Hutchinson\nYYYYNNYN\n14 Richmond\nYYYYYYYN\n11 Flood\nYYYYYYYY\n1 Mollohan\nYYYYYYYY\nvote for the remainder of the first session of the 94th Congress.\n13 Mineta\nYYYYYYYY\n8 Rostenkowski\nYYYYYY??\n5 Vander Veen\nYYYYYYYY\n15 Zeferetti\nYYYYYYYW\n12 Murtha\nYYYYYYY?\n2 Staggers\nYYYYYYYY\nAdopted 247-142: R 1-132; D 246-10 (ND 173-1; SD 73-9), Dec. 19,\n14 McFall\nYYYYYYYY\n9 Yates\nY ? ? ? ? ? ?\n6 Carr\nYYYNYYYY\n16 Holtzman\nYYYYYYYY\n13 Coughlin\nYYYYNNYY\n3 Slack\n?YYYYYYY\n15 Sisk\n7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y\n10 Mikva\nNYYYYYYN\n7 Riegle\n?YYYYYYY\n17 Murphy\nYYYYYY?Y\n14 Moorhead\nYYYYYYYY\n4 Hechler\nYYYYYYYN\n1975.\n16 Talcott\n7777777?\n11 Annunzio\n? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y\n8 Traxier\nYNYYYYYY\n18 Koch\nYYYYYYYY\n15 Rooney\nYYYYYNYY\nWISCONSIN\n17 Krebs\nYYYYYYYN\n12 Crane\nYNYNNNNN\n9 Vander Jagt\nYYYYNNY?\n19 Rangel\n?YYYYYYN\n16 Eshleman\n77777777\nAspin\nYYYYYYYY\n610. H Res 945. Three-Day Recesses. Adoption of the resolu-\n18 Ketchum\nYYYNNNY?\n13 McClory\nYYYYNNYN\n10 Cederberg\nYYYYNNYN\n20 Abzug\nYYYYYYYY\n17 Schneebell\nNYYNNNYY\n2 Kastenmeier\nYYYYYYYY\ntion providing for meetings of the House on Tuesdays and Fridays\n19 Lagomarsino\nYYYNNNYN\n14 Erlenborn\nNYYNNNYN\n11 Ruppe\nYYYYNN??\n21 Badillo\n??????YY\n18 Heinz\nYYYYNNYY\n3 Baldus\nYYYYYYYY\n20 Goldwater\nYYYYNNYN\n15 Hall\nYYYYYYYY\n12 O'Hara\nYYYYYYYY\n22 Bingham\n????????\n19 Goodling,\nW.\nYYYNNNYY\n4 Zablocki\nYYYYYYYY\nduring the remainder of the first session of the 94th Congress.\n21 Corman\nYYYYYYY?\n16 Anderson\nYYYYNNYN\n13 Diggs\n?YY?YY7 N\n23 Peyser\nYYYYYNYY\n20 Gaydos\n27777722\n5 Reuss\nYYYYYYYY\nAdopted 255-139: R 0-133; D 255-6 (ND 175-4; SD 80-2), Dec. 19,\n22 Moorhead\nYYYNNNYN\n17 O'Brien\nYYYNNNYN\n14 Nedzi\nYYYYYYYY\n24 Ottinger\n77777777\n21 Dent\nYYYYYYYY\n6 Stelger\nNYYNNNYN\n1975.\n23 Rees\nYYY???YY\n18 Michel\nYYYYNNY?\n15 Ford\n25 Fish\nYYYYNNYY\n22 Morgan\nYYYYYYYY\n7 Obey\nYYYYYYYN\n24 Waxman\nYYYYYYYY\n19 Ralisback\nYYYYNNYY\n16 Dingell\nY?YYYYYY\n26 Glimen\n77777777\n23 Johnson\nYYYYNNYY\n8 Cornell\nYYYYYYYY\n25 Roybal\nYYYYYYY?\n20 Findley\nYYYNNNYN\n17 Brodhead\nNYYYYYYY\n27 McHugh\nYYYYYYYY\n24 Vigorito\nYYYYYYYY\n9 Kasten\nYYYNNNYN\n611. HR 9968. Tax Reduction Extension. Ullman (D Ore.) mo-\n26 Rousselot\nYNYNNNNN\n21 Madigan\nYYYYNNYN\n18 Blanchard\nYYYYYYYY\n28 Stratton\nYYYYYYYY\n25 Myers\nYYYYNNYY\nWYOMING\ntion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment\n27 Bell\nY2777777\n22 Shipley\nYYYYYYY?\n19 Broomfield\nYYYYNNYN\n29 Pattison\nYYYYYYYY\nRHODE ISLAND\nAL Roncalio\nYYYYYYYY\n23 Price\nYYYYYYYY\nwith an amendment pledging Congress to attempt to cut fiscal 1977\n28 Burke\nYYYYYYY?\nMINNESOTA\n30 McEwen\nYYYYNNYN\nGermain\nYYYYYYYY\n29 Hawkins\nY ? ? ? ? Y Y ?\n24 Simon\nYY?YYYYY\n1 Quie\nYYYNNNYN\n31 Mitchell\nYYYNNNYY\nBeard\nYYYYYYYY\nspending to equal any further extension of 1975 tax cuts beyond the\n30 Danielson\nYYYYYYY?\nINDIANA\n2 Hagedorn\nYYYYNNYN\n32 Hanley\nYYYYYYYY\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nJan. 1 to June 30 extension provided by HR 9968. Motion agreed to\n31 Wilson\n?YYY??Y?\n1 Madden\nYYYYYYYY\n3 Frenzel\nYYYYNNYN\n33 Walsh\nYYYYNNYY\n1 Davis\nYYYYYYY\n372-10: R 125-7; D 247-3 171-2; SD 76-1), Dec. 19, 1975. (A two-\n32 Anderson\nYYYYYYY?\n2 Fithian\nYYYYYYYY\n4 Karth\nYYYYYYYY\n34 Horton\n77777777\n2 Spence\nYYYNNNYN\nthirds majority vote (255 in this case) is required for passage\n33 Clawson\nYYYNNNYN\n3 Brademas\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Fraser\nYYYYYYYY\n35 Conable\nNYYNNNYN\n3 Derrick\nYYYNYYYN\n34 Hannaford\nYYYYYYYY\n4 Roush\nYYYYYYYY\n6 Nolan\nYYYYYYYY\n36 LaFalce\nYYYYYYY\nMann\nYYYNNYYN\nunder suspension of the rules. (Story, p. 2871)\n35 Lloyd\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Hillis\nYYYYNNYY\n7 Bergland\nYYYYYYYY\n37 Nowak\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Holland\nYYYYNYYN\n36 Brown\nYY?YYY\n6 Evans\nYYYYYYYY\n8 Oberstar\nYYYYYYYY\n38 Kemp\nYYYNNNYY\n6 Jenrette\nYYYYYYYN\n612. S 2718. Railroad Reorganization. Adoption of the con-\n37 Pettis\nYYYNNNYN\n7 Myers\nNYYNNNYN\nMISSISSIPPI\n39 Hastings\nY??777YN\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n38 Patterson\nYYYYYYYY\n8 Hayes\nYYYYYYYY\n1 Whitten\n?YYYYYYN\nNORTH CAROLINA\n1 Pressier\nYYYYNNYN\nference report on the bill to authorize $6.5-billion in financial\n39 Wiggins\nYYYYNNYN\n9 Hamilton\nYYYYYYYY\n2 Bowen\nYYYYYYYY\nJones\nYYYYYYYN\n2\nYYYYNNYN\nassistance to the nation's railroads and to lessen federal regulation\n40 Hinshaw\n77277272\n10 Sharp\nYYYYYYYY\n3 Montgomery\n2277777X\n2 Fountain\nYYYYYYYN\nTENNESSEE\nof the railroad industry by the Interstate Commerce Commission.\n41 Wilson\nYYYNNNYN\n11 Jacobs\nYYYNYYNN\n4 Cochran\nYYYNNNYY\n3 Henderson\nYYYYYYYN\n1 Quilien\nYYYNNNY?\nAdopted 205-150: R 38-89; D 167-61 (ND 136-20; SD 31-41), Dec. 19,\n42 Van Dearlin\nYYYYYYYY\nIOWA\n5 Lott\nYYYYNNYY\n4 Andrews\nYYYYYYYN\n2 Duncan\nYNYYNNYN\n43 Burgener\nYYYNNNYN\n1 Mezvinsky\nYYYYYYYY\nMISSOURI\nNeal\nYYYYYYYN\n3 Lloyd\nYYYYNYYN\n1975. A \"nay\" was a vote supporting the President's position.\nCOLORADO\n2 Blouin\nYYYYYYYY\nClay\nY7YYYYYN\nPreyer\nYYYYYYYY\n4 Evins\n22222222\n1 Schroeder\nYYYYYYYN\n3 Grassley\nYYYNNNYN\n2 Symington\nYYYYYYY?\nRose\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Allen\nYYYYYYYN\nWirth\n?YYYYYYY\n4 Smith\nYYYYYYYY\n3 Sullivan\n77777777\nHefner\nYYYYYYYY\n6 Beard\n7?YNNNYN\n3 Evans\n?YYYYYYY\n5 Harkin\nY?YYNNPN\n4 Johnson\nYYYYNNNN\n6 Bedell\nYYYYYYYY\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2897\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 2896-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCQ Senate Votes 598-602\nCorresponding to Congressional Record Votes 607, 608, 609, 610, 611\n600\n601\n599\n602\nKEY\nTransportation and Communications\nALABAMA\nIOWA\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nYYNNY\nDurkin\nYYYNY\nY Voted for (yea)\nClark\nYYYNY\nAllen\nPaired for.\nSparkman\nYYYNN\nCulver\nYYYNY\nMcIntyre\nYTYNY\nt\nAnnounced for\nKANSAS\nNEW JERSEY\nALASKA\nGravel\nY ? Y N Y\ntt???\nWilliams\nYYYNY\nN\nVoted against (nay).\nDole\nYYYYY\nCase\nYYYNY\nX\nPaired against.\nHOUSE APPROVES $4.8-BILLION FOR AIRPORTS\nStevens\nPearson\nYYYNY\nAnnounced against.\nKENTUCKY\nNEW MEXICO\nARIZONA\nP\n?????\nVoted \"present.\"\nYY???\nFord\nYYYNY\nFannin\nMontoya\nVoted \"present\" to avoid\nGoldwater\ntt??-\nHuddleston\nYYYNY\nDomenici\nYYNYN\npossible conflict of interest.\nApproving a six-month ban on U.S. landings by the Con-\nFederal Aviation Administration, which said that the craft\nARKANSAS\nLOUISIANA\nNEW YORK\n?\nDid not vote or otherwise\nYYYNY\n?????\nBuckley*\nYYYYN\ncorde supersonic jet transport, the House Dec. 18 by a 368-\ncould cause noise levels twice as loud as subsonic aircraft\nBumpers\nJohnston\nYYNYN\nYYYYN\nJavits\nYYYNY\nmake position known.\nLong\n16 vote passed a bill (HR 9771) authorizing $4.76-billion for\nand could deplete the earth's protective ozone shield enough\nMcClellan\nMAINE\nNORTH CAROLINA\nCALIFORNIA\nYYYNY\nHathaway\nTTNYN\nairport development and other aviation projects over a five-\nto cause 200 additional cases of skin cancer a year. \"The\nCranston\nYYYNY\nMorgan\nYYYNY\nHelms\nYNNNY\nyear period, fiscal 1976-80. (Vote 605, p. 2896)\ndocument is overwhelmingly persuasive,\" declared Norman\nTunney\nYYYNY\nMuskie\nCOLORADO\nMARYLAND\nNORTH DAKOTA\n600\n601\n602\nThe narrow 199-188 vote for the anti-SST amendment\nF. Lent (R N.Y.). \"The thing speaks for itself, and what it\nYYNNY\nBeall\nYYYYN\nBurdick\nYYYNY\nHart\nHaskell\nYYNNY\nMathias\n?????\nYoung\nYYNYN\nmarked the first successful attempt by either chamber to\ntells us is clear. Keep the SST out.\"\nMASSACHUSETTS\nOHIO\nTEXAS\nCONNECTICUT\ndeny landing rights to the controversial British-French air-\nSupporters also pointed to new findings by the En-\nYYYNY\nKennedy\nYYYNY\nGlenn\nYYYNY\nBentsen\ntt???\nRibicoff\nYYYNY\nBrooke\nYYYNY\nTaff\nttnny\nTower\nYYNYN\nliner. Attempts to tie such a prohibition to the fiscal 1976\nvironmental Protection Agency that Concorde landings at\nWelcker\nMICHIGAN\nOKLAHOMA\nUTAH\ntransportation appropriations bill (HR 8365) had failed by\nKennedy Airport would be \"undesirable.\" Lent argued that\nDELAWARE\nYYYNY\nHart\nYYYNY\nBartlett\nYNNYN\nMoss\nYYYNY\nBiden\nRoth\nYYYYY\nGriffin\nYYNYN\nBellmon\nYYNYN\nGarn\nYYNNY\nclose margins in both the House and Senate. (Senate bill,\nthe SST presented a further safety hazard because its\nMINNESOTA\nOREGON\nVERMONT\nWeekly Report p. 1703; House bill, p. 1528)\nlimited fuel capacity would barely enable it to reach\nFLORIDA\nChiles\n?????\nHumphrey\nYYYNY\nHatfield\nYNYNY\nLeahy\nYYYNY\nStone\nYYYNY\nPackwood\nStafford\nYYYNY\nAlthough the ban would not apply to Washington's\nWashington from Paris.\nttx-t\nMondale\nYYNNY\nMISSISSIPPI\nPENNSYLVANIA\nVIRGINIA\nDulles International Airport, since it is federally owned and\nOpponents of the amendment, maintaining that a ban\nGEORGIA\nSchwelker\nYYYNY\nByrd**\nYNNNN\nNunn\nYYNNN\nEastland\nYY???\nwould not come under the airport aid bill, James V. Stanton\nwould be premature with the Transportation Department\nTalmadge\nY Y N N ?\nStennis\nYY??N\nScott\nYYYYN\nScott\nYNNNY\nMISSOURI\nRHODE ISLAND\nWASHINGTON\n(D Ohio), sponsor of the amendment, claimed in debate he\ninvestigation still pending, said such action could jeopardize\nHAWAII\nInouye\nYYYNY\nEagleton\n?????\nPastore\nYYYNT\nJackson\nYYYNX\nhad assurances from Transportation Secretary William T.\nU.S. relations with France and Great Britain. \"To refuse to\nFong\n?????\nSymington\nYYYNY\nPell\nYYYNY\nMagnuson\nYYYNY\nColeman Jr. that Dulles would be included under the ban if\nMONTANA\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nWEST VIRGINIA\naccept a plane that meets internationally agreed upon stan-\nIDAHO\nChurch\n???-+\nMansfield\nYYNNY\nHollings\nYYYN?\nByrd\nYYNNY\nthe House approved it. However, Coleman denied the next\ndards,\" argued Dale Milford (D Texas), a member of the\nYYYNY\nYYNYN\nMetcalf\nYYY?Y\nThurmond\nYNNYN\nRandolph\nMcClure\nday that he had made any such commitment. The Concorde\nPublic Works Aviation Subcommittee, \"would invite\nNEBRASKA\nSOUTH DAKOTA\nWISCONSIN\nILLINOIS\nYYW??\nCurtis\nYNNYN\nAbourezk\nYY??Y\nNelson\nYYYNY\nowners in August had applied for landing rights at Dulles\nretaliation.\" Milford warned of possible economic reprisals\nStevenson\nPercy\nYYNNY\nHruska\nYYNYN\nMcGovern\nYYYNY\nProxmire\nYYNNY\nand New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.\nby France and Britain against financially ailing U.S. air-\nNEVADA\nTENNESSEE\nWYOMING\nINDIANA\nCannon\n?????\nBaker\nYYNYN\nMcGee\n??YY'\n(SST background, Weekly Report p. 2682)\nlines.\nBayh\n?????\nYYYN?\nLaxalt\n?????\nBrock\n++???\nHansen\nYYNYN\nMilford and others also questioned the validity of the\nHartke\n**Byrd elected as independent.\nAirport Aid\nnoise and ozone issues raised against the SST. FAA noise\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n*Buckley elected as Conservative.\nDesigned to correct flaws in the program first es-\nstandards never were intended to apply to supersonic air-\ntablished under the Airport and Airways Development Act\ncraft, they said, and any threat to the ozone was mitigated\nof 1970 (PL 91-258), HR 9771 revised the formula for dis-\nby the fact that only six flights a day to the United States\ntribution of money from the Airport and Airway Trust\nwere planned for Concorde. Wayne L. Hays (D Ohio) added\nFund to place new emphasis on development of medium\nthat there already were \"at least 500 supersonic flights in\nand small airports. And for the first time trust fund money\nthis country\" by military aircraft.\nwould be available for terminal development and to allow\nThe Stanton amendment, as amended by Snyder, was\nairports to buy surrounding land for noise buffer zones.\npassed, 199-188. It won strong support from northern\n598. HR 9968. Tax Reduction Extension. Long (D La.) amend-\nassistance for the nation's railroads and to lessen federal regula-\nThe only floor change in the funding levels approved by\nDemocrats, 134-42, and was opposed by southern\nment binding Congress to pledge, should it decide to extend the\ntion of the railroad industry by the Interstate Commerce Com-\nthe Public Works and Transportation Committee was the\nDemocrats, 28-49, and Republicans, 37-97. (Vote 604, Week-\n1975 tax cut beyond June 30, 1976, to cut fiscal 1977 federal\nmission. Adopted 51-29: R 13-18; 38-11 32-5; SD 6-6), Dec. 19,\n1975. A \"nay\" was a vote supporting the President's position.\nelimination of $72-million that had been slated for airport-\nly Report p. 2830)\nspending dollar-for-dollar to match reductions below what they\nmass transit demonstration projects. (Committee action,\nwould be under 1974 tax levels, provided, however, that Congress\n601. HR 9861. Defense Department Appropriations, Fiscal\nWeekly Report p. 2467)\nAirport Trust Fund\ncould make other spending decisions based on \"changing economic\nconditions or other unforeseen circumstances.\" Adopted 82-0: 31-\n1976. Mansfield (D Mont.) motion to table, and thus kill, the\nJurisdictional tangles and dispute over the purpose of\n0; D 51-0 (ND 38-0; SD 13-0), Dec. 19, 1975. A \"yea\" was a vote sup-\nTunney (D Calif.) amendment limiting U.S. activities in Angola to\nFloor Action\nthe trust fund prompted a bitter debate about opening the\nporting the President's position. (Story, p. 2871)\nintelligence gathering. Rejected 21-58: 17-14; D 4-44 (ND 1-35; SD\nfund for airport terminal development. Previously, money\n3-9), Dec. 19, 1975. A \"yea\" was a vote supporting the President's\nfrom the Airport and Airway Trust Fund had been reserved\n599. HR 9968. Tax Reduction Extension. Passage of the bill to\nposition. (Story, Weekly Report p. 2832)\nSST\nfor use only on runways and airport features having to do\ncut tax liabilities by $8.4-billion by extending 1975 tax reductions\nThe anti-Concorde amendment as originally offered by\nwith safety. As reported by the Public Works Committee,\nthrough June 30, 1976, and to pledge fiscal 1977 spending reduc-\ntions to match any tax cuts that later were extended beyond June\n602. HR 9861. Defense Department Appropriations, Fiscal\nJames V. Stanton (D Ohio) would have banned all such com-\nHR 9771 would permit use of trust fund money for public\n30 (see vote 598, above). Passed 73-7: R 25-6; D 48-1 (ND 36-0; SD\n1976. Tunney (D Calif.) amendment to the amendment reported in\nmercial supersonic aircraft from U.S. airports (except\nportions of airport terminals-that is, sections that produce\n12-1), Dec. 19, 1975. A \"yea\" was a vote supporting the President's\ndisagreement by House-Senate conferees limiting U.S. activities in\nDulles) for a full year. However, noting that Coleman had\nno revenue. Previously, all parts of terminals have been\nposition. (Story, p. 2871)\nAngola to intelligence gathering. Adopted 54-22: R 16-15; D 38-7\npromised to render a final decision on the Concorde applica-\nthe responsibility of state and local governments.\n600. S 2718. Railroad Reorganization. Adoption of the con-\n(ND 34-0; SD 4-7), Dec. 19, 1975. A \"nay\" was a vote supporting the\ntion by mid-February, Stanton agreed to accept another\nSince the trust fund is supported from taxes on airport\nference report on the bill to authorize $6.5-billion in financial\nPresident's position. (Story, p. 2832)\namendment by M.G. (Gene) Snyder (R Ky.) that would cut\nusers, however, any change in the fund must have the\nthe length of the ban to six months. \"I think the flat\napproval of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.\nprohibition for six months is a reasonable position,\"\nAnd that committee, in a floor amendment to the bill, op-\nStanton said, \"because the Department of Transportation\nposed the change proposed by Public Works. \"We set up this\nwould then report back to us on what their findings are.\"\ntrust fund for air safety, not to build terminals,\" declared\nSupporters of the SST ban cited new findings in a final\nSam Gibbons (D Fla.), a Ways and Means Committee\nenvironmental impact statement, released Nov. 13 by the\nmember. \"We have not yet gotten the air safety we sought.\"\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nPAGE 2899-Dec. 27, 1975\nPAGE 2898-Dec. 27, 1975\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nTransportation and Communications - 2\nTransportation and Communications - 3\nThe Ways and Means amendment would have continued the\nbill (S 2711) passed Dec. 12 by the Senate, which had not\nsaid were the excessively high spending levels of the bill and\nInterstate Highways. Extending authorization for in-\nexisting trust fund, without new authority for terminal\nconsidered interstate authorizations.\nundue concern for urban mass transit alternatives.\nterstate construction through fiscal 1988, the committee\ndevelopment.\nPassage of the two-year extensions of the highway\nEmphasis in the bill was on completion of the inter-\nauthorized a total of $36.09-billion from the trust fund for\nTo that amendment Public Works Aviation Subcom-\nprogram and the trust fund meant further postponement of\nstate system, which was first authorized in 1954 with a\ncompletion of the system. The bill would increase to $4-\nmittee Chairman Glenn M. Anderson (D Calif.) proposed\na decision on the future of the fund. Opened in 1973 to\ncompletion target of 1972. Although the current authoriza-\nbillion annually the previously authorized levels of $3.25-\nhis own amendment that would open the trust fund for ter-\nlimited funding for mass transit, the 20-year-old trust fund\ntion for interstate construction was not due to expire until\nbillion annually for fiscal 1977 and 1978. To keep levels for\nminal development. Safety still would receive priority un-\nincreasingly had become the target of critics who wanted to\nthe end of fiscal 1979, the committee boosted that\nthose two years under the congressional budget ceilings,\nder the bill, Anderson pointed out, since it would require\nsee it ended or adapted to a comprehensive national trans-\nauthorization level and added new funds for interstate con-\n$750-million would be set aside each year for discretionary\nthat an airport be certified safe before it could receive\nportation policy. Acknowledging those concerns, the bill's\nstruction through fiscal 1988. And for the first time, an in-\nuse by the transportation secretary for completion of inter-\nmoney for terminal development. Noting that the Public\nsponsors promised to hold hearings in 1976 on the trust\nflation escalator was included in the funding levels to ac-\nstate gaps and for unusually expensive, long-term projects.\nWorks proposal had the support of the Air Line Pilots\nfund proposals, including one by the Ford administration.\ncount for rising construction costs.\nThe bill would retain an existing provision that allowed\nAssociation, whose first concern should be safety,\nRelaxing a provision of the 1973 highway bill 93-87)\nstates that had completed their interstate construction to\nAnderson argued that better airports would promote safety\nHighlights\nthat allowed urban areas to use their interstate money from\nreceive a minimum of 0.5 per cent of the total annual inter-\nby relieving congestion and accident-causing delays.\nThe emphasis of HR 8235 was on the interstate system,\nthe Highway Trust Fund for mass transit, HR 8235 would\nstate apportionment. But in a departure from earlier\nPublic Works Committee members expressed resent-\nwhich sponsors said could be completed by 1988 at the new\npermit those funds to be used for other urban highways as\nauthorizations, the committee stipulated that the minimum\nment that the Ways and Means Committee had taken it\nfunding levels. The increased levels, they said, ultimately\nwell.\napportionment could not exceed the total cost to complete\nupon itself, without hearings, to change HR 9771. \"I am\nwould be economical since they would expedite completion\nNoting increasing pressure to end or reduce the\nconstruction in any state. The effect would be to cut off ex-\nwondering,\" Public Works member Barry M. Goldwater Jr.\nof the system and save it the costs of delay, uncertainty and\nHighway Trust Fund in favor of other transportation\ncess funds that in the past had been used by states for other\n(R Calif.) said, \"what brought about this knowledgeable\ninflation.\nmodes, the committee said the two-year extension under\nhighway nees. Retention of that provision, the committee\nposition on the part of the Ways and Means Committee that\nRepublicans were turned back in a floor attempt to\nHR 8235 would \"permit flexibility\" for Congress in deciding\nsaid, \"would unduly inflate the already considerable cost to\nwould justify the overriding of hours and days of testimony\nreduce the funding levels.\nfuture transportation policy. Since the trust fund is fed\ncomplete the interstate system.\"\nand effort put in by this committee?\" The Anderson amend-\nThe bill also featured new flexibility for urban areas\nfrom highway-user taxes, Title III of the bill extending the\nAnother change in the existing law was the inclusion of\nment to the Ways and Means amendment was adopted 246-\nthat reject an interstate segment and transfer the funds to\ntrust fund was considered and approved, 27-7, by the tax-\n\"a built-in inflation factor\" of 7 per cent to account for ris-\n138, with Henry B. Gonzalez (D Texas) voting \"present.\"\nalternative transportation modes. Supporters said it would\nwriting Ways and Means Committee.\ning construction costs in the future. Computing past infla-\n(Vote 603, Weekly Report p. 2830)\npromote more efficient urban transportation planning;\nHR 8235 would authorize $8.86-billion for fiscal 1977,\ntion rates in the construction industry, the committee pro-\ncritics charged that the provision was a \"pork-barrel\" ploy\n$8.86-billion for fiscal 1978 and $2.22-billion for the budget\njected the rate into the future and included the estimated\nOther Amendments\nspecifically tailored to the needs of financially desperate\ntransition period, July-September 1976. The figures include\nincreased costs in the total authorization for each year.\nElimination of the $72-million for airport-mass transit\nNew York City.\n$4-billion for each of the fiscal years and $1-billion for the\nTransferability. Enlarging upon existing law that per-\nThe House rejected efforts to roll back new interstate\ntransition period for new interstate authorizations. The\nmited shifting of up to 40 per cent of funds for between the\ndemonstration projects came after adoption by voice vote of\nhighway truck weights that had been approved in an in-\ncommittee in addition authorized $4-billion annually for in-\ntwo rural categories (rural primary and rural secondary)\nan earlier amendment rejecting the earmarking of those\nfunds for such a project at California's Oakland Inter-\nterim 1974 highway bill (PL 93-643).\nterstate construction through fiscal 1988.\nand between the urban categories (urban extension and ur-\nNotable for its absence from the House bill was a\nban) HR 8235 would also allow transfer of up to 40 per cent\nnational Airport. The earlier amendment, offered by\nWilliam H. Harsha (R Ohio), instead would authorize the\nproposal to consolidate some of the existing 38 categorical\nProvisions\nof funds between the following categories: 1) rural primary\nand primary extensions in urban areas, 2) rural primary\ntransportation secretary to choose a demonstration site,\nhighway programs. Such a provision, pushed by the ad-\nthus, Harsha said, ensuring that the money would be used\nministration, urban liberals and state and local\nAs reported by the committee, HR 8235 (H Rept 94-716)\nand priority primary (rural or urban), and 3) urban exten-\nfor the most feasible demonstration project.\ngovernments, had been a prominent feature of the Senate\ncontained the following major provisions:\nsions and priority primary.\nBut after the Harsha amendment was passed, Robert\nbill. (Senate action, Weekly Report p. 2785)\nNoninterstate Highways. Unlike the Senate bill, HR\nTo prevent any one category from being used simply as\nW. Edgar (D Pa.) offered an amendment to strike the\nThe only reduction in the funding level approved by the\n8235 would retain the existing major highway\na funnel for funds to other categories, the bill would\nauthorization altogether, saying it duplicated existing\nPublic Works and Transportation Committee was the\ncategories-rural primary, rural secondary, urban and\nstipulate that 1) no category could be increased or reduced\nauthority under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964\nelimination of $67.5-million for incentives for states to\nprimary extensions of urban-with total funding levels\nby more than 40 per cent in a year, and 2) no category could\n(PL 88-365). The House agreed, accepting the amendment\nenact seat belt laws. As passed by the House, HR 8235\nabout equal for urban and rural. Existing law permitted a\nbe both increased and reduced in a year.\nwould authorize $4.86-billion a year for federal highway\nstate to transfer up to 40 per cent of its funds between rural\nInterstate Transfer. The bill contained a controversial\nby voice vote.\nThe House adopted by voice vote a noncontroversial\nprograms in fiscal 1977 and 1978 and $1.23-billion for the\nprimary and rural secondary or between urban and urban\nprovision, added as an amendment in full committee mark-\namendment by Ronald V. Dellums (D Calif.) clarifying that\nbudget transition period, July-September 1976. In addition,\nprimary extensions.\nup by Bella S. Abzug (D N.Y.), that was intended to further\nminorities are entitled to participate in programs funded by\nthe bill would authorize for interstate construction $4-\nTo increase flexibility in the use of funds, the com-\nbenefit urban areas which rejected completion of an inter-\nthe bill.\nbillion annually through fiscal 1987, $1-billion for the tran-\nmittee said, the bill would permit similar transfers among\nstate segment in favor of a highway or mass transit. It\n-By Ted Vaden\nsition period and $840-million for fiscal 1988.\nrural primary, urban primary extensions and priority\nwould:\nThe House and Senate versions now go to conference,\nprimary systems.\nEnable an area to use funds transferred from an inter-\nHouse Passage:\nwhich sponsors had indicated would be lengthy.\nFor priority primary routes, the bill would authorize\nstate account for another highway as well as for mass tran-\n$300-million annually, with $50-million of that each year to\nsit.\nCommittee Action\nbe held in a discretionary fund by the transportation\nInstead of reducing a state's interstate allotment in a\nFEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM\nsecretary for unusually expensive, long-term projects. For\nyear by the cost of a segment rejected by an area, reduce it\nApproving new long-range funding to expedite comple-\nprimary extensions in urban areas, the bill would guarantee\nby the proportion of the cost of the withdrawn segment to\nApproving spending levels that Republicans said would\ntion of the Interstate Highway System, the House Public\neach state a minimum 0.5 per cent of the total annual ap-\nthe total cost of the state system-thus minimizing the im-\nsubject the bill to a presidential veto, the House Dec. 18 by a\nWorks and Transportation Committee Dec. 11 reported a\nportionment.\npact of a withdrawal upon the state system.\nvote of 410-7 passed legislation (HR 8235) authorizing\nbill (HR 8235) to extend for two years, through fiscal 1978,\nDefinitions. The committee amended the definition of\nAllow areas to compute the cost of a transferred seg-\n$10.94-billion for federal-aid highway programs in fiscal\nthe federal-aid highway program and the Highway Trust\nthe word \"construction\" to include \"resurfacing.\" The\nment based on the most recent cost estimate, rather than\n1977-78 and extending the Highway Trust Fund for two\nFund.\nchange would make clear that federal funds could be used\nupon a pre-1972 estimate, as in existing law.\nyears, through fiscal 1979.\nThe bill was reported on a 16-2 vote by a bitterly split\nto \"assure adequate structural support\" for existing roads,\nClarify that states would not have to repay federal\nThe bill also increased the authorization for the Inter-\ncommittee. Although they voted for the report, six com-\nthe committee said, but responsibility for normal\nfunds previously spent on a withdrawn interstate system.\nstate Highway System to a level of $4-billion a year and ex-\nmittee Democrats filed strongly worded additional views\nmaintenance of roads would remain with the state.\nClarify that a state's account under the Urban Mass\ntended the authorization through fiscal 1988. Interstate\ncriticizing the committee's refusal to provide more flexible\nThe committee specified that the definition of urban\nTransportation Act shall not be reduced by the amount\nconstruction through fiscal 1978 had been authorized by the\nfunding for urban highways and to combine the \"myriad\"\narea would not apply to New Hampshire since the unique\ntransferred from interstate to mass transit.\n1973 highway act (PL 93-87) at a level of $3.25-billion a\nexisting highway categories into more pliable programs. At\npolitical subdivision of that state had in the past dis-\nMake the amended transfer provisions retroactive for\nyear. HR 8235 differed considerably from the highway-aid\nthe same time, committee Republicans attacked what they\nqualified it for rural funds.\nthose states that had already implemented transfers.\nPAGE 2900-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2901\nTransportation and Communications 4\nTransportation and Communications 5\nCertification Procedures. Declaring an intent to\nTransportation Committee rose to express support for the\nTo preclude that possibility, Harsha's amendments\nThe most controversial, offered by Gary A. Myers (R Pa.),\n\"simplify highway procedures,\" the committee would relax\nbill but disappointment over its final form. William H.\nwould have 1) restored the interstate estimate base to the\nwould have rolled back to 73,280 pounds the truck weight of\nrequirements for states to participate in noninterstate\nHarsha (R Ohio), ranking minority member of the com-\n1972 level, as in existing law, 2) stipulated that withdrawn\n80,000 pounds allowed on interstate highways by the\nprograms. A requirement in existing law that states es-\nmittee, warned that if the spending levels were approved by\ninterstate mileage could be redesignated only in another\nFederal-Aid Highway Act Amendments of 1974 (PL 93-\ntablish program requirements equivalent to federal stan-\nCongress, \"the President will have nohesitancy in vetoing\nstate and 3) stricken the \"payback\" element of the Abzug\n643). During hasty consideration of that bill on the eve of\ndards, the committee said, had been mistakenly interpreted\nthis bill.\" (Vote 602, Weekly Report p. 2830)\nprovision that would allow areas to use for other purposes\nadjournment in 1974, Edward I. Koch (D N.Y.) had been un-\nby some states to require state laws identical to the federal\nWhile noting that HR 8235 emphasized the interstate\nrights-of-way purchased with interstate funds without\nsuccessful in repeated attempts to win a House vote to\nlaw. HR 8234 would require only that states have the ability\nsystem and provided new flexibility for other programs,\nhaving to pay back the federal government.\ndelete the Senate-added truck weight increase. (1974\nto accomplish the policies and objectives of federal law.\ncommittee chairman Robert E. Jones (D Ala.) stressed that\nOpponents of the Harsha amendments denied that the\nAlmanac, p. 707)\nAnother change would eliminate requirements for fed-\nit represented little departure from previous highway bills.\nprovision was written for New York, citing other cities that\nSupporters of the Myers amendment argued that the\neral approval of detailed steps of a secondary road project.\n\"All in all,\" he said, \"this act continues the tradition of the\nwould benefit. They insisted the increased flexibility was\nheavier trucks presented a safety risk, caused deterioration\nSuch approval requirements would|be|retained for projects\nlong series of Federal-Aid Highway Acts that have been\nneeded to make the interstate transfer program\nof highways and drained financially weak railroads of bad-\non the primary, urban and urban extension systems.\npresented to this body by the former Committee on Public\nmeaningful. The amendment was defeated, 122-294. The en-\nly needed business. They insisted on a floor vote so that\nHighway Safety. The committee expressed concern\nWorks.\"\ntire New York City delegation, with the exception of John\nmembers would be publicly recorded for or against the sen-\nthat many states had chosen to carry out highway safety\nBut it was just that adherence to tradition that\nM. Murphy (D), voted against it. (Vote 599, Weekly Report\nsitive issue, which pitted consumer groups against the\nprograms under the Highway Safety Act of 1973 through\nbothered some members. Committee member Robert W.\np. 2830).\ntrucking lobby.\nstate agencies other than state highway departments. \"This\nEdgar (D Pa.), who had supported an alternative proposal\nNo one argued against the amendment. But it was re-\nhas raised problems in coordinating implementation of the\nin committee, complained that the reported bill ignored the\nCity Control\njected, 139-275. (Vote 600, Weekly Report p. 2830)\nhighway-related safety standards with the state's\nissues of the trust fund, program consolidation and local\nWith minimal debate, the House rejected an amend-\nThe other two truck safety amendments were rejected\nhighway safety construction program,\" the report said. It\ncontrol over local programs. \"I think before us today should\nment by James V. Stanton (D Ohio) to allow cities of more\nby voice vote. They would have limited the weight\nstressed that provisions of the 1973 law should not preclude\nbe the Federal Aid to Transportation Act of 1975,\" he said.\nthan 200,000 population that paid at least half the non-\nthat could be placed on the front axles of truck tractors\nstate highway departments from administering highway-\n\"It is unfortunate that a majority of the committee chose to\nfederal costs of projects in their area to select projects\nand required states to enact legislation banning open-top\nrelated safety standards.\nreport a Federal Aid Highway Act of 1975.\"\nwithout state concurrence. If concurrence were required\ntrucks from federally aided highways.\nTo assure a balanced safety program, the committee\nIn approving the bill, the House accepted only two non-\nand the state did not submit to the federal government for\ndeclared its intention that safety funds authorized\ncontroversial amendments. It rejected attempts to cut\nfunding a plan within a year after it had been approved,\nOther Amendments\nseparately for the Federal Highway Administration and\nfunding, tighten the interstate transfer provisions,\nthen the city would be allowed to submit the plan directly.\nThe House rejected by voice vote an amendment\nthe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration\nstrengthen local control over funds and roll back truck\nStanton said the amendment was necessary to break\noffered by E. G. Shuster (R Pa.) to delete a provision ex-\nshould likewise be apportioned separately to the states.\nweights.\nthe \"logjam\" of urban programs being held up by state red\ntending for two years the deadline for states to repay their\nIn contrast to the Senate bill, which provided no\ntape. Opponents argued in response that it would require\nshares of emergency highway funding approved earlier in\nfunding for the incentive grant programs under the 1973\nSpending Level\nduplicative state and local planning capabilities, discourage\n1975. Shuster contended the extension benefitted a handful\nlaw, HR 8235 would authorize additional incentive grants to\nHarsha, who ended up voting against the bill, offered\nstate incentives to participate in the federal highway\nof states at the expense of others. Subcommittee Chairman\nstates that had reduced the number of traffic fatalities in a\nan unsuccessful amendment to restore the fiscal 1977-78 in-\nprogram and promote factionalism. Don H. Clausen (R\nHoward replied that the extension was necessary to con-\ncalendar year.\nterstate authorizations to $3.25-billion annually by remov-\nCalif.) said that the House should await the results of an\ntinue programs and said it would cost neither the federal\nOther safety provisions would:\ning a provision placing a $750-million annual discretionary\nurban system study proposed in the bill before making\ngovernment nor the other states.\nProhibit the transportation secretary from requiring\nfund in the office of the transportation secretary. Besides\n\"such far-reaching changes.\"\nThe House adopted by voice vote two amendments:\nstates to pass laws requiring motorcyclists 18 years of age\nbeing too expensive, Harsha complained, the discretionary\nThe amendment was defeated, 121-290. (Vote 601,\nBy Richard H. Ichord (D Mo.), to delete an authoriza-\nor older to wear safety helmets.\nfund was an unsatisfactory substitute for an administra-\nWeekly Report p. 2830)\ntion of $67.5-million as an incentive for states to enact\nEliminate the penalty for failure of states to imple-\ntion proposal, approved in the Senate, to channel funding\nseat belt laws.\nment\nfederal highway safety programs.\ndirectly to interstate segments deemed by the secretary to\nTruck Weights\nBy William S. Cohen (R Maine), to exempt Maine from\nGive the transportation secretary broad discretionary\nbe of national importance.\nThe House rejected three amendments aimed at reduc-\nthe definition of \"urban area\" in the bill.\nauthority for approval of state safety programs.\nJames J. Howard (D N.Y.), chairman of the Public\ning potential safety hazards posed by trucks on highways.\n-By Ted Vaden\nDirect the transportation secretary, with the states, to\nWorks Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, countered\nconduct an evaluation of \"the adequacy and appropri-\nthat the increased funds were necessary as part of the plan\nateness of all existing highway safety standards\" and\nto complete the system by 1988. He said the discretionary\nsubmit a report to Congress by Dec. 31, 1976. Until then,\nfund contained safeguards to ensure that the money was\nno state could be denied funds for failure to implement\nspent and used for priority purposes. The amendment was\nPatricia Ann O'Connor\nElizabeth Wehr\nArt Department\na federal highway safety program.\ndefeated, 103-309. (Vote 598, Weekly Report p. 2830)\nWeekly\nDonald Smith\nLaura Weiss\nHoward Chapman (Director)\nHighway Trust Fund. Title III of the bill would extend\nElder Witt\nResearch Staff\nRichard A. Pottern\nthe Highway Trust Fund, due to expire Sept. 30, 1977, for\nReport\nEditorial Staff\nWayne Walker\nTransfer Funds\ntwo more years. Likewise, highway-user excise tax rates,\nThomas J. Arrandale\nEdna Frazier (Librarian)\nChairman of the Board\nElizabeth Bowman\nJames R. Berger\nGeneral Manager\nwhich support the fund and were scheduled to be reduced\nHarsha next offered a raft of amendments designed to\nRhodes Cook\nPaul P. Massa\nrestrict the use of funds transferred by a city from a re-\nNelson Poynter\nMary Cohn\nupon the fund's expiration, would be maintained for two\njected interstate project to either mass transit or highway\nPrudence Crewdson\nHarrison H. Donnelly\nmore years. Although it acknowledged that \"many would\nPresident and Editor\nWalter E. Eling\nSales Manager\nSusan Henry Davis\nlike to see substantial modifications made in the trust\nalternatives. HR 8235 contained a provision, offered by\nEugene C. Patterson\nBruce F. Freed\nGary C. Hong\nRobert C. Hur\nBella S. Abzug (D N.Y.), that would allow a city to receive\nDiane Huffman\nfund,\" the Ways and Means Committee said the fund had to\nExecutive Editor\nJudy Gardner\nSusan B. Jenkins\nPromotion Director\nbe extended to meet the advance funding needs of highway\ntransfer funds based on the most recent cost estimate of the\nWayne Kelley\nAI Gordon\nDiantha Johnson\nJames V. Bullard\nMartha V. Gottron\nprograms and to finance the extended programs under HR\nwithdrawn project.\nSenior Editors\nRobert E. Healy\nHillary Johnson\n8235.\nHarsha maintained that the provision had been\nMercer Cross (Administration)\nDavid Loomis\nController\nKaren Landis\ntailored to allow New York City to design an expensive\nRobert E. Cuthriell (Research)\nWarden Moxley\nJonathan C. Angier IV\nMary Link\nRobert A. Diamond (Books)\nCarol J. Ott\nWest Side Highway interstate project that, when approved,\nMargaret Hurst Lowe\nFloor Action\nAlan Ehrenhalt (Politics)\nBob Rankin\nProduction\nCarolyn Mathiasen\nwould be withdrawn for a transfer project.\nPeter A. Harkness (Managing Editor)\nI.D. Fuller (Manager)\nMary Neumann\nProofreaders\nThe Abzug provision, Harsha contended, \"would allow\nJohn L. Moore (Asst. Managing Editor)\nKathleen E. Walsh (Asst. Manager)\nPeg O'Hara\nEugene J. Gabler\nThe overwhelming 410-7 vote for passage of HR 8235\na state to fatten up the turkey for the kill redesigning an\nMichael D. Wormser (Asst. Managing Editor)\nMatt Pinkus\nSumie Kinoshita\nobscured the underlying sentiment about it, which among\ninterstate highway project for the sole purpose of increas-\nAssociate Editors\nMichael L. Pleasants\nRobert J. Moore\nDavid M. Maxfield\nTed Vaden\nDavid Speights\nsupporters was largely tepid and among opponents was\ning the cost, then withdrawing the segment and walking\nbitter. Member after member of the Public Works and\naway with an artificially escalated federal share.\"\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nPAGE 2902-Dec. 27, 1975\nCOPYRIGHT 1975 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nDec. 27, 1975-PAGE 2903\nReproduction prohibited In whole or in part except by editorial clients\no\nCONGRESSIONAL\nQUARTERLY\nWeekly Report\nDec. 27, 1975\nPages 2837-2904\nInside Congress\nHealth/Education/Welfare\nCongressional Finale\n2839\nMedicare 'Buy-In' Proposal\n2877\nThe first session of the 94th Congress ended\nSocial Security Amendments\n2878\non the same note of conflict that had typified\nRehabilitation Act\n2878\nits relations with the Ford administration\nReading Improvement\n2879\nthroughout 1975.\nHEW Notes\n2879\nRecorded Vote Totals\n2841\nFord Labor-HEW Funds Veto Text\n2880\nMajor Legislation of 1975\n2842\nAntitrust Authorizations\n2880\nAgriculture\n2842\nPolitics\nCongress and Government\n2842\nConsumer Affairs\n2844\nLabor and the Democrats\n2881\nCrime and Justice\n2845\nGeorge Meany may have taken the AFL-CIO\nEconomic Affairs\n2847\nout of Democratic Party politics, but unions\nEnergy and Environment\n2850\nmay be more important to the nominating\nForeign Policy/National Security\n2852\nprocess in 1976 than they have been in any re-\nHealth, Education and Welfare\n2855\ncent election year.\nHousing/Community Development\n2857\nFor Attribution\n2885\nTransportation/Communications\n2858\nPolls in Conflict\n2885\nMajor Nominations in 1975\n2846\nCandidates '76\n2885\nPresidential Vetoes, 94th Congress\n2858\nShapp Profile\n2886\nEnergy and Environment\nPennsylvania Governor Milton J. Shapp still\nexpects to be a front-runner for the\nEnergy Policy Bill\n2860\nDemocratic nomination, even though most\nCalling it \"the first elements of a comprehen-\nregistered Democrats still know very little\nsive national energy policy,\" President Ford\nabout him.\nannounced his decision Dec. 22 to sign the\nFannin Retirement\n2889\nEnergy Policy and Conservation Act.\nRetirement Report\n2890\nEnergy Research Authorizations\n2860\nLandrum Retires\n2890\nLand Management Act\n2861\nFederal Election Subsidies\n2890\nHells Canyon Area\n2861\nAgriculture\nHousing and Community Development\nRice Production Bill\n2891\nReal Estate Settlement Bill\n2862\nMilk Price Supports\n2892\nFlood Area Mortgages\n2862\nGovernment Operations\nEconomic Affairs\nForeign Missions Protection\n2893\nCongressional Budget System\n2863\nNational Women's Conference\n2893\nThe final score is not in, and probably will not\nHatch Act Revision\n2894\nbe for at least a few years, but Congress'\nOverseas Voting Rights\n2894\nattempt to launch a revolutionary new federal\nbudgeting system appears to have\nForeign Policy/National Security\nsucceeded.\n200-Mile Fishing Limit\n2895\nSmall Business Relief Act\n2869\nFinancial Institutions\n2870\nTransportation and Communications\nTax Cut Passage\n2871\nAirport Aid Authorizations\n2899\nSome hectic maneuvering preceded the last-\nHighway Trust Fund\n2900\nminute compromise on taxes.\nSBA Amendments\n2875\nStatus of Appropriations\n2838\nRenegotiation Act\n2876\nFinal House Votes (605-612)\n2896\nCommon-Site Picketing\n2876\nJoint Economic Committee\n2876\nFinal Senate Votes (598-602)\n2898\nPAGE 2904-Dec. 27, 1975\nCO\nC\nCONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY\nWeekly Report\nVol. XXXIV No. 4\nPages 109-200\nJan. 24, 1976\nCONGRESS\nCONVENES\nThe Budget (111)\nState of the Union (140)\nVoting Studies:\nPresidential Support (156)\nVoting Participation (164)\nConservative Coalition (169)\nNorth-South Split (175)\nParty Unity (179)\nBipartisan Support (184)\nLIBRARY GERALD\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\n1414 22nd Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20037\n(202) 296-6800\nMajor Legislation Expiring in 1976\nEconomic Affairs\nEconomy\nunder the Higher Education Act of 1965 as\nTax Cut. Six-month extension of 1975 federal\namended expire June 30. Also expiring June 30\ntax reductions (HR 9968-PL 94-164) will ex-\nare the Vocational Education Act and the\npire after June 30, 1976. The extended tax cuts\nauthorization for the National Institute of\nFISCAL 1977 BUDGET: FORD ASKS $394.2-BILLION\namounted to $8.4-billion during the first six\nEducation.\nmonths of 1976.\nTechnically, the authorizations for all of those\nRejecting an election-year \"policy of the quick fix,\" Presi-\nGeneral Revenue Sharing. The five-year\nprograms, expired June 30, 1975, but a provi-\ndent Ford sent Congress a fiscal 1977 budget that he said\ngeneral revenue sharing program enacted in\nsion adopted as part of the Education\nwould put the nation on the path toward reduced inflation\nIn This Section\n1972 (HR 14370-PL 92-512) will expire at the\nAmendments of 1974 (PL 93-380) automatically\nand unemployment.\nend of 1976. Under the program, the federal\nextends education programs for one year if\n\"The combination of tax and spending changes I\nBudget Terminology\n112\nCongress has not completed action on new\npropose will set us on a course that not only leads to a\nCongressional Reaction\n113\ngovernment gave $30.2-billion of its tax\nrevenues to state and local governments for\nauthorizations.\nbalanced budget within three years, but also improves the\nFord Budget Cuts\n114\nBudget Dollar\n115\nvarious purposes.\nprospects for the economy to stay on a growth path that we\nCrime and Justice\nBudget in Brief by Agency\n116\nDebt Ceiling. The temporary $595-billion\ncan sustain,\" Ford said in his Jan. 21 budget message. (Text\nEconomic Assumptions\n118\nfederal debt ceiling will expire after March 15.\nLEAA. The authorization for the Law Enforce-\nof message, p. 138)\nBudget 'Roadmap'\n119\nWithout action extending that limit, set by\nment Assistance Administration, created by\nFord acknowledged the \"hard choices\" involved in that\nBudget by Function\n120\nCongress Nov. 13, 1975 (HR 10585-PL 94-132),\nthe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets\ncourse. His decisions called for restraints in federal spend-\nNational Security\n122\nthe ceiling on outstanding federal debt will fall\nAct of 1968 and extended in 1970 and 1973 (PL\ning, with cuts and consolidations proposed in a variety of\nInternational Affairs\n123\nto its permanent $400-billion level.\n93-83), expires June 30. Congress will consider a\nsocial programs popular with Congress. At the same time,\nScience, Space and Technology\n124\nthe budget called for \"significant\" increases in defense\nEnergy, Environment, Resources\n124\nfive-year extension of the authorization and\nEnergy\nfunding for LEAA, as proposed by the ad-\nspending, a decision in priorities that came under im-\nAgriculture\n126\nCommerce and Transportation\n126\nministration, as well as program changes. (1973\nmediate attack on Capitol Hill.\nFederal Energy Administration. The law (PL\nConsumer Protection\n127\n93-275) establishing a temporary Federal\nAlmanac, p. 359)\nIn outlining his specific proposals, Ford told Congress\nCommunity and Regional Development\n128\nthat \"we must not continue drifting in the direction of\nEnergy Administration to manage federal\nHousing\n129\nTransportation\nbigger and bigger government.\" To stop that flow, his\nEducation, Labor, Social Services\n130\nprograms dealing with short-term fuel shor-\nbudget called for cutting the rate of federal spending\nHealth\n132\ntages will expire June 30, 1976. Approved in\nAirport Aid. The Airport Development\ngrowth to about 5.5 per cent, less than half the average\nIncome Security\n134\n1974, the law replaced the Federal Energy Of-\nAcceleration Act of 1973 (PL 93-44) expires\nfice set up late in 1973 by executive order, with\ngrowth rate over the last 10 years and considerably less\nVeterans\n135\nJune 30. The House Dec. 18 passed a five-year\nthan the 7 per cent inflation rate in 1975. That would mean\nLaw Enforcement and Justice\n135\nthe Federal Energy Administration, headed by\nairport aid authorization (HR 9771) that in-\nreductions in \"real\" spending after inflation was accounted\nGeneral Government\n136\nan administrator subject to Senate confir-\ncluded a six-month ban on U.S. landings by the\nfor.\nRevenue Sharing, Fiscal Aid\n136\nmation.\nBritish-French Concorde supersonic jetliner.\nAllowances\n137\nThe ban is not expected to stick in the Senate,\nUndistributed Offsetting Receipts\n137\nwhich planned hearings early in the year.\nSpecifics of Budget\nHousing\nEconomy Notes\n137\n(House passage, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2899)\nFord stuck to his intention, first outlined in October\nFord Budget Message Text\n138\nEmergency Mortgage Aid. Authority to buy\n1975, to propose spending of less than $395-billion in fiscal\nup mortgages at subsidized rates under a 1975\nlaw (PL 94-50) expires on July 1, 1976. (1975\nSports Broadcasting\n1977, calling for outlays of $394.2-billion. Receipts were es-\nThe sports anti-blackout law (PL 93-107), which\ntimated at $351.3-billion, resulting in a deficit of nearly $43-\nrespond, it will lead only to a future whirlwind of inflation\nWeekly Report p. 1435)\nbillion. That deficit was less than those of the past two\nand unemployment.\"\nHomeownership Subsidies (Section 235).\nforbids broadcasters to black out a home tele-\nAuthority to commit available funds under the\ncast of a professional sports event if it is\nfiscal years, but still the third largest since 1945.\nBudget documents estimated that approximately one-\nsold out 72 hours in advance, expired Dec. 31,\nBy holding spending to that level, and predicting a\nfourth of the proposed fiscal 1977 outlays were committed\n1974 housing law (PL 93-383) expires June 30,\ndeficit of that magnitude, Ford was seeking to prevent\nto pay for programs and contracts approved in earlier\n1976. (1974 Almanac p. 346)\n1975. The House and Senate both passed bills in\n1975, but conferees were deadlocked over\nanother round of inflation, while at the same time keeping\nyears.\ndifferences. Conferees allowed the law to expire\nthe nation's economic recovery on course. Anticipating\nSimilarly, the budget called for new spending authori-\nHealth\ncharges that more spending was necessary to ensure the\nty in fiscal 1977 of $433.4-billion, of which $281.3-billion\nAlcoholism Treatment Programs. Expire at\non the assurance from National Football\nLeague Commissioner Pete Rozelle that the\nnation's economic health, Ford said in his budget message,\nwould be spent in fiscal 1977 and $152.1-billion, about 35 per\nthe end of fiscal 1976. Last extended 93-281)\nleague would abide by the law for the\n\"If we try to stimulate the economy beyond its capacity to\ncent, would be spent in future years. Budget authority ex-\nin 1974. (1974 Almanac p. 434)\nEmergency Medical Services Programs. Ex-\nremainder of the season. (1975 Weekly Report\nceeds outlays because it covers the full cost of such things\nas construction and procurement programs, subsidy con-\npire at the end of fiscal 1976. Last extended (PL\np. 2789)\ntracts and long-term financing costs, in which payments ac-\n93-154) in 1973. (1973 Almanac p. 494)\nThe Budget Totals\ntually are made over a period of at least several years.\nHealth Manpower Programs. Most expired on\n(Authority-outlays relationship, p. 119)\nJune 30, 1974. (1975 Weekly Report p. 2856)\n(In billions of dollars)\nThe administration's long-range economic outlook,\nDrug Abuse Prevention. Expired June 30,\nbased on Ford's philosophy of restraint, anticipated modest\n1975. Both the House and Senate have passed\nCongressional Lineup\nTransition\nbut steady improvement in unemployment and inflation\nextension legislation, but it is not out of con-\n1975\n1976\nquarter\n1977\nlevels, but no dramatic short-term improvements.\nference. (1975 Weekly Report p. 1988)\nHouse\nSenate\nDescription\nactual\nestimate\nestimate\nestimate\nUnemployment was expected to average 7.7 per cent in\ncalendar 1976, with consumer prices rising about 6.3 per\nEducation\nDemocrats\n289\n62\nBudget receipts\n281.0\n297.5\n81.9\n351.3\ncent.\nRepublicans\n144\n38\nBudget outlays\n324.6\n373.5\nHigher Education. Authorizations for most\n98.0\n394.2\nprograms, including student assistance, funded\nVacancies\n2\nDeficit (-)\n-43.6\n-76.0\n-16.1\n-43.0\nFiscal 1976 Estimates\nBudget authority\n412.1\n408.4\n88.1\n433.4\nThe budget also gave revised estimates for fiscal 1976\nPublished weekly by Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1414 22nd Street, N.W.,\nphotocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system. Second rights\nspending and receipts. Outlays were predicted to reach\nWashington, D.C. 20037. All reproduction rights, quotations, broadcasting, publication,\nare reserved. including use of Congressional Quarterly material in campaign\nreserved for current editorial clients. No part of this publication may be reproduced or\nsupplements, advertisements and handbooks without permission. Rates are furnished\ntransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including\non request. Second class postage paid at Washington, D.C.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 111\nEconomic Affairs 3\nEconomic Affairs 2\nplained, or it could decide \"to restrain the growth of the\nfederal economy.\"\nBudget Terminology\nRestraint was the key to Ford's budget proposal, and\nReaction Signals Another Year of Confrontation\ncritical to it was the proposal for outlays of less than $395-\nThe federal budget is a plan of expected receipts\nbillion.\nCapitol Hill reaction to President Ford's budget and\nSenior Democrats in both houses attacked Ford's\nand expenditures, a statement of priorities, an ac-\nIn a speech Oct. 6, 1975, Ford had indicated that federal\nState of the Union address indicated that 1976 was shap-\nproposals. In the Senate, Democratic presidential can-\ncounting of how funds have been and will be spent and\nspending, if permitted to grow at its normal rate, could\ning up as another year of confrontation and veto.\ndidate Birch Bayh (D Ind.) called the address \"political\na request for authority to spend public money.\nreach $423-billion in fiscal 1977. He proposed then that it be\nDemocrats, some of whose statements were rolling\nhypocrisy at its worst\" and labeled the President's\nThe 1977 budget covers the government's fiscal\nheld down by $28-billion, to be matched by $28-billion in tax\noff mimeograph machines within minutes after Ford\nbudget as \"phony.\"\nyear beginning Oct. 1, 1976, and ending Sept. 30, 1977.\ncuts. (Ford proposal, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2155)\nhad finished his Jan. 19 address to Congress, attacked\n\"President Ford knows Congress will not permit the\nThe federal expenditures reported are most fre-\nHe produced that $28-billion reduction in his budget\nthe President's program as unimaginative, unrealistic\neconomy to stagnate,\" Bayh said. \"He knows Congress\nquently outlays: amounts actually paid out by the\nproposal through revised estimates, proposed program\nand harmful to the economy.\nwill not permit him to increase burdens on the poor and\ngovernment in cash or checks during the year. Ex-\nrevisions, changed expectations of the economy and other\nMany Republicans greeted the program with am-\nthe elderly. Yet he presents an unrealistic budget in\namples are funds spent to buy equipment or property,\nunspecified plans aimed at saving money and increasing\nbivalence. Some said they approved of the spirit of the\norder that he can flail away at Congress as a big\nto meet the government's liability under a contract or\nproductivity. (Cuts, box p. 114)\nPresident's program but doubted that much of it would\nspending strawman when it meets its responsibilities.'\nto pay the salary of an employee. Outlays also include\nIn return for holding down growth in spending, Ford\nsurvive.\nBayh said Ford's plan to provide catastrophic illness\nnet lending-the difference between disbursements\nrenewed his proposal for equivalent tax cuts, proposing $10-\n\"If this country is to be saved from disaster, it will\naid for Medicare beneficiaries while raising their short-\nand repayments under government lending programs.\nbillion in tax reductions effective July 1, 1976. When added\nrequire Presidents with the courage and far-sightedness\nterm medical costs was part of a \"cruel political hoax.\"\nThe administration's request to Congress,\nto the six-month tax cut extension cleared by Congress in\nof Gerald Ford,\" said Sen. Barry Goldwater (R Ariz.).\nBy asking for an additional tax cut at the same time\npresented in the form of the budget, is for authority to\nDecember 1975 (PL 94-164), the total would be about $28-\n\"His stand [against big government] is in strict contrast\nas he proposed a rise in Social Security taxes, Bayh said,\nobligate or lend funds.\nbillion, assuming the extension was continued through\nto the utterances of the Democratic presidential can-\n\"Mr. Ford pretends to be giving with one hand, [while]\nBudget authority determines the scope of\n1976. The six-month extension was scheduled to expire June\ndidates, all of whom promise more, not less,\nhis other is reaching into the wallets of those who are in\noperations of the government. Congress confers budget\n30. (Action on taxes, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2763)\ngovernment.\"\nthe most need of cash.\"\nauthority on a federal agency in general in the form of\nSenate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R Pa.) singled\nappropriations.\nPlans for Savings\nout for praise Ford's plans to strengthen the private sec-\n'Retrenchment and Retreat'\nAppropriations may be for a single year, a\nFord's proposals for savings were certain to generate\ntor of the economy, his tax incentives aimed toward en-\nSen. Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.), chairman of\nspecified period of years, or an indefinite number of\ncontroversy in Congress. In some cases, they were revivals\ncouraging middle-income people to invest in industry\nthe Joint Economic Committee, said Ford's budget \"will\nyears, according to the restrictions Congress wishes to\nor modifications of ideas that Congress had rejected or ig-\nand his block grant proposals, which Scott said were \"a\ncreate neither private nor public jobs\" and will not\nplace on spending for particular purposes.\nnored in the past.\nresponsible way to insure the carrying out of these\nreduce inflation. In the area of jobs, Humphrey said, the\nCongress also restricts itself in the appropriation\nThe major proposals included:\nprograms to reduce federal regulation and increase state\nPresident \"proposes nothing but retrenchment and\nprocess by requiring that an appropriation be preceded\nand local discretion and flexibility.\"\nby an authorization to appropriate a certain or an in-\nConsolidation of 27 education programs into one block\nretreat.\"\nAs for Ford's $394.2-billion budget, Scott said, \"The\ndefinite amount of money for a certain purpose over a\ngrant program in which $3.3-billion in fiscal 1977 would be\nHumphrey called Ford's proposal to consolidate 59\nholding of the line is going to be extremely difficult. It is\ndistributed to the states. Three-fourths would be targeted\nfederal programs into four block grants a \"cruel shell\nperiod of time.\ngoing to require discipline.\"\nfor the disadvantaged and the handicapped.\ngame in which vital programs in the areas of health,\nUsually an authorization establishes the scope of a\nSen. Henry Bellmon (R Okla.), the ranking minority\nparticular program, and Congress appropriates funds\nConsolidation of 16 health programs, including\neducation, social services and child nutrition are\nmember of the Senate Budget Committee, told\nMedicaid, into a block grant of $10-billion to the states.\nsignificantly cut back.\" He said total outlays would be\nwithin the limits it has previously approved. In the\nCongressional Quarterly he \"would tend to want to sup-\ncase of authority to enter contract obligations,\nChanges in the Medicare program that would limit in-\nslashed from $21-billion in fiscal 1976 to $18-billion.\nport\" Ford's budget but he was \"not sure some cuts can\ncreases in rates, increase the cost paid by patients up to a\nHouse Speaker Carl Albert (D Okla.) called Ford's\nhowever, Congress authorizes the administration to\nbe made. It's a more forthright budget than we've had,\n$500-maximum, and provide catastrophic-illness protection\nspending restraint-tax reduction plan unworkable.\nmake firm commitments for which funds must be\nbut I would not want to be committed to support each\nappropriated later. Congress also occasionally includes\nfor aged and disabled persons.\n\"After the rhetoric has faded we find that the tough\npart of it.\"\nmandatory spending requirements in an authorization,\nConsolidation of 15 federal child nutrition programs\nquestions remain unanswered by this President,\" he\nSen. Pete V. Domenici (R N.M.), another Budget\ninto a block grant for states that would be directed at needy\nsaid.\ndesigned to ensure spending at a certain level.\nCommittee member, questioned Ford's proposed .3 per\nchildren, eliminating food subsidies for children in families\nBrock Adams (D Wash.), chairman of the House\nBudget authority often differs from actual out-\ncent increase in Social Security tax withholding, saying\nlays. This is because, in practice, funds actually spent\nabove the federal poverty line.\nit already was \"the most regressive, burdensome tax on\nBudget Committee, called Ford's budget a \"status quo\"\nor obligated during a year may be drawn partly from\nA block grant of $2.5-billion for states for social ser-\nworking people.\"\nplan that would not encourage economic recovery and\nthe budget authority conferred in the year in question\nvices programs for low-income persons.\nSen. John Tower of Texas, chairman of the Senate\ngrowth. He said the benefits \"go instead to an already\nand partly from budget authority conferred in previous\nReductions in major unemployment programs in the\nRepublican Policy Committee, said he supported Ford's\nbloated defense structure and the business community.\"\nexpectation of improvements in the economy that would\nGeorge Mahon (D Texas), chairman of the House\nyears.\nproposed increases for the defense budget but that he ex-\nresult in lower unemployment levels.\npected Congress would trim them. Tower predicted Ford\nAppropriations Committee, questioned Ford's proposed\nAnticipating congressional hostility, Ford told\n$10-billion tax cut. \"As the economy continues to im-\nwould veto any tax reduction if Congress exceeded the\n$373.5-billion and receipts $297.5-billion, resulting in a\nreporters he would seek the support of state and local of-\nprove, it would seem desirable to me to reduce the level\nPresident's $394.2-billion spending goal.\ndeficit of $76-billion, by far the largest in U.S. history. It ex-\nficials for his proposals in the hope that they could then in-\nof the federal deficit rather than reducing taxes,\" he\nceeded the administration's Oct. 21, 1975, estimate by $7.5-\nsaid.\nfluence Congress.\n'Cancel the Year'\nbillion.\n\"We, of course, will rearrange many of the budget's\nThe revised estimates also differed considerably from\nPayroll Taxes\nRep. Bella S. Abzug (D N.Y.) said Ford's references\npriorities,\" Mahon added.\nthe levels adopted by Congress in December under its new\nto Tom Paine, the Revolutionary War radical\nIn addition to his proposals for personal and corporate\nMany members said they needed more time to study\nbudget procedures, which set outlays of $374.9-billion,\npamphleteer, were \"ludicrous and totally out of\nincome tax changes, Ford called for revisions in the payroll\nthe President's program.\nrevenues of $300.8-billion and a deficit of $74.1-billion for\ncharacter.\" She said if Paine were \"around today, he\ntaxes that fund unemployment and Social Security\n\"The first thing we have to do is dig hard into it,\"\nfiscal 1976. (December action, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2739)\nwould be hounded and spied on by the CIA, FBI and\nbenefits, in an effort to put them on a more secure footing.\nAlan Cranston (D Calif.), a member of the Senate\nother government snoopers.\"\nBudget Committee, told Congressional Quarterly.\n(Tax proposals, p. 115)\n\"Instead of Tom Paine's Common Sense, he gave us\nTheme of Restraint\nFord proposed an increase of .6 per cent, to be divided\nCranston said there \"wasn't much imagination\" in\na patriotic pep talk and reactionary programs,\" Abzug\nFord's State of the Union Address. \"The President\nequally between employer and employee, in the payroll tax\nsaid. \"If this is a sample of Bicentennial rhetoric that is\nthat finances the Social Security system, effective Jan. 1,\nseemed tense,\" Cranston said, \"as if Ronald Reagan were\n\"We are at a critical point in our history,\" Ford told\nin store for us, maybe we should cancel the whole year.\"\n1977. That would raise the tax rate to 12.3 per cent from\nlooking over his shoulder as he spoke.\"\nreporters at a briefing on the budget he conducted Jan. 20.\nThe nation could allow spending to \"mushroom,\" he ex-\n11.7 per cent. Ford said the increase would solve the im-\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 113\nPAGE 112-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nEconomic Affairs 4\nEconomic Affairs 5\nmediate financial problems of the trust fund, which had\nbeen distributing funds faster than it was taking them in.\nFiscal Policy\n$28.9-Billion in Budget Cuts\nThe Budget Dollar\nIt was estimated that the increase for the average in-\nEarly reaction from Capitol Hill indicated skepticism\ndividual worker would amount to $22.50 in 1977, and would\nthat spending could-or should-be held to that low level.\nFiscal Year 1977 Estimate\nincrease trust fund revenues by $3.3-billion in fiscal 1977.\nThe chart below shows where changes and cuts\nThe major concern was that the combination of outlays\nWithout the increase, budget documents said, the trust\nwere made to reduce the estimate for fiscal 1977 out-\nat that level and Ford's tax proposals would result in a\nWhere it comes from\nfund would be depleted by the early 1980s. Critics said a\nlays to $394.2-billion, from the $423.1-billion estimate\ndampening effect on the nation's recovery from recession,\nWhere it goes\nExcise Taxes\nOther\ntax rate increase would be regressive, affecting poor per-\nupon which President Ford based his call for a $395-\nand that the stimulus of more spending was needed to en-\nsons the most, and it faced some difficulty in Congress.\nbillion spending ceiling in 1977. Ford proposed on Oct.\nsure that recovery, and to keep unemployment from rising\n40:4c\nBorrowing\nFord also proposed an increase in the federal un-\n6, 1975, that 1977 outlays be reduced by approximately\nback to the record levels of 1975.\nCommittee staff analysts suggested, for example, that\n11c\nNational\nemployment insurance tax rate paid by employers to .65 per\n$28-billion, to be matched by personal and business tax\nCorporation\nDirect\nDefense\ncent from .5 per cent and in the wage base to $6,000 from\ncuts.\nFord's figures of $10-billion in new tax breaks were mis-\nIncome\nBenefit\nIndividual\n13€\n$4,200, effective Jan. 1, 1977, increasing fiscal 1977 receipts\nleading because of his proposals for higher unemployment\nTaxes\nPayments\n26c\nIncome Taxes\n(billions)\nto Individuals\nby $2.1-billion.\nand Social Security payroll taxes. Those increases would\n39€\nOct. 6, 1975, estimates of 1977 outlays\n$423.1\nSocial\n40€\n8c\nIn his budget message, Ford acknowledged reforms\noffset much of the stimulus to the economy of the tax\nInsurance\nwould be \"controversial\", but added, \"They are the right\nreductions, they said.\nReceipts\n11c\nRevised estimates for entitlement and\n15\nthing to do. The American people understand that we must\nCritics offered differing figures on the net impact of\n29€\nopen-ended programs, including\nNet\npay for the things we want. I know that those who are\nfood stamps, Social Security, Medi-\nthe tax proposals. House Budget Committee Chairman\nGrants\nInterest\nworking now want to be sure that the money will be there to\ncare¹\nBrock Adams (D Wash.) said Jan. 22 that the net tax reduc-\nto States\nOther Federal\npay their benefits when their working days are over.\"\nNet change:\n2.7\ntion was only $1.7-billion, and not the $10-billion cited by\nand Localities\nOperations\nRevised estimates for other programs,\nFord. Adams also called the budget's economic forecasts\nWinners, Losers\nincluding offshore oil land receipts,\nunrealistically optimistic and said the over-all effect of the\nEPA construction, community devel-\nIn addition to those major revisions and consolidations,\nbudget was to make recovery slower than necessary.\nministration's recommendations would deepen and restruc-\nopment, and an increase in health\nspending below fiscal 1976 levels was the message for\nprograms¹,\nEconomic analysts also pointed to the restraint im-\nture the $7.8-billion reduction in calendar 1976 that\nseveral federal departments and government functional\nNet change:\n2.1\nplicit in the budget when it was examined on a \"full-\nCongress provided by extending 1975 tax cuts through June\nareas. Agencies hardest hit included the Agriculture and\nemployment\" basis. That is an estimate of receipts and out-\n30, 1976. (Tax cut extension, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2763;\nAdditional reductions:3\nlays if the economy were operating at its capacity with full\nFord program, p. 2155)\nLabor Departments and the Veterans Administration. On a\nNational defense\nfunctional basis, reductions in outlays from fiscal 1976 were\nChanges in federal pay increases\n2.5\nemployment, conventionally set at 4 per cent. On that basis,\nThe budget maintained that the President's recommen-\nproposed in agriculture, commerce and transportation,\nOther non-combat changes\n1.5\nFord's budget estimated outlays in fiscal 1977 of $386-\ndations would give individual and corporate taxpayers\ncommunity and regional development, education and\nDisposal of surplus stockpile\n0.7\nbillion and receipts of $389-billion, yielding a surplus of $3-\nabout $10-billion more a year in tax cuts than they would\nemployment and veterans benefits. A clear winner was\nCivilian agencies-changes In\nbillion, interpreted by some as a damper on the economy.\nreceive if the six-month tax cut extension were applied on a\ndefense spending. Proposed outlays for fiscal 1977 for the\nfederal pay increases\n1.1\nFord, however, defended the $394.2-billion spending\nfull-year basis.\nDefense Department were set at $99.6-billion, compared to\nMedicare reform\n2.2\ngoal, telling reporters it was a \"realistic and attainable\nIf put into full effect on July 1, Ford's program would\n$89.8-billion in fiscal 1976.\nHealth programs²\n1.4\nfigure.\"\nprovide an additional $6-billion in calendar 1976 tax liabili-\nEducation programs\n1.3\nOn a functional basis, national defense was to rise $8.4-\n\"I would not hesitate to veto any legislation or\nty reductions, according to Treasury estimates, beyond the\nFood stamp program\n1.2\nbillion in fiscal 1977 to $101-billion, about 9 per cent. Inter-\nTemporary employment assistance\n1.2\nappropriations that take the budget over $394.2-billion,\" he\nfull-year $16.8-billion impact of the extended 1976 tax cuts\nnational affairs spending, which includes foreign aid, also\n1.1\ncontinued.\nalready in effect.\nFederal housing insurance program\nwas to rise. The U.S. national security \"dictates\" the in-\nVeterans programs\n1.0\nHe also repeated his earlier statement that \"if we\nThe administration's proposals would increase full-\ncrease, Ford told reporters, saying the nation had been\nrestrain federal spending, we can have tax reductions on a\nyear 1976 individual income tax cuts by $4.1-billion, ac-\nSocial Security and disability\n\"pinching\" on defense spending for 10 years. (Details on\ninsurance\n0.9\ndollar-for-dollar basis.\"\ncording to those estimates. Corporate tax liability would be\nproposals in functional areas, p. 122)\nChild nutrition program revision\n0.9\nFord conceded, however, that there were \"uncertain-\ncut by an additional $1.9-billion, again below the level that\nSpecial unemployment assistance\nties\" that could take place in the economy that would re-\nwould be reached by simply extending the six-month con-\nCurrent Services\nand federal supplemental benefits\n0.8\nquire \"some flexibility\" and perhaps changes by July when\ngressional tax cuts through the rest of 1976.\nPublic assistance\n0.3\nthe present extension of tax cuts expired.\nThe net benefit to individuals would be only $3.6-\nThe extent of the restraints proposed for fiscal 1977\nUrban mass transit\n0.2\nbillion, however, because the administration's program\nwas made even more evident when Ford's budget proposal\nHighway program\n0.2\nwas compared to the \"current services\" estimate submitted\nSpace programs\n0.1\nFord Tax Program\nwould allow a refundable 10 per cent earned income tax\ncredit for families with children to expire after June 30. If\nto Congress Nov. 10, 1975, by the Office of Management and\nFederal employee retirement\nBudget (OMB). That document estimated the cost of con-\npayments\n0.1\nIn projecting $351.3-billion in fiscal 1977 federal\nextended through the end of 1976, that credit would provide\ntinuing existing programs and services without change at a\nState Employment Security Agency\nrevenues, Ford's budget assumed congressional approval of\nabout $500-million in direct Treasury cash payments to\nadministrative expenses\n0.1\nthe President's $27.5-billion federal income tax cut\neligible families who paid little or no taxes.\nmaximum of $414.5-billion, or $20.3-billion more than\nOther actions\n1.3\nproposal.\nFord's budget. On the basis of different estimating\nSubtotal:\n-20.1\nCoupled with various additional investment tax incen-\nTax Cut Proposals\nprocedures and economic assumptions, the Congressional\nPotential congressional increases\n4.0\ntives-and offset by proposed payroll tax increases-the\nBudget Office (CBO) set current services outlays at $420.3-\nFollowing the format of Ford's Oct. 6, 1975, tax cut\nbillion.\nTOTAL\n-28.9\nbudget program would cut potential fiscal 1977 revenues by\nproposals, the budget program would permanently reduce\nOn that basis, only outlays in the functional category\nJanuary 1976 outlay estimate\n$394.2\nan estimated $22.8-billion.\nindividual income taxes by raising the existing $750 per-\nThose tax incentive proposals altogether would reduce\nof international affairs showed any significant increase\nsonal exemption to $1,000, by replacing the percentage stan-\nfiscal 1977 receipts by only $800-million. But potential\nover OMB's current services estimate.\n1. Changes due to congressional action, later information or changes in\ndard deduction with a flat dollar deduction of $2,500 for\neconomic assumptions.\nrevenue losses in following fiscal years were greater.\njoint returns and $1,800 for single persons and by cutting\n2. The increase in health programs is due to add-ons by Congress in the 1976\nIn addition to the Social Security tax rate increase,\nLabor-HEW appropriations bill. The reduction of $1.4-billion under Additional\nindividual tax rates in lower brackets. Taken together,\nReductions reflects the President's veto of that bill.\nwhich would produce an estimated $3.3-billion in additional\nthose proposals would cut fiscal 1977 revenues by an es-\nChallenge to Congress\n3. Other reductions, including those due to proposed program reforms and\nfiscal 1977 trust fund revenues, the budget projected\ntimated $21.9-billion.\nothers intended to moderate budget growth. It is virtually impossible to distinguish\nwith precision the difference between changes due to later information or\nanother $2.1-billion increase in unemployment compensa-\nIn his call for spending of $394.2-billion, Ford was\neconomic assumptions and other reductions in all cases.\ntion taxes.\nFor corporations, the budget program would provide\ntax reductions by making permanent the 10 per cent invest-\nrenewing his challenge to Congress to limit the growth of\n1976 Reductions\nment credit provided for 1975-76, cutting the top 48 per cent\nfederal outlays in return for a tax cut of an equivalent\nSOURCE: Office of Management and Budget\namount.\nThe budget essentially renewed Ford's 1975 proposals\ncorporate tax rate to 46 per cent making permanent the cor-\nfor permanent tax cuts that Congress had ignored. The ad-\nporate surcharge structure adjustments provided for 1975\nand the first half of the 1976, and by allowing electric\nPAGE 114-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited whole or part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 115\nEconomic Affairs 7\nEconomic Affairs . 6\nBudget Authority and Outlays by Agency\n1975, would end existing tax preferences for thrift in-\nIndividual Income Taxes\nstitutions and create a variable tax credit for interest\n(in millions of dollars)t\nearned by holders of residential mortgages. (Financial in-\nDespite 1975 tax cuts and even with Ford's proposed\nstitutions, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2630)\npermanent reductions, the budget assumed that individual\nBUDGET AUTHORITY\nOUTLAYS\nThe budget included two Ford tax change proposals\nincome taxes would rise by 17.4 per cent during fiscal 1977\nTransition\nTransition\nthat would have little or no effect on fiscal 1977 revenues:\nas income rose through economic expansion and inflation.\n1975\n1976\nquarter\n1977\n1975\n1976\nquarter\n1977\nThe administration's 1975 program to encourage\nThat would follow an estimated 6.9 per cent increase in\nDEPARTMENT OR OTHER UNIT\nactual\nestimate\nestimate\nestimate\nactual\nestimate\nestimate\nestimate\nstepped up capital investment by integrating corporate and\nfiscal 1976 individual income taxes. The fiscal 1976 projec-\nLegislative branch\n$\n767\n$\n887\n$\n218\n$\n936\n$\n726\n$\n902\n$\n223\n$\n959\nindividual income taxes to eliminate double taxation of\ntion was $130.8-billion, up from fiscal 1975 receipts of\nThe judiciary\n313\n347\n87\n394\n284\n342\ndividends. (1975 Weekly Report p. 1757)\n$122.4-billion and well above the $106.3-billion fiscal 1976\n94\n391\nExecutive Office of the President\n76\n70\n18\n73\n93\n89\n19\n73\nFord's Jan. 5 proposal to allow persons who inherited\nbudget projection that assumed enactment of $32.8-billion\nFunds appropriated to the President\n8,726\n9,055\n214\n6,447\n3,988\n5,142\n825\n3,958\nfamily farms or closely held businesses to stretch out\nin tax cuts Ford proposed in submitting that budget.\nAgriculture\n15,210\n14,680\n2,388\n11,822\n9,722\n14,213\n3,261\n10,753\nCommerce\n1,793\n2,282\n480\n1,659\n1,583\n1,989\n553\n2,162\nfederal estate tax payments.\nIn fiscal 1977, the new budget projected individual in-\nDefense-Military*\n85,812\n96,202\n22,980\n111,250\n85,020\n89,763\n99,561\nThe estate tax revision was expected to have little im-\ncome tax revenues of $153.6-billion, accounting for 43.7 per\n24,471\n2,151\n710\n2,175\npact on federal revenues. The capital formation program,\ncent of total budget receipts, roughly the same proportion\nDefense-Civil\n1,798\n2,141\n658\n2,191\n2,051\nHealth, Education and Welfare\n116,729\n125,297\n34,495\n145,029\n112,411\n127,709\n33,678\n140,066\nwhich would go into effect in calendar 1978, would have no\nas in fiscal 1975 and 1976 but down from 44.9 per cent in\nHousing and Urban Development\n53,934\n27,675\n431\n21,714\n7,488\n7,204\n1,927\n7,174\nfiscal 1974.\nInterior\n3,818\n2,520\n833\n2,566\n2,139\n2,582\n847\n2,594\nfiscal 1977 impact but would cost the Treasury $13-billion\nJustice\n2,118\n2,161\n561\n2,143\n2,067\n2,281\n618\n2,250\nby fiscal 1981.\nLabor\n19,785\n20,586\n3,199\n20,717\n17,649\n26,350\n5,796\n22,080\nCorporate Taxes\nState\n1,186\n951\n395\n1,137\n829\n1,247\n382\n1,034\nRevenues\nAssuming large profit increases during economic\nTransportation\n19,119\n8,314\n1,015\n11,734\n9,247\n12,253\n3,363\n12,867\nTreasury\n41,365\n47,588\n12,175\n51,394\n41,177\n45,308\n12,207\n51,369\nrecovery, the budget projected a 23.4 per cent increase in\nIn combination with previously enacted tax law\ncorporate income tax revenues during fiscal 1977 following\nEnergy Research and Development\nAdministration\n3,512\n5,021\n1,302\n6,047\n3,165\n4,078\n1,192\n5,311\nchanges, Ford's income and payroll tax proposals would\na slight drop in fiscal 1976.\nEnvironmental Protection Agency\n8,516\n771\n189\n718\n2,530\n3,193\n838\n4,500\nGeneral Services Administration\n-747\n207\n47\n-575\n-624\n186\n45\nhold fiscal 1977 outlays $20-billion below potential levels\nCorporate tax receipts were estimated at $40.1-billion\n-605\nthat tax base expansion would have produced under the tax\nin fiscal 1976 and $49.5-billion in fiscal 1977. Without\nNational Aeronautics and Space\n909\n3,676\nrates and structure that was in effect on Jan. 1, 1974.\napproval of the administration's tax cut proposals, cor-\nAdministration\n3,229\n3,553\n932\n3,695\n3,267\n3,517\nVeterans Administration\n16,725\n19,872\n4,514\n17,654\n16,575\n19,016\n4,358\n17,179\nUnder 1974 tax laws, federal receipts would have risen\nporate taxes would be $2.7-billion higher in fiscal 1976 and\nOther independent agencies\n22,390\n33,168\n4,374\n30,915\n17,291\n19,027\n5,072\n21,290\n$19.4-billion during the ongoing fiscal 1976 according to\n$5.5-billion higher in fiscal 1977. Estimated fiscal 1977 cor-\nAllowances for:\nCivilian agency pay raises\n0\n0\n0\n790\n0\n0\n0\n760\nbudget estimates, and another $61.1-billion in fiscal 1977 to\nporate tax revenues would represent nearly 14.1 per cent\nContingencies\n0\n225\n150\n1,800\n0\n200\n175\n1,500\na total of $371.3-billion. Enacted and proposed changes in\nof total budget receipts, up from 13.5 per cent in fiscal 1976.\nUndistributed offsetting receipts:\nthe 1974 tax structure would reduce the projected revenue\nEmployer share, employee retirement\n-3,980\n-4,193\n-979\n-4,468\n-3,980\n-4,193\n-979\n-4,468\nPayroll Taxes\nInterest received by trust funds\n-7,667\n-8,015\n-2,110\n-8,373\n-7,667\n-8,015\n-2,110\n-8,373\ngrowth by $2.9-billion in fiscal 1976 and by $7.4-billion in\nfiscal 1977.\nRents and royalties on the Outer\nThe budget estimated that federal payroll taxes would\nContinental Shelf\n-2,428\n-3,000\n-500\n-6,000\n-2,428\n-3,000\n-500\n-6,000\nAs the result of enacted tax changes-including 1975\nrise $20.5-billion in fiscal 1977, a 22.1 per cent increase, with\nTOTAL\n$412,099\n$408,365\n$88,066\n$433,409\n$324,601\n$373,535\n$97,971\n$394,237\nand 1976 tax cuts, automatic payroll tax increases and\nthe proposed Social Security and unemployment tax in-\nFord's oil import fees-federal receipts were expected to\ncreases accounting for $5.4-billion.\nFigures may not add to totals due to rounding.\nrise to $297.3-billion in fiscal 1976 and $374.1-billion in\nThe budget accounted for a Social Security wage base\n*Includes allowances for civilian and military pay raises for Department of Defense.\nfiscal 1977.\nincrease to $15,300 from $14,100 in 1976 and assumed a\nFord's payroll tax and income tax proposals, combined\nfurther automatic increase to $16,500 on Jan. 1, 1977.\nSOURCE: 1977 Budget\nwith the lifting of the oil import fees, would raise fiscal 1976\nAltogether, those increases would push payroll taxes to\nreceipts by roughly $200-million to $297.5-billion. Potential\n$113.1-billion, nearly 32.2 per cent of budget receipts. Fiscal\nutilities a series of tax benefits for expanding generating\ncentrated in half the normal useful life; for equipment the\nfiscal 1977 receipts, however, would be cut to $351.3-billion,\n1976 payroll taxes were estimated at $92.6-billion, 31.1 per\ncapacity.\nbenefits could all be used in five years.\nabout $22.8-billion below levels revenues would reach under\ncent of total receipts. In fiscal 1975, payroll taxes amounted\nTaken together, that corporate relief would reduce es-\nThat preferential treatment would be available only\nthe tax laws as they stood when the budget was submitted.\nto $86.4-billion, 30.7 per cent of receipts.\ntimated fiscal 1977 revenues by $5.7-billion.\nfor investments undertaken after Jan. 20, 1975, and before\nJan. 19, 1976. The projects must be completed, moreover,\nBUDGET RECEIPTS BY SOURCE\nExcise Taxes\nOther Proposals\nwithin three years.\n(In billions of dollars)\nThe budget estimated that federal excise taxes would\nThe income tax reduction proposals were accompanied\nAlthough available only for a limited time, the\nproduce $17.8-billion in revenues during fiscal 1977, up\nby three other tax-cutting proposals, two of them new ini-\nproposal was expected to cost the Treasury $1-billion a year\nTransition\nfrom $16.9-billion in fiscal 1976. Both figures accounted for\nby fiscal 1980. The Office of Management and Budget\n1975\n1976\nquarter\n1977\ntiatives to encourage productive investments. The new\ncalendar 1976 and 1977 reductions in the federal telephone\nproposals would:\n(OMB) estimated the total revenue loss in fiscal 1977\nSource\nactual\nestimate\nestimate\nestimate\ntax, which was being phased out.\nAllow rapid tax write-offs for business investments\nthrough fiscal 1981 at $3.8-billion.\nIndividual In-\nduring the next year in buildings and capital equipment in\nThe stock purchase incentive plan would defer federal\ncome taxes\n$ 122.4\n$ 130.8\n$ 40.0\n$ 153.6\nOther Receipts\nareas where local unemployment topped 7 per cent.\nincome taxes on funds that were invested for at least seven\nCorporation In-\nWhile revenues from estate and gift taxes and from\nAllow tax deferrals for funds invested in stock-\nyears. The money would be subject to tax at time of\ncome taxes\n40.6\n40.1\n8.4\n49.5\ncustoms duties were expected to rise in fiscal 1977, the\npurchase plans set up by employers or by individuals.\nwithdrawal.\nSocial insurance\nbudget projected a reduction in miscellaneous receipts due\nEach proposal would cost the Treasury about $300-\nAvailable for calendar 1976, that deduction would cut\ntaxes and con-\nto elimination of petroleum import fees. The fiscal 1976 es-\nTreasury revenues by an estimated $700-million by fiscal\ntributions\n86.4\n92.6\n25.2\n113.1\nmillion during fiscal 1977 and substantially more\n1981. The projected total revenue loss in fiscal 1977-81 was\nExcise taxes\n16.6\n16.9\n4.4\n17.8\ntimate assumed that the federal government would retain\nthereafter.\nEstate and gift\nthose import fees collected after Aug. 11, 1975, during a\nTo encourage investment to create jobs in high-\n$2.5-billion.\ntaxes\n4.6\n5.1\n1.4\n5.8\npending court action challenging Ford's use of executive\nunemployment areas during the next few years, the ad-\nBudget estimates also incorporated a projected $265-\nCustoms duties\n3.7\n3.8\n1.0\n4.3\nauthority to impose the levies.\nministration proposed to allow businesses to accelerate\nmillion fiscal 1977 revenue loss from enactment of tax law\nMiscellaneous\nAs customary, the budget treated federal government\ndepreciation deductions that normally would be spread out\nchanges proposed by the administration as part of a wide-\nreceipts\n6.7\n8.3\n1.5\n7.2\nincome from rents, royalties and other payments from the\nover the useful lives of the buildings and equipment built or\nranging restructuring of U.S. financial institutions. Those\nTotal budget\npublic for various services as offsets to related outlays and\npurchased. For buildings, the deductions could be con-\nproposals, which accompanied a bill passed by the Senate in\nreceipts\n$ 281.0\n$ 297.5\n$ 81.9\n$ 351.3\nappropriations rather than as receipts.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 116-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 117\nEconomic Affairs 8\nEconomic Affairs 9\nEconomic Goals\nLong-Range Projections\noperations by discounting the surplus that trust funds\nRelation of Budget Authority to Outlays-1977 Budget\nLonger-range figures were based on the basic budget\ngenerally run in transactions with general-purpose federal\nfunds.\nFigures in brackets represent Federal funds only\n$ Billions\nEven with the all-out effort to hold down the growth of\nphilosophy enunciated by Ford-a gradual move toward a\nfederal outlays in 1977, the budget offered no hope for\nIn fiscal 1977, the trust funds were expected to run a\nTo be spent 1977\nrelatively stable price level and a higher level of\nNew Authority\n$12.5-billion surplus, offsetting that amount of a $55.5-\n281.3\nRecommended\nOutlays\ndramatic economic improvements in the next two years.\nemployment.\n2318\nThe calendar-year estimates forecast steady, if modest,\nbillion deficit in general purpose federal funds transactions.\nfor 1977\nin 1977\nA budget deficit of nearly $23-billion was anticipated in\n433.4\n394.2\nThe difference accounted for the $43-billion total deficit.\ngains. The gròss national product (GNP) was anticipated to\nfiscal 1978, for the ninth straight year. The first surplus\n[286.2]\n[311.9]\ngrow 12.4 per cent in 1976 and 12.2 per cent the following\nsince fiscal 1969 was expected in fiscal 1979-nearly $10-\nIn budget jargon, federal funds are government\nrevenues raised chiefly from taxes and borrowing for all\nFuture\nspent\nyear, nearly double the growth in 1975. In real terms,\nbillion-a figure that would grow steadily through fiscal\nUnspent Authority\ngovernment purposes. Trust funds, on the other hand, are\nYears\n1977\n[54.5]\nTransferred from\ngrowth was anticipated at 6.2 per cent in 1976 and 5.7 per\n1981. By that year, according to the mechanical projections,\nrevenues collected separately from special taxes and kept\nBudget Agencies\nstate\ncent in 1977, well above the 2 per cent decline in 1975.\nfederal outlays would climb to $510-billion, against receipts\nUnemployment, which averaged a record 8.5 per cent\ndistinct for specific uses. They include such things as the\n9.1\nof $585-billion.\n[9.1]\n1331\nin 1975, was forecast to decline to an average of 7.7 per cent\nBased on those fiscal trends, unemployment would con-\nSocial Security and unemployment compensation trust\n4.0\nAuthority\nfunds, financed by payroll taxes, and the Highway Trust\n[4.0] written and\nin 1976 and 6.9 per cent by 1977, still high by historical stan-\ntinue to decline through calendar 1981, falling to an average\nFund, financed by the federal gasoline tax and other user\nUnspent Authority\nexpired\nUnspent Authority\ndards and far above the full-employment level, conven-\n4.9 per cent in 1981, while inflation would be running about\nEnacted in\nfor Outlays in\nlevies.\nTo spent in\ntionally defined as 4 per cent. When asked about the effect\n4 per cent. The gross national product measured in constant\nPrior Years\nFuture Years\nof that continuing high level on his prospects for re-election\ndollars would continue to grow in about the same range as\nFederal funds and trust funds are not completely\nFuture Years\n510.5\n554.8\n402.7\nseparated, however, because the federal government as an\n[344.9]\n(375.7)\n(295.6)\nin November, President Ford said he thought unemploy-\n1976 and 1977, falling to a 4.9 per cent growth in 1981.\nemployer makes contributions from its federal funds to\nment would be \"something less\" than 7.7 per cent by then.\n(Fiscal 1975-81 assumptions, below)\nNOTE: The difference between the total budget figures and federal funds shown in brackets\nThe figure, he told reporters Jan. 20, was a yearly average.\nsocial insurance trust funds. And trust fund surpluses are\nconsists of trust funds and interfund transactions between fund groups.\ninvested in securities sold by the Treasury.\nThe important point, he continued, was that the trend of\nthe unemployment rate was downward through the year.\nFederal Funds Deficit\nIn the transactions between trust funds and federal\nfunds, the trust funds generally run a healthy surplus, ac-\nBesides the federal funds deficit, the debt increase\nInflation too was expected to decline throughout 1976\ncounting for a substantial part of the federal funds deficit.\nprimarily reflected an expected $11.1-billion in outlays dur-\nand 1977. Inflation as measured by the GNP deflator was\nThe $43-billion deficit projected by the fiscal 1977\nThat surplus in turn enables the trust funds to show an\ning fiscal 1977 by off-budget federal agencies. Those seven\nexpected to be 5.9 per cent in 1976, rising again in 1977 to 6.2\nbudget was calculated on the unified budget basis used\nover-all surplus despite substantial deficits in their\nagencies-including the Postal Service and the Federal\nper cent, also high by earlier standards, but significantly\nsince fiscal 1969. By combining general purpose federal\ndealings with the public.\nFinancing Bank-operated outside the federal budget and\nbetter than the 9.7 and 8.7 per cent increases in 1974 and\noperations with transactions by federal trust funds, the uni-\nIn fiscal 1977, trust funds were expected to accumulate\ntheir spending was not included in the budget total. The\n1975. Price increases as measured by the rise in the con-\nfied budget concept gives a comprehensive look at the\na surplus of $30.3-billion in transactions with federal funds,\nExport-Import Bank in 1971 was the first agency to be ex-\nsumer price index were set at 6.3 and 6 per cent for 1976 and\nbudget's over-all fiscal impact on the economy.\nmore than offsetting a $17.8-billion deficit with the public.\ncluded from the unified budget. It was to be returned to the\n1977, respectively, compared to 11 and 9.1 per cent averages\nThe concept obscures, however, the total that the\nIn federal funds transactions, that converse $30.3-billion\nbudget as of Oct. 1, 1976, and so its outlays were reflected in\nin 1974 and 1975.\nTreasury must borrow to finance its governmental\ndeficit would combine with a $25.1-billion deficit in transac-\nthe $394.2-billion budget outlay total.\ntions with the public.\nMost of the off-budget agencies operate loan programs,\nThe fiscal 1977 budget gave this accounting for federal\nand their outlays amount to the excess of new loans over\nfunds and trust funds in fiscal 1975-77 and the transition\nrepayments on old loans. Those outlays have risen quickly\nEconomic Assumptions\nquarter (TQ):\nin recent years, mainly because of new off-budget agencies.\nIn fiscal 1974, they were $2.7-billion; in fiscal 1976 they\n[Calendar years; dollar amounts in billions]\n(Fiscal years, billions of dollars)\nwere estimated to be $9.3-billion, rising to $11.1-billion in\nfiscal 1977.\nActual\nForecast\nAssumptions\n1975\n1976\nTQ\n1977\nWhen added to the federal fund deficits, the effect of\n(actual)\n(est.)\n(est.)\n(est.)\nthe off-budget outlays was to increase the amount that the\nItem\n1974\n1975\n1976\n1977\n1978\n1979\n1980\n1981\nFederal funds:\nfederal government must finance to $87.4-billion in fiscal\nTransactions with the public\n-32.4\n-49.6\n-10.1\n-25.1\nGross national product:\n1976 and $66.6-billion in fiscal 1977.\nTransactions with trust funds\n-18.6\n-28.9\n-4.9\n-30.3\nCurrent dollars:\nAfter adjustments for changes in cash, monetary\nAmount\n$1,407\n$1,499\n$1,684\n$1,890\n$2,124\n$2,376\n$2,636\n$2,877\nTotal\n-51.0\n-78.5\n-15.0\n-55.5\nassets and other means of financing, that left federal\nPer cent change\n7.7\n6.5\n12.4\n12.2\n12.4\n11.9\n10.9\n9.1\nborrowing requirements at $90-billion in fiscal 1976 and\nConstant (1972) dollars:\nTrust funds:\nAmount\n$1,211\n$1,187\n$1,260\n$1,332\n$1,411\n$1,503\n$1,600\n$1,679\nTransactions with the public\n-11.2\n-26.4\n-6.0\n$67.3-billion in 1977. Those amounts plus $18.9-billion for\n-17.8\nPer cent change\n-1.8\n-2.0\n6.2\n5.7\n5.9\n6.5\n6.5\n4.9\nTransactions with\nthe budget transition quarter represented the increase in\nfederal funds\n18.6\n28.9\n4.9\n30.3\nthe federal debt subject to limit. The federal debt limit was\nIncomes (current dollars):\nPersonal Income\n$1,155\n$1,246\n$1,386\n$1,538\n$1,727\n$1,930\n$2,138\n$2,331\nTotal\n7.4\n2.5\n-1.1\n12.5\nset at a permanent level of $400-billion, with further tem-\nWages and salaries\n763\n802\n892\n1,001\n1,126\n1,259\n1,397\n1,525\nporary increases approved by Congress. The existing tem-\nCorporate profits\n132\n118\n156\n181\n201\n223\n247\n271\nBudget total:\nporary ceiling of $595-billion was to expire March 15, 1976.\nPrice level (per cent change):\nFederal funds\n-51.0\n-78.5\n-15.0\n-55.5\nGNP deflator:\nTrust funds\n7.4\n2.5\n-1.1\n-2.5\nInterest\nYear over year\n9.7\n8.7\n5.9\n6.2\n6.1\n5.0\n4.2\n4.0\nTotal, unified budget deficit\n-43.6\n-76.0\n-16.1\n43.0\nOutlays for interest payments by the federal govern-\nFourth quarter over fourth quarter\n11.4\n6.3\n5.9\n6.3\n5.7\n4.7\n4.0\n4.0\nment on the public debt were estimated at $45-billion in\nConsumer price index:\nYear over year\n11.0\n9.1\n6.3\n6.0\n5.9\n5.0\n4.2\n4.0\nfiscal 1977, an increase of $7.3-billion over the fiscal 1976 es-\nDecember over December\n12.2\n6.9\n5.9\n5.9\n5.6\n4.6\n4.0\n4.0\nFederal Borrowing\ntimate. The increase, the budget explained, was largely due\nUnemployment rates (per cent):\nto financing of the large budget deficits of $76-billion in\nTotal\n5.6\n8.5\n7.7\n6.9\n6.4\n5.8\n5.2\n4.9\nDue largely to the projected $55.5-billion federal funds\nfiscal 1976 and the estimated $43-billion in 1977. In an-\nInsured¹\n3.8\n7.2\n6.3\n5.4\n4.9\n4.2\n3.6\n3.3\ndeficit, the over-all federal debt subject to limit was ex-\nticipation of further deficits, interest costs were estimated\nAverage Federal pay raise, October (per cent)\n5.5\n5.0\n4.7\n8.6\n7.0\n6.5\n5.75\n5.5\npected to rise by $67.3-billion during fiscal 1977, the budget\nto grow to $44.8-billion in fiscal 1978.\nInterest rate, 91-day Treasury bills (per cent)2\n7.9\n5.8\n5.5\n5.5\n5.5\n5.5\n5.0\n5.0\nestimated. That fiscal 1977 increase would come on top of\nOffsetting the interest-cost outlays were interest\nan estimated $90-billion debt increase during fiscal 1976,\npayments received by the government, reducing total\n1. Insured unemployment as a percentage of covered employment.\nmaking the total debt subject to limit $624.2-billion at the\n2. Average rate on new issues within period; the rate shown for 1976 was the current\nfederal outlays for interest to $34.8-billion in fiscal 1976 and\nmarket rate at the time the estimates were made.\nend of fiscal 1976 and $710.4-billion at the end of fiscal 1977.\n$41.3-billion in fiscal 1977.\nPAGE 118-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 119\nEconomic Affairs 10\nEconomic Affairs 11\nFISCAL 1977 BUDGET BY FUNCTION: $394.2-BILLION IN\nEXPENDITURES, $433.4-BILLION IN SPENDING AUTHORITY\n(in millions of dollars)t\n(in millions of dollars)t\nBUDGET AUTHORITY\nOUTLAYS\nBUDGET AUTHORITY#\nOUTLAYS\nTransition\nTransition\nTransition\nTransition\n1975\n1976 est.\n1977 est.\n1975\n1976 est.\nQuarter\n1977 est.\n1975\nQuarter\n1976 est.\nQuarter 1977 est.\n1975\n1976 est.\nQuarter\n1977 est.\nHEALTH\nNATIONAL DEFENSE\nHealth Care Services\nMilitary Defense\n$85,812\n96,202\n$22,980\n$111,250\n$85,020\n$89,763\n$24,471\n$ 99,561\n$ 25,784\n$ 28,702\n$ 7,732\n24,255\n$ 23,405\n$ 27,637\n$ 7,268\n$ 21,252\nHealth Research and Education\n539\n2,882\n2,562\n576\n2,712\nMilitary Assistance\n5,656\n4,502\n-22\n2,516\n999\n1,437\n129\n2,677\n2,998\n652\n2,798\nAtomic Energy Defense Activities\n1,484\n1,661\n452\n1,943\n1,506\n1,621\n443\n1,833\nPrevention and Control of Health Problems\n891\n919\n226\n911\n883\n983\n260\n936\n-1,024\n-63\n-14\n-59\n-14\n-801\nHealth Planning and Construction\n-802\n-936\n382\n195\n52\n201\nDefense-related Activities\n687\n559\n113\n448\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-1\n-3\n-4\n-3\n-1\n-3\nGeneral Health Financing Assistance\n0\n0\n0\n-4\n-3\n10,002\n0\n0\n0\n9,001\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-5\n-39\n-1\n-41\n-5\n-39\n-1\n-41\nTOTAL\n$91,925\n$102,299\n$23,394\n$114,905\n$86,585\n$92,759\n$25,028\n$101,129\nTOTAL\n$29,935\n$32,339\n8,584\n$ 38,038\n27,647\n$ 32,137\n$ 8,291\n$ 34,393\nINTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS\nINCOME SECURITY\nForeign Economic and Financial Assistance\n3,704\n$ 5,744\n$ 554\n5,461\n$ 3,665\n$ 4,953\n$ 964\n$ 4,736\nConduct of Foreign Affairs\n674\n781\n362\n985\n658\n814\n339\n910\nGeneral Retirement and Disability Insurance\n$ 71,165\n$73,998\n$19,599\n$88,247\n$ 69,383\n$ 77,241\n$21,061\n$ 87,357\n424\n104\n386\n348\n398\n108\n385\nFederal Employee Retirement and Disability\n11,595\n354\n13,302\n2,196\nForeign Information and Exchange Activities\n16,217\n6,980\n8,336\n2,309\n9,988\n-50\n-50\n0\n3,298\n-50\n-50\n0\n1,256\nUnemployment Insurance\n15,006\n13,126\n2,285\n16,572\nInternational Financial Programs\n13,459\n19,378\n3,980\n16,872\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-263\n-449\n-77\n-464\n-263\n-449\n-77\n-464\nPublic Assistance and Other Income Supplements\n61,528\n39,951\n4,723\n36,676\n18,783\n23,588\n5,392\n22,931\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-1\n-35\n:\n-35\n-1\n-35\n-35\nTOTAL\n4,420\n$ 6,450\n$ 944\n$ 9,666\n4,358\n5,665\n1,334\n6,824\nTOTAL\n$159,294\n$140,342\n$28,803\n$157,678\n$108,605\n$128,509\n$32,742\n$137,115\nGENERAL SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY\nGeneral Science and Basic Research\n1,103\n1,145\n$\n274\n$ 1,288\n$ 1,038\n$ 1,124\n$ 1,170\nVETERANS BENEFITS AND SERVICES\n$ 328\nManned Space Flight\n1,510\n1,790\n468\n1,891\n1,535\n1,735\n469\n1,865\nIncome Security\n$ 7,947\n$ 8,681\n2,238\n$ 8,536\n$ 7,860\n$ 8,383\n2,111\n$ 8,258\nEducation, Training and Rehabilitation\n4,551\n6,215\nSpace Science, Applications and Technology\n1,077\n1,120\n297\n1,087\n1,084\n1,118\n281\n1,125\n1,091\n4,160\n4,593\n6,023\n1,075\n4,245\nSupporting Space Activities\n330\n321\n88\n355\n334\n337\n80\n349\nHospital and Medical Care\n3,771\n4,448\n1,063\n4,437\n3,665\n4,142\n1,026\n4,521\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-2\n-3\n-1\n-2\n-2\n-3\n-1\n-2\nHousing\n2\n0\n0\n0\n24\n-103\n29\n-380\nOther Benefits and Services\n476\n558\n129\n550\n458\n591\n121\n555\nTOTAL\n$ 4,018\n4,374\n1,126\n$ 4,618\n3,989\n4,311\n1,157\n4,507\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-2\n-2\n-1\n-2\n-2\n-2\n-1\n-2\nNATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY\nTOTAL\n$ 16,745\n$ 19,898\n4,520\n17,681\n$16,597\n$ 19,035\n4,362\n$ 17,196\nWater Resources and Power\n$ 3,554\n$12,899\n$ 866\n$ 2,986\n3,274\n$ 3,827\n1,151\n$ 3,908\nLAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUSTICE\nConservation and Land Management\n1,287\n1,117\n435\n995\n1,300\n1,333\n546\n1,027\nRecreational Resources\n861\n230\n919\n825\n900\n248\n959\nFederal Law Enforcement and Prosecution\n$ 1,626\n965\n$ 1,892\n$ 500\n$ 1,933\n$ 1,593\n$ 1,885\n$ 496\n$ 1,933\nFederal Judicial Activities\n8,391\n631\n2,522\n3,087\n816\n4,388\n305\n683\n169\n332\n83\n380\nPollution Control and Abatement\n279\n338\n91\n378\nEnergy\n2,166\n3,522\n769\n3,981\n1,611\n2,592\n629\n3,375\nFederal Correctional and Rehabilitative\nActivities\nOther Natural Resources\n878\n921\n243\n1,010\n762\n871\n232\n934\n222\n237\n63\n299\n226\n267\n75\n279\n-333\n-819\nLaw Enforcement Assistance\n887\n811\n205\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-756\n-814\n-333\n-819\n-756\n-814\n713\n853\n919\n255\n844\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-9\n-7\n-3\n-7\n-9\n-7\n-3\n-7\nTOTAL\n$16,484\n$19,189\n2,380\n$ 9,702\n$ 9,537\n$11,796\n$ 3,289\n$13,772\nTOTAL\n$ 3,031\n$ 3,264\n$ 849\n$ 3,318\n$ 2,942\n$ 3,402\n$\n914\n$ 3,426\nAGRICULTURE\nFarm Income Stabilization\n4,923\n$ 3,158\n$\n63\n$ 1,259\n$ 785\n$ 1,896\n$ 492\n$ 717\nGENERAL GOVERNMENT\nLegislative Functions\n$\n630\n$ 740\n$\n181\n$ 747\nAgricultural Research and Services\n951\n979\n245\n1,005\n877\n981\n250\n1,014\n$\n588\n$\n767\n$ 190\n$\n789\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-2\n-2\n_*\n-2\n-2\n-2\n_*\n-2\nExecutive Direction and Management\n65\n71\n18\n75\n63\n72\n19\n75\nCentral Fiscal Operations\n1,748\n1,862\n472\n1,865\n1,752\n1,863\n472\n1,856\nTOTAL\n5,873\n$ 4,135\n$ 308\n$ 2,262\n1,660\n$ 2,875\n$ 742\n$ 1,729\nGeneral Property and Records Management\n295\n352\n80\n313\n418\n328\n78\n284\nCentral Personnel Management\n94\n99\nCOMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION\n25\n104\n88\n104\n25\n104\n$\n241\n$ 1,160\n2,810\n1,278\nOther General Government\n$ 303\n$ -647\n536\n$ 9,439\n$ 6,189\n651\n173\n551\nMortgage Credit and Thrift Insurance\n472\n640\n217\n520\nPostal Service\n1,875\n1,690\n431\n1,459\n1,877\n1,690\n431\n1,459\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-292\n-228\n-39\n-195\n-292\n-228\n-39\n-195\nOther Advancement and Regulation of Commerce\n843\n875\n153\n1,136\n939\n895\n209\n910\nTOTAL\n$ 3,075\n$ 3,546\n909\n$ 3,460\n$ 3,089\n$ 3,547\n$\n961\n$ 3,433\nGround Transportation\n16,575\n5,487\n550\n9,725\n6,501\n9,519\n2,737\n10,146\nAir Transportation\n2,137\n2,678\n624\n2,838\n2,408\n694\nREVENUE SHARING AND GENERAL\n2,695\n2,781\nPURPOSE FISCAL ASSISTANCE\nWater Transportation\n1,546\n1,667\n413\n1,616\n1,459\n1,703\n448\n1,868\nOther Transportation\n75\n74\n19\n80\n74\n77\n19\n71\nGeneral Revenue Sharing\n$ 6,197\n$ 6,358\n$ 1,627\n$ 6,546\n$ 6,130\n$ 6,275\n$ 1,627\n$ 6,552\nOther General Purpose Fiscal Assistance\n856\n3,181\n416\n801\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-60\n-55\n-22\n-89\n-60\n-55\n-22\n-89\n875\n894\n419\n799\nTOTAL\nTOTAL\n$32,431\n$18,605\n$ 2,410\n17,925\n$16,010\n$17,801\n$ 4,819\n$16,498\n$ 7,052\n$ 9,538\n$ 2,043\n$ 7,347\n$ 7,005\n7,169\n$ 2,046\n7,351\nINTEREST\nCOMMUNITY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT\nOn the Public Debt\nCommunity Development\n3,730\n$ 3,015\n$ 184\n$ 4,110\n$ 3,149\n$ 3,892\n1,021\n3,667\n$ 32,665\n$ 37,700\n10,400\n$ 45,000\n32,665\n37,700\n$10,400\n45,000\nOther Interest\n912\n385\n-1,691\n-2,864\n-631\nArea and Regional Development\n1,336\n1,473\n284\n1,432\n1,368\n1,335\n-3,704\n-1,691\n-2,865\n-631\n-3,703\nDisaster Relief and Insurance\n352\n336\n59\n309\n398\n572\n127\n562\nTOTAL\n$ 30,974\n$ 34,836\n$ 9,769\n$ 41,296\n$ 30,974\n34,835\n9,769\n$ 41,297\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-27\n-30\n-4\n-32\n-27\n-30\n-4\n-32\nCIVILIAN AGENCY PAY RAISES\n$\n0\n$\n0\n$\n0\n$ 790\n$\n0\n$\n0\n$\n0\n$\n760\nTOTAL\n$ 5,391\n$ 4,794\n$ 523\n$ 5,819\n$ 4,431\n$ 5,802\n$ 1,529\n$ 5,532\nCONTINGENCIES\n$\n0\n$\n225\n$ 150\n$ 1,800\n$\n0\n$\n200\n$ 175\n$ 1,500\nEDUCATION, TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT\nUNDISTRIBUTED OFFSETTING RECEIPTS\n$-14,076\n$-15,208\nAND SOCIAL SERVICES\n$-3,589\n$-18,841\n$-14,076\n$-15,208\n$-3,589\n$-18,841\nElementary, Secondary and Vocational Education\n4,775\n$ 4,687\n$ 2,647\n$ 5,335\n4,634\n4,636\n$ 996\n$ 4,428\nGRAND TOTAL\nHigher Education\n1,876\n2,491\n186\n2,145\n2,050\n2,681\n411\n2,298\n$412,099\n$408,365\n$88,066\n$433,409\n$324,601\n$373,535\n$97,971\n$394,237\nResearch and General Education Alds\n754\n749\n313\n786\n947\n824\n233\n847\nTraining and Employment\n4,645\n7,582\n825\n3,693\n4,063\n6,874\n1,804\n4,984\nOther Labor Services\n280\n328\n83\n366\n259\n326\n81\n362\ntFigures may not add to totals due to rounding.\nPrimarily appropriations.\n*Less than $500 thousand.\nSocial Services\n3,199\n3,939\n890\n3,655\n3,301\n3,596\n880\n3,735\nDeductions for Offsetting Receipts\n-5\n-38\n-1\n-38\n-5\n-38\n-1\n-38\nTOTAL\n$15,526\n$19,738\n$ 4,942\n$ 15,943\n$15,248\n$18,900\n$ 4,403\n$16,615\nSOURCE: 1977 BUDGET\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 120-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 121\nEconomic Affairs - 12\nEconomic Affairs 13\nNew budget authority for tactical air forces included\nDetails of the Budget by Functional Area\nOutlays of slightly over $5-billion in foreign aid were\n$2.2-billion for 144 new F-14 and F-15 fighter planes and\nplanned for 1977.\n$617.8-million for 100 A-10 ground attack planes. For initial\nFollowing are details of the administration's fiscal 1977\nrequirement that all persons must register for the draft\nprocurement of the Air Force's lightweight F-16 fighter, the\nForeign Affairs Administration\nfederal budget by the functional areas used by the Office of\nthrough the Selective Service System, thereby permitting a\nbudget requested $619.7-million, and $346.9-million was\nIn the international affairs section of the budget, $985-\nManagement and Budget:\nsubstantial reduction in the Selective Service staff at an es-\nsought for development of the corresponding Navy plane,\nmillion was recommended in new budget authority for\nthe F-18.\ntimated savings of $20-million.\nforeign affairs operations, including the administration of\nNational Security\n(Not included in the Defense Department's new budget\nThe number of Air Force, Navy and Marine tactical air\nforeign policy, international organizations and conferences,\nauthority was $1.9-billion for defense-related nuclear work\nwings remained at 42. A 13,000-man decline in Air Force\nthe Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and other ac-\nfunded through the Energy Research and Development Ad-\npersonnel was due largely to consolidations of headquarters\nThe administration requested $112.7-billion in new\ntivities, and $386-million was budgeted for foreign informa-\nministration. See Energy and Natural Resources section.)\nunits and reductions in non-combat, support manpower.\nbudget authority for the Defense Department in fiscal 1977,\ntion and exchange activities, including those of Radio Free\nup $8-billion from the fiscal 1976 request and $14.4-billion\nOutlays for the Defense Department were set at $100.1-\nEurope and Radio Liberty and the U.S. Information\nbillion for fiscal 1977, an increase of $8.9-billion over the\nMobility Forces\nmore than the projected fiscal 1976 appropriations provided\nAgency.\nby Congress. Allowing for inflation, this represented a $7.2-\nprevious year's appropriation.\nAirlift and sealift capability accounted for $1.6-billion\nbillion increase in real growth for military programs, ac-\nof the budget request. This amount included funds to\nMilitary Aid\ncording to administration spokesmen. The fiscal 1976\nStrategic Programs\nstrengthen the wings of the giant C-5A transport aircraft\nThe administration requested a total of $785-million in\nappropriation included $2-billion in real growth over 1975,\nThe budget recommended $9.4-billion for continued\nto extend its useful life, and to lengthen the fuselage of the\nmilitary assistance, which is administered by the Defense\nhalting a 7-year decline in defense purchasing power. But\nmodernization of the U.S. nuclear deterrent weapons, and\nmedium C-141 transport. Additional funds were sought to\nDepartment but authorized by the foreign relations com-\nOffice of Management and Budget spokesmen conceded\nstressed the importance of preparing options for expansion\nmodify civilian jetliners in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet for\nmittees rather than the Armed Services Committees. The\nthat approximately $1.5-billion of that amount was due to\nof the nuclear force should the current strategic arms limi-\neasy adaptation to military duty in time of war.\ntotal was about $445-million less than the amount budgeted\nan overestimate of inflation in the fiscal 1976 budget re-\ntation (SALT) talks with the Soviet Union fail. Funds were\nfor fiscal 1976, reflecting in part a de-emphasis on grant\nquest. The said that an increased rate of real growth in\nsought for a third Trident submarine ($1.3-billion) and ini-\nMilitary Construction\nmilitary assistance in favor of foreign military sales\nfiscal 1977 was necessary to keep pace with the steady rise\ntial purchase of the missiles for the Trident ($1.7-billion)\nThe budget included $2.3-billion for military construc-\ncredits.\nin Soviet military spending.\nand for three B-1 bombers ($1.5-billion). While no funds\ntion, including $437-million for an aircraft engine test\nNew budget authority for military assistance grants\nProportionally, the greatest increase in the Pentagon's\nwere requested for continued production of the Minuteman\nfacility at Tullahoma, Tenn. The administration insisted\nwas set at $279-million, compared to $394-million requested\nfiscal 1977 budget request was for new weapons to\nIII missile, Pentagon officials announced that the National\nthat only projects essential to performance of military mis-\nin the fiscal year 1976 budget. To support a military credit\nstrengthen U.S. military capability without increasing\nSecurity Council was contemplating additional purchases\nsions had been included in the request, which was $100-\nsales program of $2.1-billion in fiscal 1977-of which $1-\ndefense manpower. Included in the $29.3-billion weapons\nto keep that production line operating.\nmillion under last year's appropriation.\nbillion was earmarked for Israel-$840-million was re-\nprocurement request-almost $9-billion over fiscal\nResearch and development funds were requested for\nReflecting a policy of increasing reliance on local hous-\nquested; this was $225-million below the fiscal 1976 level.\n1976-were funds for 244 F-14, F-15 and A-10 aircraft, 16\nthe air and sea-launched versions of the cruise missile\ning markets to house military families, the budget re-\nOutlays for all military assistance programs in 1977\nships, nearly 1,000 tanks and 105 attack helicopters. Funds\n($261.7-million) and for the M-X, a large, land-based ICBM\nquested only $1.2-billion for family housing in 1977, $100-\nwere set at $739-million, down $1.3-billion from fiscal 1976.\nwere sought to begin purchases of several new weapons, in-\n($84-million). New budget authority for research on\nmillion less than was appropriated for fiscal 1976.\n\"The geographic focus of the military assistance program\ncluding the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile and the F-16\nballistic missile defense came to $224.9-billion.\nhas shifted rapidly from Southeast Asia to the Middle\nfighter plane.\nPersonnel\nEast,\" the administration said.\nResearch and development funds totaling $10.9-\nGeneral Purpose Forces\nCivilian personnel would be reduced by 26,000, prin-\nbillion-$400-million over fiscal 1976-were requested for\ncipally through consolidation of headquarters and support\nEconomic Aid\nBy far the largest functional component of the defense\nvarious weapons projects including the M-X intercontinen-\nbudget was $40.2-billion recommended for conventional\nunits, under the Pentagon's recommendations. It was\nFor foreign economic and financial assistance, the ad-\ntal ballistics missile (ICBM), the strategic cruise missile\ncombat forces.\nplanned to use uniformed manpower more efficiently\nministration requested $5-billion in new budget author-\nand the XM-1 tank.\nTanks, armored personnel carriers and helicopters\nthrough less frequent transfers and shorter training\nity, about $317-million below the 1976 level. Of this\nTo offset these increases, the President proposed to\nwere requested to 1) complete equipping three new Army\nperiods. On the ground that military and civilian pay scales\namount, $1.8-million was expected to be allocated to vari-\nreduce manpower costs by changing personnel policy,\ndivisions, 2) begin upgrading two light infantry divisions\nwere comparable at existing levels, the President intended\nous Middle Eastern countries in the form of security-\nrestraining pay increases (including retirement pay) and\nand 3) rebuild stockpiles in Europe that were depleted by\nto seek legislation to eliminate enlistment bonuses, remove\nsupporting assistance to encourage \"progress toward a last-\nreducing civilian personnel. He also proposed to eliminate a\narms supplied to Israel during and after the November 1973\nsubsidies for commissary staffs and institute major\ning negotiated settlement\" in the region. The funds were\nMiddle East war.\nchanges in the military retirement system.\nrecommended for reconstruction and economic support for\nDefense Outlays\nResearch and development funds were sought for the\nPresently, in both the military and Civil Service retire-\nIsrael, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Some security-supporting\n$ Billions\nBillions\nXM-1 tank ($141-million), the MICV troop carrier ($29.9-\nment systems, cost-of-living increases are 1 per cent higher\nfunds also were earmarked for Portugal, Malta and Cyprus.\n120\n120\nmillion), the advanced attack helicopter ($112.1-million)\nthan the rise in the Consumer Price Index. Legislation was\nIn addition to these funds, $35-million was budgeted\nand the improved Pershing II missile ($36.3-million).\nrequested to eliminate this bonus. The administration\nunder the economic aid category to defray the cost of the\nTotal\n100\n100\nThe Army remains at 16 divisions (790,000 men) and\nwarned that failure of Congress to approve the changes\nU.S. Sinai peacekeeping mission and \"to allow an additional\nthe Marine Corps at three divisions (191,000 men).\nwould increase outlays in fiscal 1977 by $2.8-billion.\nmeasure of flexibility in responding to unforeseen events\"\nNew combat ships requested included: three attack\nin the Middle East.\n80\n80\nsubmarines ($1.3-billion) and eight escort frigates ($1.3-\nInternational Affairs\nThe administration also proposed $1.2-billion in new\nProcurement,\nbillion). New budget authority also was requested for the\nbudget authority for multilateral development assistance in\nR & D\n60\nConstruction. and Other DOD\nfirst of a new class of strike cruisers ($203.3-million) and\nfiscal 1977. This assistance is provided through U.S. con-\n60\nthe first of a new class of ships equipped with the Aegis\nThe administration's overall budget request for foreign\ntributions to international financial institutions, such as\nmissile system for air defense ($859.5-million). No funds\naid-both economic and military-amounted to $5.8-billion\nthe World Bank. Part of this amount also is directed to\nOperation and Maintenance\nwere sought for a new nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.\nin new budget authority for fiscal 1977, $763-million less\n40\n40\ndevelopment programs of international organizations, prin-\nThat request, which was announced in the 1975 annual\nthan that recommended for 1976. (The amounts ultimately\ncipally the United Nations. Although the $1.2-billion re-\nreport of the Defense Department, has been deferred until\nappropriated for fiscal 1976 for military and economic aid\nquest represented a $300-million decline from fiscal 1976,\n20\nMilitary Personnel\n20\nagreement is reached on a new ship to replace the aging\ncannot be determined because Congress has not yet com-\nthe budget included a statement that multilateral\nRetired Military Pay\nOther*\nForrestal-class of carriers in the mid-1980s.\npleted action on the appropriations legislation.)\nassistance \"has become an increasingly important com-\n0\nThe Navy is budgeted for 544,000 men, up 12,000 from\nAbout $1.8-billion of the fiscal 1977 request was for\nponent\" of the foreign aid program.\n0\nsecurity-supporting assistance to nations in the Middle\n1967\n68\n69\n70\n71\n72\n73\n74\n75\n76\n77\nfiscal year 1976. The increase was explained in terms of a\nBilateral development assistance, which is ad-\nFiscal Years\nsmall addition in the number of ships in service and in the\nEast. But specific allocations by country have not been\nEstimate\nministered by the U.S. Agency for International Develop-\n*Military Assistance, Atomic Energy Defense, and Defense Related Activities\nfinalized by the Ford administration.\nsize of ships' crews.\nment (AID) and directed to the \"neediest people in poorer\"\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 122-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 123\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nEconomic Affairs 14\nEconomic Affairs 15\ncountries, was budgeted at a level of $1.1-billion for fiscal\nEnergy\nNuclear Regulatory Commission-for which budget\nOutlays For Energy*\n1977. This amount was nearly $100-million larger than the\nauthority of $249-million was requested, an increase of $34-\nBillions\n$ Billions\nFord's fiscal 1977 energy program did not break new\nmillion over fiscal 1976 funds. This total included $122-\n4\n4\nfiscal 1976 request.\nground in energy policy. The President repeated a number\nOther economic assistance programs included in the\nmillion for nuclear regulatory research, $39-million for\nR & D\nof requests which were not granted in fiscal 1976 and\n1977 budget were:\nnuclear reactor regulation, and $18-million for nuclear\n3.38\nproposed increases in a number of existing research\nmaterials safety and safeguards.\nGeneral Operating Programs\nFood for Peace (PL 480), $1.2-billion in new budget\naúthority;\nprograms.\nThe budget reflected President Ford's intention to\n3\nRegulatory\n3\nMost of the $3.4-billion in fiscal 1977 energy outlays\npress Congress to approve his energy-related proposals\nPrograms\n2.59\nInternational narcotics control, $34-million;\nwould be expended by the Energy Research and Develop-\nMigration and refugee assistance, $10-million;\nwhich it had ignored or rejected during the 1975 session.\nment Administration (ERDA). The overall estimated out-\nPeace Corps, $67-million.\nThese included his desire to allow private enterprise to\nlays for ERDA were $5.4-billion; the balance was allocated\nmove into the uranium enrichment field, to provide federal\n2\n2\nGeneral Science,\nto national security programs for nuclear weapons develop-\nfinancial backing for private industry's production of syn-\n1.61\nment which were not included within the energy outlays\nthetic fuels on a commercial basis, and to set up a $100-\nSpace and Technology\ncategory.\nbillion Energy Independence Authority to provide federal\nFor its second full year of operation, ERDA requested\nstimulus for expansion of the nation's energy capabilities.\n1\n1\nNASA\ntotal budget authority of $6.1-billion, an increase of $1.5-\nAmendments to ERDA authorization legislation would\nbillion over fiscal 1976. This included $4.6-billion for\nbe proposed, stated the budget, to provide for $2-billion in\nThe budget requested a $142-million increase in budget\noperating expenses and $1.5-billion for plant and capital\nfederal loan guarantees in 1976 for commercial demonstra-\nauthority for the U.S. space program in fiscal 1977, but the\nequipment; outlays for these two subcategories were ex-\ntion of synthetic fuel production. The fiscal 1977 budget in-\n0\n0\nproposed funding boost would not keep pace with inflation.\npected to amount to $4.3-billion and $1.1-billion, respec-\ncluded $503-million for the loan program. Congress late in\n1975\n1976\n1977\nThe total budget request for the National Aeronautics and\nFiscal Years\nEstimate\ntively.\n1975 had refused to approve a $6-billion loan guarantee\nSpace Administration was $3.7-billion.\nThe increases in ERDA appropriations requests were\nExcludes Full Effect of Energy Policy and Conservation Act\nprogram, but the administration said that amount would\nThe proposed budget would force NASA to delay\nspread across the board among its programs. Among the\nstill be needed during the period from 1976-78 in order to\ndevelopment of a third orbiting vehicle for the re-usable\nprograms for which increased funding was requested were:\nattain the goal of producing the equivalent of 350,000\nbillion of the $18-billion authorized in the 1972 act still\nspace shuttle, a probe of the planet Jupiter and renovation\nbarrels per day of synthetic fuel by 1985.\nwould be unobligated at the beginning of fiscal 1977. Actual\nof a wind tunnel used for aeronautical testing. The budget\nFission power reactor development-$545-million,\nincluded $1.29-billion, an $82-million increase, for con-\n$160-million more than in fiscal 1976, with an additional\nThe proposed Energy Independence Authority would\ngrant outlays for the year were put at $3.8-billion, an in-\n$160-million requested for plant and capital spending.\nbe a government corporation funded in part by selling stock\ncrease of $1.4-billion over expected fiscal 1976 outlays\ntinued work on the space shuttle, still scheduled for its first\nmanned orbital flight in 1979. No other manned space mis-\nUranium nt-$907-million, $200-million over\nand, to a larger extent, by issuing notes, debentures, bonds,\nfor sewer grants.\nfiscal 1976 funds, plus $536-million for plant and capital\nand other obligations. The authorized capital stock, to total\nIn an effort to direct federal water pollution grant\nsions were planned before then, but shuttle approach and\nequipment. Some of these funds would be used to assist the\n$25-billion, would be subject to appropriations requests.\nmoney to the most important projects, the EPA said it\nlanding tests were scheduled to begin in 1977.\nUnlike the fiscal 1976 budget, the proposed funding\nproposed entry of private industry into the field of uranium\nFor fiscal 1977, the administration would request $8-billion\nwould send Congress proposed amendments to the 1972\nalso would allow work to begin on some new programs, in-\nenrichment, as of early 1976 a government monopoly. Presi-\nin appropriations for this new corporation. Also for fiscal\nwater act that would result in reduced funding of sewer\ndent Ford had proposed allowing private industry to enter\n1977, Congress would be asked to authorize $75-billion in\nprojects not considered of the highest priority-such as\ncluding development of a spacecraft to study sunspots and\nthe field; Congress in 1975 took no action on the proposal.\nborrowing authority, allowing it to issue up to that amount\nstorm sewers and facilities to accommodate future popula-\nother solar phenomena in 1970-80 and a third satellite to\nNational security and weapons programs-$1.3-billion,\nin obligations.\ntion growth. The amendments also would allow the agency\nmap information on the earth's magnetic field.\nNASA's construction budget, cut back to $82-million in\nup from $1.1-billion in 1976, plus $376.5-million for plant\nThe concept of the corporation had been attacked by\nto extend for up to six years the July 1, 1977, deadline set by\nand capital expenditures.\nliberals and conservatives and Congress was considered un-\nthe 1972 act for compliance with municipal water quality\nfiscal 1976, would rise to $124-million in fiscal 1977 under\nFusion power research-$225-million, a $46-million in-\nlikely to act.\nstandards. The EPA said such postponements on a case-by-\nthe proposed budget. The budget would reserve $25-million\nof this amount for construction of a new aeronautical\ncrease over 1976, plus $153-million, almost triple 1976\nFord also repeated 1975 requests for price deregulation\ncase basis were realistic because about half of all com-\nresearch center.\nfunds, for plant and capital equipment.\nof new domestic natural gas and to open up production from\nmunities would be unable to meet the 1977 deadline.\nFuel cycle research, including treatment of nuclear\nthe naval petroleum reserves. A naval petroleum reserves\nThe most significant increase in its fiscal 1977 budget,\nthe EPA said, was an addition $10.6-million for the water\nNational Science Foundation\nwastes and investigation of recycling nuclear fuel, in-\nbill (HR 49) was expected to emerge from conference early\ncluding plutonium-$139-million, $82-million more than in\nin 1976. A natural gas bill (S 2310) had passed the Senate\nsupply program, which funds state efforts to eliminate\nIncreasing fiscal 1976 appropriations by about $88-\n1976, plus $15.8-million-four times the 1976 figure-for\nbut faced an uncertain future in the House. (1975 Weekly\npollution from drinking water supplies. The program would\nmillion, the budget asked for $802-million for the National\nplant and capital equipment.\nReport p. 2851)\nget a total of $42.8-million in fiscal 1977 budget authority.\nScience Foundation in fiscal 1977. Most of the new funding\nCoal research-$358-million, an $87-million increase,\nThe administration proposed a total of $143.4-million\nwould be devoted to basic research programs in a number of\nplus $55.2-million for plant and capital equipment, twice\nin fiscal 1977 budget authority for EPA air pollution control\nscientific fields. Spending for science education programs\nEnvironmental Programs\nthe 1976 amount.\nactivities, a reduction of $2.3-million from fiscal 1976. The\nunder the proposed budget would stay at the fiscal 1976\nSolar energy research-$110.5-million, a $30-million\nThe administration proposed fiscal 1977 outlays of\nPresident repeated his 1975 request for postponement of\nspending level of about $65-million, while funds for\nincrease, plus $18-million for plant and capital equipment,\n$4.4-billion for federal pollution control programs, an in-\ndeadlines for compliance with air pollution limits.\nresearch programs targeted on specific problems would\ntriple the 1976 amount.\ncrease of $1.3-billion over estimated fiscal 1976 outlays.\nSolid waste program funds would be increased slightly\ndrop by about $8.7-million. The foundation said that the\nNaval reactor development-$202-million, $16-million\nThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which\nto $15.7-million, while noise control programs would be\nreduction reflected the continuing transfer of energy-\nmore than in 1976.\nadministers most of the programs, would take an overall\ntrimmed slightly to $10.3-million in fiscal 1977.\nrelated programs to other agencies.\nOther energy-related items in the budget included:\nfunding cut under the administration's budget, however. A\nThe pesticide regulation program would be cut by $4.5-\nFederal Energy Administration-for which $101-\ntotal of $718-million in fiscal 1977 budget authority was re-\nmillion, to $39.8-million in fiscal 1977, largely because of a\nEnergy, Environment, Resources\nmillion was requested for 1977, a drop of $42-million from\nquested for the agency, a reduction of $53-million in the\nphase-out of an EPA-Agriculture Department training\nthe 1976 amount, reflecting, among other factors, an ex-\nfiscal 1976 estimate.\nprogram for pesticide use. The request included an ad-\nOutlays for this entire category would reach a net total\npected decrease in personnel positions at FEA from 3,200 to\nThe biggest reduction, $59.7-million, would be made in\nditional $1-million to help states enforce the greatly\nof $13.8-billion, estimated the 1977 budget-a grand total of\n1,791. The budget also indicated that appropriations of $55-\nthe water quality program administered under the 1972\nstrengthened pesticide control law enacted in 1972. (Details,\n$14.6-billion offset by $800-million in receipts. The largest\nmillion would be requested later if Congress approved the\nFederal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (PL 92-\n1975 Weekly Report p. 2551)\nitems within this category were pollution control, for which\nadministration's 1975 proposal to provide grants to states to\n500). Grants to states for water quality management plan-\nspending was estimated at $4.4-billion; water resources and\nsubsidize the installation of insulation by low-income\nning would be cut to $15-million, a reduction of $38-million\nin the fiscal 1976 level.\nNatural Resources\npower, $3.9-billion; and energy, $3.4-billion.\nhomeowners.\nTotal outlays would amount to $2-billion more than in\nFederal Power Commission-for which $41.6-million\nIn addition, the administration recommended no new\nFederal outlays for water resources and power\nfiscal 1976. The largest increases were for pollution control,\nwas requested in budget authority, a $6-million increase\ncontract authority for grants to states and localities for con-\nprograms in 1977 were estimated at $3.9-billion. The largest\nup $1.3-billion, and for energy, up almost $800-million.\nover 1975 funds.\nstruction of sewage plants. The EPA said that about $6-\nsingle item within this category was the civil water control\nPAGE 124-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 125\nEconomic Affairs 16\nEconomic Affairs 17\nand development projects of the Army Corps of Engineers,\nconstruction of facilities, to be offset by reductions in\ninto) for the Federal Highway Administration, for instance,\nfor which appropriations of $2.2-billion were requested,\ngrants for road construction and historic preservation proj-\nwhich regularly accounts for about half the transportation\nonly $50-million more than in 1976.\nects. The department said it was particularly pleased with\nbudget, would be reduced by $1.08-billion in fiscal 1977 un-\nConsumer Protection\nOther programs within this outlay total were those of\nthe requested increases of $20-million for park operations,\nder the administration's recommendation.\nthe Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation, for which\nnoting that the extra funds would help the park service cope\nWith Congress and the administration nearing agree-\nBudget requests for the government's consumer\nbudget authority of $760-million was sought; of the\nwith the expected bicentennial crowds. An extra 400\nment on a final omnibus railroad revitalization bill, the\nprotection activities in fiscal 1977 included increases\nAgriculture Department's soil conservation service, of the\npositions were budgeted for the park service staff.\nbudget contained substantial new funding for rail\nfor several agencies and a cut for one. The Federal\nTennessee Valley Authority, for which a total of $121-\nThe administration requested fiscal 1977 budget\nprograms. But spending for other programs, such as federal\nTrade Commission (FTC) and Food and Drug Ad-\nmillion in budget authority was requested, and of the\nauthority of $300-million for the Land and Water Conserva-\nhighway traffic safety and airport aid, would be held essen-\nministration (FDA) would get bigger budgets under the\nregional power administrations.\ntion Fund, a total slightly under the fiscal 1976 level. The\ntially to the fiscal 1976 levels. Moderate increases were\nadministration's proposal, while funds for the Con-\nThe administration proposed fiscal 1977 outlays of $1-\nfund provides grants to states and federal agencies for\nproposed for the Coast Guard and for the Office of the\nsumer Product Safety Commission would be reduced\nbillion for conservation and land management programs of\npurchase of recreation areas and wildlife refuges.\nTransportation Secretary, which conducts research and ad-\nslightly.\nthe federal government, about $306-million less than es-\nThe administration did not propose to appropriate\nministers programs that do not fit elsewhere in the Trans-\nThe administration requested $223.1-million in\ntimated fiscal 1976 outlays for the category. The bulk of the\nmoney for the Fish and Wildlife Service special fund for ac-\nportation Department.\nfiscal 1977 budget authority for the FDA, an increase\nconservation and land management programs are ad-\nquisition of land for migratory bird refuges. Congress had\nWhile placing a tight lid on spending on most transpor-\nof $15.3-million over estimated fiscal 1976\nministered by the Interior and Agriculture Departments.\nprovided $7.5-million in fiscal 1976 funds for the fund over\ntation programs, the budget recommended major changes\nappropriations for the agency, which is a division\nFor Interior's Bureau of Land Management, the ad-\nadministration objections. (1975 Weekly Report p. 2773)\nin financing, proposing to shift part of the burden for air-\nwithin the Department of Health, Education and\nministration requested $385-million in fiscal 1977 budget\nThe proposed fiscal 1977 budget for the Interior\nport and inland waterway maintenance from taxpayers to\nWelfare (HEW). That increase included an additional\nauthority. Increases over fiscal 1976 levels were proposed to\nDepartment also included:\nusers of those facilities.\n$7.3-million for regulation of drugs and devices. The\nfund an accelerated program of oil and gas leasing onshore\n$284.3-million in budget authority for the Geological\nTotal budget authority in fiscal 1977 would increase to\nagency had been beefing up its medical devices\nand on the Outer Continental Shelf. The department an-\nSurvey, an increase of $11.8-million over fiscal 1976.\n$11.7-billion, from $8.3-billion in fiscal 1976. The two\nprogram in anticipation of new legislation authorizing\nticipated fiscal 1977 revenues of $6-billion from the leases,\nIncreases would go to research and survey projects related\nfigures were not directly comparable, however, since the\nit for the first time to review these products before\ndouble the fiscal 1976 level. The funds would be disbursed to\nto energy, such as assessments of coal and uranium\ndepartment had not requested contract authority for some\nthey are marketed. (1975 Weekly Report p. 883)\nthe states and used for federal reclamation, range improve-\nresources.\nmajor programs in fiscal 1976; instead, it funded them with\nFor the FTC, the administration requested $52.8-\nment and similar programs.\n$90.1-million for the Mining Enforcement and Safety\ncontract authority carried over from previous years. A\nmillion in fiscal 1977 budget authority, an increase of\nFor the second year in a row, the administration did\nAdministration, an increase of $6.5-million over fiscal 1976.\nmore telling measure for comparison was estimated\n$5.7-million over estimated fiscal 1976 appropriations\nnot request any funds under the Agricultural Stabilization\nIncreases would include funds for the hiring of additional\nobligations-the amount of money the department would\nfor the agency. The major increase was to be used for\nand Conservation Service for the forestry incentives and\nmine inspectors to accommodate the growing number of\ncommit for projects in a fiscal year-which under the\nantitrust activities. The commission said these would\nthe water bank programs. In addition, rescissions were\ncoal mines and improve inspection of old mines. The ad-\nproposed budget would drop by more than $1-billion in\nfocus on encouraging competition in the energy; food\nproposed for the $25-million appropriated by Congress for\nministration requested fiscal 1977 budget authority of\nfiscal 1977, primarily because of a reduction in obligations\nand health care industries, \"which exhibit high con-\nthese two programs for fiscal 1976.\n$202.5-million for the Bureau of Mines, a net decrease of\nfor federal highway programs.\ncentration and rapid price rises.\"\nThe administration did include a request of $90-million\n$4.5-million from fiscal 1976. An increase of about $5-\nThe administration requested appropriations of\nfor a revision of the controversial agricultural conservation\nmillion was requested for research programs to improve\nFederal Highway Administration\n$4.2-million for the FTC's fiscal 1977 economic\nprogram, for which it requested no funds in fiscal 1976. The\ncoal mining and processing technology.\nNew budget authority for federal aid to highways un-\nprograms, a total comparable to the fiscal 1976 es-\nadministration planned to submit legislation eliminating\nder the proposed budget would jump to $6.5-billion in fiscal\ntimate. The commission said its most important activi-\npayments to farmers for carrying out farming practices\nAgriculture\n1977, from $3.08-billion in fiscal 1976. The increase was ac-\nty in this area would continue to be its \"line-of-\nwhich are a normal part of their operations.\ncounted for by the fact that the department had requested\nbusiness\" survey, begun in 1974 in an attempt to\nBudget requests for the Agriculture Department's Soil\ncontract authority for only the Interstate Highway System\nanalyze industry profits by product. Underlining the\nConservation Service were down $26.3-million for fiscal\nAlthough total funds requested by the Department of\nin fiscal 1976, funding other highway programs with\ncontroversial nature of the project, the budget request\n1977 for a total of $401.5-million. (The department in-\nAgriculture for fiscal 1977 were $11.8-billion, down from\npreviously existing authority.\nstipulated that no funds could be used to pay salaries of\ncluded in its 1976 totals $53-million in unbudgeted disaster\n$14.7-billion for fiscal 1976, division of the budget into func-\nObligations for federal highway programs, however,\nFTC employees who violated strict limits on the use\nrelief funds.) The major decrease in this area was $15.2-\ntions resulted in an agriculture program budget of only\nwould fall in fiscal 1977 by $690-million from the previous\nand disclosure of the information gathered.\nmillion for the Great Plains conservation program. No\n$2.3-billion, down from $4.1-billion in fiscal 1976. Food\nyear's level. The administration justified the reduction,\nThe administration requested $18.7-million in\nfunds were requested to enter into new contracts and the\nprograms accounted for about two-thirds of the\nwhich included a cutback of $1.2-billion in interstate\nfiscal 1977 appropriations for the FTC's consumer\nadministration indicated that the Great Plains program\ndepartment's spending. (Food programs, p. 135)\nhighway construction funds, on the ground that highway\nprotection activities, a slight decrease from estimated\nwould be part of the proposed legislation reforming the\nThe largest agriculture program drop was for funds for\nconstruction the previous two years had been pushed\nfiscal 1976 appropriations.\nagricultural conservation program. Soil Conservation Ser-\nthe Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Only $944-\ndeliberately to \"unusually high levels\" to stimulate the\nThe Consumer Product Safety Commission, an in-\nvice funds requested for watershed and flood prevention\nmillion was requested by the department for fiscal 1977, as\neconomy.\ndependent agency that establishes and enforces safety\noperations were $11.1-million less than fiscal 1976, with no\ncompared to $2.8-billion for fiscal 1976. CCC outlays were\nIn proposing new budget authority for federal highway\nstandards for commercial products, did not fare as well\nnew construction starts budgeted for fiscal 1977.\nexpected to decline because of a reduction in short-term ex-\naid of $6.5-billion for fiscal 1977, the administration\nin the administration's fiscal 1977 budget request.\nThe administration requested $42-million more in\nport credit needs and lower commodity loan costs. A 15 per\nwithdrew its proposal to turn over $1-billion in revenues\nAppropriations of $37-million were requested for the\nfunds for the Agriculture Department's Forest Service\ncent reduction in flue-cured tobacco marketing quotas was\nfrom the Highway Trust Fund to the states. In 1975 Presi-\ncommission, down $4.8-million from estimated fiscal\nnational resource programs than in fiscal 1976. According\nexpected to reduce tobacco price support loans by $255-\ndent Ford had submitted legislation to use monies from the\n1976 appropriations. The reductions, which would be\nto the department, the 1977 budget reflected the first\nmillion. However, direct payments to farmers were ex-\ntrust fund, which is financed by highway user taxes and\nspread relatively evenly among the agency's programs,\nattempt to meet the long-range planning requirements un-\npected to rise $11-million, largely due to increased dis-\nsupports all federal highway programs, only for interstate\nwere made because there were \"substantial\" funding\nder the Forest and Range Renewable Resources Planning\naster payments.\nhighway construction and to allow states to pre-empt part\nincreases in 1975, the administration said.\nAct of 1974. Of the $42-million increase in Forest Service\nof the user taxes for other highway needs. Both the House\nAmong other government consumer programs, the\nfunds, $30-million would be for recreation, wildlife,\nand the Senate in 1975 passed highway legislation rejecting\nadministration requested $1.6-million for HEW's Of-\nrangeland management and other programs.\nCommerce/Transportation\nthat plan, however, prompting Ford to drop it for the time\nfice of Consumer Affairs, a figure comparable to the\nThe administration proposed fiscal 1977 outlays of\nbeing and recommend in the new budget a continuation of\nestimated fiscal 1976 appropriations. The office is\n$959-million for federal programs dealing with recreation,\nAlthough the administration's $11.7-billion budget re-\nthe existing program.\nheaded by Virginia H. Knauer, special assistant to the\nan increase of $59-million over fiscal 1976 estimates. Most\nquest for fiscal 1977 Transportation Department programs\nPresident on consumer affairs. The General Services\nof these programs are run by the Interior Department.\nrepresented a substantial increase over the $8.3-billion\nFederal Aviation Administration\nAdministration requested $1.1-million for its Con-\nFor the National Park Service, the budget proposed\nbudgeted the previous year, the transportation budget as a\nsumer Information Center, which publishes and dis-\nfiscal 1977 budget authority of $340.9-million. This included\nwhole reflected President Ford's determination to hold\nThe administration recommended $2.4-billion in\ntributes documents on federal consumer services.\nincreases over fiscal 1976 totals for park operations and\ndown federal spending. Obligations (new contracts entered\nbudget authority for the Federal Aviation Administration\nPAGE 126-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 127\nEconomic Affairs 18\nEconomic Affairs 19\n(FAA) in fiscal 1977, an increase of $99-million over the\nuse the federally maintained inland waterways for com-\nprevious year. The slightly higher level was accounted for\nmercial transportation. Noting that water carriers were the\nprimarily by proposed increased spending for air traffic\nonly major commercial transporters who did not have to\nHousing: Continuation of Existing Programs\ncontrol and air navigation, reflecting growing national con-\npay user costs, Transportation Department officials said\ncern over the rash of aircraft near-collisions in 1975. Budget\nthe legislation would recover $80-million of the $300-million\nThe administration proposed no major new efforts\nHUD estimated that federal payments for the\nauthority for federal aid to airports would remain at the\ncost of waterway maintenance in fiscal 1977.\nin the housing areas, asking instead for continued and\noperation of existing public and other subsidized housing\n$350-million provided in fiscal 1976.\nfairly steady funding for existing programs. In all, the\nprograms would reach $3-billion in fiscal 1977, up about\nTo correct what it said were inequities in federal avia-\nTransportation Regulatory Agencies\nDepartment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)\n$750-million from fiscal 1976. Under the provisions of\ntion program funding, the administration proposed legisla-\nTo promote modernization and streamlining of trans-\nestimated that it would approve federal subsidies for\nthe 1974 budget reform act, however, this amount did\ntion to place a greater share of the funding burden on users\nportation regulation, the budget provided increases in the\nabout 506,000 units of housing in fiscal 1977, about 50,-\nnot show up as a line item in the budget because it con-\nof air facilities. Where currently the FAA's operation and\noperational authority of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)\n000 less than it planned to approve in fiscal 1976 and the\nstituted appropriations to liquidate previously approved\nmaintenance of FAA air traffic control and navigation ser-\nand the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The\ntransition quarter between the two fiscal years.\ncontract authority.\nvices are paid two-thirds from general revenues and one-\nproposed $21.7-million budget authority for the CAB-$1.8-\nHUD said it would ask Congress to approve $850-\nAnother program (Section 202) excluded from the\nthird from such user taxes as an 8 per cent airline ticket\nmillion more than in fiscal 1976-would permit new hiring\nmillion in new contract authority for the rental subsidy\nbudget totals by law would provide up to $375-million in\ntax, the proposed legislation would change the ratio to 50-\nand provide for new emphasis on cutting procedural delays,\nprogram (Section 8) for lower-income families created by\nfiscal 1977 for loans to developers of low-cost subsidized\n50.\nchanging rate-making criteria and analysis of agency pol-\nthe 1974 housing act (PL 93-383). When combined with\nhousing for the elderly and handicapped. The fiscal 1976\nicy. Similar reform initiatives would be promoted through\nauthority carried over from fiscal 1976, this amount\nloan limit also was $375-million.\nRailroads\n$54.7-million in ICC budget authority, although staff would\nwould allow HUD to reserve contracts to subsidize rents\nArguing that the housing industry would continue\nExcluding appropriations for one-time obligations in\nbe reduced under the proposal. The fiscal 1976 ICC budget\non about 400,000 units of housing. About 165,000 of these\nto recover gradually from a slump that began in mid-\nfiscal 1976, budget authority for railroad programs in fiscal\nauthority had been $50.8-million.\nunits would be in existing housing.\n1973, the administration proposed no extension of a 1975\n1977 would increase over last year's level by $165-million.\nBecause contracts for the subsidized rental\nemergency housing program indirectly subsidizing\nMost of the added spending would go to finance upgrad-\nPostal Service\nprograms ran for 15 to 40 years, the requested contract\nmortgage interest rates. The program will expire July 1.\ning of passenger service in the Northeast corridor from\nFor mail delivery, subsidized mail and personnel costs\nauthority would translate into total budget authority to\nThe 1975 act (PL 94-50) allowed HUD to buy up to\nWashington to Boston ($125-million) and to subsidize light-\nof the U.S. Postal Service, the administration proposed\nspend about $16.6-billion. These funds were included in\n$10-billion in mortgages at subsidized interest rates. On\ndensity freight lines that were not included in the new\n$1.5-billion in new budget authority for fiscal 1977, a reduc-\nthe budget under the functional category of income\nJan. 6, HUD agreed to release $3-billion of $5-billion\nConrail system ($70-million). Start-up funds for Conrail,\ntion of $128-million from the previous fiscal year. The Of-\nsecurity.\nappropriated by Congress for the program for purchases\nthe quasi-governmental system that in 1976 was to take\nfice of Management and Budget rejected a Postal Service\nUsing money remaining from $264-million in\nof federally insured, multi-family housing. The budget\nover operations of seven bankrupt lines, would be\nrequest for $307-million to continue subsidizing the mailing\navailable funds for a homeownership subsidy program\nindicated that HUD would decide whether to release\nauthorized in the pending omnibus rail legislation and\ncosts of magazines, newspapers and other publications, say-\n(Section 235) it released in October 1975, HUD also\nremaining funds \"should economic conditions\nappropriated in a later measure.\ning those costs would have to be absorbed through higher\nplanned to subsidize mortgage payments for about 100,-\ndeteriorate to the point where the housing industry is\nThe administration recommended $483.7-million in\n000 moderate-income families in fiscal 1977. The ad-\nrates. Because the Postal Service is an independent cor-\nseverely affected.\"\noperating and capital subsidies for the National Railroad\nporation, its subsidy was treated as an off-budget item and\nministration did not ask for any additional funding\nThe administration asked for budget authority of\nPassenger Corporation (Amtrak), but, in a recommendation\nwas not reflected in the administration's total budget\nauthority to continue the program after available funds\n$975.5-million in fiscal 1977 to finance the operation of\ncertain to be controversial, called for a $378-million ceiling\nfigures.\nwere exhausted. HUD also proposed to keep rent supple-\nhousing insurance programs run by the Federal Housing\non operating grants. Although the total represented an in-\nment and rental subsidy (Section 236) programs\nAdministration (included in the budget under the func-\ncrease of $43.7-million over fiscal 1976, the administration\nsuspended in early 1973 in a dormant state. (Funds\ntional category of commerce and transportation).\npointed out that operating grants would not be enough to\nCommunity and\nreleased, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2259)\nIn other housing activities, HUD requested $15.8-\nmeet estimated costs and said Amtrak would have to weed\nout its most inefficient routes.\nRegional Development\nThe only other proposed program that would\nmillion to continue an experimental program providing\nprovide any new housing assistance in fiscal 1977 would\ncash housing allowances to the poor. The total request\nsubsidize production of 6,000 units of conventional\nfor all research and policy development programs (in the\nUrban Mass Transportation Administration\nProposing to channel most of the extra money to\npublic housing for Indians.\nfunctional budget category of community and regional\nmetropolitan areas, the Department of Housing and Urban\nSince contract authority for mass transportation\nThe department also indicated that it would propose\ndevelopment) was $71-million. HUD also indicated that\nDevelopment (HUD) asked for a $450-million increase for\nprograms had been authorized in previous legislation\nlegislation allowing it to compute tenant income the\nit would continue a moratorium on new commitments\nthe community development block grant program created\nthrough fiscal 1980, the administration proposed no new\nsame way in both the Section 8 programs and conven-\nunder the new communities program subsidizing\nby Congress in 1974. HUD requested a total of $3.25-billion\nbudget authority. For mass transportation capital and\ntional low-income public housing programs.\ndevelopment of model towns.\nfor the program in fiscal 1977.\noperating expenses authorized under the earlier legislation,\nCommunities used the funds to carry out activities\nthe budget estimated total obligations at $2.5-billion, in-\nfunded before 1974 under categorical programs like urban\ncluding $575-million in funds expected to be transferred by\nrenewal. HUD estimated that $2.5-billion of the requested\nCommunity Services Administration\nfunding costs for state and local governments. (1975 Weekly\ncities from their accounts for interstate highway projects.\nfiscal 1977 would be distributed to metropolitan areas and\nThe administration proposed to kill recreation and food\nReport p. 2595)\nAppropriations to liquidate the contract authority would\n$578-million would go to rural areas. The administration\nprograms for the poor established by the Office of\nThe budget requested $93.9-million for volunteer\nhave to be acted on as the obligations became due.\nasked for another $100-million to make special grants to\nEconomic Opportunity (OEO), arguing that they duplicated\nprograms serving the needy run by ACTION, a $7.5-million\nTo promote long-term capital investment and to limit\ncommunities having trouble meeting urgent development\nother federal efforts. In all, requested funding for the Com-\nreduction.\nspending, the administration proposed that the amount of\nneeds.\nmunity Services Administration, which took over OEO\nmass transit funds that localities could use for operating\nFollowing congressional directions, HUD planned to\nprograms in 1974, dropped to $334-million, a $92-million\nOther Development Programs\nexpenses be limited to 50 per cent. Administration officials\nset aside about $200-million for the total amount for grants\nreduction in fiscal 1976 funding requested by the ad-\nThe administration requested almost $249-million for\ncharged that transit operators had abused the 1974 law per-\nto small towns within metropolitan areas that received\nministration and about $160-million less than Congress\nthe Economic Development Administration, the bureau\nmitting them to use mass transit money for operating ex-\nlittle funding during the first year of the program because\napproved in an appropriations bill (HR 8069) for the\nwithin the Department of Commerce that coordinated\npenses. Up to 90 per cent of funds primarily intended for\nof higher-priority requests from urban counties.\nprogram vetoed by the President in late 1975.\ndevelopment in economically depressed areas of the\ncapital needs had been diverted to run existing systems, ac-\nIn a move likely to face opposition in Congress, HUD\nBecause existing law required state and local sources to\ncountry. The amount was about $136-million less than the\ncording to the administration. The change would require\nalso proposed to reduce funding for comprehensive plan-\npick up a larger share of program costs in fiscal 1977, the\namount appropriated in fiscal 1976. The administration\nlegislation and was expected to meet stiff resistance.\nning of community development activities to $25-million\nadministration proposed to cut funding for basic local com-\nsaid the cut reflected \"primarily the need for budget\nfrom $75-million in fiscal 1976. It also proposed to end a\nmunity action programs for the poor to about $260-million,\nrestraint and recognition that although each project helps\nWaterways\nloan program (Section 312) for the rehabilitation of urban\nabout $100-million less than funding obligated for the\nthe particular community that receives it..., the program\nThe administration said it was preparing legislation to\nhousing. The administration argued that block grant funds\nprograms in fiscal 1976. The House passed legislation (HR\nwill have limited effect in stimulating long-term economic\nimpose user charges on water barges and other carriers who\nwere available for these activities.\n8578) on Nov. 19, 1975, that would block the increase in\ndevelopment\nPAGE 128-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 129\nEconomic Affairs 20\nEconomic Affairs 21\nThe proposed cut runs counter to the sentiment ex-\nnation as a whole must contribute to the national commit-\nthe fiscal 1976 appropriation and almost $150-million over\nEMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING\npressed by Congress in a bill (HR 5247) awaiting final ac-\nment to provide equal education opportunity.\"\nthe $101.7-million Ford requested in fiscal 1976. The entire\ntion which would step up funding for a working capital\nThe 27 programs were grouped under four main\nincrease would go for technical assistance to schools im-\nThe fiscal 1977 budget requests for the Department of\nloan program administered by the administration and set\nheadings: education to the disadvantaged, education for the\nplementing desegregation plans.\nLabor totaled $11.1-billion, including a $5-billion advance\nup a demonstration program giving economic development\nhandicapped, vocational education and library resources.\naid to cities. (1975 Weekly Report p. 2793)\nOther Programs\nfrom general revenues to the unemployment trust fund ac-\nAlthough the legislative proposal had not been finalized,\ncounts. A similar $5-billion appropriation was made in\nUnder the Farmers Home Administration, the ad-\nthe Office of Education said the funds would be allocated to\nAs he had in 1975, Ford again asked for termination of\nfiscal 1976 to provide loans to states that exhausted their\nministration did not request fiscal 1977 funds for rural\nthe states on a formula basis that would ensure that they\nthe drug abuse education and environmental education\nown unemployment fund reserves, to help pay extended\nwater and sewer grants, rural development grants or rural\nwould receive no less money in fiscal 1977 than in fiscal\nprograms. He also requested cuts in aid for bilingual\nbenefits to persons permanently covered under the system\ncommunity fire protection grants. In addition, a rescission\n1976. Three-fourths of the money would have to be spent on\neducation, Right to Read, Followthrough and educational\nwas requested for $125-million in fiscal 1976 water and\neducation programs to aid the economically disadvantaged\nbroadcasting facilities.\nand to pay benefits to those persons only temporarily\ncovered under legislation passed in 1974 (PL 93-567).\nsewer grants.\nand the handicapped. Three-fourths of the money also\nStudent Assistance\nThe administration estimated that the national un-\nwould have to be passed through to the local school dis-\nThe budget request again emphasized the ad-\nemployment rate for fiscal 1976 would average 8.1 per cent\nDisaster Assistance\ntricts. Office of Education officials said they hoped to sub-\nministration's determination to place reliance for student\nand that unemployment compensation outlays in the fiscal\nThe budget asked for a $100-million appropriation in\nmit consolidation legislation to Congress by Feb. 1.\nassistance on the basic educational opportunities program\nyear would be $18.4-billion. In fiscal 1977, the average un-\nfiscal 1977 for disaster relief assistance, down $50-million\nLine item requests for the programs folded into the\n(BEOG), the college work-study program and the\nemployment rate was estimated at 7.1 per cent with outlays\nfrom fiscal 1976. HUD also asked for $100-million in fiscal\nblock grant, submitted in the event that Congress did not\nprojected at $15.9-billion.\n1977 to carry out studies and surveys needed to implement\napprove the consolidation, totaled $3,037,000,000-$260-\nguaranteed student loan program. As in previous years the\nBecause the administration was supporting legislation\nmillion less than the amount appropriated for the same 27\nadministration requested no funds for the supplemental op-\nthe national flood insurance program.\nit proposed in 1975 reforming the jobless benefit system, it\nprograms in fiscal 1976. If the consolidation were enacted,\nportunity grant program or for capital contributions to the\ndid not ask for an extension of either PL 93-567 or a second\nthe administration would request another $263-million to\nnational direct student loan program. It also asked that\nIndian Programs\nbill that awarded a total of 65 weeks of benefits to un-\nbe distributed to the states. Among the line items, the ad-\nfiscal 1976 appropriations for the two programs be\nThe administration requested $32.9-million in new\nrescinded.\nemployed workers in areas with extremely high jobless\nministration requested a $150-million cut in aid to the dis-\nrates. Both laws were scheduled to expire at the end of 1976.\nfunds to implement the Indian Self Determination Act (PL\nadvantaged and a discontinuation of aid to public and\nFor the BEOG program, the administration requested\n$1.1-billion for grants to almost 1,300,000 students in the\n(Jobless benefit reform legislation, Weekly Report p. 45)\n93-638), which took effect in 1975 and would become fully\ncollege libraries.\noperational in fiscal 1977. The money would be used to help\nThe budget also requested an additional $539-million\n1977-78 school year. The average grant was expected to be\nPublic Service Jobs\nstrengthen tribal governments so they could assume\n$854.\nappropriation for vocational education so that the program\nresponsibility for many Indian programs administered by\nwould be forward funded-that is, the appropriation would\nFor college work study, the administration requested\nThe administration requested a supplemental\nthe Bureau of Indian Affairs.\nbe made in one year but not actually obligated until the\n$250-million, compared to $509.8-million available in fiscal\nappropriation of $1.7-billion in fiscal 1976 to maintain\nThe administration also proposed doubling the funds\n1976. The appropriation had been increased in fiscal 1976 to\nabout 260,000 temporary public service jobs (also\nfollowing year. Most education programs were forward\navailable for the Indian Loan Guaranty program in fiscal\nhelp students affected by the nation's economic downturn,\nauthorized under PL 93-567) through the end of 1976 and to\nfunded to give school administrators an opportunity to\n1977-to $20-million. But it proposed deferring until fiscal\nbut the fiscal 1977 request was still $50-million lower than\nbegin a phase-out of that program in January 1977 that\nwork federal aid into their school budgets.\n1978 further spending on public school construction grants\nthe fiscal 1975 appropriation.\nwould be completed by October 1977.\nIt would appear that Congress would not approve the\nfor Indian areas.\nconsolidation in 1976. It was very cool to a Nixon ad-\nFord also proposed that the federal share of wages paid\nThe Labor Department said the phase-out was \"consis-\nunder the program be dropped to 70 per cent, from 80 per\ntent with general expectations as to the pace and direction\nministration education revenue sharing proposal and Office\nof Education officials acknowledged that Ford's proposed\ncent, in fiscal 1977 and to 50 per cent by fiscal 1979.\nof economic recovery,\" but it was likely to be unpopular\nEducation/Labor/Social Services\nFor interest subsidies on the guaranteed student loan\nwith congressional Democrats who were poised to push\nconsolidation was a larger version of that earlier program.\nFurthermore, Congress will be involved in extending\nprogram, the administration requested $400-million.\nlegislation extending the temporary public service jobs\nand amending higher education programs which expire\nAnother $52-million would be available from unused fiscal\nprogram.\nEDUCATION\n1975-76 funds. Ford said he would propose legislation rais-\nUnder the Ford phase-out proposal, most of the funds\nJune 30. Although authorizations for some library aid and\ning the maximum interest rate on guaranteed student loans\nwould be concentrated in areas where the jobless rate was\nPresident Ford's budget requests for federal education\nfor vocational education assistance also expire June 30,\nto 11 per cent, from 10 per cent, and the interest the student\nabove 6.5 per cent. The federal contribution toward a public\nprograms totaled $6,916,000,000. If the fiscal 1976\nCongress was unlikely to review the entire gamut of federal\nappropriations were adjusted downward by the $1.3-billion\neducation aid in a single legislative session.\nmust pay on a subsidized loan to 8 per cent, from 7 per cent.\nservice employee's salary would be limited to $7,000, com-\nBecause of money left over from previous fiscal years,\npared to the existing $10,000 limit.\nhe also requested in rescissions, that $6.9-billion figure\nImpact Aid\nthe administration requested no additional funds to pay for\nIn fiscal 1976, Ford agreed to a $1.6-billion appropria-\nwould be $465-million more than the funds available in\nstudent defaults on loans. The Office of Education said it\ntion for 260,000 temporary public jobs slots after vetoing a\nfiscal 1976.\nOnce again Ford proposed a revision of the impact aid\nexpected default claims to total $142-million in 1977, com-\nbill that contained that appropriation and funding for\nHowever, if the rescissions were not enacted-and few\nprogram that would provide payments to school districts\npared to $132-million in 1976. It also said that 200 ad-\nseveral other job-creating programs. Also available was\nobservers believe they would be-the fiscal 1977 request\nonly in behalf of those students whose parents both lived\nditional positions would be opened in 1977 to monitor the\n$400-million for Title II of the Comprehensive Employment\nwas about $500-million less than the fiscal 1976\nand worked on federal property. Payments would not be\nstudent loan and other student assistance programs to\nand Training Act (CETA), the permanent public service\nappropriation. Further, if additional funding for the educa-\nmade for students whose parents worked for the federal\nreduce abuses.\njobs program designed to serve as a transition between\ntion program consolidation and for forward funding of\ngovernment but lived on private property or in public\ntraining and permanent employment.\nvocational education were not included, the fiscal 1977 re-\nhousing, categories which were eligible for the payments\nInstitutional Aid\nIn fiscal 1977, Ford again requested $400-million for\nquest would be $1.3-billion below the fiscal 1976 appropria-\nunder existing law. The program was designed to lessen the\nThe administration requested funding for only three\nthat program. He also asked for $1.6-billion for training\ntion and about the same amount as requested in fiscal 1976.\nimpact of the federal government's presence in a com-\ninstitutional aid programs: developing institutions ($110-\nassistance, the same amount requested in fiscal 1976.\nmunity.\nmillion), language training and area studies ($10-million)\nCongress appropriated that amount but Ford vetoed the\nEducation Block Grants\nIn line with that proposal, Ford requested only $325-\nand cooperative education ($8-million). No requests were\nLabor-HEW appropriations bill (HR 8009) as too expensive;\nAlmost half of the total education request-$3.3-\nmillion for impact aid, compared to the $680-million\nmade for aid to land-grant colleges, university community\nthe House has scheduled an override vote for Jan. 27.\nbillion-was earmarked for Ford's major proposal to con-\nappropriated in fiscal 1976. Although every President since\nservices, veterans cost-of-instruction payments or state\nMeanwhile, labor, health and welfare programs were being\nsolidate 27 categorical grant elementary and secondary\nTruman had attempted to cut back impact aid, Congress\npostsecondary education commissions.\nfunded under a continuing appropriations resolution.\neducation programs into one single block grant to the\nhad insisted that it continue. The program affects almost\nstates. The third of a troika of consolidations which in-\nevery school district in the nation.\nNational Institute of Education\nSummer Jobs\ncluded health and nutrition programs, the education con-\nThe administration requested $90-million for the\nThe administration said it would request supplemental\nsolidation, in the words of Virginia Y. Trotter, assistant\nEmergency School Aid\nNational Institute of Education, the basic federal education\nfiscal 1976 and fiscal 1977 funds for summer youth jobs as\nsecretary of health, education and welfare (HEW) for\nFord requested $249.7-million for emergency school aid\nresearch arm. The institute had a $70-million appropriation\nsoon as projection figures became available. It estimated\neducation, represented the administration's belief that \"the\nto desegregating school systems, an $8-million increase over\nin fiscal 1976.\nthat the fiscal 1976 request would be $440,300,000 to fund\nPAGE 130-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 131\nEconomic Affairs 22\nEconomic Affairs 23\nsome 740,000 nine-week part-time jobs for youngsters aged\nUnder existing law, states must pay 25 per cent of the\nvenereal disease prevention, immunization, rat control,\nThe administration estimated that the fiscal 1977 cost\n14 to 21 and that the fiscal 1977 request would be $400-mil-\ncost of social services programs supported by federal funds\nlead-based paint poisoning prevention, developmental dis-\nof the program to protect Medicare beneficiaries against the\nlion for 672,000 jobs. For the summer of 1975, Congress\nand observe restrictions on the use of funds. Funded ac-\nabilities, health planning, medical facilities construction,\ncost of a \"catastrophic\" illness would be $538-million. But\nappropriated $473,350,000 for 840,000 jobs. The administra-\ntivities also must comply with federal rules for program\ncommunity health centers for the poor, maternal and child\nthe new cost-sharing proposals would reduce expected\ntion said its fiscal 1976 request was \"approximately\noperation. The block grant proposal would eliminate the\nhealth, family planning, migrant health, emergency\nMedicare spending by $1.86-billion. In a move certain to\nequivalent\" to the 1975 level, \"allowing for an improvement\nmatching requirement and drop most of the federal restric-\nmedical services and general health services grants to the\narouse the opposition of the medical community, the\nin the unemployment rate for youth.\"\ntions on use of funds. But states still would have to target\nstates.\nproposal also would restrict annual increases in bills reim-\nmost of the assistance on families with incomes below the\nThe Department of Health, Education and Welfare\nbursed under Medicare to 7 per cent for hospitals and 4 per\nWork Incentive Program\npoverty line.\n(HEW) spent about $1.27-billion on the 15 categorical\ncent for physicians. This move would save $909-million in\nThe administration promised to propose a major\nprograms in fiscal 1975, so over-all federal funding\nfiscal 1977.\nredirection in the Work Incentive Program (WIN), managed\nOther Assistance Programs\navailable in previous years for these programs would be\nIf approved, the proposal would cut $2.2-billion from\njointly by the Departments of Labor and HEW. That\nThe budget requested a $40-million increase over fiscal\nreduced.\nestimated outlays of $21.9-billion for Medicare in fiscal\nproposal would eliminate job training for employable\n1976 funding of $736-million for rehabilitation programs\nThe proposal also would drop rules for the existing\n1977. Spending for Medicare in fiscal 1976 was expected to\nrecipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children\nfor the handicapped. Funding proposed for programs serv-\nprograms that required state and local governments to\nreach $17.7-billion.\n(AFDC) and would shift the focus of the program entirely\ning children and the elderly would remain relatively stable.\nmatch some federal funds with their own money, so total\nBut congressional approval was unlikely. Congress did\nto placing such persons in jobs. WIN participants needing\nspending on the programs also could drop.\nnot even consider similar cost-sharing proposals first\njob training would be referred to the appropriate CETA\nHEW would distribute the funds according to a for-\nHealth\npromoted by former President Nixon in early 1973. Ford\nmula giving the most weight to a state's low-income pop-\nprogram.\nulation. No state would lose funds in fiscal 1977 and the for-\ntried in 1975 to couple the cost-sharing proposal with a\nTo ensure a smooth transition, the administration re-\n\"catastrophic\" plan similar to the one proposed in the fiscal\nquested $315-million for the existing program, compared to\nIn keeping with his general budget goals, President\nmula would be phased in, but eventually the proposal would\n1977 budget, but Congress again showed no interest in the\n$400-million in actual and pending fiscal 1976\nFord opposed immediate action on national health in-\nreduce funding to some northern, wealthier states and in-\nidea.\nappropriations. If legislation enacting the proposal were\nsurance legislation and asked Congress to approve a\ncrease funding to poorer states.\npassed, the administration said it would request that the\nproposal to consolidate 16 health programs including\nIn general, states would be free to spend the money\n$315-million be reduced by $55-million to reflect the\nMedicaid into a state-run block grant program. Ford also\nas they wished, but they would have to devote at least 90\nHealth Research\nelimination of job training services.\nproposed to protect elderly Medicare patients against the\nper cent of the funds to activities financed under Med-\nThe administration requested budget authority of\ncost of a long-term illness, but asked them to pay a larger\nicaid and the 15 existing programs.\n$2.16-billion in fiscal 1977 for the National Institutes of\nOccupational Safety and Health\nshare of bills for short-term care.\nThey also must spend at least 5 per cent of the fed-\nHealth, HEW's biomedical research arm. The proposed\nExcluding Medicare and Medicaid, the administration\neral funds on community-based health services and pro-\nThe administration asked for $127,970,000 for the Oc-\nfunding was about $185-million above the administration's\nrequested $4.96-billion for health programs in fiscal 1977.\ngrams aiding the developmentally disabled, including the\ncupational Safety and Health Administration. An\nbudget request for the institutes in fiscal 1976, but only\nThis amount was $222-million above the President's fiscal\nmentally retarded.\nslightly above the fiscal 1975 funding level.\nappropriation of $116,221,000 was pending in the vetoed\n1976 budget request for health, but $432-million below\nCommunity-based drug abuse treatment and preven-\nLabor-HEW bill. The request increased funding for health\nFor the first time in many years, the budget did not\nfiscal 1975 funding. The fiscal 1976 health appropriations\ntion programs were excluded from the block grant proposal,\nstandards development and enforcement by $2-million,\npropose a major increase in funding for the National Cancer\nbill (HR 8069) vetoed by the President in December 1975\nprimarily because continued federal control would allow\nreflecting, the Labor Department said, \"a growing national\nInstitute. Requested funding would keep the cancer\nalso increased some of the administration's budget re-\nthe administration to coordinate these efforts with\nresearch program relatively stable. The administration\nconcern with occupational health programs.\" The request\nquests. An override attempt was scheduled for Jan. 27.\nproposed changes in drug enforcement activities.\nalso contained $19.7-million for educational and consulta-\nasked for a $38-million increase in the fiscal 1976 budget re-\n(1975 Weekly Report p. 2732)\nHEW also would continue to run programs aiding\ntion services, a $7-million increase over the pending fiscal\nquest for the National Heart and Lung Institute and\ndevelopment of health maintenance organizations (HMOs),\n1976 appropriation.\nsmaller across-the-board boosts in funding for the other\nNational Health Insurance\nat a requested spending level of about $20-million in fiscal\nresearch institutes.\nOlder Americans Employment\nDashing already dim prospects for creation of a health\n1977.\ninsurance program in 1976, Ford argued in his Jan. 19 State\nCongress was likely to oppose the proposal, given the\nHealth Manpower\nAs he had the previous year, Ford requested no funds\nof the Union message that \"we cannot realistically afford\npolitical popularity of and lobby support for the various\nfor Community Service Employment for Older Americans.\ncategorical programs. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D Mass.),\nIn line with health manpower legislation (S 2748) it\nfederally dictated national health insurance providing full\nCongress appropriated $30-million for the program in fiscal\ncoverage for all 215 million Americans.\" (Prospects, Weekly\nchairman of the Labor and Public Welfare Health Subcom-\nproposed in late 1975, the administration requested cut-\n1976.\nReport p. 103)\nmittee, called the plan \"ill-conceived, ill-advised and un-\nbacks in funding for assistance to medical schools and\nLeaving himself some leeway in an election year,\nworkable.\" Congress may not even consider the proposal in\nstudents in the health professions. The proposed manpower\nJob Opportunities\nhowever, Ford did not rule out future support for some sort\n1976, because it completed action in 1975 on legislation (PL\nprogram would provide $120-million for basic support to\nThe President asked for termination of the Job Oppor-\n94-63) overhauling and extending many of the programs in-\nmedical and dental schools that agreed to set aside 20 per\nof national health insurance. do envision the day when\ntunities program enacted in 1974 to channel federal funds\ncluded in the block grant plan. (1975 Weekly Report p. 1668)\ncent of the positions in their 1978-79 first-year class for\nwe may use the private health insurance system to offer\nstudents who agreed voluntarily to practice in areas with\nquickly to labor-intensive public works projects. Ford had\nmore middle-income families high quality health services at\nphysician shortages.\nopposed the program since its inception. In fiscal 1976,\nprices they can afford and shield them also from\nMedicare\nThe budget requested another $128-million for special\n$374-million was available for the program. Pending in\ncatastrophic illness,\" he said. (Text, p. 144)\nFord proposed to limit out-of-pocket payments under\nprojects in the health manpower area, $36-million for aid to\nCongress was a bill (HR 5247) to extend the program, which\nMedicare to $500 per benefit period for hospital costs and\nnursing students and $35-million for scholarships for\nexpired at the end of 1975, through the end of September\nHealth Block Grant Program\n$250 per year for physician services. But in exchange, he\nstudents agreeing to practice in medically underserved\n1976 and to authorize $500-million for its operation. (1975\nArguing that many health programs overlapped,\nasked the elderly to pay more for initial coverage under\nareas.\nWeekly Report p. 2792)\ndivided health dollars unevenly among the states and\nMedicare.\nThe proposal would eliminate any federal support for\nprevented states from setting their own funding priorities,\nThe proposal would require Medicare patients to pay\nthe construction of medical teaching facilities.\nSOCIAL SERVICES\nthe administration proposed to give the states block grants\n$104 for their first day of hospital care and 10 per cent of\nIn a move to loosen federal control of tax dollars, the\nto replace spending on Medicaid and 15 smaller categorical\nthe costs for each succeeding day up to the $500 limit.\nPublic Health Service Hospitals\nadministration proposed to replace social services programs\nhealth programs.\nUnder existing law, patients paid the $104 for the first day\nSetting the stage for another battle with Congress, the\nfor welfare recipients and lower-income families with a\nThe budget requested $10-billion for the block grant\nand nothing for the second through 60th day of care. The\nadministration proposed legislation that would allow it to\n$2.5-billion block grant program run by the states. The ex-\nprogram in fiscal 1977. If it had not proposed the new\nproposal also would boost the initial deductible under the\nshut down or transfer control of eight Public Health Service\nisting programs, expected to cost the federal government\nprogram, the administration indicated that it would have\npart of the Medicare program covering physician services to\n(PHS) hospitals primarily serving merchant seamen.\n$2.3-billion in fiscal 1976, provided training for those ad-\nrequested funding of $9.3-billion for Medicaid and about\n$77 from $60 and then require patients to pay 10 per cent of\nPresident Nixon lost a bid to close the hospitals in 1973\nministering welfare programs, and day care and other ser-\n$900-million for the other 15 programs: community mental\nbills for hospital-based physician care and home health ser-\nafter Congress blocked a similar proposal. (1973 Almanac p.\nvices for the poor.\nhealth centers, alcoholism and alcohol abuse prevention,\nvices up to the $250 limit.\n494)\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nPAGE 132-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 133\nEconomic Affairs 24\nEconomic Affairs 25\nIncome Security\nreceive aid under federal student assistance programs, the\nAs an intermediate step, the administration proposed\nstates, with the intention of reducing program overlap and\nadministration said.\nan Income Assistance Simplification Act. The legislation\neliminating aid to non-needy children. Although legislation\nSocial Security\nTo balance the long-term deficit projected for the\nwould give the administration the authority to change\nhad not yet been forwarded to Congress, the budget request\nSocial Security system, the administration said it would\neligibility requirements, income computation rules, benefit\nfor the revised block grant program was $2-billion, com-\nHeeding warnings that the Social Security system\nalso propose a formula that would stabilize the relationship\nstructures and other organizational aspects of welfare\npared to an expected $3-billion under existing law. A\nwould deplete its reserves by the early 1980s without new\nof benefits to the wages earned immediately prior to\nprograms. Congress could disapprove any proposed change.\nsimilar proposal was rejected by Congress in 1975.\nfinancing, President Ford proposed that the tax paid by\nretirement. Under existing law, benefits could eventually\nThe administration could use the authority to alter\nemployers and employees to finance the retirement system\nexceed wages earned before retirement. The administration\nprograms providing cash or in-kind benefits on the basis of\nVeterans\nbe increased by .6 per cent, from a rate of 11.7 per cent to a\nsaid this change would eliminate about half of the an-\nincome, but it could not alter Social Security, unemploy-\nrate of 12.3 per cent.\nticipated long-range deficit.\nment compensation or other \"earned\" benefit programs.\nThe employer and the employee would each pay half,\nFord did not reintroduce his 1975 proposal to hold cost-\nFood stamps and subsidized housing were examples of in-\nThe administration requested $17.7-billion in new\nor 6.15 per cent. The increased tax rate would be effec-\nof-living increases in Social Security benefits to 5 per cent.\nkind benefit programs.\nbudget authority for the Veterans Administration (VA) for\ntive Jan. 1, 1977, when the maximum taxable wage\nEven though the administration could not reduce the\nfiscal year 1977, up $1.5-billion from its fiscal 1976 request.\nThe limitation was so unpopular in 1975 that the President\nbase already was scheduled by law to increase to an es-\ncould not find any member of Congress to introduce it as\ntotal amount of funding devoted to income assistance\nOutlays of $17.2-billion were projected.\ntimated $16,500 from $15,300.\nlegislation.\nprograms, White House officials argued that the proposal\nThe largest amount in this category was $8.5-billion\nThe increased tax rate would add $22.54 to the average\nwould result in administrative savings. Authority to make\nearmarked for compensation and pension programs. The\nThe President requested $6.7-billion for the Social\nworker's tax bill in 1977, the administration said. The in-\nchanges in the programs would expire after five years. Ford\nlargest increase was in proposed funding for medical\nSecurity Administration in fiscal 1977. All of those funds,\ncrease in the tax rate, together with the already mandated\nincluding $5.1-billion for the part of the Medicare program\nsaid Jan. 20 that he might consider appointing a welfare\nprograms, up $274.2-million from the fiscal 1976 appropria-\nincrease in the wage base, would mean that a worker earn-\nthat covered physician's costs, were required to be appro-\n\"czar\" to coordinate changes.\ntion to $4.4-billion. With these funds, the VA would be able\ning $16,500 or more would pay a total of $1,014.75 in Social\npriated annually under law. (Medicare, p. 133)\nWhile certain to support the objectives of the ad-\nto complete increases in medical staff and improvements in\nSecurity taxes in 1977, compared to a maximum tax of\nministration proposal, Congress definitely will think\nfacilities recommended by a 1974 survey. Education and\n$895.05 in 1976. Of the $119.70 increase, $49.56 would be\ntwice about relinquishing that much control to the ex-\ntraining funds in the request totaled $4.2-billion.\nattributable to the proposed tax rate increase. The .6-per-\nArguing that the education benefits of the GI Bill were\nSupplemental Security Income\necutive branch. Congress also was not expected to give\ncent tax increase was expected to increase revenues for the\nFor the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI),\nmuch serious consideration to broad welfare revision\nincompatible with the philosophy of the all-volunteer\nSocial Security trust fund by $3.5-billion.\nthe budget request was $5.9-billion, compared to a pending\nproposals in an election year.\narmed forces, the President urged that the Senate approve\nAlthough House Ways and Means Committee\nWhile seeking authority to coordinate all income\nHR 9576, passed by the House Oct. 11, 1975, which would\nfiscal 1976 appropriation of $5.5-billion. SSI, which replaced\nChairman Al Ullman (D Ore.) said Jan. 17 that there was\nassistance programs, the administration also requested\nterminate that program. Ford also proposed a program of\n\"no alternative\" to enacting the tax increase, there could be\nstate programs for the aged, blind and disabled, had been\na debate in Congress over it. During 1975 hearings on the\nplagued by overpayments, estimated at $547-million in the\nspecific legislative changes in the largest welfare program,\ngrants to the states to construct and operate veterans\ncemeteries.\nfirst two years of operation. Most of the overpayments\naid to families with dependent children (AFDC). Estimated\nfiscal soundness of the Social Security system, several\ncould not be recovered, the Social Security Administration\nfiscal 1977 federal spending for the AFDC program was\nwitnesses opposed a tax increase in favor of a larger in-\nhas said. HEW estimated that case error rates would fall to\n$6.2-billion, up from $5.9-billion in fiscal 1976. The budget\nLaw Enforcement and Justice\ncrease in the taxable wage base or an infusion of general\nrevenues. Ford flatly rejected the use of general revenues in\n15 per cent in fiscal 1977, compared to 25 per cent in 1975.\nestimated that 11.3 million individuals would receive\nbenefits in fiscal 1977 under the AFDC program, which\nAs in fiscal 1976, budget requests for the Law Enforce-\nhis budget briefing Jan. 20. The proposed tax increase also\nBlack Lung Benefits\nwas partially funded by state and local governments.\nment Assistance Administration (LEAA) represented the\nwas likely to be politically unpopular in an election year.\nThe federal government projected a downturn in black\nThe requested legislation would cut expected spending\nlargest budget cut of any Justice Department agency.\nThe administration made three other proposals aimed\nby an estimated $256-million. It would establish a standard\nlung (pneumoconiosis) benefit claims, requesting\nLEAA is due to expire June 30, 1976, unless Congress acts\nat reducing Social Security expenditures by $826-million in\nformula for federal AFDC payments to the states, set uni-\n$913,897,000, compared to $999,778,000 in fiscal 1976. The\nto extend it. Funds were cut $102.7-million, for a total of\nfiscal 1977. These proposals would 1) prohibit the payment\nform rules for the treatment of income and work-related\n$707.9-million in fiscal 1977.\nof retroactive benefits in a lump sum if that payment would\nnumber of recipients was expected to decline from an es-\ntimated 493,000 in fiscal 1976 to 470,000 in fiscal 1977.\nexpenses considered when determining eligibility for\nAlthough an additional $50-million was requested to\npermanently reduce the amount of the recipient's monthly\nbenefits, and require states to revise eligibility regulations\nfund a new high-crime area program, $59.7-million was\nbenefits, 2) apply the retirement test (under which benefits\nWelfare\nto take income from a stepparent into account. The first\ncut from LEAA block grants to states and $24.7-million\nare reduced by a certain amount for extra income earned)\ntwo proposals, carried over from the fiscal 1976 budget\nfrom discretionary grants for law enforcement and correc-\non an annual rather than a monthly basis, and 3) phase out\nPresident Ford asked Congress for authority to pave\nbecause of congressional inaction, would reduce federal\ntions programs. The budget proposed to reduce funding for\nbenefits paid to students aged 18 to 22. Such students could\nthe way for coordinated administration of welfare\nAFDC subsidy levels in about a dozen states and set\neducation and training by $38.3-million. This reflected a\nprograms, but did not support any major overhaul of the\ntougher eligibility requirements for families not in the\nIncome Security Outlays\nnation's welfare system in the coming year. However, tak-\nlowest-income bracket.\nOutlays for Law Enforcement and Justice\n$ Billions\n$ Billions\ning a dig at a plan pushed by Republican presidential con-\nEven without legislative action, the Department of\n140\n140\ntender Ronald Reagan, Ford also insisted that the federal\nHealth, Education and Welfare predicted that continued ef-\n$ Billions\nBillions\ngovernment could not turn welfare programs over to the\nforts to reduce payment and ineligibility errors would save\n3.5\n3.5\nTotal\nstates.\n120\n120\n$240-million in AFDC program costs in fiscal 1977.\n\"Complex welfare programs cannot be reformed over-\n3.0\nTotal\n3.0\nnight. Surely we cannot simply dump welfare into the laps\nFood Programs\n100\n100\nof the 50 states, their local taxpayers or private charities\nFood Stamps. The administration requested a reduc-\n2.5\n2.5\nand just walk away from it,\" he argued in his Jan. 19 State\n80\nUnemployment\n80\nof the Union message. \"Nor is it the right time for massive\ntion in funds for the food stamp program for fiscal 1977.\nLaw Enforcement\nInsurance\nThe $4.7-billion request, based on proposed reforms of the\n2.0\nAssistance\nand sweeping changes while we are still recovering from a\n2.0\nprogram pending before both House and Senate\n60\n60\nrecession.\"\nSocial Security\nAgriculture Committees, was almost $1-billion less than\nAdministration officials recognized that the existing\n1.5\n1.5\nthe $5.6-billion expected to be expended in fiscal 1976. The\n40\n40\nwelfare system treated families in similar circumstances\ninequitably, provided no coordination of eligibility stan-\nadministration had proposed legislation aimed at reducing\n1.0\nJudicial and\nOther Retirement\ndards and created disincentives to work. But they argued\nthe eligibility of middle-income persons and concentrating\nCorrectional\n1.0\n20\nand Disability\n20\nthe food stamp program on the neediest.\nActivities\nthat piecemeal efforts to correct problems in certain\n0.5\nPublic Assistance\nprograms ignored the interrelationship of welfare\nFederal Enforcement\n0.5\nChild Nutrition Programs. For the second year in a\nand Prosecution\n0\n0\nprograms, while massive reform measures had little hope\nrow, the administration proposed eliminating the special\n1967\n68\n69\n70\n71\n72\n73\n74\n75\n76\n77\n0\nEstimate\nof winning congressional approval because of their com-\nmilk program and consolidating the existing categorical\n0\nFiscal Years\n1967\n68\n69\n70\n71\nchild nutrition programs into a block grant program to the\n72\n73\n74\n75\n76\n77\nIncludes Other Income Assistance Such as Food Stamps and SSI\nplexity.\nFiscal Years\nEstimate\nPAGE 134-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 135\nEconomic Affairs 26\nEconomic Affairs 27\ndecision to eliminate the Law Enforcement Education\nThe budget request included sizeable boosts in the\nIn addition to that fiscal 1977 appropriation, Congress\nin weighing renewal of the program would consider the ad-\nemployees due to take effect in October 1976. The $2.6-\nProgram (LEEP) after the 1976-77 academic year.\nappropriations for two of Congress' support agencies, the\nministration's request for permanent appropriation of\nbillion request included $790-million for federal pay raises.\nJustice Department budget requests also included a\nOffice of Technology Assessment (OTA) and the\n$15-million cut for the Federal Bureau of Investigation\nshared revenues for the following five fiscal years. In all,\nThe President said that federal salary increases would\nCongressional Budget Office (CBO). The OTA proposed\nhave to be limited in fiscal 1977. The budget assumed that\n(FBI), the first substantial cut for that agency in many\nbudget for fiscal 1977 was $8.5-million, up from its es-\nthe requested appropriation was $39,877,500,000.\nthe October 1976 pay increases for white-collar federal\nyears. The reduction included $7.9-million for training state\ntimated fiscal 1976 budget of $6.6-million. The increase\nOther Assistance\nemployees would be limited to 5 per cent, the same increase\nand local law enforcement officials; in the future, state and\nreflected a proposed expansion of its staff from 89 in fiscal\nthey received in October 1975.\nlocal authorities would be required to provide 50 per cent of\n1976 to 114 in fiscal 1977. The CBO's proposed budget for\nThe budget's $7.4-billion projection for general purpose\nIn addition, the President said he planned to submit\nthe cost of that program.\nfiscal 1977 was $10.2-million, an increase from its estimated\nfinancial assistance also included a host of other functions,\nlegislation that would change the way pay scales for federal\nThe largest increase requested by the administration in\nfiscal 1976 budget of $4.9-million. The higher budget\nmostly to return to state and local governments, Puerto\nblue-collar employees were determined. The aim would be\nthe law enforcement area was to continue the federal\nreflected a proposed increase in staff from 193 in fiscal 1976\nRico and the Virgin Islands part of the revenues or special\nto prevent federal blue-collar workers from earning more\nprison system building plan to relieve overcrowding in\nto 259 in fiscal 1977.\ntaxes that the federal government collects within their\nthan their counterparts in the private sector.\nfederal prisons. Of the $67.5-million increase over fiscal\njurisdictions.\n1976, $62.2-million was requested for planning and con-\nInternal Revenue Service\nWithin that category, the budget recommended\nstruction of four new facilities and opening of three others.\nThe budget proposed $2.8-billion in budget authority\nappropriation of $282,707,000 in fiscal 1977 for the federal\nBudget increases were also requested for these Justice\nfor the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for fiscal 1977, a\ngovernment's payment to the District of Columbia to\nUndistributed Offsetting Receipts\nDepartment agencies: $8.0-million for the Immigration and\n$558-million decrease from the agency's estimated budget\ndefray the burdens on the District from the federal\nNaturalization Service to strengthen detention and depor-\nfor fiscal 1976.\ngovernment's presence.\nOffsetting receipts are funds from the public and\ntation activities and further develop the alien documenta-\nThe lower budget reflected a proposed cutback in the\ngovernment agencies that are not counted as revenue, but\ntion system; $6.3-million for the Drug Enforcement Ad-\nIRS staff from 84,164 in fiscal 1976 to 81,559 in fiscal 1977.\nNew York Loans\ninstead are deducted from budget authority and outlays.\nministration (DEA) to disrupt narcotics distribution chan-\nAnticipated productivity increases by IRS employees were\nIn addition to its normal assistance to state and local\nThey include payments from the public due to the\nnels by capturing \"high level offenders\" and to prevent\nexpected to make up for the loss of staff, although the\ngovernments, the federal government during fiscal 1977\ngovernment's market-oriented activities, such as loan\ndiversion of legal substances to the illicit market by retail\nbudget acknowledged that the manpower cuts would result\nwill be lending Treasury funds to New York City to meet its\nrepayments, interest, sale of property and rents and\npharmacists and physicians.\nin a slight reduction in tax compliance coverage.\nseasonal financing needs. That lending was not counted in\nroyalties. They also include payments from other federal\nWithin the Justice Department, $11.4-million was re-\nthe budget totals, however.\naccounts. In most instances, the payments are deducted\nquested for additional U.S. attorneys and $2.8-million for\nFederal Election Commission\nUnder the New York aid plan created by Congress in\nfrom the budget authority and outlays of the agency receiv-\nadditional U.S. marshals. The administration did not re-\nThe Federal Election Commission's proposed budget\n1975, the Treasury secretary was authorized to make loans\ning them.\nquest any funds for the continuation of the 90 positions in\nauthority for fiscal 1977 was $6.9-million, a 20 per cent in-\nto the city out of a New York City Seasonal Financing\nIn three cases, however, the offsetting receipts are\nthe Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force.\ncrease over its estimated fiscal 1976 budget of $5-million.\nFund. Outstanding loans were limited to $2.3-billion at a\ndeducted from the federal budget as a whole. The amount of\nThe administration requested an additional $15.6-\nThe commission proposed that its travel budget be doubled\ntime, covered by a $2.3-billion fiscal 1976 supplemental\nthose deducted receipts was estimated to rise in fiscal 1977\nmillion for the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol,\nappropriation. (1975 Weekly Report p. 2775, 2699)\nto $18.8-billion, up from $15.2-billion in fiscal 1976.\nand that its staff be expanded from 160 in fiscal 1976 to 197\nTobacco and Firearms for a total of $125.3-million. The in-\nin fiscal 1977.\nNo further appropriation was needed for fiscal 1977.\nThe bulk of the increase was due to estimated receipts\ncreased funds would expand the illegal firearm control\nAnd since New York City must repay all loans from the\nof $6-billion from rents and royalties on the leasing and sale\nprogram, funded in 1976 in Washington, D.C., and two\nRevenue Sharing, Fiscal Aid\nfund with interest within the city's annual fiscal year, there\nof Outer Continental Shelf lands, up from $3-billion in\nother cities with 180 agents, to eight other cities and an ad-\nwould be no net outlay of Treasury funds during that\nfiscal 1976. Additional sales were planned in fiscal 1977 of\nditional 320 agents. Other Treasury budget increases were\nThe President's budget included $7.4-billion in fiscal\nperiod. The city's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30,\nlands off the west and Gulf coasts, the Gulf of Alaska and\nrequested for the U.S. Customs Service and U.S. Secret Ser-\nhowever, so outstanding loans still could show up as\nmid-Atlantic tracts off the east coast. The estimate of $3-\nvice.\n1977 outlays for general purpose assistance for state and\nlocal governments, most in the form of general revenue\nTreasury outlays in the federal government's accounting at\nbillion in receipts for fiscal 1976 represented yet another es-\nThe President repeated support for legislation to\nreform and codify the U.S. criminal code and to ban cheap\nsharing.\nthe end of its fiscal year, which is moving to an Oct. 1-Sept.\ntimate downward by OMB; initial estimates had ranged as\n30 basis.\nhigh as $8-billion and had fallen to $6-billion by October\neasily concealed handguns known as \"Saturday night\nBut according to the administration's budget, out-\n1975. The second congressional budget resolution for fiscal\nRevenue Sharing\nspecials.\"\nAssuming congressional action to extend general\nstanding New York loans would have no impact on federal\n1976 (H Con Res 466) assumed receipts of $4.5-billion, with\noutlays because the Treasury-administered Federal Financ-\nsome members warning that figure was too high. (H Con\nrevenue sharing past the end of calendar 1976, the budget\nGeneral Government\ning Bank would buy up all outstanding loans at the end of\nRes 466, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2739)\nprojected $6,548,504,000 in payments to state and local\nthe federal fiscal year. Although owned by the government,\nAdditionally, the payments by federal agencies into the\ngovernments from the general revenue sharing trust fund\nthe Federal Financing Bank's finances are excluded from\nretirement funds of their employees was predicted to rise to\nExecutive Office of the President\nduring fiscal 1977.\nThe 1972 law that established general revenue sharing\nthe over-all federal budget.\n$4.5-billion in fiscal 1977, up from $4.2-billion in fiscal 1976.\nThe budget requested $73-million in budget authority\nand made permanent appropriations for its five-year life\nThe federal budget accordingly listed New York loan\nAbout two-thirds of the payments are to the Civil Service\nfor the Executive Office of the President, $3-million more\nwas due to expire after Dec. 30, 1976. Ford in 1975 proposed\nobligations of $2.1-billion for fiscal 1977. During the year,\nretirement fund with most of the remainder going to Social\naccording to the estimates, $1.1-billion of those loans would\nSecurity trust funds.\nthan the revised fiscal 1976 estimate.\nThe President proposed that an Office of Science and\na five-year, nine-month extension of the program through\nAlso estimated to rise in fiscal 1977 was the interest\nthe end of fiscal 1982 on Sept. 30, 1982.\nbe repaid and the remaining $1-billion would be sold to\nTechnology be re-established within the White House to ad-\nthe Federal Financing Bank.\nreceived on trust fund balances which are invested in\nvise him on scientific and technological programs and\nThat proposal would retain permanent Treasury\nappropriations to the general revenue sharing fund, in-\nThe bank's budget, outlined along with other off-\nfederal securities. The interest was estimated to be $8.4-\npolicy questions. The White House had not had a science ad-\nbudget agencies at the back of the federal budget Appendix,\nbillion in fiscal 1977, an increase of $0.4-billion.\nI\nviser since President Nixon abolished the post in 1973. The\ncluding the $150-million increment in each year's\nappropriation provided by the existing law.\nlisted that estimated $1-billion for buying New York loans\naddition of that office with its expected 30 staff positions\nwould bring the total Executive Office staff up to 1,636 in\nThe 1972 law provided a $3,325,000,000 trust fund\nfrom the Treasury as a capital outlay. Offsetting receipts of\nappropriation for the period July 1-Dec. 30, 1976, to carry\n$1.1-billion from repayment of New York loans also were\nfiscal 1977. (Science adviser, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2465)\nlisted.\nECONOMY NOTES\nfunding for the program through the first half of fiscal\n1976. At the time, federal fiscal years began on July 1.\nLegislative Branch\nFord's proposal would replace that half-year appropria-\nGross National Product\ntion with a $1,626,195,000 appropriation for the three-\nAllowances\nBy law, the President's budget included the appropria-\nWith final 1975 figures starting to come in, federal\ntion requested by Congress to run its affairs. Congress re-\nmonth budget transition quarter from July 1 to Sept. 30,\nThe President asked for budget authority of $2.6-\ngovernment statistics continued to show slow but hopeful\nquested budget authority of $747-million for its legislative\n1976. For fiscal 1977, starting on Oct. 1, the administration\nU.S. economic progress.\nfunctions for fiscal 1977, a $7-million increase over its es-\nplan recommended appropriation of $6,542,280,000 to the\nbillion in fiscal 1977 to cover contingencies and projected\ntimated fiscal 1976 budget.\npay increases for the federal government's civilian\nThe Commerce Department Jan. 20 reported that\nae-\ntrust fund.\ntual economic output rose by 5.4 per cent during the. last\nFORD\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 136-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by aditorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 137\nEconomic Affairs 28\nEconomic Affairs 29\n-between the desire to solve our\nthree months of 1975, evidence that recovery from the deep\nUsery Nomination\nproblems quickly and the realization that\nBudget Totals Since 1975\n1974-75 recession was proceeding. While much slower than\nPresident Ford Jan. 22 nominated W. J. Usery Jr.,\nfor some problems, good solutions will take\n$ Billions\nthe rapid 12 per cent rebound during the year's third\ndirector of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service,\nmore time; and\n$ Billions\nquarter, that preliminary fourth-quarter figure for real\nas secretary of labor. If approved by the Senate, Usery\n-between Federal control and direction\ngross national product (GNP) showed continued expansion\nwould succeed John T. Dunlop, who resigned Jan. 14 saying\nto assure achievement of common goals and\nReceipts\nof underlying economic demand. The larger third-quarter\nthe recognition that State and local\n400\n394.2\nhe had lost the confidence of business and labor as a result\npace was attributed to business inventory swings.\ngovernments and individuals may do as\n373.5\n400\nof Ford's veto of the common-site picketing bill (HR 5900).\nwell or better without restraints.\nOutlays\nStill, actual GNP dropped 2 per cent for the entire year,\n351.3\n(Resignation, Weekly Report p. 75; veto, Weekly Report p.\naccording to preliminary figures, following its 1.8 per cent\nClearly, one of the highest priorities\n60; final action on bill, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2796)\nfor our Government is always to secure the\n324.6\ndecline during 1974.\nAsked if he would have the same difficulty, Usery said,\ndefense of our country. There is no alter-\n297.5\nAs measured by the GNP deflator, which discounts the\nnative. If we in the Federal Government\n300\n\"I enjoy the confidence of many people in the labor\n281.0\n300\nimpact of rising prices on nominal output, inflation\norganization. I think we can work together.\"\nfail in this responsibility, our other objec-\nmoderated during the October-December quarter, falling to\nUsery, 52, a former official of the Machinists union,\ntives are meaningless.\na 6.5 per cent rate from 7.1 per cent in the third quarter. It\nhas been called the \"best natural mediator\" in Washington,\nAccordingly, I am recommending a\nwas far below the peak 13.4 per cent rate during the last\nan ability which could help him in 1976 when several major\nsignificant increase in defense spending for\nthree months of 1974.\n1977. If in good conscience I could propose\n200\nbargaining contracts are scheduled to expire.\nless, I would. Great good could be ac-\n200\nThe nomination was welcomed by AFL-CIO President\nConsumer Prices\ncomplished with other uses of these dollars.\nGeorge Meany who said Usery was clearly qualified for the\nMy request is based on a careful assess-\nThe Labor Department reported separately Jan. 21\njob. The National Right to Work Committee, however, said\nment of the international situation and the\nthat another measure of inflation, the consumer price in-\nthe nomination was \"totally unacceptable\" because of what\ncontingencies we must be prepared to meet.\n100\ndex, rose 0.5 per cent during December. That marked a\nit called Usery's \"all-consuming belief in compulsory\nThe amounts I seek will provide the\n100\nslowdown in consumer price increases from 0.7 per cent\nunionism.\"\nnational defense it now appears we need.\nrates in October and November.\nMeanwhile, the House Jan. 19 by unanimous consent\nWe dare not do less. And if our efforts to\nsecure international arms limitations\nIn December 1975, the consumer price index stood 7.0\nreferred to the Education and Labor Committee HR 5900\nfalter, we will need to do more.\nper cent above its December 1974 level, below the December\nand the President's accompanying Jan. 2 veto message. The\nAssuring our Nation's needs for energy\no\nto December increases of 12.2 per cent in 1974 and 8.8 per\nHouse leadership has decided that the veto could not be\n0\nmust also be among our highest priorities.\n1975\n1976\ncent in 1973.\noverridden.\nMy budget gives that priority.\n1977\nWhile providing fully for our defense\nFiscal Years\nEstimate\nand energy needs, I have imposed upon\nthese budgets the same discipline that I\nmust recognize, however, that the social\nText of President's Fiscal '77 Budget Message\nhave applied in reviewing other programs.\nchildren can be fed, but subsidies for the\nsecurity trust fund is becoming depleted.\nSavings have been achieved in a number of\nnonpoor will be eliminated.\nTo restore its integrity, I am asking the\nareas. We cannot tolerate waste in any\n-A block grant that will support a com-\nFollowing is the text of President\nstay on a growth path that we can sustain.\nserved us so well. With stagnation of these\nCongress to raise social security taxes,\nprogram.\nmunity's social service programs for the\nFord's fiscal 1977 budget message to\nThis is not a policy of the quick fix; it does\nforces, the issue of the future would surely\neffective January 1, 1977, and to adopt cer-\nbe focused on who gets what from an\nIn our domestic programs, my objec-\nneedy. This would be accomplished by\nnot hold out the hollow promise that we can\ntain other reforms of the system. Higher\nCongress, released Jan. 21:\ntive has been to achieve a balance between\nremoving current requirements un-\nwipe out inflation and unemployment over-\neconomy of little or no growth rather than,\nsocial security taxes and the other reforms\nall the things we would like to do and those\nnecessarily restricting the flexibility of\nTo the Congress of the United States:\nnight. Instead, it is an honest, realistic\nas it should be, on the use to be made of ex-\nI am proposing may be controversial, but\nthings we can realistically afford to do. The\nStates in providing such services.\nThe Budget of the United States is a\npolicy-a policy that says we can steadily\npanding incomes and resources.\nthey are the right thing to do. The\nhundreds of pages that spell out the details\nThese initiatives will result in more\ngood roadmap of where we have been,\nreduce inflation and unemployment if we\nAs an important step toward reversing\nAmerican people understand that we must\nequitable distribution of Federal dollars,\nwhere we are now, and where we should be\nthe long-term trend, my budget for 1977\nof my program proposals tell the story, but\nmaintain a prudent, balanced approach.\npay for the things we want. I know that\nand provide greater State discretion and\nproposes to cut the rate of Federal spending\nsome examples illustrate the point.\ngoing as a people. The budget reflects the\nThis policy has begun to prove itself in re-\nthose who are working now want to be sure\ncent months as we have made substantial\ngrowth, year to year, to 5.5%-less than\nI am proposing that we take steps to\nresponsibility. All requirements that States\nPresident's sense of priorities. It reflects\nthat the money will be there to pay their\naddress the haunting fear of our elderly\nmatch Federal funds will be eliminated.\nhis best judgment of how we must choose\nheadway in pulling out of the recession and\nhalf the average growth rate we have ex-\nbenefits when their working days are over.\nthat a prolonged, serious illness could cost\nSuch reforms are urgently needed, but my\namong competing interests. And it reveals\nreducing the rate of inflation; it will prove\nperienced in the last 10 years. At the same\nMy budget also proposes that we\ntime, I am proposing further, permanent\nthem and their children everything they\nproposals recognize that they will, in some\nitself decisively if we stick to it.\nreplace 59 grant programs with broad block\nhis philosophy of how the public and\nhave. My medicare reform proposal would\ncases, require a period of transition.\nincome tax reductions so that individuals\ngrants in four important areas:\nprivate spheres should be related.\nA second important dimension of the\nThese are only examples. My budget\nand businesses can spend and invest these\nprovide protection against such\nbudget is that it helps to define the boun-\n-A health block grant that will con-\nAccordingly, I have devoted a major\ncatastrophic health costs. No elderly person\nsets forth many other recommendations.\nportion of my own time over the last\ndaries between responsibilities that we\ndollars instead of having the Federal\nsolidate medicaid and 15 other health\nGovernment collect and spend them.\nwould have to pay over $500 per year for\nSome involve new initiatives. Others seek\nassign to governments and those that re-\nprograms. States will be able to make their\nseveral months to shaping the budget for\ncovered hospital or nursing home care, and\nrestraint. The American people know that\nfiscal year 1977 and laying the groundwork\nmain in the hands of private institutions\nA third important dimension of the\nown priority choices for use of these\nno more than $250 per year for covered\npromises that the Federal Government will\nfor the years that follow.\nand individual citizens.\nbudget is the way it sorts out priorities. In\nFederal funds to help low-income people\nformulating this budget, I have tried to\nphysician services. To offset the costs of\ndo more for them every year have not been\nOver the years, the growth of govern-\nwith their health needs.\nAs I see it, the budget has three impor-\nthis additional protection and to slow down\nkept. I make no such promises. I offer no\ntant dimensions. One is the budget as an\nment has been gradual and uneven, but the\nachieve fairness and balance:\n-An education block grant that will con-\nsuch illusion: This budget does not shrink\nelement of our economic policy. The total\ntrend is unmistakable. Although the pre-\nthe runaway increases in federally funded\nsolidate 27 grant programs for education\nmedical expenses, I am recommending ad-\nfrom hard choices where necessary.\nsize of the budget and the deficit or surplus\ndominant growth has been at the State and\n-between the taxpayer and those who\ninto a single flexible Federal grant to\nthat results can substantially affect the\nlocal level, the Federal Government has con-\nwill benefit by Federal spending;\njustments to the medicare program so that\nNotwithstanding those hard choices, I\nStates, primarily for use in helping disad-\nwithin the new maximums beneficiaries\nbelieve this budget reflects a forward-\ngeneral health of our economy-in a good\ntributed to the trend too. We must not con-\n-between national security and other\nvantaged and handicapped children.\ncontribute more to the costs of their care\nlooking spirit that is in keeping with our\nway or in a bad way. If we try to stimulate\ntinue drifting in the direction of bigger and\npressing needs;\n-A block grant for feeding needy\nthan they do now.\nheritage as we begin our Nation's third cen-\nthe economy beyond its capacity to\nbigger government. The driving force of our\n-between our own generation and the\nchildren that will consolidate 15 complex\ntury.\nworld we want to leave to our children;\nMy budget provides a full cost-of-living\nrespond, it will lead only to a future\n200-year history has been our private sec-\nand overlapping programs. Under existing\nwhirlwind of inflation and unemployment.\ntor. If we rely on it and nurture it, the\n-between those in some need and those\nincrease for those receiving social security\nprograms, 700,000 needy children receive\nGerald R. Ford\nor other Federal retirement benefits. We\nThe budget I am proposing for fiscal\neconomy will continue to grow, providing\nmost in need;\nno benefits. Under my program, all needy\nJanuary 21, 1976.\nyear 1977 and the direction I seek for the\nnew and better choices for our people and\n-between the programs we already have\nfuture meet the test of responsible fiscal\nthe resources necessary to meet our shared\nand those we would like to have;\npolicy. The combination of tax and\nneeds. If, instead, we continue to increase\n-between aid to individuals and aid to\nspending changes I propose will set us on a\ngovernment's share of our economy, we will\nState and local governments;\ncourse that not only leads to a balanced\nhave no choice but to raise taxes and will, in\n-between immediate implementation of\nbudget within three years, but also im-\nthe process, dampen further the forces of\na good idea and the need to allow time for\nproves the prospects for the economy to\ncompetition, risk, and reward that have\ntransition;\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 138-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited whole or part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 139\nExecutive Branch 2\nseemed perfunctory. One of the few spontaneous bursts\nTax Cut\ncame-mostly from the Republican side-when Ford\nExecutive Branch\nproposed reforming estate tax laws on family-owned\nThe President reaffirmed his proposal for a $28-billion\nbusinesses and farms.\npermanent tax reduction-$10-billion more annually than\nPress Secretary Ron Nessen said Ford had spent 50\nthe temporary cut enacted in December 1975. He said such\nhours writing the speech over the previous 10 or 12 days.\na reduction would allow $227 more in take-home pay an-\nState of the Union:\nNessen said concepts for the message had been developing\nnually for a family of four earning $15,000 a year.\never since February 1975, when Ford visited Atlanta for the\nFORD AND MUSKIE SPEECHES DRAW BATTLE LINES\nfirst of a series of White House conferences with local and\nUnemployment\nstate officials.\nFord offered no new programs directly aimed at reduc-\nThe election-year agendas outlined by President Ford\nNot so, Muskie contended: \"I do not believe most\nFord's second State of the Union message was con-\ning unemployment, and he avoided setting a specific goal\nand Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D Maine) drew some clear\nAmericans want their government dismantled. We can't\nsiderably more upbeat than his first, when he had conceded\nfor the jobless rate. Instead, the President argued that the\nphilosophical battle lines between the administration and\nvery well fire the mailmen, discharge our armed forces or\nthat \"the State of the Union is not good.\"\nbest solution to long-term unemployment was the return of\nCongress.\nlay off the people who run the computers that print our\n\"Tonight I report that the State of the Union is\na sound economy.\nIn his Jan. 19 State of the Union message, Ford\nSocial Security checks.\"\nbetter-in many ways a lot better-but still not good\n\"Government-our kind of government-cannot.\nhammered on orthodox Republican conservative themes:\nBoth agreed on the need for improved efficiency. Ford,\nenough,\" Ford said Jan. 19.\ncreate\" a \"job for every American who wants to work,\" Ford\nthe importance of the individual, the inability of govern-\nsaying the time was not right for a sweeping reform of\nHe said 1975 opened with \"rancor and bitterness,\"\ndeclared. \"But,\" he added, \"the federal government can\nment to solve big problems, the dangers of massive federal\nwelfare programs, proposed consolidating 59 federal\nrecalling the Watergate scandal, the Vietnam war, the\ncreate conditions and incentives for private business and in-\nspending, the need for a strong defense. The speech was a\nprograms and turning the funds over to the states in block\nbeginning of the recession, and a loss of public confidence in\ndustry to make more and more jobs.\"\nAlan Greenspan, chairman of the Council of Economic\ndemand for what Ford called a \"fundamentally different\ngrants. He also called for improvements in the food stamp\nAmerican institutions.\napproach-for a new realism\" about the role of\nHe declared that \"we are not only headed in the new\nAdvisers, explained in a briefing that Ford's policy is to\nprogram.\ngovernment.\nMuskie, saying \"we can expect maximum efficiency\ndirection I proposed 12 months ago, but it turned out to\n\"broadly create a healthy economy from which lower un-\nReplying Jan. 21 in a speech billed as \"A Democratic\nand performance in office by everyone who draws a federal\nbe the right direction.\"\nemployment rates are feasible.\" Greenspan said the ad-\nView,\" Muskie contended, \"We must reject those of timid\nsalary,\" called for a systematic congressional review of all\nministration would aim for keeping the rate \"as low as it is\nThemes\nvision who counsel us to go back-to go back to simpler\nfederal programs in four-year cycles.\ncapable of being kept indefinitely\" without creating \"un-\ntimes now gone forever.\"\nMuskie at one point characterized Ford's block grant\nIn a briefing two hours before Ford delivered the\nstable conditions thereafter\" through higher inflation rates.\nMuskie argued that government should be improved\nplan as a way of shifting costs to state and local govern-\nspeech, White House Domestic Council Director James M.\nThe President \"views inflation as a major destabilizing\nrather than cut back. \"If we've learned anything as a\nments, apparently confusing Ford's proposal with Repub-\nCannon identified four \"main points\" as the philosophical\neffect on the economy,\" Greenspan said.\nnation is this,\" Muskie said, \"give Americans the tools\nlican presidential contender Ronald Reagan's plan\nunderpinnings of the speech.\nIn material prepared for the pre-message briefing,\nand they'll do the job.\"\nfor transferring $90-billion in programs to the states. Even\nPhilosophy of government. Cannon indicated that Ford\naides described Ford's unemployment policy as having\nso, he did not close the door on Ford's proposal.\nthree parts:\nbelieved in an essentially passive role for government.\nJobs\n\"Just as we cannot go back to the old days, we must be\n\"Government exists to create and preserve conditions\nTo encourage economic growth in the private sector\nBeneath much high-flown rhetoric on both sides lay a\nready to change old ways to meet new needs and present\nthrough individual and corporate income tax cuts and\nin which people can translate their ideals into practical\nkey area of disagreement: how to reduce unemployment.\nrealities,\" Muskie said.\nreality,\" Ford declared in his speech. He said the country\nthrough tax incentives aimed at increasing investments.\nhad gotten into trouble by relying on government to solve\nThese incentives would accelerate plant expansion and the\nFord argued for improving the business climate by\nreducing inflation and providing tax incentives, thereby in-\nFord Plan\nbig problems.\npurchase of new equipment and would be concentrated in\nareas of more than 7 per cent unemployment.\ncreasing employment over the long run. Muskie called for\n\"Realism.\" Cannon said Ford wanted to distinguish\nTo \"alleviate the economic hardship\" for the jobless by\nquicker, more direct action through public service and\nThe President in his message cast a broad political net.\nbetween what government can and cannot reasonably be\ntemporarily extending unemployment insurance coverage\npublic works jobs programs.\nHe took a swipe at the $90-billion proposal of former\nexpected to accomplish.\nto 12 million workers not presently covered; and to tem-\n\"Unemployment remains too high,\" Ford declared. But\nCalifornia Governor Reagan (R), saying, \"Surely we cannot\n\"The time has come for a fundamentally different\nporarily extend the time period for unemployment benefits\nhe proposed no new programs to directly increase employ-\nsimply dump welfare into the laps of the 50 states, their\napproach,\" Ford said, \"for a new realism that is true to the\nfrom 39 to 65 weeks.\nment rates, and in his budget he recommended cutting back\nlocal taxpayers or private charities, and just walk away\ngreat principles upon which this nation was founded.\" Ford\nTo continue programs already on the books such as the\n270,000 public service jobs during 1977.\nfrom it.\"\nadded that government \"must be more honest with the\nComprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA),\n\"Five out of six jobs in this country are in private\nFord praised Americans for their reaction to the\nAmerican people, promising them no more than we can\nsummer youth employment, public service employment\nbusiness and industry,\" Ford said. \"Common sense tells us\nrecession. \"In all sectors people met their difficult problems\ndeliver, and delivering all that we promise.\"\nand other \"established and proven federal programs.\"\nthis is the place to look for more jobs and to find them\nwith restraint and responsibility worthy of their great\n\"Balance.\" Cannon underlined Ford's repeated use of\nVarious Ford aides specifically rejected proposals for\nfaster.\"\nheritage,\" he said.\nthe term \"new balance.\" Ford said a balance must be struck\nexpanded public service and public works jobs programs.\nMuskie called that approach \"penny-wise and pound-\nThe speech seemed intended to appeal to the elderly,\nbetween government and the individual, between con-\nfoolish,\" contending that high rates of unemployment are a\nwho would benefit from Ford's proposal to offer protection\nflicting economic philosophies, between federal and state\ndrain on the economy since the jobless collect unemploy-\ngovernments, and between spending for domestic programs\nHousing\nunder Medicare from catastrophic illness while increasing\nment benefits and do not pay income taxes. Taxpayers \"pay\nthe cost of short-term care.\nand spending for defense.\na staggering price for these jobless policies,\" Muskie said.\nFord praised the American farmer, who he said \"not\n\"Hope.\" Cannon emphasized that Ford opened and\nFord said he would continue existing housing\nReducing unemployment \"is not only the business of\nonly feeds 215 million Americans but also millions\nclosed his speech with \"hope\" and an optimistic view of the\nprograms, including rental subsidies for 400,000 more low-\nbusiness, it is also the business of government,\" he declared.\nworldwide.\" Describing his proposed $28-billion permanent\ncountry's future.\nincome families and mortgage subsidies for 100,000 more\nmoderate-income families.\nGovernment Failures\ntax cut, Ford bowed to the \"hardworking Americans caught\nin the middle,\" who, he said, \"can really use that kind of ex-\n\"These programs will expand housing opportunities,\nWhile agreeing that many Americans had lost con-\nEconomic Program\nspur construction, and help house moderate and low income\ntra cash.\"\nfidence in government and other institutions, Ford and\nfamilies,\" Ford said. He predicted that lower interest rates\nThe President laced his speech with patriotic homilies\nMuskie disagreed on remedies.\nand made obeisance to Tom Paine, the radical Revolu-\nBudget\nand available mortgage money could lead to a \"healthy\nThe President argued for cutting back government\ntionary War pamphleteer. \"Tom Paine aroused the trou-\nIn calling for a $394.2-billion fiscal 1977 budget, with a\nrecovery\" of the housing industry in 1976.\nprograms and allowing more room for individual initiative.\nbled Americans of 1776 to stand up to the times that try\nreduction of almost $29-billion in the projected growth of\n\"We must introduce a new balance in the relationship\nmen's souls, because the harder the conflict the more\nfederal spending, Ford said his \"first objective is to have\nRegulatory Reform\nbetween the individual and the government,\" he said, \"a\nglorious the triumph,\" Ford said.\nsound economic growth without inflation.\"\nbalance that favors greater individual freedom and self-\nThe President spoke for 48 minutes and was in-\nFord said continued reductions could lead to a balanced\nFord unveiled no new initiatives in his drive to reform\nreliance.\" Ford said government was trying to do too much.\nterrupted by applause 30 times. Most of the applause\nbudget by fiscal year 1979.\nwhat he called the \"petty tyranny of massive government\nPAGE 140-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 141\nExecutive Branch 3\nExecutive Branch 4\nregulation.\" But aides described regulatory reform as \"a\nSocial Security. He said the rise would cost workers less\nConsolidation\nMuskie said the problem that concerned him most was\nprincipal goal\" of the administration.\nthan $1 extra per week.\n\"the extent to which you have lost confidence in your\nFord pledged that the administration \"will strictly en-\nWithout the rise, Ford said, \"Simple arithmetic warns\nThe President said his proposals to consolidate a total\npolitical system and your ability to govern yourselves.\"\nforce the federal antitrust laws\" in order to encourage com-\nall of us that the Social Security Trust Fund is headed for\ntrouble. Unless we act soon to make sure the fund takes in\nof 59 federal programs, including those in the health area,\nHe cited a number of areas where he said confidence\npetition and bring down consumer prices. In a written brief-\nas much as it pays out, there will be no security for old or\nand to turn the funds over to the states in block grants, was\nneeded to be restored and called the list \"a congressional\ning statement, aides went further, promising legislative\na \"flexible system\" that \"will do the job better and do it\nagenda for action\": unemployment, inflation, crime,\nproposals to expand antitrust activities to cover some ex-\nyoung.\"\ncloser to home.\"\neducation, health care, energy, the environment, abuses of\nempted industries.\nAides indicated that Ford would continue to press for\nmore permanent changes to strengthen the financing of the\nIn his budget, Ford proposed consolidating 27 educa-\npower by government and business.\nThe President also renewed his call for regulatory\ntion programs into one $3.3-billion block grant to the states\n\"We don't need a new system,\" Muskie said. \"What we\nreform in the transportation industry particularly, in-\nunemployment insurance system.\nand child nutrition programs into a single grant that would\nneed is the will to make our system work.\"\ncluding railroads, aviation and trucking; and he again asked\neliminate food subsidies to non-needy children, thereby sav-\nBesides his disagreements with Ford over un-\nfor regulatory reform of financial institutions that would\nallow small savers to earn higher interest rates on savings\nIncome Assistance\ning almost $900-million in the program.\nemployment, Muskie:\nThe budget also called for consolidating a wide range of\naccounts.\nSeemed to favor Ford's plans for tax cuts for\nFord said he would submit legislation later in 1976 giv-\nsocial services including day care, family planning, foster\nbusinesses, saying the Democratic job program \"should be\nEnergy\ning him authority to eliminate inconsistencies and waste in\ncare and homemaker services into a $2.5-billion block grant\nin addition to the jobs Congress could create in private in-\nto the states, with the elimination of most federal ad-\nvarious welfare programs. The legislation would make any\ndustry by additional tax cuts.\"\nWhile reiterating his major 1975 objective of long-\nadministrative changes subject to review and disapproval\nministrative and reporting requirements.\nWarned that Ford's plan to increase payroll deductions\nrange independence from foreign oil producers, Ford an-\nby Congress.\nto pump up Social Security trust funds would discourage\nnounced no new initiatives in energy policy.\nFor acknowledged the \"compassion and a sense of com-\nForeign Policy\nprivate-sector employment by making it more expensive for\nThe compromise Energy Policy and Conservation Act\nmunity\" that leads to welfare programs. \"But everyone\nemployers to hire workers.\nthat Ford signed in December 1975 \"was late in coming, not\nrealizes that when it comes to welfare, government at all\nFord described the state of U.S. foreign policy as\nPromised that Congress' new budget system would\nthe complete answer to energy independence, but still (was)\nlevels is not doing the job well,\" he said. \"Too many of our\n\"sound and strong\" and said people should be \"proud of\nkeep the deficit at \"the lowest possible level consistent with\na start in the right direction,\" Ford declared.\nwelfare programs are inequitable and invite abuse. Worse,\nwhat the United States has accomplished.\"\nreducing unemployment.' Muskie, chairman of the Senate\nWhite House aides said the 1975 law, along with ad-\nwe are wasting badly needed resources without reaching\n\"The American people have heard too much about how\nBudget Committee, said Congress wanted to achieve a\nministrative actions, would achieve more than 80 per cent\nmany of the truly needy.\" However, Ford said he had con-\nterrible our mistakes, how evil our deeds, and how mis-\nbalanced budget \"as soon as the economy permits.\"\nof the President's short-term goal of reducing U.S.\ncluded now is \"not the right time for massive and sweeping\nguided our purposes,\" he said. \"The American people know\nBlamed Republican policies starting with the Nixon ad-\nvulnerability to another Arab oil embargo.\nchanges\" in welfare programs \"while we are still recovering\nbetter I say it is time we quit downgrading ourselves as a\nministration for compounding the nation's economic\nfrom a recession.\"\nnation.\"\nproblems.\nHowever, in an oblique reference to his troubles during\nCriticized U.S. intervention in the Angolan civil war,\nHealth\nFood Stamps\n1975 with Congress in conducting foreign policy, the Presi-\nwhere, he said, \"our nation's interest and those of the free\ndent said the framers of the Constitution knew that the\nworld are far from clear.\"\nThe President singled out the food stamp program for\nCatastrophic Illness\ncriticism, saying it was \"scandal-ridden\" and that reform\nresponsibility for \"strong central direction that allows flex-\nSaying that \"we cannot realistically afford\" national\nEfficiency\nwas \"long overdue.\" He said he would renew his 1975 efforts\nibility of action\" in foreign affairs \"clearly rests with the\nhealth insurance providing full coverage, Ford proposed a\nto change the program.\nPresident.\"\nMuskie said four-year reviews of all government\nplan to provide protection against serious and long-term\nFord singled out Angola, where action was pending in\nprograms were necessary in addition to Congress' new\nillnesses for persons covered by Medicare. But he also\nCongress to cut off U.S. aid, for criticism of congressional\nbudget process to help restore confidence in government.\nasked the elderly to pay more for short-term care.\nCrime\ninterference. \"We must not lose all capacity to respond\n\"Wasteful government spending, inefficient and in-\nRather than a tax-funded national health insurance\nshort of military intervention,\" the President said.\neffective programs are burdens taxpayers ought not to be\nprogram, Ford said, a private health insurance system in\nFord reiterated the proposals to help control crime con-\nasked to carry,\" he said. \"More than that, they rob us of the\nthe future would do a better job in providing quality care\ntained in his June 19, 1975, special message to Congress on\nDefense Budget\nresources we need to serve high-priority national needs.\nand protection from catastrophic illnesses to middle-income\ncrime. He called for a \"strong emphasis on protecting the\nNoting that his defense budget contained a substantial\nMoreover, their very existence undermines that public con-\nfamilies.\ninnocent victims of crime\" and for \"swift and certain\"\nincrease over fiscal year 1976, Ford said the request\nfidence in government which is essential and so sadly\nlacking.\"\nHealth Block Grants\npunishment of convicted criminals. He renewed his request\nrepresented \"the necessity of American strength for the\nfor mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of\nreal world in which we live.\"\nMuskie first proposed the spending reform idea in\nThe President proposed consolidating 16 federal health\nserious crimes, of repeaters who threaten personal injury,\nDecember 1975, as Congress was completing the first use of\nprograms aimed primarily at the poor, including Medicaid,\nand of persons committing federal crimes while armed. He\nits new budget process. Under such a plan, similar govern-\nIntelligence\ninto one $10-billion block grant to the states.\nalso called again for stricter control of cheap handguns.\nment programs periodically would be grouped together and\nFord said in his budget briefing Jan. 20 that \"public\nThe President pledged to recommend reforming and\ncompared for efficiency and duplication.\nThe President requested funds to strengthen federal\npressure\" would prevent individual states from cutting\ncriminal system resources, including $46-million for the\nstrengthening the U.S. intelligence community \"in the near\n\"We should question the most basic assumptions about\nback their funding of health programs and from misusing\nbuilding of four new prisons, and to extend the Law En-\nfuture\" and asked for Congress' \"positive cooperation.\"\nevery program,\" Muskie said. \"Any programs not doing the\nthe federal funds.\nforcement Assistance Administration program.\nReferring to revelations of past abuses by intelligence\njob or duplicating better-run programs should be elimi-\nNoting that the sale of hard drugs was again in-\nagencies, Ford warned that the \"crippling of our foreign in-\nnated.\" Muskie said Social Security should be the only\nVeterans\ncreasing, Ford outlined his drug program and said he has\ntelligence services increases the danger of American in-\nprogram exempted from the review process.\nvolvement in direct armed conflict.\" He added that\nFord promised to \"take further steps to improve the\ndirected an increase in enforcement efforts.\nMuskie criticized Ford for not taking steps to improve\n\"without effective intelligence capability, the United States\ngovernment programs. \"Efficiency in the general govern-\nquality of medical and hospital care\" for veterans. Aides ex-\nstands blindfolded and hobbled.\"\nment is his [the President's] responsibility,\" Muskie said. \"I\nplained that meant hiring 1,700 more medical care\nGeneral Revenue Sharing\nwas disappointed that the President made no proposals in\nemployees and spending about $200-million for construc-\nMuskie: 'Restore Confidence'\nhis State of the Union message to improve general govern-\ntion projects such as correcting fire and safety hazards.\nment efficiency, to bring new businesslike methods into\nFord repeated his call for continuation of general\nthe bureaucracy.\"\nrevenue sharing, which he said had been \"effective\" and had\nMuskie was chosen by Senate Majority Leader Mike\nMuskie did not mention Ford's contention that his\nSocial Security\ntransferred decision-making from the federal government\nMansfield (D Mont.) to deliver the congressional reply to\nproposals to consolidate programs and turn the funds over\nto the local level. Congress must decide in 1976 whether to\nFord's speech. Muskie said at one point that he could not\nto the states in block grants would improve efficiency.\nI\nThe President proposed a payroll tax increase of .3 per\nrenew the revenue sharing program, and some members\nspeak for all Democrats. But his address hewed closely to\ncent each for employees and employers of wages covered by\nare known to be opposed.\nthe feelings of most.\n-By Don Smith\nPAGE 142-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 143\nExecutive Branch 5\nExecutive Branch 6\nThe longest, most divisive war in our\nTEXT OF FORD'S STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE\nhistory was winding toward an unhappy\nconclusion. Many feared that the end of\nthat foreign war of men and machines\nFollowing is the White House text\nno other homeland and those who just\nWe unbalanced our economic system\nmeant the beginning of a domestic war of\nof President Ford's Jan. 19 State of the\nfound refuge on our shores, say in unison:\nby the huge and unprecedented growth of\nrecrimination and reprisal.\nUnion message to Congress:\nI am proud of America and proud to be\nFederal expenditures and borrowing. And\nFriends and adversaries abroad were\nan American. Life will be better here for\nwe were not totally honest with ourselves\nasking whether America had lost its nerve.\nTO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED\nmy children than for me.\nabout how much these programs would cost\nFinally, our economy was ravaged by\nSTATES:\nI believe this not because I am told to\nand how we would pay for them.\ninflation-inflation that was plunging us\nAs we begin our Bicentennial, America\nbelieve it, but because life has been better\nFinally, we shifted our emphasis from\ninto the worst recession in four decades.\nis still one of the youngest Nations in\nfor me than it was for my father and my\ndefense to domestic problems while our\nAt the same time, Americans became\nrecorded history. Long before our\nmother.\nadversaries continued a massive buildup of\nincreasingly alienated from all big in-\nforefathers came to these shores, men and\nI know it will be better for my children\narms.\nstitutions. They were steadily losing con-\nwomen had been struggling on this planet\nbecause my hands, my brain, my voice and\nfidence not just in big government, but in\nto forge a better life for themselves and\nNew Balance\nmy vote, can help make it happen.\nbig business, big labor and big education,\ntheir families.\nAnd it has happened here in America.\nThe time has now come for a fun-\namong others.\nIn man's long upward march from\nIt happened to you and to me.\ndamentally different approach-for a new\nOurs was a troubled land.\nsavagery and slavery-throughout the\nGovernment exists to create and\nrealism that is true to the great principles\nAnd so, 1975 was a year of hard\nnearly 2000 years of the Christian calendar,\npreserve conditions in which people can\nupon which this nation was founded.\ndecisions, difficult compromises, and a new\nthe nearly 6000 years of Jewish\ntranslate their ideals into practical reality.\nWe must introduce a new balance to\nrealism that taught us something impor-\nreckoning-there have been many deep,\nIn the best of times, much is lost in\nour economy-a balance that favors not\ntant about America.\nterrifying valleys, but also many bright and\ntranslation. But we try.\nonly sound, active government but also a\nIt brought back a needed measure of\ntowering peaks.\nSometimes we have tried and failed.\nmuch more vigorous, healthier economy\ncommon sense, steadfastness and self-\nOne peak stands highest in the ranges\nAlways we have had the best of inten-\nthat can create new jobs and hold down\ndiscipline. Americans did not panic or de-\nof human history. One example shines\ntions. But in the recent past we sometimes\nprices.\nmand instant but useless cures. In all sec-\nforth of a people uniting to produce abun-\nforgot the sound principles that had guided\nWe must introduce a new balance in\ntors people met their difficult problems\ndance and to share the good life fairly and\nus through most of our history. We wanted\nthe relationship between the individual and\nwith restraint and responsibility worthy of\nin freedom. One Union holds out the\nto accomplish great things and solve age-\nthe Government-a balance that favors\ntheir great heritage.\npromise of justice and opportunity for\nold problems. And we became over-\ngreater individual freedom and self-\nAdd up the separate pieces of progress\nevery citizen.\nconfident of our own abilities. We tried to\nreliance.\nin 1975, subtract the setbacks, and the sum\nHouse Speaker Carl Albert (D Okia.) appears to be less than transfixed as he listens to\nbe a policeman abroad and an indulgent\nWe must strike a new balance in our\nPresident deliver his State of the Union address Jan. 19.\nThat Union is the United States of\ntotal shows that we are not only headed in\nAmerica.\nparent here at home. We thought we could\nsystem of Federalism-a balance that\nthe new direction I proposed 12 months ago,\nfavors greater responsibility and freedom\nbut that it turned out to be the right direc-\nfor Americans, but we need a lot more jobs,\nWe have not remade paradise on earth.\ntransform the country through massive\npay annually. Hard-working Americans\nfor the leaders of our State and local\ntion.\nespecially for the young.\nWe know perfection will not be found here.\nnational programs;\ncaught in the middle can really use that\nBut think for a minute how far we have\nBut often the programs did not work;\ngovernments.\nIt is the right direction because it\nMy first objective is to have sound\nkind of extra cash.\nWe must introduce a new balance\nfollows the truly revolutionary American\neconomic growth without inflation.\ncome in 200 years.\ntoo often, they only made things worse.\nMy recommendations for a firm\nWe came from many roots and have\nIn our rush to accomplish great deeds\nbetween spending on domestic programs\nconcept of 1776 which holds that in a free\nWe all know from recent experience\nrestraint on the growth of Federal spending\nmany branches. Yet all Americans across\nquickly, we trampled on sound principles of\nand spending on defense-a balance that\nsociety, the making of public policy and\nwhat runaway inflation does to ruin every\nand for greater tax reduction are simple\nthe eight generations that separate us from\nrestraint, and endangered the rights of in-\nensures we fully meet our obligations to the\nsuccessful problem-solving involves much\nother worthy purpose. We are slowing it;\nand straightforward: For every dollar\nthe stirring deeds of 1776, those who know\ndividuals.\nneedy while also protecting our security in\nmore than government. It involves a full\nwe must stop it cold.\nsaved in cutting the growth in the Federal\na world that is still hostile to freedom.\npartnership among all branches and levels\nFor many Americans the way to a\nbudget we can have an added dollar of\nFederal Budget Outlays, 1950-1977\nAnd in all that we do, we must be more\nof government, private institutions and in-\nhealthy non-inflationary economy has\nFederal tax reduction.\nhonest with the American people, promis-\ndividual citizens.\nbecome increasingly apparent; the govern-\nWe can achieve a balanced budget by\n$ Billions\n$ Billions\ning them no more than we can deliver, and\nCommon sense tells me to stick to that\nment must stop spending so much and\n1979 if we have the courage and wisdom to\ndelivering all that we promise.\nsteady course.\nborrowing so much of our money; more\ncontinue to reduce the growth of Federal\nThe genius of America has been its in-\nmoney must remain in private hands where\nspending.\ncredible ability to improve the lives of its\nEconomy\nit will do the most good. To hold down the\nOne test of a healthy economy is a job\n400\n400\ncitizens through a unique combination of\ncost of living, we must hold down the cost\nfor every American who wants to work.\ngovernmental and free citizen activity.\nTake the state of our economy.\nof\ngovernment.\nGovernment-our kind of govern-\nHistory and experience tell us that\nLast January most things were rapidly\nIn the past decade, the Federal budget\nment-cannot create that many jobs.\nmoral progress comes not in comfortable\ngetting worse.\nhas been growing at an average rate of over\nBut the Federal Government can create\nand complacent times, but out of trial and\nThis January most things are slowly\n10 percent every year. The budget I am sub-\nconditions and incentives for private\nConstant 1977 Dollars\nconfusion. Tom Paine aroused the troubled\nbut surely getting better.\nmitting Wednesday cuts this rate of growth\n300\nbusiness and industry to make more and\n300\nAmericans of 1776 to stand up to the times\nThe worst recession since World War II\nin half. I have kept my promise to submit a\nmore jobs.\nthat try men's souls, because the harder the\nturned around in April. The best cost of liv-\nbudget for the next fiscal year of $395\nFive out of six jobs in this country are\nconflict the more glorious the triumph.\ning news of the past year is that double\nbillion. In fact, it is $394.2 billion.\nin private business and industry. Common\ndigit inflation of 12% or higher was cut\nBy holding down the growth in Federal\nsense tells us this is the place to look for\nA Better Year\nalmost in half. The worst-unemployment\nspending, we can afford additional tax cuts\nmore jobs and to find them faster.\n200\n200\nJust a year ago I reported that the\nremains too high.\nand return to the people who pay taxes\nI mean real, rewarding, permanent\nState of the Union was not good.\nToday nearly 1.7 million more\nmore decision-making power over their own\njobs.\nTonight I report that the State of our\nAmericans are working than at the bottom\nlives.\nTo achieve this we must offer the\nUnion is better-in many ways a lot\nof the recession. At year's end people were\nagain being hired much faster than they\nTax Cut\nAmerican people greater incentives to in-\nbetter-but still not good enough.\nvest in the future. My tax proposals are a\n100\nCurrent Dollars\nTo paraphrase Tom Paine, 1975 was\nwere being laid off.\n100\nLast month I signed legislation to ex-\nmajor step in that direction.\nnot a year for summer soldiers and\nYet let us be honest: many Americans\ntend the 1975 tax reductions for the first six\nTo supplement these proposals, I ask\nsunshine patriots. It was a year of fears and\nhave not yet felt these changes in their dai-\nmonths of this year. I now propose that\nthat Congress enact changes in Federal tax\nalarms and of dire forecasts-most of\nly lives. They still see prices going up too\neffective July 1, 1976, we give our taxpayers\nlaws that will speed up plant expansion and\nwhich never happened and won't happen.\nfast, and they still know the fear of un-\na tax cut of approximately $10 billion more\nthe purchase of new equipment. My\nAs you recall, the year 1975 opened\nemployment.\nthan Congress agreed to in December.\nrecommendation will concentrate this job-\n0\n0\nwith rancor and bitterness. Political mis-\nAnd we are a growing Nation. We need\nMy broader tax reduction would mean\ncreation tax incentive in areas where the\n1950\n55\n60\n65\n70\n75\n77\ndeeds of the past had neither been forgotten\nmore and more jobs every year. Today's\nthat for a family of four making $15,000 a\nunemployment rate now runs over 7\nFiscal Years\nEstimate\nnor forgiven.\neconomy has produced over 85 million jobs\nyear there will be $227 more in take home\npercent. Legislation to get this started\nPAGE 144-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial cirents.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by aditorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 145\nExecutive Branch 7\nExecutive Branch 8\nfamily-owned small businesses. Both\ntributed to it all their lives is a vital part of\nCrime\ncitizen, but to impose mandatory sentences\nShares of the Budget\nstrengthen America and give stability to\nour economic system. Its value is no longer\nfor crimes in which a gun is used, make it\nPercent\nPercent\ndebatable. In my budget for fiscal year 1977\nProtecting the life and property of the\nour economy.\nharder to obtain cheap guns for criminal\n60\nI will propose estate tax changes SO\nI am recommending that the full cost of liv-\ncitizen at home is the responsibility of all\n60\npurposes, and concentrate gun control en-\nthat family businesses and family farms\ning increase in Social Security benefits be\npublic officials but is primarily the job of\nforcement in high crime areas.\ncan be handed down from generation to\npaid during the coming year.\nlocal and State law enforcement\nMy budget recommends 500 additional\nBut I am concerned about the integrity\nauthorities.\ngeneration without having to be sold to pay\nFederal agents in the 11 largest\n50\nNational Defense\ntaxes.\nof our Social Security Trust Fund that\nAmericans have always found the very\nmetropolitan high crime areas to help local\n50\nI propose tax changes to encourage\nenables people-those retired and those\nthought of a Federal police force repugnant\nauthorities stop criminals from selling and\npeople to invest in America's future, and\nstill working who will retire-to count on\nand SO do I. But there are proper ways in\nusing handguns.\ntheir own, through a plan that gives\nthis source of retirement income. Younger\nwhich we can help to ensure domestic tran-\nThe sale of hard drugs is on the in-\nBenefit Payments to\nmoderate income families income tax\nworkers watch their deductions rise and\nquility as the Constitution charges us.\ncrease again. I have directed all agencies of\n40\n40\nbenefits if they make long-term in-\nwonder if they will be adequately protected\nIndividuals and Grants\nMy recommendations on how to con-\nthe Federal Government to step up enforce-\nvestments in common stock in American\nin the future.\ntrol violent crime were submitted to the\nment efforts against those who deal in\ncompanies.\nWe must meet this challenge head-on.\nCongress last June with strong emphasis on\ndrugs. In 1975, Federal agents seized sub-\nSimple arithmetic warns all of us that\nprotecting the innocent victims of crime.\nstantially more heroin coming into our\n30\n30\nHealth\nthe Social Security Trust Fund is headed\nTo keep a convicted criminal from com-\ncountry than in 1974.\nThe Federal Government must and\nfor trouble. Unless we act soon to make\nmitting more crimes we must put him in\nAs President, I have talked personally\nwill respond to clearcut national needs-for\nsure the fund takes in as much as it pays\nprison so he cannot harm more law-abiding\nwith the leaders of Mexico, Colombia and\nthis and future generations.\nout, there will be no security for old or\ncitizens. To be effective, this punishment\nTurkey to urge greater efforts by their\n20\n20\nHospital and medical services in\nyoung.\nmust be swift and certain.\nGovernments to control effectively the\nAmerica are among the world's best but the\nI must therefore recommend a 3/10 of\nToo often criminals are not sent to\nproduction and shipment of hard drugs.\ncost of a serious and extended illness can\none percent increase in both employer and\nprison after conviction but are allowed to\nI recommended months ago that the\n10\nPercent of Total Outlays\nquickly wipe out a family's lifetime\nemployee Social Security taxes effective\nreturn to the streets.\nCongress enact mandatory fixed sentences\n10\nsavings. Increasing health costs are of deep\nJanuary 1, 1977. This will cost each covered\nconcern to all and a powerful force pushing\nemployee less than one extra dollar a week\nSome judges are reluctant to send con-\nfor persons convicted of Federal crimes in-\nup the cost of living.\nand will ensure the integrity of the trust\nvicted criminals to prison because of inade-\nvolving the sale of hard drugs. Hard drugs\nfund.\nquate facilities. To alleviate this problem at\ndegrade the spirit as they destroy the body\nThe burden of a catastrophic illness\nof their users.\n0\n0\nthe Federal level, my new budget proposes\ncan be borne by very few in our society. We\nAs we rebuild our economy, we have a\nthe construction of four new Federal\nIt is unrealistic and misleading to hold\n1967\n68\n69\n70\n71\n72\n73\n74\n75\n76\n77\nmust eliminate this fear from every family.\ncontinuing responsibility to provide a tem-\nfacilities.\nout the hope that the Federal Government\nFiscal Years\nEstimate\nI propose catastrophic health in-\nporary cushion to the unemployed. At my\ncan move in to every neighborhood and\nsurance for everybody covered by Medicare.\nrequest the Congress enacted two exten-\nTo speed Federal justice, I propose an\nclean up crime. Under the Constitution, the\nTo finance this added protection, fees for\nsions and expansions in unemployment in-\nincrease this year in U.S. Attorneys\ngreatest responsibility for curbing crime\nmust be approved at the earliest possible\nhave an assured supply of energy to run our\nshort-term care will go up somewhat, but\nsurance which helped those who were\nprosecuting Federal crimes and reinforce-\nlies with State and local authorities. They\ndate.\neconomy. Domestic production of oil and\nnobody after reaching age 65 will have to\njobless during 1975. These programs will\nment of the number of U.S. Marshals.\nare the frontline fighters in the war against\nWithin the strict budget total I will\ngas is still declining. Our dependence on\npay more than $500 a year for covered\ncontinue in 1976.\nAdditional Federal judges are needed,\ncrime.\nrecommend for the coming year, I will ask\nforeign oil at high prices is still too great,\nhospital or nursing home care nor more\nIn my fiscal 1977 budget, I am also re-\nas recommended by me and the Judicial\nThere are definite ways in which the\nfor additional housing assistance for 500,-\ndraining jobs and dollars away from our\nthan $250 for one year's doctors' bills.\nquesting funds to continue proven job\nConference.\nFederal Government can help them. I will\n000 families. These programs will ex-\nown economy at the rate of $125 per year\nWe cannot realistically afford Federal-\ntraining and employment opportunity\nAnother major threat to every\npropose in the new budget that the\npand housing opportunities, spur con-\nfor every American.\nly dictated national health insurance\nprograms for millions of other Americans.\nAmerican's person and property is the\nCongress authorize almost $7 billion over\nstruction and help to house moderate and\nLast month I signed a compromise\nproviding full coverage for all 215 million\ncriminal carrying a handgun. The way to\nthe next five years to assist State and local\nlow income families.\nnational energy bill which enacts a part of\nAmericans. The experience of other\nWelfare\ncut down on the criminal use of guns is not\ngovernments to protect the safety and\nWe had a disappointing year in the\nmy comprehensive energy independence\ncountries raises questions about the quality\nCompassion and a sense of com-\nto take guns away from the law-abiding\nproperty of all citizens.\nhousing industry in 1975 but it is im-\nprogram. This legislation was late in com-\nas well as the cost of such plans. But I do\nmunity-two of America's greatest\nproving. With lower interest rates and\ning, not the complete answer to energy in-\nenvision the day when we may use the\nstrengths throughout our history-tell us\navailable mortgage money, we can have a\ndependence, but still a start in the right\nprivate health insurance system to offer\nwe must take care of our neighbors who\nhealthy recovery in 1976.\ndirection.\nmore middle income families high quality\ncannot take care of themselves. The host of\nA necessary condition of a healthy\nI again urge the Congress to move\nhealth services at prices they can afford\nFederal programs in this field reflect our\neconomy is freedom from the petty tyranny\nahead immediately on the remainder of my\nand shield them also from catastrophic\ngenerosity as a people.\nof massive government regulation. We are\nenergy proposals to make America in-\nillnesses.\nBut everyone realizes that when it\nwasting literally millions of working hours\nvulnerable to the foreign oil cartel. My\nUsing the resources now available, I\ncomes to welfare, government at all levels\ncosting billions of consumers' dollars\nproposals would:\npropose improving the Medicare and other\nis not doing the job well. Too many of our\nbecause of bureaucratic red tape. The\nReduce domestic natural gas short-\nFederal health programs to help those who\nwelfare programs are inequitable and in-\nAmerican farmer, who not only feeds 215\nages.\nreally need more protection: older people\nvite abuse. Worse, we are wasting badly\nmillion Americans but also millions\nAllow production from national\nand the poor. To help States and local\nneeded resources without reaching many of\nworldwide, has shown how much more he\npetroleum reserves;\ngovernments give better health care to the\nthe truly needy.\ncan produce without the shackles of govern-\nStimulate effective conservation, in-\npoor I propose that we combine 16 existing\nComplex welfare programs cannot be\nment control.\ncluding revitalization of our railroads and\nFederal programs including Medicaid into a\nreformed overnight. Surely we cannot\nNow, we need reforms in other key\nthe expansion of our urban transportation\nsingle $10 billion Federal grant.\nsimply dump welfare into the laps of the 50\nareas in our economy-the airlines,\nsystems;\nFunds would be divided among the\nStates, their local taxpayers or private\ntrucking, railroads, and financial in-\nDevelop more and cleaner energy from\nStates under a new formula which provides\ncharities, and just walk away from it. Nor\nstitutions. I have concrete plans in each of\nour vast coal resources;\na larger share of Federal money to those\nis it the right time for massive and sweep-\nthese areas, not to help this or that in-\nExpedite clean and safe nuclear power\nstates that have a larger share of low in-\ning changes while we are still recovering\ndustry, but to foster competition and to\nproduction;\ncome families.\nfrom a recession.\nbring prices down for the consumer.\nCreate a new national Energy\nI will take further steps to improve the\nNevertheless, there are still plenty of\nThis Administration will strictly en-\nIndependence Authority to stimulate vital\nquality of medical and hospital care for\nimprovements we can make. I will ask\nforce the Federal antitrust laws for the\nenergy investment;\nthose who have served in our armed forces.\nCongress for Presidential authority to\nsame purpose.\nAnd accelerate development of\ntighten up rules for eligibility and benefits.\ntechnology to capture energy from the sun\nSocial Security\nLast year I twice sought long overdue\nEnergy\nand the earth for this and future\nNow let me speak about Social\nreform of the scandal riddled Food Stamp\nTaking a longer look at America's\ngenerations.\nSecurity.\nprogram. This year I say again: Let's give\nfuture there can be neither sustained\nAlso for the sake of future generations\nOur Federal Social Security system for\nFood Stamps to those most in need. Let's\nPresident Ford is escorted to the podium in the House by congressional leaders to\ngrowth nor more jobs unless we continue to\nwe must preserve the family farm and\npeople who have worked hard and con-\nnot give any to those who don't need them.\ndeliver his State of the Union address.\nCOPYRIGHT 1978 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 146-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 147\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nExecutive Branch 10\nExecutive Branch 9\nAs President I pledge the strict en-\nevil our deeds, and how misguided our pur-\nWithout effective intelligence\nTEXT OF DEMOCRATIC STATE OF UNION MESSAGE\nforcement of Federal laws and-by ex-\nposes. The American people know better.\ncapability, the United States stands blind-\nample, support, and leadership-to help\nThe truth is we are the world's greatest\nfolded and hobbled.\nFollowing is the official text of the\nour factories open again-and stop the in-\nWe must reject those of timid vision\nState and local authorities enforce their\ndemocracy. We remain the symbol of man's\nIn the near future, I will take actions to\nDemocratic State of the Union\nflation that robs our elderly and poor-and\nwho counsel us to go back-\naspirations for liberty and well-being. We\nreform and strengthen our intelligence\nlaws. Together we must protect the victims\ncommunity. I ask for your positive\nmessage, delivered by Sen. Edmund S.\ndeprives every one of us of our hard-earned\nTo go back to simpler times now gone\nof crime and ensure domestic tranquility.\nare the embodiment of hope for progress.\nMuskie of Maine over national televi-\ndollars.\nforever.\nLast year I strongly recommended a\nI say it is time we quit downgrading\ncooperation. It is time to go beyond sen-\nWe can again have confidence that\nTo go back on the promises we have\nfive-year extension of the existing revenue\nourselves as a nation. Of course it is our\nsationalism and ensure an effective,\nsion on Jan. 21:\ngovernment can do something effective\nmade to each other.\nresponsibility to learn the right lessons\nresponsible, and responsive intelligence\nsharing legislation which thus far has\nabout this siege of crime that makes many\nTo go back on our guarantees to every\nprovided $23.5 billion to help State and\nfrom past mistakes. It is our duty to see\ncapability.\nof you prisoners in your homes, behind\nAmerican for a decent job and secure\nthat they never happen again. But our\nThe first point I would like to make in\nlocal units of government solve problems at\ndoors that lock out the threat which lurks\nretirement.\nhome. This program has been effective with\ngreater duty is to look to the future. The\nthis talk this evening is that\nFuture\nin the darkness.\nTo go back on our commitment to\ndecisionmaking transferred from the\nworld's troubles will not go away.\ngovernment-and politics-in this country\nThat government can make schools\nquality education and affordable health\nFederal Government to locally elected of-\nThe American people want strong and\nTonight I have spoken of our problems\nis us-you and me-and all of the 215\nagain into houses where children can learn\ncare.\neffective international and defense policies.\nat home and abroad. I have recommended\nmillion Americans who share our past, pre-\nficials. Congress must act this year or State\nand prepare themselves for the future.\nTo go back on consumer protection and\nand local units of government will have to\nIn our Constitutional system, these\npolicies that will meet the challenge of our\nsent and future together.\nThe state of the Union is not what the\n. That government can make schools\nworker safety.\ndrop programs or raise local taxes.\npolicies should reflect consultation and ac-\nthird century.\nspiralling health costs, that add more mis-\nTo go back on our commitment to a\nIncluding my health care reforms, I\ncommodation between the President and\nhave no doubt that our Union will en-\nPresident says it is, nor is it what the\nery to your lives each year.\nclean environment.\nCongress. But in the final analysis, as the\ndure-better, stronger and with more in-\nCongress says it is. It is the condition in\npropose to consolidate some 59 separate\nThat government can bring our power-\nTo go back and give up.\nwhich we-all of us together-find\nFederal programs and provide flexible\nframers of our Constitution knew from\ndividual freedom.\nful oil industry under control, to hold down\nWe cannot go back.\nFederal dollar grants to help States, cities\nhard experience, the foreign relations of the\nWe can see forward only dimly-one\nourselves, our prospects for the future and\nthe price of energy.\nWe cannot give up.\nand local agencies in such important areas\nUnited States can be conducted effectively\nyear, five years, a generation perhaps. Like\nwhat we can do together to improve those\nThat government can stop a disastrous\nAnd we will not.\nas education, child nutrition, and social ser-\nonly if there is strong central direction that\nour forefathers, we know that if we meet\nprospects.\nretreat from the goal of environmental\nIf we've learned anything as a\nallows flexibility of action. That respon-\nthe challenges of our own time with a com-\nemphasize this point at the outset for\nvices. This flexible system will do the job\nquality we set so resolutely not long ago.\nnation-from Valley Forge to Yorktown,\nbetter and do it closer to home.\nsibility clearly rests with the President.\nmon sense of purpose and conviction-if\na reason.\nWe can have confidence that govern-\nfrom the Great Depression to the landing\nI pledge to the American people\nwe remain true to our Constitution and\nment would begin to curb the abuses of\non the moon-it is this: Give Americans the\nNational Security\npolicies which seek a secure, just, and\nour ideals-then we can know that the\nFaith in Government\npower that threaten you.\ntools and they'll do the job.\nThe protection of the lives and proper-\npeaceful world. I pledge to the Congress to\nfuture will be better than the past.\nhave just returned from two intensive\nThe abuse of power by corporations\nwork with you to that end.\nI see America today crossing a\nweeks of travel, listening and talking\nthat dominate the marketplace, charging\nEconomy\nty of Americans from foreign enemies is\none of my primary responsibilities as\nWe must not face a future in which we\nthreshold, not just because it is our\namong my people back home in Maine. We\nwhat they want-who ignore the quality of\nWe are entering a period when the\ncan no longer help our friends, such as in\nBicentennial, but because we have been\ntalked about a lot of very serious problems\nour air and water-the safety of\ncountry's capacity to produce and create\nPresident.\nIn a world of instant communications\nAngola-even in limited and carefully con-\ntested in adversity. We have taken a new\nwhich are shared by millions of Americans\nworkers-the quality of goods-who each\ncan be greater than at any time in recent\nand intercontinental missiles, in a world\ntrolled ways. We must not lose all capacity\nlook at what we want to be and what we\nfrom coast to coast. The problem which\nyear push and shove for more tax privileges\nhistory. There are houses to build. There\neconomy that is global and interdependent,\nto respond short of military intervention.\nwant our nation to become.\nconcerns me more than all the\nand more exemptions from law-cor-\nare roads to repair. There are rivers to\nour relations with other nations become\nSome hasty actions of the Congress during\nI see America resurgent, certain once\nrest-because unless we solve it, we cannot\nporations, in other words, that each year\nclean. There are railroads to mend. There\nmore, not less, important to the lives of\nthe past year-most recently in respect to\nagain that life will be better for our\nsolve the rest-is the extent to which you\ngrow more wealthy and more powerful.\nare day-care centers to operate so that more\nAngola-were in my view very short-\nchildren than it is for us, seeking strength\nhave lost confidence in your political\nAnd we can begin to do what we must\nyoung women can participate in revitaliz-\nAmericans.\nAmerica has had a unique role in the\nsighted. Unfortunately, they are still very\nthat cannot be counted in megatons and\nsystem and your ability to govern\ndo to insure that government will curb its\ning America. There are books to be written\nworld since the day of our independence 200\nmuch on the minds of our allies and our\nriches that cannot be eroded by inflation.\nyourselves.\nown abuses.\nand printed. There are farms to be worked.\nyears ago. And ever since the end of World\nadversaries.\nI see these United States of America\nToo many of you do not believe the\nThe abuse of Presidential power goes\nThere are cities to rebuild. There are new\nWar II, we have borne-successfully-a\nA strong defense posture gives weight\nmoving forward as before toward a more\ngovernment cares about you and your\non-the abuse of our rights by the FBI and\nsources of energy to be developed. Oh, we\nheavy responsibility for ensuring a stable\nto our values and our views in international\nperfect Union where the government serves\nproblems.\nthe CIA have been exposed-the war in\nhave work to do.\nworld order and hope for human progress.\nnegotiations; it assures the vigor of our\nand the people rule.\nToo many of you believe that govern-\nVietnam went on for years-the secret war\nClearly, something is wrong in a\nToday, the state of our foreign policy is\nalliances; and it sustains our efforts to\nWe will not make this happen simply\nment cannot do anything about your\nin Angola goes on.\nsystem in which there is so much work to\nsound and strong.\npromote settlements of international con-\nby making speeches, good or bad, yours, or\nproblems.\nEverywhere I turn in this nation, these\nbe done at the same time there are so many\nWe are at peace-and I will do all in\nflicts. Only from a position of strength can\nmine, but by hard work and hard decisions\nToo many of you believe that govern-\nare the problems I hear from your lips.\npeople without work.\nmy power to keep it that way.\nwe negotiate a balanced agreement to limit\nmade with courage and common sense.\nment exists only for the benefit of the few\nThis is the State of the Union.\nThat problem is not only the business\nOur military forces are capable and\nthe growth of nuclear arms. Only a\nI have heard many inspiring Presiden-\nwho are rich and powerful.\nAnd it is also a Congressional agenda\nof business. It is also the business of\nready; our military power is without\nbalanced agreement will serve our interest\ntial speeches, but the words I remem-\nToo many of you believe that you can\nfor action.\ngovernment.\nequal. And I intend to keep it that way.\nand minimize the threat of nuclear confron-\nber best were spoken by Dwight D.\ndo nothing to improve the performance of\nThe goodness and strength of the\nWe all have a big stake in that effort.\nOur principal alliances, with the in-\ntation.\nEisenhower.\nyour government.\nAmerican people are not diminished by the\nWe all pay for unemployment.\ndustrial democracies of the Atlantic Com-\nThe Defense Budget I will submit to\n\"America is not good because it is\nToo few of you are willing to try.\ncorruption of a few of our leaders.\nFor every one percent increase in the\nmunity and Japan, have never been more\nthe Congress for fiscal 1977 will show an es-\ngreat,\" the President said. \"America is\nPolitical power in our system is still\nOur system of reward for hard work is\nunemployment rate-for every one million\nsolid.\nsential increase over last year. It provides\ngreat because it is good.\"\nyours to use-if you will.\nnot discredited by a few years of hard\nmore Americans out of work-we all pay\nA further agreement to limit the\nfor a real growth in purchasing power over\nPresident Eisenhower was raised in a\nIf you doubt what I say, recall, if you\ntimes.\nthree billion dollars more in unemployment\nstrategic arms race may be achieved.\nlast year's Defense Budget, which includes\npoor but religious home in the heart of\nwill, the Watergate affair and the reason\nOur government-the model for free\ncompensation and welfare checks and lose\nWe have an improving relationship\nthe costs of our All-Volunteer Force.\nAmerica. His simple words echoed Presi-\nwhy it was finally resolved by an orderly\npeople everywhere in the world-has not\n14 billion dollars in taxes. That means that\nwith China, the world's most populous\nWe are continuing to make economies\ndent Lincoln's eloquent testament that\ntransfer of power involving the first\nbeen destroyed by the wrong-headed\ntoday's unemployment costs us taxpayers\nto enhance the efficiency of our military\nnation.\n\"right makes might.\" And Lincoln in turn\nresignation from office of a President in\npolicies of a few Presidents or the failure of\nmore than 65 billion dollars a year.\nThe key elements for peace among the\nforces. But the budget I will submit\nevoked the silent image of George\nour entire history. It was you who produced\nCongress to block them in time.\nPresident Ford's budgets for these two\nnations of the Middle East now exist.\nrepresents the necessity of American\nWashington kneeling in prayer at Valley\nthat result-not the Congress-not even\nWe have had some very bad times in\nyears of recession have included more than\nOur traditional friendships in Latin\nstrength for the real world in which we live.\nForge.\nthe courts. Your political institutions\nour country in these last few years.\n40 billion dollars for unemployment com-\nAmerica, Africa, and Asia, continue.\nAs conflict and rivalries persist in the\nSo all these magic memories, which\nmoved when you insisted that they do.\nBut our people are still strong.\npensation and jobless payments alone-and\nWe have taken the role of leadership in\nworld, our United States intelligence\nlink eight generations of Americans, are\nYou and your elected representatives\nThe Republic still stands.\nanother fourteen billion dollars in interest\nlaunching a serious and hopeful dialogue\ncapabilities must be the best in the world.\nsummed up in the inscription just above\nare in this business of governing together.\nOur freely elected government can still\non the extra national debt that unemploy-\nbetween the industrial world and the\nThe crippling of our foreign in-\nWhen communication between us breaks\nwork.\nment has cost.\ndeveloping world.\ntelligence services increases the danger of\nme.\nHow many times have we seen it?-\"In\ndown, when we lose confidence in each\nWho among us would trade America\nBut the President's budget offers\nWe have achieved significant reform of\nAmerican involvement in direct armed con-\nother, we lose the very essense of self-\nfor any other country in the long history of\nno new jobs. In fact, it proposes cutbacks in\nflict. Our adversaries are encouraged to\nGod We Trust.\"\nthe international monetary system.\ngovernment.\nthe world?\nthe existing, limited emergency jobs\nWe should be proud of what the United\nattempt new adventures, while our own\nLet us engrave it now in each of our\nWe can again have confidence that\nWe don't need a new system.\nprogram Congress has enacted.\nability to monitor events, and to influence\nhearts as we begin our Bicentennial.\nStates has accomplished.\ngovernment can restore economic health to\nWhat we need is the will to make our\nThe President's plans for our economy\nThe American people have heard too\nevents short of military action-is under-\nGERALD R. FORD\nour nation-put people back to work-get\nsystem work.\nare penny-wise and pound-foolish. Under\nmuch about how terrible our mistakes, how\nmined.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 149\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY\nPAGE 148-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in pert except by editorial clients\nExecutive Branch 12\nExecutive Branch 11\nthan four billion dollars to improve local\noil prices. They have put the very\nprograms, are burdens taxpayers ought not\nThat gulf has widened since the tragic\nLet us pursue a lessening of tensions\nthem, America's factories are producing\nlaw enforcement. President Ford is now\nnecessities of life beyond the reach of more\nto be asked to carry. More than that, they\ncollapse of Vietnam.\nwith the Soviet Union and China, wherever\nonly three fourths as many goods as they\nproposing we spend seven billion more.\nIt was less than a year ago that we saw\nrob us of the resources we need to serve\nit is consistent with our own interests.\nactually could.\nand more of our citizens.\nhigh priority national needs. Moreover,\nDuring the same seven years crime has in-\nfilms of South Vietnamese soldiers pushing\nLet us extend a helping hand to the\nThe Administration has tried hard to\nJobs\ntheir very existence undermines that public\ncreased 55 percent.\nwomen and children away from evacuation\ntwo-thirds of the people of the world who\nmake the case that budget deficits are a\nYet we also know that we can't solve\nconfidence in government which is essen-\nplanes in Danang...saw Americans being\nhave so little. And let us do so with the con-\nThat means fewer jobs and higher\ndirect cause of inflation. I wish the\npriority problems like pollution or provide a\nairlifted from the roof of the American Em-\nAmerican economy were that simple. Cur-\ntial and SO sadly lacking.\nfidence of a truly great people. We do not\nnational defense without a substantial com-\nbassy in Saigon to Navy ships in the China\nprices.\nneed to always win all our debates with\nIf we had just enough jobs this year to\ning inflation then would be a simple matter\nmitment of tax dollars. So we must pursue\nsea. Until that end, this Administration\nevery nation in the world.\nmatch the unemployment rate of 1968, we\nof cutting the budget. Unfortunately, the\nthe hard, detailed job of evaluating federal\nwas pleading for another $720 million to\nLet our greatness be, not that we\nwould collect enough federal taxes to wipe\nfacts do not bear out the Administration\nBudget Process\nspending in each and every area of the\nclaim.\nCongress has enacted a new budget\nspend on a cause that the American people\nalways win, but that-as God gives us the\nout the entire deficit, this year and next.\nbudget. We must buy only what we need.\nhad long since recognized was wrong and\nprocess to remedy this now-chronic\npower to see it-we are always in pursuit of\nBut the President's budget is designed\nIn 1974, the federal government deficit\nAnd at the lowest sound cost.\nhopeless.\nwas the smallest in the past several years.\nnational financial crisis.\nthe right.\nto keep unemployment over seven percent\nIn 1974, both inflation and interest rates\nOur job is to decide on a ceiling on\nI was disappointed that the President\nVietnam was a bitter disappointment.\nand more for another year. To keep seven\nmade no proposals in his state of the Union\nBut it also offered us some positive\nreached their highest points in 21 years.\nspending and a floor under taxes for each\nmillion Americans unemployed at this time\nmessage to improve government efficien-\nlessons: U.S. interests are not served by\nCongressional Duty\na year from now. And most economists\nPrices were high that year because of\nyear.\nIn doing so we also set an economic\ncy-to bring new businesslike methods into\nmilitary intervention everywhere in the\nIn his State of the Union\nbelieve that if the Administration's policies\nthe sudden increase in oil prices, steep in-\nthe bureaucracy.\nworld where we see instability. And the\nmessage-and in the budget he sent us\ncreases in food prices, and a deliberate\npolicy for the country and ration the dollars\nare followed, unemployment will not fall\nin the budget according to our actual\nUnder our system of government, the\nU.S. can conduct a responsible policy\ntoday-the President has made some\nbelow seven percent in this decade.\npolicy by the Federal Reserve Board to keep\nPresident is the Chief Executive.\ntoward its potential adversaries and toward\nserious proposals for reduction in federal\nWe American taxpayers pay a stagger-\ninterest rates high. The size of the deficit\nnational needs.\nEfficiency in the general government\nits allies and can pursue its interests after\nwas incidental.\nOur goal is to balance the budget as\nexpenditures and changes in our national\ning price for these jobless policies.\nis his responsibility.\nVietnam-better, if anything, than before.\npriorities.\nBut the Americans who want work and\nThe Administration did not raise oil\nsoon as the economy permits.\nBut what steps has he taken to im-\nYet just last month, we discovered that\nWe have imposed a tough spending\nThe President's program includes a\ncan't find it pay so much more.\nprices. It was not responsible for poor crops\nprove efficiency and reduce costs in the Ex-\nthe President has involved our nation in a\nnumber of ideas to simply shift the cost of\naround the world during the late 1960's and\nceiling on the federal government this year.\nWhat price does a father or mother pay\necutive Branch?\nmajor war in yet another faroff land: in\nlate 1970's. But it compounded the\nWe will impose a similar spending ceil-\nfederal programs from the federal govern-\nwho can't support their children? What\nWhy does it cost the government twice\nAngola, where our nation's interests and\nment to the states and the cities. We must\nprice does a master carpenter pay when he\nproblems, partly by inept, often panicky\ning next year and every year.\nas much as a private insurance company to\nthose of the free world are far from clear.\nWe have held the federal deficit to the\nfrankly be skeptical of such proposals that\nis reduced to welfare? How can we calculate\nmanagement of the economy, starting with\nprocess medical claims?\nThe Senate voted against any further\nlowest possible level consistent with reduc-\nsimply raise state and local taxes. But I\nthe cost to America's jobless in lost\nthe first Nixon Administration. The Ad-\nWhy does the government take months\nexpenditures for Angola.\nbelieve Congress must evaluate the\nseniority, job-training, and pension rights?\nministration raced the economy's engine in\ning unemployment.\nIn fact, we have held the federal deficit\nto get the first check out to a widow entitled\nAs in Vietnam, we find ourselves deep-\nPresident's proposals with an open mind.\nWhat price will we all pay when two out of\nelection years and then created recessions\nto a federal pension?\nly committed without prior notice or con-\nto curb the resulting inflation. It moved too\n25 billion dollars below the Secretary of the\nWhere they are simply gimmicks or\nevery five inner city youths grow up\nWhy does the Social Security Ad-\nsultation with our people in a country\nmistakes, they should be rejected.\nquickly from one set of wage-price controls\nTreasury's estimate of last spring.\nwithout ever having had a full-time job?\nministration take a year or more to process\nto another without ever giving any of them\nAnd we are using the process to deter-\nwhere U.S. interests could not possibly be\nWhere they need amendment, they\nExperts in both government and\na chance to work. It tried to impose\nmine the economic impact of tax and\na citizen's claim for disability compen-\nserved at any price.\nshould be shaped to meet America's actual\nprivate enterprise tell us that we can, if we\nsation?\nA free people deserve to be informed\nneeds.\nchoose, significantly reduce the present un-\ndomestic oil price increases on top of the\nregulatory policies.\nWhy can't defense contractors be made\nFinally, we'll use all of this informa-\nand to consent to the foreign policy we pur-\nWhere they make sense, they should be\nemployment during the next fiscal year.\nforeign increases that would have doubled\nto deliver their goods at the agreed-upon\nsue.\ntion to put spending priorities more in line\nadopted.\nDirect employment programs-using\nthe impact. It compounded the poor crop\nprice without cost overruns? Have you ever\nMuch of the world today is watching\nWe must not fear change.\nyears by selling too much of this nation's\nwith real needs, and to weed out programs\nfederal dollars to pay for public service\nwhich cost too much or produce too little.\nheard of a Defense Department employee\nwith amazement as a Congress of the\nJust as we cannot go back to the old\nlike classroom teaching aides and hospital\ngrain reserves to Russia.\nLast year we reduced the President's\nbeing fired for permitting a cost overrun\nUnited States examines U.S. intelligence\ndays, we must be ready to change old ways\nattendants-would produce the most jobs\npaid for with our tax dollars?\noperations overseas. I know many of you\nNew Policies\nrequests for defense and foreign military\nto meet new needs and present realities.\nat the lowest total cost.\nThrough the new Congressional budget\nmust have asked yourselves, as I have,\nI do not believe we face any problem\nFederal assistance to local com-\nWhat the nation needs at this time is\naid to levels we thought were closer to our\nreform process, Congress has laid the\nwhether it is necessary to hang out the dir-\nwe cannot solve.\nleadership that will not jump from one\nreal defense needs and purposes.\nmunities for short-term public works proj-\ngroundwork for a more efficient govern-\nty linen-to talk about assassination\nOur problems are man-made, and men\nects and to avoid layoffs in local govern-\neconomic panic button to another. We need\nWe have used part of the money we\nment at tax savings to our citizens.\nsaved to increase jobs, health care and\nattempts, to admit what the whole world\nand women can find their solutions.\nment services-like police protection and\na consistent, responsible, non-partisan plan\nI hope President Ford will join us in\nknows about both us and themselves, that\nWe need the will to try.\ntrash collection-also have high job yields\nfor protecting the economy from further\nsocial security.\nthat effort.\nnations spy.\nThe state of the Union is as strong as\nshocks.\nWe rejected at least $10 to $15 billion\nfor the tax dollars invested.\nI do not believe most Americans want\nYes, it is necessary. How else is the\nthe bond between us.\nWe need an energy policy that will\nin other requests to hold down the deficit.\nYet President Ford says he intends to\ntheir government dismantled.\nAmerican public to get hold of its foreign\nSo let us make a pledge to one another\nveto even the limited program pending in\nkeep the prices of oil and natural gas at\nWe can't very well fire the mailmen,\npolicy again? How else can we guarantee in-\ntonight.\nthe Congress for short-term public works\nreasonable levels until the economy can ab-\nOversight\ndischarge our armed forces, or lay off the\nterventions in other countries are an\nAssert your right to share control of\nand financial assistance to local com-\nsorb increases.\nBut the new budget reform process is\npeople who run the computers that print\nappropriate expression of deliberate U.S.\nour national destiny. Decide now that you\nmunities which have high jobless rates.\nWe need a food policy that gives\nour Social Security checks.\npolicy, and not the making of some faceless\nare going to vote in the Presidential and\nThis anti-recession bill-which the Presi-\nfarmers a guarantee of reasonable incomes\njust one step in a broader effort we must\nBut we can expect maximum efficiency\nbureaucrat? Sure, it is inconvenient to con-\nCongressional state and local elections this\ndent seeks to block-would create 300,000\nand consumers a guarantee of reasonable\nundertake.\nWe need a second spending reform to\nand performance in office by everyone who\nduct foreign policy in the open, and, cer-\nfall, and keep that commitment.\njobs this year.\nprices. A crop failure in Russia should not\ndraws a federal salary.\ntainly there will always be a need for in-\nmake sure the federal money we spend is\nBut put the politicians who seek your\nThe President says we cannot afford to\nbe permitted to disturb that balance.\ntelligence work and for secrecy within the\nvote in those elections to a stringent test.\nWe need a wage-price council which\neffectively used.\nhelp Americans find work.\nWe should question the most basic\nInternational Affairs\nbounds of established policy.\nAre they men of their word?\nI say we cannot, as taxpayers, afford\nwill make life miserable for any big corpor-\nBut a Republic gets its strength from\nIf they promise more government\nation that raises prices without very good\nassumptions about every program.\nLet us now ask ourselves about\nthe consent of the governed and from a con-\nnot to.\nAnd those jobs should be in addition to\nreason will do so in the name of the Presi-\nAny programs not doing the job or\nbenefits and services, do they also say how\nAmerica's place in the world.\nsensus on shared objectives. It gets only\nmuch they will cost?\nthe jobs Congress could create in private in-\ndent of the United States.\nduplicating better-run programs should be\nWhat is your definition of national\nweakness and disappointment from secrecy\nIf they say they are going to reduce the\nWe need an anti-trust policy that will\neliminated.\ndustry by additional tax cuts without in-\nour shores from at-\nBy the end of every four years, all\nand surprise.\nsize of government, do they tell you which\ncreasing present federal spending levels.\nmove immediately to prevent powerful\ntack? ...standing by our allies in Western\nSo let us seek a foreign policy we can\nAnd Congress could avoid discouraging\nfirms from gaining too much control over\nprograms should be reviewed in this\nservices you are going to go without and\nEurope and Asia? ...protecting our vital\ntalk about in public and agree to in ad-\nhow much that will save?\nprivate sector employment by rejecting the\nboth markets and capital, not spend years\nprocess.\neconomic interests? ..playing a leadership\nvance.\nDo they offer specific proposals or\nin court arguing cases after it is too late.\nThe only program excepted from this\nPresident's proposals to increase payroll\nrole in moving the world away from the\nLet us defend our real interests-leave\nFederal deficits are not the cause of the\nreview should be the Social Security\nsimply slogans?\narms race? ...I would agree.\nno doubt of it. But where our interest is not\nThe Congress which meets in this\ntaxes.\ninflation we have experienced in the last\nprogram, which is, after all, an insurance\nWe must also ask what is the most\ndirectly or clearly involved, let our adver-\nbuilding is your Congress if you participate\nInflation\ntwo years, but they can be, and we must be\nsystem.\nWe have learned that we can't solve\ndangerous foreign policy problem we face\nsaries learn, as we did in Vietnam, the ex-\nin its election and supervision.\nAs I listen to my people in Maine, it is\nconcerned about the possibility, as the\ntoday? I think, once again, it is a gulf of\npensive lesson of the limits of their power.\nTogether, we are the Union.\neconomy recovers its health.\nour problems by simply throwing federal\ndoubt and mistrust between us and our\nclear that one of the most frightening\nLet us be neither patsy nor bully for\nAnd I find the state of that Union very\nBeyond that, wasteful government\ndollars at them. In the past seven years, the\neconomic results of recent years is in-\ngovernment.\nthe other nations of the world.\nfederal government has provided more\nstrong indeed.\nI\nflation-and especially the quadrupling of\nspending, inefficient and ineffective\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 151\nPAGE 150-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nInside Congress 2\n\"The jury is still out on whether openness is what it's\nsupposed to be,\" Glenn continued. He recalled that during\n2413) resolution. (Further background, 1975 Weekly Report p.\nof\nInside Congress\nthe protracted conflict between the White House and\nCongress over oil-pricing legislation in 1975, \"there were\nThe new rules produced an immediate reduction in\nclosed sessions. Only 4.8 per cent of the Senate committee\nmeetings all over the place to try to hammer out positions.\"\nmeetings were closed after the new rules were adopted,\n'Rump Sessions'\ncompared with 15 per cent for the year as a whole.\nCOMMITTEES OPENED 93% OF 1975 MEETINGS\nThe closed meetings-with a single excep-\nThese \"rump sessions,\" he said, were held privately\ntion-concerned foreign affairs, military or intelligence\namong several members. \"I wonder if we don't have a\nmatters. The exception was a closed mark-up session Nov. 6\nCongressional committees opened their doors to the\nthe House in opening meetings, registered 15 per cent closed\nfacade of open meetings while we create a series of closed\nat which the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a bill\npublic and press in record numbers in 1975, continuing a\nmeetings in 1975, down from 25 per cent in both 1973 and\nmeetings.\"\n(HR 6971) to repeal antitrust exemptions relating to fair\ntrend begun in 1973 with the adoption of House and Senate\n1974.\nSeveral other senators and representatives interviewed\ntrade laws.\nrules aimed at keeping closed sessions to a minimum.\nHearings continued to be the type of meeting most\nby CQ also said that private meetings increasingly were\nStricter Senate open-meeting rules adopted in 1975 further\noften opened to the public. Only 5 per cent of all con-\ncropping up to help members prepare for open meetings.\nHouse\nincreased public access to the workings of committees.\ngressional hearings were closed. The public was barred\nSen. Dole, among others, disagreed. \"We've kidded each\nMost significant were the inroads made into the\nfrom fewer than 3 per cent of House hearings and 8 per cent\nother about it a lot back and forth,\" he said, \"but it's not\nThe House, the leader in openness since 1973, moved in\ntraditional secrecy of bill-drafting or mark-up sessions and\nof Senate hearings.\nwidespread.\"\n1975 to place further restrictions on closed meetings. On\nJan. 14 it adopted new rules that included an amendment\nof House-Senate conferences, where differing legislation\nIn mark-ups, where the greatest strides in openness oc-\nHouse Appropriations Chairman George Mahon (D\nfrom each chamber is melded into a single bill. For the first\ncurred, the Senate closed only 29 per cent of those sessions\nTexas) said that such meetings are inevitable. \"Members\nallowing a committee to vote in advance to close only a\nsingle subsequent day of hearings. Previously the rules per-\ntime since Congressional Quarterly began its annual survey\ncompared with 72 per cent in 1974. The House closed only 2\nthat.\" are always going to discuss issues,\" he said. \"You can't stop\nmitted a committee to vote in advance to close a series of\nof committee secrecy in 1953, the Senate held most of its\nper cent of its mark-ups in 1975.\nmeetings on the same subject.\nmark-up sessions in public view. The percentage of open\nAlso adopted was an amendment sponsored in the\nmark-ups in the House was higher than the percentage of\nDebate Persists\nMore 'Sunshine'\nDemocratic Caucus by Dante B. Fascell (D Fla.), Thomas S.\npublic hearings.\nFoley (D Wash.) and Bob Eckhardt (D Texas), to open all\nHouse and Senate conferees also reached compromises\nThe fact that more mark-up and conference committee\nAdvocates of \"government in the sunshine\" won rules\nHouse-Senate conferences except when either chamber's\nmore frequently in public in 1975. Conferences on 29 of 66\nsessions were opened failed to quell the controversy over\nchanges in both the House and Senate in 1975 that in-\nconferees voted in open session to close them. Each vote was\nbills were held in open session. In 1974, only 12 of 116 con-\nwhether it is beneficial and efficient to work out legislation\ncreased the number of open meetings.\nto apply only to one session of the conference; separate\nferences were open. (1974 Almanac p. 961)\nin public. Some members felt that the disadvantages out-\nvotes would be required to close it each day. The amend-\nOnly 7 per cent of all congressional committee\nweighed the benefits.\nSenate\nment did not take effect, however, until the Senate adopted\nmeetings were closed in 1975, compared with 15 per cent in\n1974 and 16 per cent in 1973. In the House, where open-\nThe Senate Nov. 5 unanimously adopted new rules that\nits similar resolution Nov. 5. (House rules changes, 1975\nProz and Cons\nsession rules had resulted in only 10 per cent of the\nrequired committee meetings to be open unless a majority\nWeekly Report p. 116)\nOpen meetings \"have polarized the parties a little\nof the committee voted to close them.\nmeetings being closed in 1973 and 8 per cent in 1974, only 3\nper cent of all committee meetings were held behind closed\nmore, House Administration Chairman Wayne L. Hays (D\nResoundingly rejected was a more restrictive resolu-\nSenate Committees\ndoors in 1975. The Senate, which continued to lag behind\nOhio) said in an interview. \"Republicans have conferences,\ntion prepared by the Rules and Administration Committee\nso Democrats feel they have to have theirs too. They work\nthat would have made little change in existing practice,\nAll Senate committees reduced the percentage of\nTotal\nPer Cent\nout their positions in these meetings.\"\nallowing individual committees to adopt their own rules.\nNumber\nmeetings they held behind closed doors in 1975. Eight per\nAs a result, Hays said, \"you don't get the give and take\nAlso approved was a proposal to open Senate-House\nYear\nMeetings\nClosed\nClosed\ncent of all hearings, 29 per cent of mark-ups and 69 per cent\nthat I think is essential.. Clearly there is more par-\nconferences, traditionally the most secretive meetings in\nof committee business meetings were closed to the public\n1953\n2,640*\n892\ntisanship and more hardenings.\"\nCongress.\n35%*\nand press. In 1974, 14 per cent of hearings, 72 per cent of\n3,002*\n1,243\n41*\nFurthermore, no \"face-saving\" way exists for a\nThe rules change, embodied in S Res 9, had been urged\n1954\nmark-ups and 57 per cent of business meetings were closed.\n36*\nmember to back down from a publicized position, he said.\nsince 1973 by a bloc of senators led by Lawton Chiles (D\n1955\n2,940*\n1,055\nSeven Senate committees held all of their meetings in\n1,130\n36*\n\"This has slowed down the legislative process.\" But \"the\nFla.) and William V. Roth (R Del.). Senate Democratic and\npublic during the year. (Table, p. 154)\n1956\n3,120*\n1957\n2,517*\n854\n34*\nmost insidious part\" of open meetings is the behavior of lob-\nRepublican caucuses paved the way for full Senate accep-\nAll hearings of eight committees were open:\n1958\n3,472*\n1,167\n34*\nbyists, he said, and \"seeing them passing notes to members\ntance of the change. On Jan. 15 and Jan. 16, respectively,\nAeronautical and Space Sciences; Agriculture and Forestry;\nin conferences.\"\n1959\n3,152*\n940\n30*\nthe caucuses voted in favor of opening committee meetings\nBanking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Budget; Finance;\n1960\n2,424*\n35*\nSenate Public Works Chairman Jennings Randolph (D\nand conferences. The \"sunshine\" drive also was aided by\n840\nLabor and Public Welfare; Post Office and Civil Service;\n1961\n3,159*\n1,109\n35*\nW.Va.), by contrast, expressed satisfaction with his com-\nthe lack of problems House committees had experienced\nand Rules and Administration.\n1962\n2,929*\n991\n34*\nmittee's experience at drafting all bills in public during\nafter their bill-drafting sessions were opened to the public\nin 1973. (House reform, 1973 Almanac p. 1074)\n1963\n3,868*\n1,463\n38*\n1975. \"Open mark-ups haven't inhibited members in dis-\nMark-Ups\n763\ncussion, but have helped in development of balanced\nAs adopted, the Senate rules required committees to\n1964\n2,393*\n32*\nopen all meetings-including mark-up sessions-unless a\nTwo committees-Aeronautical and Space Sciences\n1965\n3,903\n1,537\n39\nlegislation,\" Randolph said. \"Members prepare even more\n3,869\n1,626\nthoroughly\" when sessions are open.\nmajority of the committee voted in open session to close the\nand Government Operations-held all mark-ups in open\n1966\n42\nsessions.\n1967\n4,412\n1,716\n39\n\"Open mark-up sessions also have been a plus from the\nmeeting or a series of meetings on the same subject for up\n1968\n3,080\n1,328\n43\nstandpoint of accuracy,\" he added. \"They have all but\nto 14 days. Meetings could be closed if the subject to be dis-\nFor the first time since 1953, when CQ began its survey,\nthe Senate held most of its mark-ups in open session in\n1969\n36\neliminated inaccurate and incomplete reports.\"\ncussed concerned one or more of the following: 1) national\n4,029\n1,470\n4,506\n\"But every senator has to make a speech when the\nsecurity; 2) internal staff procedures; 3) criminal or other\n1975. Only one committee increased its percentage of closed\n1970\n1,865\n41\n1971\n4,816\n36\npress is there,\" said Sen. Robert Dole (R Kan.).\ncharges that could jeopardize an individual's reputation; 4)\nmark-ups. The Judiciary Committee closed 33 per cent of its\n1,731\n1,648\ngovernment informers or agents or a criminal investigation\nbill-drafting sessions in 1975, up slightly from 28 per cent in\n1972\n4,073\n40\nSen. John Glenn (D Ohio) voiced objections that open\n1974.\n1973\n5,520\n887\nmark-up sessions had limited the scope of discussions.\nthat should be kept secret; 5) trade secrets or financial or\n16\n1974\nMembers, mindful of press coverage, hesitated to discuss\n707\n15\ncommercial information required to be kept secret; or 6)\nThe most dramatic decreases in closed mark-ups were\n4,731\nthe more extreme alternatives on the full gamut of\nother matters that must be kept secret under federal\nregistered by Veterans Affairs (100 per cent closed in 1974,\n1975\n6,325\n449\n7\nstatute.\nnone closed in 1975), Public Works (93 per cent closed in\npossibilities, he said. \"In decision making you can never\nTotal*\n84,880\nrule out your options before you start. You have to at least\nThe requirement for open House-Senate con-\n1974, none closed in 1975) and Finance (100 per cent closed\n27,411\n32%\nconsider the ridiculous extremes. Some moderate, workable\nferences-unless a majority of either chamber's conferees\nin 1974, 8 per cent closed in 1975).\n*Meetings of the House Appropriations Committee, all reported closed until 1971, were\nvoted otherwise-also was included in the Senate\nPublic Works Chairman Randolph said, \"It was a con-\nnot included In the study until 1965.\napproach may come out of what seemed an extreme.\"\nscious effort to reduce the closed sessions. I've tried to en-\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 152-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nReproduction prohibited whole or part except by aditorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 153\nInside Congress - 4\nInside Congress 3\ncourage openness.\" He indicated that party caucus votes\nOpen, Closed Committee Meetings, 1974-75\nearly in the year influenced the openness.\nGround Rules\nCommittees having the highest record of closed mark-\nups were four of the most powerful: Labor and Public\nThe figures used in this study were compiled from\n1974\n1975\nWelfare (75 per cent), Armed Services (69 per cent),\nthe lists of committee meetings published in the Daily\nPer Cent\nPer Cent\nAppropriations (69 per cent) and Foreign Relations (67 per\nOpen\nTotal\nClosed\nDigest section of the Congressional Record. Subcom-\nOpen\nClosed\nClosed\nClosed\nTotal\ncent).\nSen. J. Glenn Beall Jr. (R Md.), who serves on Labor\nmittee meetings were included in the totals along with\nSenate Committees\n19\n4\n17%\n24\n1\n25\n4%\nand Public Welfare, which had the highest percentage of\nfull committee sessions. Open meetings followed by\n23\nAeronautical and Space Sciences\n8\n60\n35\n70\n6\n76\nAgriculture and Forestry\n39\n21\nclosed mark-ups, said the committee's record was linked in\nclosed meetings were counted twice, once in each\n232\n28\n220\n68\n288\n25\n90\n322\npart to poor attendance. \"It's embarassing to see how many\ncategory. Joint meetings of separate committees or\nAppropriations\n69\n107\n52\n61\n113\n54\nsubcommittees were counted as one meeting for each.\nArmed Services\n38\n64\n138\n1\n139\n1\nvotes are on proxy,\" he said. Fellow committee member\n10\nThe tabulations exclude meetings held when\n10\n99\nBanking, Housing and Urban Affairs\n89\n61\n2\n63\n3\nRandolph concurred that the committee \"has had trouble\n-\nCongress was not in regular session; meetings held out-\n-\n-\n-\nBudget\n216\n24\n192\n9\n201\n5\ngetting a quorum.\"\n164\n52\nside of Washington, D.C.; informal meetings without\nCommerce\n15\n0\n15\n9\n0\n9\n0\n0\nBeall questioned the practicality of closed mark-ups\nofficial status, and meetings of the House Rules Com-\nDistrict of Columbia\n37\n72\n3\n75\n4\nheld on the common-site picketing bill (HR 5900), later\n57\n33\n90\nmittee to consider sending legislation to the floor.\nFinance\n79\n57\n136\n42\n109\n67\n176\n38\nvetoed by President Ford. The controversial bill, heavily\nForeign Relations\n4\n118\n1\n119\n1\nThe Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 re-\nGovernment Operations\n98\n4\n102\nlobbied on both sides, would have allowed all workers on a\n143\n8\n5\n152\n0\n152\n0\nquired information on congressional committee\n151\nconstruction site to honor a strike by workers for one sub-\nInterior and Insular Affairs\n210\n17\n227\n8\nmeetings to be published daily in the Record, but the\n177\n17\n194\n9\nJudiciary\n98\n27\n125\n22\n124\n19\n143\n13\ncontractor, thus closing down a project. Said Beall: \"We told\nlistings have not always reflected exactly the number\nLabor and Public Welfare\n18\n50\n14\n3\n17\n18\nall the people in the halls everything that was going on in-\nof meetings held or whether they were closed to the\nPost Office and Civil Service\n9\n9\n55\n35\n125\n0\n125\n0\nside anyway.\" (Common-site picketing bill, 1975 Weekly\n29\n84\npublic.\nPublic Works\n70\n9\nReport p. 2875)\nRules and Administration\n21\n23\n44\n52\n64\n6\nSelect Governmental Intelligence\n21\n61\n82\n74\n-\nHouse Committees\n-\n-\nGathering Activities\n-\n10\n1\n11\n9\n4\n0\n4\n0\nMark-Ups\nSelect Nutrition and Human Needs\n17\n0\n51\n0\n51\n0\n0\n17\nSelect Small Business\n21\n0\nThe House continued in 1975 to reduce its percentage of\nOnly 2.2 per cent of House committee mark-ups\n0\n15\n0\n21\n0\n15\nSpecial Aging\n13\n4\n17\n20\n0\n20\n0\nclosed meetings. Fewer than 3 per cent of all House com-\nwere closed, while 2.8 per cent of the hearings were closed.\n24\nVeterans' Affairs\n15%\nmittee meetings were closed, compared with 8 per cent in\nSeventeen committees held all mark-ups in public.\n1,390*\n463*\n1,853*\n25%\n1,871\n325\n2,196\n1974. Fewer than 3 per cent of committee hearings, 2 per\nThey were the 12 committees having all open meetings\nTOTAL\ncent of mark-ups and 7 per cent of business meetings were\nand the following five other committees: Ways and Means,\nHouse Committees\n0\n164\n2\n166\n1%\nclosed in 1975.\nPost Office and Civil Service, Judiciary, Government\n144\n0\n144\nAgriculture\n388\n42\n430\n10\n504\n31\n535\n6\nTwelve committees held all their sessions in public in\nOperations, and Budget. The Appropriations Committee\nAppropriations\n81\n240\n34\n145\n34\n179\n19\n1975, compared with 11 in 1974. For the first time, Banking,\nopened all of its full committee mark-ups, as did three of\nArmed Services\n159\n106\n0\n0\n168\n0\n168\n0\n106\nCurrency and Housing; Public Works and Transportation;\nits 13 subcommittees.\nBanking, Currency and Housing\n55\n2\n-\n-\n54\n1\nScience and Technology; Select Committee on Aging; and\nThe percentage of closed mark-ups dropped from 4.6\n-\n-\nBudget\n56\n0\n56\n51\n0\n51\n0\n0\nStandards of Official Conduct held all their meetings in\nper cent in 1974 to 2.2 per cent in 1975-a decrease\nDistrict of Columbia\n156\n0\n156\n0\n231\n0\n231\n0\nEducation and Labor\n1\n117\n168\n1\n169\n1\npublic. (Table, p. 154)\nattributable almost entirely to the Appropriations Com-\nGovernment Operations\n116\n1\n9\nCommittees with the highest secrecy scores continued\nmittee. That committee, with 47 per cent of its mark-ups\n32\n91\n9\n100\nHouse Administration\n43\n20\n63\n1\n206\n0\n206\n0\nto be those handling military, intelligence and foreign af-\nclosed in 1974, closed only 4 per cent in 1975.\n218\n219\n0\nInterior and Insular Affairs\n12\n188\n6\n238\n16\n254\n6\nfairs issues. Select Intelligence closed 24 per cent of its\nAppropriations Chairman Mahon told CQ: \"There's\nInternational Relations\n176\n4\n387\n4\n391\n1\nhearings; Armed Services closed 10 per cent of its hearings\nbeen a demand on the part of more people to have the\nInterstate and Foreign Commerce\n219\n8\n227\n181\n20\n283\n2\n285\n1\nand 41 per cent of its mark-ups; International Relations\n[mark-up] sessions open. People don't feel too strongly one\n144\n37\nJudiciary\n0\n143\n0\n143\n0\n0\n96\nclosed 8 per cent of its hearings, but only 2 per cent of its\nway or the other. Those who previously opposed open\nMerchant Marine and Fisheries\n96\n68\n0\n68\n186\n1\n187\n1\n0\nmark-ups.\nmeetings do not find them unacceptable now.\"\nPost Office and Civil Service\n66\n6\n130\n0\n130\n0\nSignificant reductions in the percentage of closed\nAlso for the first time, the Ways and Means Committee\nPublic Works and Transportation\n62\n4\n0\n14\n0\n77\n0\n77\n0\n14\nRules\n225\n0\n225\n0\nmeetings were registered by four committees: Armed Ser-\nheld all of its mark-up sessions in public in 1975. The only\nScience and Technology\n93\n1\n94\n1\n-\n29\n0\n29\n0\nvices (19 per cent closed in 1975, 34 per cent in 1974); House\ncommittee to close more than 5 per cent of its mark-ups was\n-\n-\n-\nSelect on Aging\n30\n9\n39\n23\nAdministration (9 per cent closed in 1975, 32 per cent in\nArmed Services, which closed 41 per cent, down slightly\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSelect Intelligence\n1974); Appropriations (6 per cent closed in 1975, 10 per cent\n35\n0\n35\n0\n49\n0\n49\n0\nfrom 43 per cent in 1974.\nSmall Business\n2\n10\n20\n19\n0\n19\n0\nin 1974); and Judiciary (1 per cent closed in 1975, 20 per cent\nHowever, a higher percentage of closed mark-ups was\nStandards of Official Conduct\n8\n28\n0\n0\n44\n0\n44\n0\n28\nin 1974).\nregistered by three committees: Agriculture (1 per cent\nVeterans' Affairs\n264\n2\nHouse Administration Chairman Hays told CQ, \"The\nclosed in 1975, none in 1974); House Administration (5 per\n125\n6\n131\n5\n259\n5\nWays and Means\n2,504*\n219*\n2,723*\n8%\n3,881\n115\n3,996\n3%\nmain reason for more open meetings is that the reporters\ncent closed in 1975, none in 1974) and International\nTOTAL\nquit coming because they didn't have an issue anymore.\nRelations (2 per cent closed in 1975, none in 1974).\nThey pushed to open up meetings, but once the meetings\nJoint Committees\n53\n23\n76\n44\n7\n51\n14%\nwere open, the reporters quit coming.\"\nJoint Committees\n30%\nAtomic Energy\n0\n11\n0\n3\n0\n3\n0\nOn the greater openness of Armed Services, Rep.\nCongressional Operations\n11\n2\n0\n2\n0\n-\n-\n-\nRonald V. Dellums (D Calif.) said, \"The removal of former\nJoint committees closed 7 per cent of their meetings in\nDefense Production\n-\n66\n0\n74\n1\n75\n1\nEconomic\n66\n0\n0\n1\n0\ncommittee chairman [F. Edward] Hebert was a major jolt.\n1975, compared with 16 per cent in 1974. The Joint Atomic\n1\n-\n-\n-\n-\nLibrary\n0\n1\n1\n100\nThat was a repudiation of a tightly run committee which\nEnergy Committee reduced its closed sessions from 30 per\n-\n-\n-\n-\nhad been a rubber stamp for the Pentagon. When the com-\ncent in 1974 to 14 per cent in 1975. The Joint Economic Com-\nPrinting\n130*\n25*\n155*\n16%\n124\n9\n133\n7%\nmittee [caucus] voted to oust Hebert, we were saying that\nmittee held a single closed hearing on Defense Intelligence\nTOTAL\n707\n4,731\n15%\n5,876\n449\n6,325\n7%\nwe won't accept any longer those heavy-handed practices.\"\nAgency budget allocations, after having no closed sessions\nGRAND TOTAL\n4,024\n(Hebert ouster, 1975 Weekly Report p. 114)\nin 1974.\n-\nFigures for committees that met in 1974, but not in 1975, are not shown individually\nbut are included in 1974 totals.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 155\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 154-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nPresidential Support 2\nchances of getting legislation through Congress. If Reagan\nof\nPresidential Support\ndoes well, Ford would become almost insignificant.\"\nSouth, where the average Democratic senator supported\nA White House aide agreed. \"If the President stumbles\nthe President 58 per cent of the time, compared with 46 per\ncent in 1974.\n[in the primaries], Republicans will start bailing out in all\ndirections,\" he said. \"The degree of unanimity we have\nThe average House Democrat in each region supported\nwould be lost.\"\nthe President slightly less often than his Senate counter-\nFORD SUPPORT IN CONGRESS: UP SLIGHTLY IN 1975\npart. The average Midwesterner dropped his support from\n41 per cent to 35 per cent.\nPresident Ford won 61 per cent of the congressional\nVietnam and Cambodia early in the year, and the year-long\nSupport Breakdown\nThe President picked up stronger support from the\naverage Republican senator in the West and South:from 52\nvotes on which he took a position during 1975. That was a\nattempt by the Democratic majority, particularly in the\nper cent to 71 per cent in the West and from 55 per cent to\nslight improvement over his 1974 record, but it still was the\nHouse, to forge its own economic and energy policies.\nIn the Senate, the average Democrat supported the\n74 per cent in the South. Ford's support by the average\nlowest mark set by a second-year President in the 23 years\n\"It's surprising that he [Ford] got more than 50 per\nPresident more often (47 per cent) than he opposed him (41\nHouse Republican from all regions improved by from 10 to\nsince Congressional Quarterly began keeping records.\ncent support,\" said the aide. \"This was the most hostile\nper cent). That was a switch from 1974, when the average\n13 percentage points.\nFord's support mark during the four months he was in\nHouse that any President has faced in many years. Many of\nSenate Democrat opposed the President 47 per cent of the\nIn 1975 the average southern House Democrat was\noffice in 1974 was 58.2 per cent. The lowest score of any\nour legislative initiatives weren't even really considered\ntime and supported him 39 per cent of the time.\nmore likely to oppose the President than to support him, a\nPresident since 1953 was 50.6 per cent, set by Richard Nixon\nbecause the Democrats wanted to come up with their own\nIn the House, composite scores show that the average\nswitch from 1974. The average Southerner supported Ford\nin 1973. (1974 presidential support, 1974 Almanac p. 1006)\nprograms.\"\nDemocrat opposed Ford 56 per cent of the time while sup-\n44 per cent of the time and opposed him 48 per cent of the\nFord found most of his trouble during 1975 in the\nThe official claimed success for Ford in establishing\nporting him only 38 per cent of the time. That accelerated a\ntime, compared with 45 per cent support and 41 per cent op-\nHouse, where he received only 50.5 per cent support. In the\nthe \"credibility\" of the veto despite top-heavy Democratic\ntrend set in 1974, when the composite scores for House\nposition in 1974.\nSenate he received 71 per cent.\nmajorities in both chambers. Out of the 17 bills the Presi-\nDemocrats showed 45 per cent opposition and 41 per cent\nIn another switch, the average western Senate\nThe five members who voted against the President's\ndent vetoed during the session, only three were overridden.\nsupport.\nDemocrat supported Ford more often (43 per cent of the\nposition most often were all freshman House Democrats.\nA \"neo-isolationism setting in among freshman\nThe average Republican in both houses increased his\ntime) than he opposed him (41 per cent of the time). That\nFreshman activist Bob Carr of Michigan opposed the\nmembers tended to freeze attitudes\" during the President's\nsupport for Ford over 1974: from 55 per cent to 68 per cent\nwas a change from 1974, when the average western\nPresident's positions most often, voting against him 75 per\nattempts to secure military aid for South Vietnam and\nin the Senate and from 51 per cent to 63 per cent in the\nDemocratic senator opposed the President 45 per cent of the\ncent of the time. Carr was followed by Democratic Reps.\nCambodia, the aide said.\nHouse.\ntime and supported him 37 per cent of the time.\nToby Moffett of Connecticut, 74 per cent; John Krebs of\nWhite House staff chief Richard B. Cheney has\nAmong state delegations, Nebraska supported Ford\nCalifornia, 73 per cent; and Stephen L. Neal and W. G. (Bill)\nacknowledged that Ford maintained pressure for military\nState and Regional Averages\nmore often than any other, moving up from its 1974 rank of\nHefner, both of North Carolina, 72 per cent each.\naid in the spring of 1975, even as defeat of the Saigon and\nThe study was based on 182 votes that featured a clear-\nKhmer Republic governments appeared inevitable, to allow\nFord picked up moderate support from the average\nsecond place. The rest of the top 10 supporters, in order,\ncut presidential position. Ford took such a position on 15\ntime for the orderly evacuation of Americans. (Ford's first\nSenate Democrat in all regions. These gains were led by the\nwere: Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Virginia, Arizona,\nIdaho, North Dakota, Louisiana and Alabama.\nper cent of the 1,214 votes Congress took during 1975.\nfull year, Weekly Report p. 36)\nVotes were included in the 1975 study only if the Presi-\ndent or his aides had made a specific indication of his\nFreshmen\nwishes before the vote. (Ground rules, box, p. 158)\nThe White House official predicted that the heavy op-\nPresidential Success on Votes 1953-1975*\nposition to Ford from first-year House members will dis-\nReaction\nsolve in 1976 as members face re-election.\n100%\n\"A new class always tends to be very partisan,\" the\nIn an interview, a White House official blamed Ford's\n95\n*Percentages based on votes on which\naide said. \"Now many of them are facing stiff competition\nin November. This year they'll be more fragmented and\nPresidents took a position.\npoor showing on two factors: the running clash over aid to\nthey'll spend more time looking after their own skins.\"\n90\n(Party unity study, p. 179)\nRep. Carr said he was \"surprised\" that he was the\n85\nSuccess Rates\nmember of Congress who opposed Ford the most often. \"I'm\naware of the President's position on major issues, but most\n80\nFollowing are the annual percentages of presiden-\nof these things you don't decide on that basis,\" Carr said.\ntial victories since 1953 on congressional votes where\nCarr said he did not think his position as Ford's No. 1\n75\nthe Presidents took clear-cut positions:\nopponent in Congress would affect his own re-election cam-\npaign one way or the other. \"It's not material,\" he said. \"My\n70\nEisenhower\nJohnson\nvoters know I take things issue by issue.\"\n1953\n89.0%\n1966\n79.0%\nIn Carr's view, Ford's status as an unelected President,\n65\n1954\n82.8\n1967\n79.0\nand the perception many members have of Ford as being in-\n1955\n75.0\n1968\n75.0\neffective, led to his difficulties in finding congressional sup-\n60\n1956\n70.0\nport.\n1957\n68.0\nNixon\n\"People are looking at Ford as more of a caretaker\n1958\n76.0\n1969\n74.0\nPresident,\" Carr said. \"I don't think the new members of\n55\n1959\n52.0\n1970\n77.0\nCongress, at least the ones I know and have regular contact\n1960\n65.0\n1971\n75.0\nwith, feel Ford has much influence over them or public\n50\nKennedy\n1972\n66.0\nopinion.\"\n1961\n81.0\n1973\n50.6\nCarr predicted that Ford's support rate would improve\n45\n1962\n85.4\n1974\n59.6\nif he does well in the early presidential primaries.\n1963\n87.1\n\"Congress will be watching the primaries carefully, what\n40\n$\nI\nJohnson\nFord\ncandidates are saying and how the public is responding,\"\n1953\n54\n55\n56\n57\n58\n59\n60\n61\n62\n63\n64\n65\n66\n67\n68\n69\n70\n71\n72\n73\n74\n75\n1964\n88.0\n1974\n58.2\nCarr said. \"That's the only thing that elected members here\nEISENHOWER\nKENNEDY\nJOHNSON\n1965\n93.0\n1975\n61.0\nwill have to look toward to in shaping their own campaigns.\nNIXON\nFORD\nIf Ford comes out with strength, he may improve his\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nPAGE 156-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 157\nPresidential Support . 3\nPresidential Support 4\nRegional Averages\nGround Rules for CQ Presidential Support-Opposition\nSUPPORT\n1975 Presidential Position Votes\nPresidential Issues-CQ analyzes all messages,\nGenerally, however, a vote against a rule is a vote\npress conference remarks and other public statements of\nagainst the bill, and vice versa, since rejection of the rule\nRegional presidential support scores; scores for Presi-\nFollowing is a list of all Senate and House recorded\nthe President and official White House spokesmen to\nprevents consideration of the bill. CQ assumes that if the\ndent Ford in 1974 are in parentheses:\nvotes in 1975 on which President Ford took a position.\ndetermine what he personally, as distinct from other ad-\nPresident favored a bill, he favored the rule unless it was\nThe votes, listed by CQ vote number, appear in the\nministration officials, does or does not want in the way\na closed rule that would prevent amendments he wanted.\nEast\nWest\nSouth\nMidwest\nWeekly Report.\nof legislative action.\nAppropriations-Generally, votes on passage of\nDEMOCRATS\nSenate Votes (93)\nBorderline Cases-By the time an issue reaches a\nappropriation bills are not included in the tabulation,\nSenate\n45%(40%)\n43%(37%)\n58%(46%)\n40%(33%)\nvote, it may differ from the original form on which the\nsince it is rarely possible to determine the President's\nHouse\n34\n(37\n)\n35\n(39\n)\n44\n(45\n)\n35\n(41\n)\nPresident expressed himself. In such cases, CQ analyzes\nposition on the overall revisions Congress almost in-\nPresidential Victories (66)-44, 56, 67, 113, 114,\nvariably makes in the sums allowed. Votes to cut or in-\n129, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 150, 152, 162, 185, 186, 190,\nthe measure to determine whether, on balance, the\nREPUBLICANS\nfeatures favored by the President outweigh those he op-\ncrease specific funds requested in the President's\n195, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 219, 220, 263, 275,\nSenate\nposed or vice versa. Only then is the vote classified.\nbudget, however, are included.\n56%(54%)\n71%(52%)\n74%(55%)\n74%(61%)\n329, 330, 340, 342, 349, 352, 353, 373, 388, 398, 420, 421,\nHouse\n60\n(50\n)\n62\n(48\n)\n62\n(49\n)\n66\n(54\n)\n427, 430, 435, 436, 438, 439, 440, 441, 450, 451, 452, 453,\nSome Votes Excluded-Occasionally, important\nFailures to Vote-In tabulating the support or op-\n458, 470, 492, 496, 522, 557, 568, 575, 581, 591, 594, 598,\nmeasures are so extensively amended on the floor that it\nposition scores of members on the selected presidential-\n599.\nis impossible to characterize final passage as a victory or\nissue votes, CQ counts only \"yea\" and \"nay\" votes on the\nPresidential Defeats (27)-8, 13, 57, 58, 61, 115,\ndefeat for the President.\nground that only these affect the outcome. Most failures\nOPPOSITION\n116, 133, 149, 161, 163, 213, 287, 337, 389, 429, 459, 537,\nto vote reflect absences because of illness or official\n539, 540, 543, 585, 586, 596, 600, 601, 602.\nMotions-Votes on motions to recommit, to recon-\nsider or to table often are key tests that govern the\nbusiness. Failures to vote lower both support and opposi-\nRegional presidential opposition scores for 1975; scores\nlegislative outcome. Such votes are necessarily included\ntion scores equally.\nfor President Ford in 1974 are in parentheses:\nHouse Votes (89)\nin the presidential support tabulations.\nWeighting-All presidential-issue votes have equal\nEast\nWest\nSouth\nMidwest\nstatistical weight in the analysis.\nPresidential Victories (45)-6, 14, 41, 102, 108,\nRules-In the House, debate on most significant\nDEMOCRATS\n130, 144, 152, 169, 188, 200, 207, 208, 254, 259, 274, 275,\nbills is governed by rules that restrict time and may bar\nChanged Positions-Presidential support is deter-\nfloor amendments. These rules must be adopted by the\nmined by the position of the President at the time of a\nSenate\n49%(54%)\n41%(45%)\n29%(38%)\n47%(54%)\n327, 328, 331, 343, 344, 346, 353, 378, 406, 413, 422, 431,\nHouse\n61\nHouse before the bills in question may be considered.\nvote, even though that position may be different from an\n(47\n)\n58\n(47\n)\n48\n(41\n)\n59\n(48\n)\n432, 433, 442, 444, 449, 450, 490, 498, 510, 541, 557, 559,\n562, 588, 589, 597.\nMembers may vote for the rule, in order to permit\nearlier position, or may have been reversed after the vote\nPresidential Defeats (44)-4, 5, 13, 21, 22, 25, 48,\ndebate, although they intend to vote against the bill.\nwas taken.\nREPUBLICANS\n91, 117, 133, 136, 157, 195, 198, 215, 220, 234, 235, 264,\nSenate\n36%(34%)\n17%(25%)\n19%(22%)\n15%(23%)\n276, 300, 302, 308, 318, 334, 347, 348, 349, 380, 407, 410,\nHouse\n35\n(37\n)\n28\n(33\n)\n33\n(37\n)\n29\n(33\n)\n441, 462, 463, 475, 476, 497, 516, 543, 551, 552, 572, 590,\nIdaho moved up from its 1974 rank of 35th to become\nvoting for Ford's positions 72 per cent of the time. Byrd was\n612.\nthe seventh strongest supporter of the President, while\nfollowed by Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia and Rep. W. C.\nNew Mexico moved from 29th place to third place, and\n(Dan) Daniel of Virginia (70 per cent each), Sen. John L.\nLouisiana from 32nd place to ninth place.\nMcClellan of Arkansas (69 per cent), Sen. Russell B. Long of\nMontana was the delegation least likely to support the\nLouisiana (67 per cent), and Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West\nHigh Scorers-Support\nPresident, followed by Iowa, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,\nVirginia and Rep. Joe D. Waggonner Jr. of Louisiana (66\nHigh Scorers-Opposition\nIndiana, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey,\nper cent each).\nHighest individual scorers in presidential sup-\nMissouri and Connecticut. (State scores, box, p. 160)\nThe senator having the highest opposition score to\nport-those who voted for the President's position most\nHighest individual scorers in Ford opposition-those\nIowa dropped from 28th place in 1974 to become the\nFord, 62 per cent, was James Abourezk (D S.D.). Close\noften in 1975:\nwho voted against the President's position most often in\n49th strongest supporter of Ford in 1975, while Indiana\nbehind were Dick Clark (D Iowa), 60 per cent and John A.\n1975:\ndropped from 18th place to 46th place.\nDurkin (D N.H.), 58 per cent.\nSENATE\nThe sixth strongest supporter of Ford in 1974, South\nSENATE\nCarolina, dropped to 30th place in 1975, while North\nDemocrats\nAverage Scores\nRepublicans\nCarolina dropped from seventh to 37th, New Hampshire\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nfrom eighth to 44th and Hawaii from 10th to 39th.\nByrd (Va.)#\n72%\nGriffin (Mich.)\n86%\nAmong the bottom 10 Ford supporters in 1974, Nevada\nFollowing are composites of Republican and\nNunn (Ga.)\n70\nTower (Texas)\n85\nAbourezk (S.D.)\n62%\nSchweiker (Pa.)\n56%\njumped from 49th place to 15th in 1975, while Georgia went\nDemocratic scores for 1975; the scores for 1974 are for\nMcClellan (Ark.)\n69\nYoung (N.D.)\n84\nClark (lowa)\n60\nJavits (N.Y.)\n52\nfrom 45th to 23rd, Arkansas from 42nd to 20th, and Alaska\nPresident Ford:\nLong (La.)\n67\nHansen (Wyo.)\n84\nDurkin (N.H.)*\n58\nBrooke (Mass.)\n43\nByrd (W. Va.)\n66\nfrom 41st to 21st.\nHruska (Neb.)\n83\nCranston (Calif.)\n57\nCase (N.J.)\n43\nStennis (Miss.)\n65\nDomenici (N.M.)\n81\nBiden (Del.)\n56\n1975\n1974\nHatfield (Ore.)\n43\nChiles (Fla.)\n65\nIndividual Scorers\nDem.\nRep.\nFannin (Ariz.)\n81\nDem.\nRep.\n*Not eligible for all votes in 1975.\n#Elected as independent.\nFORD\nRep. Robert H. Michel (R III.) was the President's\nstrongest supporter in Congress in 1975, voting for Ford's\nSUPPORT\npositions 88 per cent of the time. Michel was followed by\nHOUSE\nHOUSE\nRepublican Senators Robert P. Griffin of Michigan (86 per\nSenate\n47%\n68%\n39%\n55%\nLIBRARY\ncent), and John G. Tower of Texas (85 per cent). Sens.\nHouse\n38\n63\n41\n51\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nMilton R. Young (R N.D.) and Clifford P. Hansen (R Wyo.)\nand House Minority Leader John J. Rhodes (Ariz.) all\nDaniel (Va.)\n70%\nOPPOSITION\nMichel (III.)\n88%\nCarr (Mich.)\n75%\nWaggonner (La.)\n66\nPressler (S.D.)\n58%\nscored 84 per cent.\nRhodes (Ariz.)\n84\nMoffett (Conn.)\n74\nBurleson (Texas)\nHarsha (Ohio)\n53\n65\nSen. Harry F. Byrd Jr. of Virginia, who was elected as\nCederberg (Mich.)\n83\nSenate\n41\n22\n47\nKrebs (Calif.)\n73\n27\nMcDonald (Ga.)\nWhalen (Ohio)\n53\n62\nConable (N.Y.)\n82\nan independent, led Democrats in supporting the President,\nNeal (N.C.)\n72\nHouse\n56\n31\n45\n35\nPoage (Texas)\nGude (Md.)\n52\n62\nErlenborn (III.)\n81\nHeffner (N.C.)\n72\nEmery (Maine)\n51\nPAGE 158-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 159\nPresidential Support - 5\nPresidential Support - 6\nScores for State Delegations\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1 2 3 4\n1 3 4\nALABAMA\nIOWA\n- KEY\nFollowing are the presidential support and opposi-\naccording to combined chambers' support score, carried\nAllen\n58\n34\n44\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n56\nClark\nSparkman\n39\n60\n43\n56\n48\nDurkin'\ntion scores for 1975 for each state delegation. Ranking is\nto the necessary decimal places to break a tie.\n26\n37\n21\nCulver\nALASKA\n42\n30+ 58+\n51\nMcintyre\nKANSAS\n37\n49\n50\n44\nt Not eligible for all recorded\nGravel\n31\n39\n21\nNEW JERSEY\n25\nDole\n75 16 34 37\nvotes in 1975.\nStevens\n71\n17\n65\n26\nWilliams\nPearson\nARIZONA\n65\n49 48 46 43\n20\n59\n18\nCase\nKENTUCKY\n53 43 56 34\n* Not eligible for all recorded\nSenate\nHouse\nFannin\nBoth Chambers\n81\n10\n66\n28\nNEW MEXICO\nvotes in 1974.\nFord\nGoldwater\n56\n40\n-\n61\n10\n41\n25\nMontoya\nHuddleston\n53\n55 27 37 51\n34\n-Not a member in 1974.\nARKANSAS\n46\n49\nDomenici\nLOUISIANA\n81\n15\n60\n29\n1975\n1974\nSup-\nOppo-\nSup-\nOppo-\nSup-\nOppo-\nBumpers\n46\nNEW YORK\n38\n-\nJohnston\nport\nMcCiellan\n62\n24\n37\nRank\nRank\nsition\n44\nsition\nport\nsition\nport\n69\n25\n71\n29\nCALIFORNIA\nLong\nBuckley*\n67\n68 13 51 19\n22\n51\n38\nJavits\nMAINE\n45\n52\n43\n38\nCranston\n40\n57\n44\nNORTH CAROLINA\n56\nTotal\nHathaway\nTunney\n43\n55\n40\n49\n42\n44\n38\nMorgan\n43\nMuskie\n47\n31\nCOLORADO\n42\n-\nCongress\n48%\n45%\n55%\n34%\n46%\n48%\n49\n43\n54\nHelms\nMARYLAND\n68\n28\n60*\n33*\nSouth\n51\n41\n63\n49\n44\nHart\n26\n45\n51\n-\nBeall\nNORTH DAKOTA\n-\nHaskell\n72 24 66 29\n41\nBurdick\n49\n55\n40\n50\nMathias\n40\n55\n34\nMidwest\n44\n51\n37\n48\n46\nCONNECTICUT\n43\n32\n66\n32\n40\nYoung\n1\n2\n3\n84\n4\nMASSACHUSETTS\n14\n60\n25\nWest\n47\n44\n55\n31\n44\n48\nRibicoff\nOHIO\n45\n51\n31\n65\nEast\n44\n51\n43\nWeicker\nKennedy\n43\n45\n38\nTEXAS\n49\nGlenn\n50\n42\n52\n57\n39\n29\n53\nBrooke\n58\n39\n-\nDELAWARE\n44\n-\n43\n56\n34\nTaft\nBentsen\n57\n25\n18\n43\nAlabama\n10\n19\n56\n35\n53\n30\n56\n36\nMICHIGAN\n56\n16\n72\n22\nOKLAHOMA\nTower\n85\n11\nBiden\n75\n12\n27\n56\n28\n66\nHart\nAlaska\n21\n41\n51\n30\n51\n28\n49\n34\nRoth\n28\n44\n40\nUTAH\n60\nBartlett\n63\n33\n54\n46\nGriffin\n78\n18\n74\n25\nMoss\n49\n38\n6\n9\n20\n71\n10\n54\n26\nFLORIDA\n86\n60\n8\n76\nArizona\n16\nBellmon\n34\n31\nMINNESOTA\n73\n20\n12\n6\nGarn\nChiles\nOREGON\n74\n16\n-\nArkansas\n20\n42\n52\n38\n58\n31\n49\n41\n65\n26\n46\n50\nVERMONT\nStone\nHumphrey\n46\n48\n47\n43\nHatfield\n59\n34\n38\nMondale\n45\n43\n28\nCalifornia\n43\n49\n41\n51\n43\n48\n43\n47\n46\n31\nGEORGIA\n35\n46\nPackwood\nLeahy\n43\n52\n-\nMISSISSIPPI\n69\n27\n25\n29\nColorado\n33\n46\n27\nPENNSYLVANIA\nStafford\n55\n39\n46\n51\n43\n53\nNunn\n60\n47\n50\n26\n70\n62\n35\nEastland\nVIRGINIA\nTalmadge\n47\n17\n51\n24\nConnecticut\n41\n48\n43\n53\n51\n40\n56\n54\nSchwelker\n45\n35\n46\n32\nStennis\n65\n42 56 34 60\nHAWAII\n20\n68\n26\nScott\nByrd**\n72 24 47 53\nDelaware\n19\n30\n52\n39\n45\n45\n67\n28\nMISSOURI\n75\n17\n74\n25\n34\nRHODE ISLAND\nScott\n67\n29\nInouye\n46\n40\n32\n46\n31\n23\n50\n43\n62\n30\n48\n45\nEagleton\n47\n40\n24\n60\nPastore\nWASHINGTON\nFlorida\n22\nFong\n72\n8\n63\n16\nSymington\n49\n46\n34\n60\nGeorgia\n23\n45\n49\n42\n46\nIDAHO\n46\n35\n37\nPell\nJackson\n53\n55\n37\n41\n56\n62\n31\n45\nMONTANA\n41\n52\n37\n57\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nMagnuson\n44\nChurch\n52\n35\n53\nHawaii\n39\n10\n43\n40\n52\n21\n34\n60\n41\n39\n25\n56\nMansfield\nMcClure\n42\n47\n34\n44\n74\nHollings\nWEST VIRGINIA\n48\n45\n35\n32\n28\n36\n18\n7\n58\n59\n38\nMetcalf\n43\n58\nILLINOIS\n39\n50\nIdaho\n58\n42\n37\n57\nThurmond\nByrd\n66\n34\n47\n53\nNEBRASKA\n80\n15\n82\n18\nRandolph\n56\n42\nIllinois\n11\n38\n35\nStevenson\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n47\n12\n54\n55\n54\n38\n51\n42 47 35 44\nCurtis\nIndiana\n46\n18\n55\nPercy\n75\n12\n71\nWISCONSIN\n38\n31\n37\n40\n58\n68\n18\nAbourezk\n24\n49\n25\nHruske\n31\n82\n25\n83 9 68 21\n75\nNelson\nINDIANA\nMcGovern\n40\n53\n35\n65\nlowa\n49\n28\n36\n62\n40\n55\n34\n64\nNEVADA\n30\n51\n24\n54\nTENNESSEE\nProxmire\n48\nBayh\n52\n37\n63\n26\n27\n26\n28\nCannon\nKansas\n2\n4\n62\n31\n70\n56 28 38 53\nWYOMING\n18\n59\n36\nHartke\nBaker\n37 47 26 44\nLaxalt\n70\n14\n60\n72\n51\n16\n21\nMcGee\n54\n55\n-\nBrock\n39 26 54 22\nKentucky\n36\n39\n45\n37\n42\n68\n14\n54\n22\nHansen\n84\n11\n76\n21\nLouisiana\n9\n32\n56\n33\n65\n23\n53\n36\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n*Buckley elected as Conservative\nMaine\n24\n36\n49\n48\n42\n52\n56\n44\n**Byrd elected as independent.\nMaryland\n25\n27\n48\n47\n58\n28\n46\n52\n1. Sen. John A. Durkin (D N.H.) sworn In Sept. 18, 1975, following a special election\nnecessitated by a dispute over the outcome of the 1974 general election. The seat was\nMassachusetts\n48\n37\n37\n57\n44\n44\n36\n60\nvacant from Jan. 3 to Aug. 8, 1975, when Sen. Norris Cotton (R) was appointed to serve\nMichigan\n27\n21\n47\n44\n57\n26\n46\n46\nuntil successor was elected. Cotton was eligible for two presidential-issue votes and\nMinnesota\n28\n16\n47\n47\n45\n48\n47\n46\nopposed the President on both.\nMississippi\n11\n3\n55\n34\n56\n19\n54\n40\nMissouri\n42\n38\n42\n49\n47\n38\n42\n52\nMontana\n50\n43\n35\n55\n40\n45\n29\n65\nNebraska\n1\n2\n69\n25\n79\n10\n63\n35\nNevada\n15\n49\n53\n36\n64\n22\n30\n65\nPresidential Support and Opposition: Senate\nNew Hampshire\n44\n8\n40\n51\n34\n53\n45\n50\nNew Jersey\n43\n26\n40\n54\n51\n46\n39\n55\n1. Ford Support Score, 1975. Percentage of 93 Ford-issue roll\nNew Mexico\n3\n29\n61\n30\n68\n21\n54\n40\ncalls in 1975 on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement\nNew York\n40\n40\n43\n51\n56\n32\n42\n52\nwith the President's position. Failures to vote lower both Support\nNorth Carolina\n37\n7\n45\n49\n58\n30\n42\n52\nand Opposition scores.\nNorth Dakota\n8\n24\n57\n39\n62\n34\n48\n47\nOhio\n14\n25\n53\n41\n57\n27\n53\n43\n2. Ford Opposition Score, 1975. Percentage of 93 Ford-issue\nOklahoma\n4\n20\n60\n31\n76\n19\n54\n36\nroll calls in 1975 on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagree-\nOregon\n31\n22\n46\n47\n57\n35\n41\n53\nment with the President's position. Failures to vote lower both\nPennsylvania\n26\n13\n47\n47\n59\n37\n46\n48\nSupport and Opposition scores.\nRhode Island\n47\n47\n38\n57\n45\n49\n30\n65\nSouth Carolina\n30\n6\n46\n46\n64\n30\n40\n51\n3. Ford Support Score, 1974. Percentage of 68 Ford-issue roll\nSouth Dakota\n45\n50\n39\n54\n31\n56\n48\n51\ncalls in 1974 on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement\nTennessee\n29\n14\n47\n42\n69\n14\n41\n50\nwith the President's position. Failures to vote lower both Support\nTexas\n18\n15\n52\n40\n71\n18\n51\n42\nand Opposition scores.\nUtah\n16\n34\n53\n40\n62\n27\n44\n54\nVermont\n13\n1\n54\n41\n49\n45\n64\n34\n4. Ford Opposition Score, 1974. Percentage of 68 Ford-issue\nVirginia\n5\n12\n60\n38\n69\n26\n58\n40\nroll calls in 1974 on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagree-\nWashington\n35\n44\n45\n49\n49\n44\n44\n50\nment with the President's position. Failures to vote lower both\nWest Virginia\n32\n33\n46\n48\n61\n38\n39\n53\nSupport and Opposition scores.\nWisconsin\n34\n17\n45\n52\n44\n52\n46\n52\nWyoming\n17\n5\n53\n31\n61\n18\n35\n58\nPAGE 160-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 161\nPresidential Support 8\nPresidential Support - 7\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n2\n3\n4\nKEY\nKANSAS\nRandall\n42\n55\n39\n59\n9 Martin\n63\n31\n56\n39\n7 Jones\n31\n48\n52\n5 Armstrong\n65\n31\n41\n35\n1 Sebelius\n65\n30\n65\n20\nBolling\n49\n46\n48\n33\n10 Broyhill\n65 29 56 41\nFord\n29\n61\n-\n-\n51\nCONNECTICUT\nKeys\n28\n71\nLitton\n34 56 44 31\n11 Taylor\n49\n54\n46\nTEXAS\nt Not eligible for all recorded\nCotter\n34\n62\n41\n46\nWinn\n65\n30\n67\n20\nTaylor\n58 35 48 31\nNORTH DAKOTA\nPatman\n34\n47\n41\n33\nDodd\n27\n69\nShriver\n64\n25\n65\n35\nIchord\n48 43 48 44\nAL Andrews\n48 47 44 44\n2 Wilson\n52 29 57 35\nvotes in 1975.\n36 60 20 54\n5 Skubitz\nGlaimo\n71\n26\n52\n41\n9 Hungate\n40 52 41 56\nOHIO\n3 Collins\n65\n35\n44\n35\nNot eligible for all recorded\n58 35 52 41\nKENTUCKY\n10 Burlison\n44\n56\n59\nMcKinney\n37\n1 Gradison\n79\n20\n-\n4 Roberts\n49 43 44 37\nvotes in 1974.\nSarasin\n60 39 48 52\nHubbard\n34\n63\n-\nMONTANA\n2 Clancy\n58\n37\n41\n39\n5 Steelman\n60 37 30 50\nMoffett\n25\n74\n-\n-\nNatcher\n29\n71\n43\n57\n1 Baucus\n26\n70\n-\n-\n3 Whalen\n43 53 52 46\n-Not a member in 1974.\n6 Teague\n37 25 20\nMazzoli\nDELAWARE\n39 58 41 59\n2 Melcher\n31\n61\n44\n41\nGuyer\n70\n30\n57\n39\n7 Archer\n69 29 54 35\nAL du Pont\n67\n28\n54\n46\nSnyder\n52 46 30 39\nNEBRASKA\nLatta\n64 34 52\n8 Eckhardt\n36 61 39 46\nCarter\n63 36 57 31\n1 Thone\n60\n40\n46\n43\nHarsha\n40\n53\n44\n44\nFLORIDA\n9 Brooks\n39 48 43 41\nSikes\n48\n37\n54\n30\n6 Breckinridge\n40\n53\n41\n54\n2 McCollister\n64\n33\n44\n46\n7 Brown\n76\n18\n48\n33\n10 Pickle\n53\n46\n57\n41\n44 51 44 54\n7 Perkins\n37\n60\n50\n64\n8 Kindness\n66\nFuqua\n50\n3 Smith\n31\n-\n-\n11 Poage\n62 37 57 30\nBennett\n47\n53\n37\n63\nLOUISIANA\nNEVADA\n9 Ashley\n47\n47\n56\n39\n12 Wright\n52\n45\n50\n26\n4 Chappell\n49\n40\n52\n37\n1 Hebert\n28\n21\n17\n9\nAL Santini\n30\n65\n-\n-\n10 Miller\n63\n36\n48\n13 Hightower\n51\n46\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5 Kelly\n65 31 -\nBoggs\n44\n49\n39\n35\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n11 Stanton\n78\n21\n65\n14 Young\n53\n46\n44\n54\n6\n55\n40\n54\n44\n3 Treen\n66\n26\n63\n28\n1 D'Amours\n28\n71\n12 Devine\n69\n30\n56\n15 de Garza\n54\n42\n41\n46\n7 Gibbons\n51\n43\n41\n57\n4 Waggonner\n66\n30\n54\n37\n2 Cleveland\n62\n29\n54\n44\n13 Mosher\n62\n26\n41\n16 White\n49\n51\n46\n43\n52\nNEW JERSEY\n14 Seiberling\n37\n61\n44\n8 Haley\n49 47 48 48\n5 Passman\n42\n52\n28\n17 Burleson\n65 31 69 31\nALABAMA\n9 Frey\n66 31 50 44\n6 Moore\n64\n33\nFiorio\n28\n69\n-\n-\n15 Wylle\n64\n31\n18 Jordan\n33 64 46 50\nEdwards\n73\n17\n50\n35\n10 Bafalls\n57 41 39 57\nBreaux\n55\n40\n59\n28\n2 Hughes\n35\n-\n16 Regula\n71\n29\n41\n19 Mahon\n60 38 76 24\nDickinson\n64\n27\n50\n33\n40 58 48 50\nLong\n51\n48\n46\n41\n3 Howard\n31\n64\n22\n43\n17 Ashbrook\n58 40 43\n20 Gonzalez\n34\nNichols\n48\n47\n46\n39\n11 Rogers\n52\n37\n59\n12 Burke\n43 28 46 28\nMAINE\n4 Thompson\n30\n61\n46\n52\n18 Hays\n31\n57\n37\n37\n21 Krueger\n49\n39\n-\nBevill\n42\n55\n56\n41\nPresidential Support\n13 Lehman\n31 65 44 37\nEmery\n49\n51\n5 Fenwick\n65\n21\n19 Carney\n27\n71\n35\n54\n22 Casey\n57\n40\n56\n44\nJones\n38 46 41 46\n14 Pepper\n38 48 39 52\nCohen\n62\n37\n48\n37\n6 Forsythe\n69\n24\n56\n43\n20 Stanton\n26\n66\n39\n59\n23 Kazen\n53\n47\n43\n57\n6 Buchanan\n72\n25\n59\n41\n15 Fascell\n40\n57\n50\n50\nMARYLAND\n7 Maguire\n32t 66+ -\n-\n21 Stokes\n30\n62\n41\n24 Milford\n56 35 61 37\nand Opposition: House\n7 Flowers\n56\n38\n44\n48\nGEORGIA\n1 Bauman\n57\n42\n43\n57\n8 Roe\n33\n67\n39\n50\n22 Vanik\n34 61 39 61\nUTAH\nALASKA\nGinn\n36\n61\n41\n52\nLong\n42\n54\n33\n65\n9 Helstoski\n26\n61\n35\n23 Mottl\n27\n70\n-\n-\nMcKay\n53 46 50 33\nAL Young\n49\n34\n33\n35\nMathis\n51\n39\n39\n50\nSarbanes\n37\n60\n41\n57\n10 Rodino\n35\n54\n43\n52\nOKLAHOMA\n2 Howe\n35\n63\n-\nARIZONA\n44\n54\n43\n56\nHolt\n58\n39\n44\n54\n11 Minish\n35 61 44 54\nJones\n55\n37\n46\n39\nVERMONT\n84\n11\n59\n15\nBrinkley\nRhodes\nLevitas\n36\n62\nSpellman\n36\n64\n-\n12 Rinaldo\n47\n49\n44\n54\n2 Risenhoover\n42\n40\n-\n-\nAL Jeffords\n64\n34\nI\n-\n1. Ford Support Score, 1975. Percentage of 89 Ford-issue roll\nUdall\n11 31 46 39\nYoung\n35\n61\n41\n28\nByron\n56\n42\n44\n54\n13 Meyner\n37\n58\n3 Albert'\nVIRGINIA\ncalls in 1975 on which representatives voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in\nStelger\n57\n33\n56\n35\nFlynt\n48\n28\n39\n50\nMitchell\n34\n61\n33\n52\n14 Daniels\n36\n58\n41\n48\nSteed\n46\n46\n63\n31\nDowning\n60\n37\n57\n43\nConian\n62\n28\n33\n41\nMcDonald\n62\n37\n-\nGude\n46\n52\n46\n54\n15 Patten\n44\n52\n54\n44\n5 Jarman\n74\n10\n54\n28\n2 Whitehurst\n61\n38\n41\n33\nagreement with the President's position. Failures to vote lower\nARKANSAS\n8 Stuckey\n54\n37\n24\n43\nMASSACHUSETTS\nNEW MEXICO\n6 English\n53\n47\n-\n-\n3 Satterfield\n60 39 50 48\nAlexander\n42\n48\n37\n44\nboth Support and Opposition scores.\n9 Landrum\n47\n30\n39\n33\n1 Conte\n56\n40\n52\n41\n1 Lujan\n56\n37\n41\n46\nOREGON\n4 Daniel\n66 34 39 39\nMills\n43 31 17 28\n10 Stephens\n52\n39\n30\n50\n2 Boland\n42\n55\n39\n41\n2 Runnels\n53\n43\n37\n37\n1 AuCoin\n34\n54\n5 Daniel\n70 30 56 44\n2. Ford Opposition Score, 1975. Percentage of 89 Ford-issue\n3 Hammerschmidt\n63\n37\n33\n44\n4 Thornton\n49\n48\n48\n44\nHAWAII\nEarly\n28\n70\nNEW YORK\nUllman\n46\n48\n56\n30\n6 Butler\n72 27 56 41\nMatsunaga\n38\n57\n48\n52\nDrinan\n34\n66\n39\n61\nPike\n39\n61\n35\n65\n3 Duncan\n54 42\n7 Robinson\n65 35 57 43\nroll calls in 1975 on which representative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in\nCALIFORNIA\n2 Mink\n29\n63\n44\n54\n5 Tsongas\n34\n66\n-\n-\n2 Downey\n33\n66\n-\n-\n4 Weaver\n29\n69\n-\n-\n8 Harris\n33 66\ndisagreement with the President's position. Failures to vote lower\n1 Johnson\n39\n58\n43\n52\nIDAHO\n6 Harrington\n24\n65\n31\n46\n3 Ambro\n27\n69\n-\nPENNSYLVANIA\n9 Wampler\n60 33 52 43\nClausen\n58\n33\n48\n44\nSymms\n60\n38\n37\n37\n7 Macdonald\n26\n54\n35\n39\nLent\n64\n28\n52\n44\nBarrett\n29\n55\n37\n41\n10 Fisher\n35\n-\n-\nboth Support and Opposition Scores.\nMoss\n25\n65\n22\n56\n2 Hanson, G.\n57\n34\n-\n-\nO'Neill\n40\n56\n46\n44\nWydter\n67\n28\n48\n37\nNix\n35\n60\n39\n54\nWASHINGTON\nLeggett\n34 62 43\nILLINOIS\nMoakley\n31\n65\n35\n57\n6 Wolff\n26\n66\n30\n54\nGreen\n30\n64\n39\n57\n1 Pritchard\n67\n21\n37\n44\n3. Ford Support Score, 1974. Percentage of 54 Ford-issue roll\n5 Burton, J.\n24\n67\n33\nMetcalfe\n25\n55\n39\n44\n10 Heckler\n48\n46\n48\nAddabbo\n35\n61\n46\n52\nEilberg\n27 67 30 61\n2 Meeds\n43\n54\n48\n48\ncalls in 1974 on which representative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agree-\n6 Burton, P.\n25\n66\n35\n61\n2 Murphy\n39\n55\n46\n46\n11 Burke\n33 66 44 56\n8 Rosenthal\n27\n61\n43\n5 Schulze\n64 34\n3 Bonker\n33 60 - -\nMiller\n28\n71\nment with the President's position. Failures to vote lower both\n8 Dellums\n70\n35\n61\n3 Russo\n35 65 -\n12 Studds\n33\n67\n43\n57\n9 Delaney\n39\n61\n41\nYatron\n66\n41\n56\n4 McCormack\n40 53 44 50\n4 Derwinski\n74\n19\n46\n31\nMICHIGAN\n10 Biaggi\n30\n60\n33\n48\nEdgar\n31 64\n5 Foley\n44 48 50 44\nSupport and Opposition scores.\n9 Stark\n30\n64\n33\n63\nFary\n23t 31t -\n-\n1 Conyers\n27\n52\n24\n56\n11 Scheuer\n30\n56\nBlester\n58\n40\n56\n43\n6 Hicks\n42 57 35 59\n10 Edwards\n30\n65\n6 Hyde\n79\n20\n-\n-\nEsch\n57\n28\n52\n39\n12 Chishoim\n29\n41\n54\nShuster\n60\n39\n65\n31\nAdams\n38\n57\n33\n48\n11 Ryan\n39\n48\n43\n4. Ford Opposition Score, 1974. Percentage of 54 Ford-issue\n7 Collins\n33\n46\n41\n57\n3 Brown\n76\n19\n54\n33\n13 Solarz\n38\n54\n-\n-\n10 McDade\n54\n44\n41\nWEST VIRGINIA\n12 McCloskey\n64\n26\n48\n37\n8 Rostenkowski\n36\n49\n48\n43\n4 Hutchinson\n75\n22\n69\n31\n14 Richmond\n28\n-\n11 Flood\n34 61 57 37\n1 Mollohan\n35\n44\n41\n44\nroll calls in 1974 on which representative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in\n13 Mineta\n38\n61\n9 Yates\n39\n60\n41\n56\n5 Vander Veen\n37\n62\n44\n41\n15 Zeferetti\n26\n-\n12 Murtha\n42 49 44\n2 Staggers\n37 51 35 50\ndisagreement with the President's position. Failures to vote lower\n14 McFall\n47\n53\n65\n33\n10 Mikva\n36 56 -\nCarr\n25\n-\n-\n16 Holtzman\n64\n35\n63\n13 Coughlin\n67\n29\n3 Slack\n49\n49\n50\n50\n15 Sisk\n35\n45\n44\n46\nboth Support and Opposition scores.\n16 Talcott\n71\n22\n56\n39\n11 Annunzio\n38\n49\n46\n52\nRiegle\n26\n61\n35\n43\n17 Murphy\n34\n49\n39\n33\n14 Moorhead\n39\n52\n50\n39\nHechier\n34 66 37 63\n12 Crane\n61\n33\n37\n43\n8 Traxler\n30\n67\n35\n54\n18 Koch\n35\n64\n37\n61\n15 Rooney\n39\n60\n52\n48\nWISCONSIN\n17 Krebs\n27\n13 McClory\n74\n19\n59\n24\n9 Vander Jagt\n70\n18\n52\n37\n19 Rangel\n35\n56\n37\n16 Eshleman\n49\n24\n28\n20\n1 Aspin\n38\n57\n39\n43\n18 Ketchum\n57\n34\n43\n54\n14 Erlenborn\n81 13 76 17\n10 Cederberg\n83\n13\n72\n24\n20 Abzug\n31\n61\n31\n17 Schneebell\n76 18 66+ 21t\n2 Kastenmeier\n31\n65\n41\n57\n19 Lagomarsino\n67\n33\n48\n50\n15 Hall\n39 61 - -\n11 Ruppe\n69\n20\n46\n28\n21 Badillo\n28\n65\n39\n18 Heinz\n49\n42\n50\n41\n3 Baldus\n40\n60\n-\n-\n20 Goldwater\n60\n27\n37\n43\n16 Anderson\n72\n17\n56\n22\n12 O'Hara\n40\n56\n20\n46\n22 Bingham\n39\n58\n39\n50\n19 Goodling, W.\n55\n43\n4 Zablocki\n45\n54\n59\n39\n21 Corman\n35\n61\n41\n57\n17 O'Brien\n69\n24\n50\n43\n13 Diggs\n27\n45\n26\n39\n23 Peyser\n44\n42\n44\n44\n20 Gaydos\n29\n54\n35\n63\n5 Reuss\n35\n61\n48\n48\n22 Moorhead\n60\n34\n44\n35\n23 Rees\n48\n45\n48\n18 Michel\n88\n8\n65\n22\n14 Nedzi\n36\n60\n43\n52\n24 Ottinger\n31\n65\n-\n21 Dent\n35\n58\n28\n56\n6 Stelger\n75\n18\n56\n39\n46\n19 Ralisback\n65\n29\n52\n37\n15 Ford\n29\n55\n37\n50\n25 Fish\n62\n37\n43\n50\n22 Morgan\n44\n53\n48\n46\nObey\n43\n57\n59\n41\n24 Waxman\n30\n60\n-\n20 Findley\n74\n20\n54\n26\n16 Dingell\n34\n58\n33\n59\n26 Gliman\n52\n46\n46\n46\n23 Johnson\n76\n21\n59\n35\nCornell\n34\n66\n-\n-\n25 Roybal\n33\n65\n41\n59\n21 Madigan\n65 27 56 35\n17 Brodhead\n27\n70\n-\n-\n27 McHugh\n35\n63\n24 Vigorito\n30\n65\n41\n41\n9 Kasten\n69\n29\n-\n-\n26 Rousselot\n58\n30\n33\n46\n27 Bell\n52\n22\n57\n28\n22 Shipley\n51 46 26 54\n18 Blanchard\n34\n66\n28 Stratton\n51\n47\n59\n31\n25 Myers\n73\n27\n-\nI\nWYOMING\n23 Price\n44 51 50\n19 Broomfield\n67\n19\n63\n26\n29 Pattison\n34\n64\nRHODE ISLAND\nAL Rencalio\n35\n58\n24\n48\n28 Burke\n30\n63\n37\n50\n24 Simon\n47\n53\n-\n-\nMINNESOTA\n30 McEwen\n58\n31\n70\n28\nGermain\n31\n65\n43\n52\n29 Hawkins\n34\n61\n26\n33\nINDIANA\n1 Quie\n70\n26\n67\n31\n31 Mitchell\n62\n35\n46\n44\n2 Beard\n29\n64\n-\n30 Danielson\n45\n48\n39\n54\n50\n1 Madden\n35\n60\n39\n46\n2 Hagedorn\n61\n35\n32 Hanley\n36\n63\n50\n43\nSOUTH CAROLINA\n31 Wilson\n37\n43\n30\n2 Fithian\n28\n69\n3 Frenzel\n76\n19\n65\n35\n33 Walsh\n55\n39\n50\n43\nDavis\n33\n63\n46\n52\n32 Anderson\n26\n69\n31\n56\n3 Brademas\n34\n62\n46\n54\nKarth\n36\n57\n39\n59\n34 Horton\n63\n28\n54\n41\n2 Spence\n53 42 48 48\n33 Clawson\n58\n30\n35\n41\n4 Roush\n33\n67\n46\n54\nFraser\n31\n39\n46\n52\n35 Conable\n82\n18\n35\n15\n3 Derrick\n40 54\n34 Hannaford\n34\n-\n5 Hillis\n63\n29\n50\n33\n6 Nolan\n27\n70\n36 LaFalce\n36\n60\n-\n-\n4 Mann\n54 38 65 28\n35 Lloyd\n33\n67\n6 Evans\n28\n71\n7 Bergland\n42\n58\n43\n48\n37 Nowak\n36\n64\n5 Holland\n31\n57\n36 Brown\n37\n60\n33\n46\n7 Myers\n64\n35\n70\n30\n8 Oberstar\n35\n65\n-\n-\n38 Kemp\n66\n30\n46\n46\n6 Jenrette\n30\n55\n-\n-\n37 Pettis\n72t 28+\n8 Hayes\n29\n71\nMISSISSIPPI\n39 Hastings\n24\n46\n28\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n38 Patterson\n29\n65\n9 Hamilton\n51\n48\n65\n35\nWhitten\n47\n44\n67\n33\nNORTH CAROLINA\nPressler\n40\n58\n39 Wiggins\n75\n10\n74\n13\n10 Sharp\n37\n63\n2 Bowen\n53\n40\n52\n43\n1 Jones\n35\n60\n28\n24\nAbdnor\n55 44 50 41\n1. Rep. Jerry L Pettis (R Calif.) died Feb. 14, 1975. He supported the President on two\n40 Hinshaw\n47\n13\n52\n37\n11 Jacobs\n34\n63\n-\n-\n3 Montgomery\n57\n37\n57\n37\n2 Fountain\n42\n51\n63\n37\nTENNESSEE\nof the three votes for which he was eligible and opposed him on the other. Rep. Shirley\n41 Wilson\n67\n18\n61\n28\nIOWA\n4 Cochran\n61\n38\n57\n37\n3 Henderson\n39\n49\n52\n44\n1 Quilien\n61\n28\n59\n33\n42 Van Deerlin\n39\n51\n43\n50\nN. Pettis (R) was sworn in May 6, 1975, to replace her husband.\n1 Mezvinsky\n28\n70\n41\n59\nLott\n52\n42\n52\n43\nAndrews\n38\n47\n44\n50\n2 Duncan\n57\n39\n43\n48\n2. Rep. John C. Kluczynski (D III.) died Jan. 27, 1975. He was not eligible for any\n43 Burgener\n62\n35\n43\n46\n2 Blouin\n29\n71\n-\n-\nMISSOURI\nNeal\n27\n72\n-\n3 Lloyd\n29\n71\npresidential-issue votes. Rep. John G. Fary (D) was sworn in July 15, 1975, to replace\nCOLORADO\n3 Grassley\n54\n46\n-\nClay\n34\n62\n33\n54\n54\n6 Preyer\n46\n54\n61\n33\n4 Evins\n28 55 46 35\nSchroeder\n31\n67\n31\n4 Smith\n38\n61\n50\n50\n2 Symington\n39\n49\n46\n52\nRose\n30\n62\n43\n54\n5 Allen\n31+ 69+\nKluczynski. 3. Rep. Carl Albert, as Speaker, votes at his own discretion.\nWirth\n33\n64\n5 Harkin\n27\n-\n3 Sullivan\n27\n64\n33\n59\n8 Hefner\n27\n-\n-\n6 Beard\n65\n31\n56\n24\n4. Rep. Richard Fulton (D Tenn.) resigned Aug. 14, 1975. His support score was 13\n3 Evans\n45\n53\n37\n30\nper cent, opposition 50 per cent. Rep. Clifford Allen (D) sworn in Dec. 2, 1975, to replace\n4 Johnson\n61\n36\n22\n15\n6 Bedell\n27\n70\n-\n-\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nFulton.\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or part except by clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 163\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERL INC.\nPAGE 162-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nVoting Participation 2\nState Averages\no\nVoting Participation\nHouse delegations from 11 states averaged 95 per cent\nor more in voting participation: Kentucky, Maine and\nDefinition\nNebraska, all 97 per cent; Iowa, Maryland, South Dakota,\nUtah, Virginia and Wisconsin, all 96 per cent; Colorado and\nVoting Participation. Percentage of recorded\nCONGRESS SETS RECORDS FOR ATTENDANCE, VOTES\nIndiana, both 95 per cent. In the Senate, the highest-scoring\nvotes on which a member votes \"yea\" or \"nay.\" Failures\ndelegation was Wisconsin's, with 98 per cent. West Virginia\nto vote \"yea\" or \"nay\" lower scores-even if the\nwas second with 97 per cent. Those with 95 per cent scores\nmember votes \"present,\" enters a pair, announces his\nCongress in 1975 set a record for attendance on\nof Illinois, elected in 1975 to fill a vacancy and hospitalized\nwere Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, New Jersey and\nstand in the Congressional Record or answers the CQ\nrecorded votes-and at the same time established a new\nfor some time after being sworn in July 15, 49 per cent; and\nVirginia.\nPoll. Only votes of \"yea\" or \"nay\" directly affect the\nrecord for the number of votes taken during a session.\nF. Edward Hebert of Louisiana, who has been in ill health,\noutcome of a vote. Voting participation is the closest\nThe average member voted on 91 per cent of all re-\n43 per cent. The lowest House Republican score was made\napproach to an attendance record, but it is only an\ncorded votes in 1975, two points higher than the previous\nby Andrew J. Hinshaw of California, 60 per cent. Hinshaw\napproximation. A member may be present and\nrecord established in 1956 (and equaled in 1959 and 1973)\nwas indicted in May 1975 on 11 counts, eight of which subse-\nParty Scores\nnevertheless decline to vote \"yea\" or \"nay\"-usually\nand four points above the 1974 mark. A total of 1,214 re-\nquently were dropped, and currently is being tried on three\nbecause he has entered a live pair with an absent\ncorded votes was taken in the House and Senate, 79 more\nremaining charges of felony bribery. He also is scheduled to\nComposites of Democratic and Republican voting par-\nmember.\nthan in 1973 when the previous record was set.\nstand trial on a charge of alleged use of county funds to pay\nticipation scores for 1975 and 1974:\nThere were 602 votes taken in the Senate, eight more\nworkers in his 1972 campaign for the House. Prior to his\nthan in 1973, and 612 in the House, 71 more than in 1973. In\nelection to the House, Hinshaw served as Orange County\n1975\n1974\nHOUSE\n1974, the Senate took 544 votes and the House 537. The past\nassessor.\nyear also marked the first time the House took more votes\nAll Senators voted more than half the time. Lowest\nDems.\nReps.\nDems.\nReps.\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nthan the Senate.\nscorers were Democrats Birch Bayh of Indiana, also cam-\nAs is usual, House members voted more often than\npaigning for the presidential nomination, 56 per cent; and\nSenate\n88%\nBennett (Fla.)\n90%\n100%\n87%\nJames O. Eastland of Mississippi, 65 per cent. Lowest scor-\n86%\nGrassley (lowa)\n100%\nsenators. The average representative voted 91 per cent of\nHouse\n91\nHechier (W.Va.)\n100\n91\n85\nThone (Neb.)\n100\n88\nthe time, the average senator 89. Senators have not out-\ning Senate Republicans were Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio, who\nKrebs (Calif.)\n100\nLagomarsino (Calif.)\n99\nvoted House members on a percentage basis since 1962.\nsuffered a heart attack during the year, 66 per cent; and\nNatcher (Ky.)\n100\nBauman (Md.)\n99\nSharp (Ind.)\n100\nFor the first time since 1962, House Democrats were\nBarry Goldwater of Arizona, 67 per cent.\nRegula (Ohio)\n99\nMiller (Calif.)\n99\nnot outvoted by House Republicans. In 1975 each party\nRegional Scores\nDaniel (Va.)\n99\nLloyd (Calif.)\n99\nRobinson (Va.)\n99\nvoted 91 per cent of the time. In the Senate, Republicans led\nHaley (Fla.)\n99\n90 to 88. For the two chambers together, the score was 91\nAbsences\nRegional voting participation breakdowns for 1975,\nHall (III.)\n99\nfor Democrats and 91 for Republicans.\nwith 1974 scores in parentheses:\nPerkins (Ky.)\n99\nIn the Senate, eastern Democrats and Republicans led\nFailures to vote often are due to illness or con-\nVander Veen (Mich.)\n99\nmembers from all other regions, each with a 92 per cent\nflicting duties. Members frequently have to be away\nCarr (Mich.)\n99\nparticipation score. In the House, southern Republicans had\nfrom Washington on official business. Leaves of\nEast\nWest\nSouth\nMidwest\nBlanchard (Mich.)\n99\nabsence are granted members for these purposes.\nBurlison (Mo.)\n99\nthe highest score-93.\nAmong those absent for a day or more in 1975\nDEMOCRATS\nDowney (N.Y.)\n99\nHigh Scorers\nbecause of their illness or illness or death in their\nPreyer (N.C.)\n99\nSenate\n92% (92%)\nfamilies were:\n87%(84%)\n88%\n(84%)\n87% (88%)\nEnglish (Okla.)\n99\nOnly one senator-Democrat William Proxmire of\nHouse\n92\n(84\n)\n91\n(85\n)\n90\nLloyd (Tenn.)\nSenate Democrats-Biden (Del.), Hart (Mich.),\n(85\n)\n91\n(87\n)\n99\nWisconsin-answered every one of the 602 votes held dur-\nWhite (Texas)\n99\ning the year. Proxmire extended a string of consecutive\nMcIntyre (N.H.), Leahy (Vt.), Morgan (N.C.), Stennis\nMahon (Texas)\n99\nvotes that began in 1966, when he last missed one, and\n(Miss.), Allen (Ala.), Ribicoff (Conn.), Huddleston\nREPUBLICANS\nKazen (Texas)\n99\n(Ky.).\nDaniel (Va.)\n99\nreached a record 4,158 by the end of 1975.\nAnother Democratic senator managed a 99 per cent\nSenate Republicans-Stafford (Vt.), Dole (Kan.),\nSenate\n92% (89%)\n89%(83%)\n91% (83%)\n87% (89%)\nHarris (Va.)\n99\nHouse\n92\nMathias (Md.), Griffin (Mich.), Bartlett (Okla.), Roth\n(89\n)\n87\n(84\n)\n93\n(89\n)\n92\n(89\n)\nFisher (Va.)\n99\nscore in 1975, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. Next highest\n(Del.), Brock (Tenn.), Baker (Tenn.), Goldwater (Ariz.),\nKastenmeier (Wis.)\n99\nscorers in the Senate were Alan Cranston (D Calif.),\nCornell (Wis.)\n99\nRichard (Dick) Stone (D Fla.), Sam Nunn (D Ga.), Harry F.\nTaft (Ohio).\nByrd Jr. (Ind Va.), and Richard S. Schweiker (R Pa.), each\nHouse Democrats-Collins (Ill.), Gaydos (Pa.),\nwith 98 per cent voting participation scores. Stone was the\nFord (Mich.), Symington (Mo.), Beard (R.I.), Moss\nHighest Scorers\nhighest-scoring freshman senator.\n(Calif.), Mitchell (Md.), Mink (Hawaii), Chappell (Fla.),\nThere were seven perfect scores in the House in 1975,\nJones (Tenn.), Gonzalez (Texas), McHugh (N.Y.),\nSENATE\nLowest Scorers\nestablished by Democrats William H. Natcher of Kentucky,\nPatman (Texas), AuCoin (Ore.), Ford (Tenn.), Taylor\nSENATE\nKen Hechler of West Virginia, Charles E. Bennett of\n(N.C.), Waxman (Calif.), Fary (Ill.), Cotter (Conn.),\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nWilson (Texas), Alexander (Ark.), Derrick (S.C.), Yates\nDemocrats\nFlorida and freshman Democrats John Krebs of California\nRepublicans\nand Phil Sharp of Indiana; Republicans with perfect scores\n(III.), Matsunaga (Hawaii), Flynt (Ga.), Hebert (La.),\nProxmire (Wis.)\n100%\nSchwelker (Pa.)\n98%\nMurtha (Pa.), Thompson (N.J.), Bedell (Iowa),\nByrd (W.Va.)\n99\nBayh (Ind.)\n56%\nwere Charles Thone of Nebraska and freshman Charles\nWeicker (Conn.)\n96\nTaft (Ohio)\n66%\nChisholm (N.Y.), Rangel (N.Y.), Mollohan (W.Va.),\nCranston (Calif.)\n98\nBeall (Md.)\n96\nEastland (Miss.)\n65\nGoldwater (Ariz.)\n67\nE. Grassley of Iowa. Natcher has not missed a vote since he\nfirst arrived in Congress in 1954, and has voted a record 4,-\nDent (Pa.), Holland (S.C.), McKay (Utah), Abzug\nStone (Fla.)\n98\nHelms (N.C.)\n96\nNunn (Ga.)\n98\n(N.Y.).\nCase (N.J.)\n95\n724 consecutive times.\nByrd (Va.)#\n98\nHouse Republicans-Pritchard (Wash.), Young\nThurmond (S.C.)\n95\nHOUSE\nClark (lowa)\n96\n(Fla.), Eshleman (Pa.), Moore (La.), Beard (Tenn.),\nTower (Texas)\n95\nHathaway (Maine)\nDemocrats\nLow Scorers\n96\nAnderson (Ill.), Stanton (Ohio), Broyhill (N.C.), Wilson\nStafford (Vt.)\nRepublicans\n95\nRandolph (W.Va.)\n96\nOnly three members of Congress-all Democratic rep-\n(Calif.), Madigan (III.), O'Brien (III.), Miller (Ohio),\nWilliams (N.J.)\nHebert (La.)\n95\n43%\nHinshaw (Calif.)\n60%\nresentatives-voted less than 50 per cent of the time: Mor-\nJackson (Wash.)\nUdall (Ariz.)\nWylie (Ohio), Sarasin (Conn.), Fenwick (N.J.), Shriver\n47\n95\nBell (Calif.)\n68\nris K. Udall of Arizona, who is campaigning for the Demo-\nNelson (Wis.)\nFary (III.)\n49+\n(Kan.), Pressler (S.D.), Hagedorn (Minn.).\n95\nBurke (Fla.)\n68\nTeague (Texas)\n58\ncratic presidential nomination, 47 per cent; John G. Fary\nEshleman (Pa.)\n68\n# Byrd (Va.) elected as independent.\nt Not eligible for all votes in 1975.\nPAGE 164-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited In whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 165\nVoting Participation - 4\nVoting Participation - 3\n1 2\n1 2\n1 2\n1 2\n1 2\nKEY\nKANSAS\nRandall\n93 94*\nMartin\n93 95\nJones#\n88 80\nSebellus\n94 92*\nBolling\n94 81\n10 Broyhill #\n96 95*\nFord\n90\n5 Armstrong\n94 91*\nt Not eligible for all recorded\nKeys\n95\nLitton\n88 85\n11 Taylor#\n98 99*\nTEXAS\nCONNECTICUT\nWinn\n93t 91*\nTaylor\n94t 84\nNORTH DAKOTA\nPatman#\n76 66\nvotes in 1975.\nCotter#\n92 87\n4 Shriver#\n86 93\nIchord\n92 88\nAL Andrews\n91 92\nWilson\n77 87\nNot eligible for all recorded\nDodd\n93\n5 Skubitz\n90\n92*\n9 Hungate\n91 96\nOHIO\nCollins\n97 94*\nvotes in 93rd Congress.\nGiaimo\n91 88\nKENTUCKY\n10 Burlison\n99 97\nGradison\n97t\nRoberts\n92 90\n91t 87\n-Not a member of 93rd Congress.\n4 McKinney\nHubbard\n97\nMONTANA\nClancy\n92 88\n5 Steelman\n92 92\n5 Sarasin#\n98 98\n2 Natcher\n100 100\n1 Baucus\n96\nWhalen\n97 93*\nTeague\n58 63\n# Member absent a day or more\nMoffett\n96\nMazzoli\n96 97*\nMeicher\n92\n89\nGuyer\n96 93\nArcher\n93\n97*\nin 1975 due to illness, or ill-\nDELAWARE\nSnyder\n97 91\nNEBRASKA\nLatta\n98\n97\n8 Eckhardt\n93 91\nness or death in the family.\nAL du Pont\n93 97\n5 Carter\n97 88\n1 Thone\n100 97\n6 Harsha\n87 91\nBrooks\n84 91*\nFLORIDA\n6 Breckinridge\n93\n94\n2 McCollister\n93\n98\n7 Brown\n94 88*\n10 Pickle\n97 89\n1 Sikes\n85 87\n7 Perkins\n99\n99\n3 Smith\n98\n-\n8 Kindness\n93\n11 Poage\n94 91\n2 Fuqua\n90 87\nLOUISIANA\nNEVADA\n9 Ashley\n89 87\n12 Wright\n92 86\n3 Bennett\n100 99\nHebert#\n43\n51\nAL Santini\n93\n-\n10 Miller.#\n98 99\n13 Hightower\n89\n1 2\n4 Chappell#\n88 91\nBoggs\n87\n90*\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n11 Stanton#\n92 97*\n14 Young\n96 97\nKelly\n97\n3 Treen\n91 92\n1 D'Amours\n97\n-\n12 Devine\n96 91\n15 Garza\n91 85\nYoung#\n91 95*\n4 Waggonner\n97\n95\n2 Cleveland\n87\n96*\n13 Mosher\n78 92\n16 White\n99 92\nGibbons\n89 88\n5 Passman\n86\n83\nNEW JERSEY\n14 Seiberling\n96\n98\n17 Burleson\n98 97\nHaley\n99 93*\n6 Moore\n98\n-\nFlorio\n93\n-\n15 Wylle #\n92 94\n18 Jordan\nALABAMA\n96 96\n85\n92*\nFrey\n91 91\nBreaux\n93\n84\nHughes\n98\n-\n16 Regula\n99t 97\n19 Mahon\n1 Edwards\n99 98\n89 89\n10 Bafalls\n96t 93\nLong\n94\n93*\n3 Howard\n89\n81\n17 Ashbrook\n91 81\n20 Gonzalez#\n2 Dickinson\n84 96*\n93t 87\n11 Rogers\n94t 96'\nMAINE\nNichols\n4 Thompson#\n84 81\n18 Hays\n82 82*\n21 Krueger\n93t\n98 92\n12 Burke\n68 86\nEmery\n97\n5 Fenwick\n89\n-\n19 Carney\n96 89*\nBevill\n22 Casey\n90 97\n77\n81\n13 Lehman\n94t 88*\nCohen\n97\n95\nForsythe\n90 95*\n20 Stanton\n87\n90\n23 Kazen\n5 Jones\n99 91\n98 87\n14 Pepper\n84t 84\n6 Buchanan\nMARYLAND\nMaguire\n97+ -\n21 Stokes\n88 78\n24 Milford\n86 84\n15 Fascell\n97 97\nFlowers\n89 89\nBauman\n99 100\nRoe\n95 92\n22 Vanik\n94 100\nUTAH\nVoting Participation Scores: House\nGEORGIA\n97 98\nLong\n95\n96\n9 Helstoski\n87\n90\n23 Motti\n93 -\nALASKA\n1 McKay#\n94 88\n82\n85*\nGinn\n81+ 89\nSarbanes\n98 100\n10 Rodino\n89\n95\nOKLAHOMA\n2 Howe\n97\nAL Young\nMathis\n95 95\nHolt\n98 98\n11 Minish\n96 96\nJones\n91+ 93*\nVERMONT\nARIZONA\nRhodes\n83\n83\n3 Brinkley\n98\n5 Spellman\n98\n-\n12 Rinaldo\n96+ 97\n2 Risenhoover\n80\n-\nAL Jeffords\n94 -\n47\n88\n4 Levitas\nUdall\n67\n84\n6 Byron\n96\n97\n13 Meyner\n92\n3 Albert\nVIRGINIA\n3 Stelger\n88 89\n5 Young\n78 86\n7 Mitchell\n92\n90\n14 Daniels\n91\n87\nSteed\n91 93\nDowning\n93t 90\n6 Flynt#\n4 Conian\n85\n90*\n7 McDonald\n98\n8 Gude\n95\n94\n15 Patten\n96\n97\nJarman\n84\n90\n2 Whitehurst\n94 90*\nARKANSAS\n8 Stuckey\n88 78*\nMASSACHUSETTS\nNEW MEXICO\nEnglish\n99\n-\n3 Satterfield\n96 97\n1 Alexander #\n87 83\n70 68\nConte\n96\n94\nLujan\n87 84\nOREGON\nDaniel\n99t 94*\n9 Landrum\n2 Mills\n69t 43\n10 Stephens\n80\n79\nBoland\n92\n90\nRunnels\n91 82\nAuCoin#\n87\n-\nDaniel\n99 99*\n1. Voting Participation, 1975. Percentage of 612 recorded votes\n3 Hammerschmidt\n96 92\n3 Early\n95\nNEW YORK\nUliman\n88\n91\nButler\n94 95\n95 95\nHAWAII\n4 Thornton\n85 96\nDrinan\n98\n99\nPike\n98+ 99*\nin 1975 on which representative voted \"yea\" or \"nay.\"\nDuncan\n92 -\nRobinson\n99 99\nMatsunaga#\n99\nCALIFORNIA\n96\n5 Tsongas\n98\n2 Downey\n-\nWeaver\nHarris\n99\nMink#\n88\n96 -\nJohnson\n97\n92\n6 Harrington\n81\n86*\n3 Ambro\n94\n-\nPENNSYLVANIA\nWampler\n92 97\n2. Voting Participation, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 1,078\n88 91\nIDAHO\nClausen\n7 Macdonald\n79\n77\n4 Lent\n89\n89\nBarrett\n76\n88\n10 Fisher\n99\nI\nSymms\n92\n89\nrecorded votes in 1973 and 1974 on which representative voted\nMoss#\n89\n86\n8 O'Neill\nHansen, G.\n92\n90 89\n5 Wydler\n90\n91*\nNix\n90\n81\nWASHINGTON\n-\nLeggett\n86\n85\n9 Moakley\n97 94\n6 Wolff\n92\n92\nGreen\n95 95\n1 Pritchard#\n88\n91\n\"yea\" or \"nay.\"\nILLINOIS\n5 Burton, J.\n87\n93*\n7 Addabbo\n88\n78\n81\n10 Heckler\n91t 90\n91\nEilberg\n93\n92\nMeeds\n94\n92\n90 91\nMetcalfe\n6 Burton, P.\n11 Burke\n99\n99\n8 Rosenthal\n91 93\n2 Murphy\n89\nSchulze\n97t\n-\nBonker\n98\n95\nMiller\n99\n96\n12 Studds\n99\n99\n9 Delaney\n97+ 89\nYatron\n92\n93\nMcCormack\n90 91\n94\n3 Russo\n-\n8 Dellums\n90\n94 87\nMICHIGAN\n10 Biaggi\n84 77\nEdgar\n95\nFoley\n89 91\n89 90*\n4 Derwinski\n9 Stark\nConyers\n67\n72\n11 Scheuer\n92\n49t\nBlester\n97 95\nHicks\n98\n98\n5 Fary'#\n-\n90\n10 Edwards\n97t 92*\n74\n97\nEsch\n72\n87\n12 Chisholm#\nShuster\n98\n99\nAdams\n91\n90\n6 Hyde\n-\n84 80\n3 Brown\n95\n91\n13 Solarz\n92\n-\n11 Ryan\n78\n89*\n10 McDade\n97\n96\nWEST VIRGINIA\n7 Collins#\n12 McCloskey\n87 88*\n4 Hutchinson\n96\n94\n14 Richmond\n96\n-\n8 Rostenkowski\n89\n82\n11 Flood\n95 96\nMollohan#\n72 87\n13 Mineta\n98\n9 Yates#\n95\n97\n5 Vander Veen\n99\n90*\n15 Zeferetti\n90\n-\n12 Murtha\n91 98*\nStaggers\n88 91\n14 McFall\n98\n96\nCarr\n99\n-\n16 Holtzman\n98\n97\n92\n13 Coughlin\n95 94\nSlack\n95 94\n-\n78 86\n10 Mikva\n15 Sisk\n86\n96\nRiegle\n82\n83*\n17 Murphy\n75\n76\n14 Moorhead\n90 89\nHechier\n100 100\n16 Talcott\n90 85\n11 Annunzio\n90\n85\n8 Traxler\n94 91*\n18 Koch\n95\n95\n15 Rooney\n97\n91*\nWISCONSIN\n12 Crane\n17 Krebs\n100\n9 Vander Jagt\n84 85\n19 Rangel#\n86 92\n16 Eshleman#\nAspin\n13 McClory\n90\n93\n68\n85\n91 85\n18 Ketchum\n91 92\n89\n87\n10 Cederberg\n92\n93\n20 Abzug#\n92\n96\n17 Schneebell\n90 92*\n2 Kastenmeler\n99\n97\n19 Lagomarsino\n99 96*\n14 Erienborn\n11 Ruppe\n82\n82\"\n21 Badillo\n86\n73*\n99\n18 Heinz\n89\n95*\n3 Baldus\n97\n15 Hall\n-\n20 Goldwater\n82\n82*\n84 80\n12 O'Hara\n90 90\n22 Bingham\n94 92\n19 Goodling, W.\n95\nZablocki\n97 98\n21 Corman\n93\n91\n16 Anderson#\n87t 91*\n13 Diggs\n65\n60*\n23 Peyser\n78\n89\n20 Gaydos#\n82\n97\nReuss\n95 95\n17 O'Brien#\n22 Moorhead\n91 94\n89 85\n14 Nedzi\n92\n91\n24 Ottinger\n96\n-\n21 Dent#\n81\n85\nStelger\n90+ 92*\n23 Rees\n88 90*\n18 Michel\n19 Rallsback\n84 88*\n15 Ford#\n80\n87\n25 Fish\n94\n90*\n22 Morgan\n92\n87\nObey\n97 96\n24 Waxman#\n84\n16 Dingell\n91\n85\n26 Gliman\n96\n96\n23 Johnson\n89\n88\nCornell\n99\n20 Findley\n90 90\n25 Roybal\n93 91\n92 91*\n17 Brodhead\n94\n-\n27 McHugh#\n95\n-\n24 Vigorito\n93\n94\nKasten\n98 -\n91 90*\n21 Madigan#\n26 Rousselot\n87 84\n18 Blanchard\n99\n28 Stratton\n98\n92\n25 Myers\n98\n-\nWYOMING\n68t 75*\n22 Shipley\n27 Bell\n92\n99\n19 Broomfield\n87\n90\n29 Pattison\n93\n-\nRHODE ISLAND\nAL Roncalio\n92\n87*\n28 Burke\n89\n70\n23 Price\nMINNESOTA\n30 McEwen\n85\n84*\n95\n1 St Germain\n93\n91\n29 Hawkins\n85 73\n24 Simon\n-\nQuie\n94\n94\n31 Mitchell\n95\n94\n2 Beard\n93\n-\n89\n87\nINDIANA\n30 Danielson\n90\n92\nHagedorn#\n95\n-\n32 Hanley\n97\n95\nSOUTH CAROLINA\n75 87\n1 Madden\n31 Wilson\n92\nFrenzel\n94\n92\n33 Walsh\n92t\n87*\nDavis\n93\n90\n95 90*\n2 Fithian\n32 Anderson\n93\n95\nKarth\n84\n92\n34 Horton\n83\n95\n2 Spence\n97\n96\n3 Brademas\n33 Clawson\n87\n80*\n98 98\nFraser\n66\n88\n35 Conable\n94\n88\nDerrick#\n94\n92\n4 Roush\n34 Hannaford\n-\n92\n89*\n6 Nolan\n96\n36 LaFalce\n96\n-\nMann\n91\n93\n99 -\n5 Hillis\n35 Lloyd\n96\n7 Bergland\n93\n95\n37 Nowak\n98\n-\n5 Holland\n85\n-\n89 87\n6 Evans\n36 Brown\n98\n93*\n8 Oberstar\n98\n-\n38 Kemp\n92\n94\n6 Jenrette\n83\n-\n37 Pettis'\n97t\n7 Myers\n8 Hayes\n98\nMISSISSIPPI\n39 Hastings\n90\n88\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n38 Patterson\n94\n-\n97\n98\nWhitten\n90\n94\nNORTH CAROLINA\nPressier#\n9 Hamilton\n95 -\n39 Wiggins\n83 81\n100\n2 Bowen\n93\n94\n1 Jones\n93t 86*\nAbdnor\n96\n93\n60\n90\n10 Sharp\n40 Hinshaw\n94\n3 Montgomery\n92\n94\n2 Fountain\n94\n96\nTENNESSEE\n86\n11 Jacobs\n-\n1. Rep. Jerry L. Pettis (R Calif.) died Feb. 14, 1975. He voted on all six votes for which\n41 Wilson#\n89\n4 Cochran\n95\n91\n3 Henderson\n92 95\nQuilien\n87t 85*\nIOWA\n42 Van Deerlin\n89\n88\nhe was eligible. Rep. Shirley N. Pettis (R) sworn in May 6, 1975, to replace her husband.\nMezvinsky\n95\n99\nLott\n93\n93\n4\n83 87\nDuncan\n98\n98\n2. Rep. John C. Kluczynski (D III.) died Jan. 27, 1975. He voted on all three votes for\n43 Burgener\n96\n91\nBlouin\n97\n82\nMISSOURI\n5 Neal\n93\n3 Lloyd\n99\nwhich he was eligible. Rep. John G. Fary (D) sworn in July 15, 1975, to replace Kluc-\nCOLORADO\n100\nClay\n90\n76\n6 Preyer\n99\n95*\nEvins\n71 78\nSchroeder\n98\n94\n3 Grassley\nSmith\n97\n91\n2 Symington #\n86 87\n7 Rose\n87 89\n5 Allen*\n95+\nzynski. 3. Rep. Carl Albert, as Speaker, votes at his own discretion.\nWirth\n95\n93\n3 Sullivan\n5 Harkin\n86 85\n8 Hefner\n93\n-\n6 Beard#\n92 90\n4. Rep. Richard Fulton (D Tenn.) resigned Aug. 14, 1975. His voting participation\n3 Evans\n94\n90*\n6 Bedell#\n96\n-\nscore for 1975 was 57 per cent. Rep. Clifford Allen (D) sworn in Dec. 2, 1975, to replace\n4 Johnson\n94\n80\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nFulton.\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 167\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nPAGE 166-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nVoting Participation 5\n1 2\n1 2\n1 2\n- KEY\nConservative Coalition\nALABAMA\nIOWA\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nt Not eligible for all recorded\nAllen #\n92 95\nClark\n96\n90\nDurkin'\n82t\nvotes in 1975.\nSparkman\n86 80*\nCulver\n93\nMcintyre #\n90 91\nNot eligible for all recorded\nALASKA\nKANSAS\nNEW JERSEY\nGravel\n75 63\nDole#\n93\n93*\nWilliams\n95 90\nvotes in 93rd Congress.\n87\n92\nStevens\nPearson\n91 87\nCase\n95\n95*\n-Not a member of 93rd Con-\nCONSERVATIVE COALITION'S SUPPORT DROPS\nARIZONA\nKENTUCKY\nNEW MEXICO\nFannin\n91\n90\nFord\n91\nMontoya\n81 90\ngress.\nGoldwater #\n67\n65*\nHuddleston #\n87\n85'\nDomenici\n93\n93\n#Member absent a day or\nThe top-heavy Democratic majorities in the House and\nARKANSAS\nLOUISIANA\nNEW YORK\nmore in 1975 due to\nBumpers\n87\nJohnston\n92 86\nBuckley*\n81t 81t\nSenate during 1975 pushed the conservative coalition's\n90\n95\nMcClellan\nLong\n86\n84\nJavits\n91\n83\nillness, or illness or\nCALIFORNIA\nMAINE\nNORTH CAROLINA\ndeath in family.\nsuccess level down to its lowest point since the 89th\nDefinitions\nCranston\n98\n90\nHathaway\n96\n94\nMorgan #\n76\nCongress 10 years ago. The 89th was the last Congress in\n89\nTunney\n85\nMuskie\n93\n88\nHelms\n96t 94*\nwhich the Democrats enjoyed a comparable 2-to-1\nCOLORADO\nMARYLAND\nNORTH DAKOTA\ndominance over the Republicans.\nConservative Coalition. As used in this study, the\n93\nHart\nBeall\n96\n95\nBurdick\n93\n98*\n1\n2\n92\nHaskell\nMathias #\n84\n80\nYoung\n93\n90\nThe coalition formed on 28 per cent of the votes in each\nterm \"conservative coalition\" means a voting alliance\n90\nMASSACHUSETTS\nTEXAS\n85\nchamber during 1975. This represented a slight drop in the\nof Republicans and southern Democrats against the\nCONNECTICUT\nOHIO\nRibicoff #\n94\n94\nKennedy\n84\nGlenn\n91\nBentsen\n83\n81\nWeicker\n96\nBrooke\n90\n88\nTaft #\nTower\n95\nSenate from the 30 per cent level of the previous year, but a\nnorthern Democrats in Congress. This meaning, rather\n89\n66+ 84*\n89\nDELAWARE\nMICHIGAN\nOKLAHOMA\nUTAH\nsubstantial increase over the 19 per cent of the time the\nthan any philosophic definition of the \"conservative\"\nBiden#\n86+ 89\nHart\n75 90\nBartlett #\n90 96\nMoss\n88\n85*\nposition, provides the basis for CQ's selection of coali-\nRoth #\n94\n97\nGriffin#\n88\n89'\nBellmon\n89\n68\nGarn\n93\ncoalition appeared in the House during 1974. Overall, the\ntion votes.\nFLORIDA\nMINNESOTA\nOREGON\nVERMONT\ncoalition appeared on 28 per cent of the votes in Congress,\nChiles\n92 91\nHumphrey\n85\n87\nHatfield\n89\n85\nLeahy\n93\n-\nStone\nMondale\n94\n86\nPackwood\n92\nStafford #\n95\n91*\ncompared with a 1974 average of 24 per cent.\nConservative Coalition Vote. Any vote in the\n98\n81\nGEORGIA\nMISSISSIPPI\nPENNSYLVANIA\nVIRGINIA\nHowever, since there were fewer Republicans in each\nSenate or the House on which a majority of voting\nNunn\n98\n98*\nEastland\n65\n80\nSchweiker\n98 97\nByrd**\n98\n96*\nTalmadge\n92\n88\nStennis #\n86\n58\nScott\n89\n95*\n91\n88\nchamber in 1975, the coalition's victory percentage dropped\nsouthern Democrats and a majority of voting\nScott\nHAWAII\nMISSOURI\nRHODE ISLAND\nWASHINGTON\nsharply. The coalition won only 48 per cent of the 166\nRepublicans oppose the stand taken by a majority of\n77\n78*\nInouye\nEagleton\n90\n88\nPastore\n90\n92*\nJackson\n95\n99\nSenate votes on which it appeared, down from 54 per cent in\nvoting northern Democrats. Votes on which there is an\nFong\n86\n82*\nSymington\n80\n84\nPell\n92\n95*\nMagnuson\n90\n90\n1974. This was its worst showing there since 1965, when it\neven division within the ranks of voting northern\nIDAHO\nMONTANA\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nWEST VIRGINIA\nChurch\n81\n78\nMansfield\n93\n89*\nHollings\n91\nByrd\n99\n99*\nwas successful only 39 per cent of the time.\nDemocrats, southern Democrats or Republicans are\n87\nnot included.\nMcClure\n93 84\nMetcalf\n83\n91\nThurmond\n95\n93*\nRandolph\n96 94\nNEBRASKA\nSOUTH DAKOTA\nIn the House, the coalition performed slightly better,\nILLINOIS\nWISCONSIN\nStevenson\nCurtis\n86 86\nAbourezk\n93\n89\nNelson\n95 93\nwinning 52 per cent of the 170 votes on which it formed. But\nSouthern States. The southern states are\n90\n93*\n85 78\nHruska\n91 94\nMcGovern\n81\n88\nProxmire\n100 100\nthis was still 15 percentage points below the 67 per cent\nAlabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,\nPercy\nINDIANA\nNEVADA\nTENNESSEE\nWYOMING\nBayh\nCannon\n89 89*\nBaker #\n82\nlevel of 1974, and the poorest showing since a 32 per cent\nLouisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,\n56 78\n79*\nMcGee\n77 78\nHartke\n83\n80\nLaxalt\n89 88*\nBrock #\n89\n86\nvictory level in 1966.\nSouth Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. The\nHansen\n94 92\nCombining votes from both chambers, the coalition\nother 37 states are grouped as the North in the study.\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n*Buckley elected as Conservative.\n**Byrd elected as independent.\nwon 50 per cent of the time, the first year since 1966 that it\nConservative Coalition Support Score. Percent-\nfailed to win more than half the votes on which it appeared.\nage of conservative coalition votes on which a member\n1. Sen. John A. Durkin (D N.H.) sworn in Sept. 18, 1975, following special election\nThis was down nine percentage points from the 59 per cent\nvotes \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement with the position of\nnecessitated by a dispute over the outcome of the 1974 general election. The seat was\nsuccess rating of 1974.\nthe conservative coalition. Failures to vote, even if a\nvacant from Jan. 3 to Aug. 8, 1975, when Sen. Norris Cotton (R) was appointed to serve\nmember announces a stand, lower the score.\nuntil a successor was elected. Cotton's score for 1975 was 81 per cent.\nHouse\nConservative Coalition Opposition Score.\nPercentage of conservative coalition votes on which a\nThe drastic decline in coalition success in the House\nmember votes \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagreement with the\nwas due largely to the drop in the number of Republicans\nposition of the conservative coalition.\nVoting Participation Scores:\nserving in that chamber. There were only 145 House\nRepublicans during the first session of the 94th Congress,\ncompared with the more than 190 who had served for most\nThis trend was evident in the increased opposition\nof 1974.\nscores of eastern Republican senators such as Richard S.\nSenate\nThey supported the coalition 75 per cent of the time in\nSchweiker of Pennsylvania, who voted against the coalition\n1975, compared with 66 per cent in 1974. House Republican\n93 per cent of the time compared with 77 per cent in 1974.\nopposition dropped 5 per cent, from 23 to 18.\nChanges among House Democrats were smaller. Sup-\nLeading Supporters, Opponents\n1. Voting Participation, 1975. Percentage of 602 roll calls in\n1975 on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay.\"\nport levels among northern and southern Democrats stayed\nThe leading supporters of the coalition in the House\nalmost the same as in 1974, but the opposition level rose\nwere Virginia Reps. Robert W. Daniel (R) and W. C. (Dan)\n2. Voting Participation, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 1,138\nslightly to 28 per cent, from 24, among Southerners and to\nDaniel (D), who voted with it 98 per cent of the time.\nroll calls in 1973 and 1974 on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay.\"\n72 per cent, from 66, among Northerners.\nIn the Senate, the strongest supporters were\nRepublicans James A. McClure of Idaho and Clifford P.\nSenate\nHansen of Wyoming, both with 96. Highest support among\nAverage coalition support and opposition scores in the\nsouthern Democrats came from Independent Harry F. Byrd\nSenate also varied little from 1974. But a cleavage among\nJr. (Va.), who caucuses with the Democrats. Byrd, who\nSenate Republicans was visible when their scores were\nhad a score of 93, was followed by Sam Nunn (Ga.) with 91.\nbroken down by region. Coalition support rose and opposi-\nThe highest coalition opposition score in the Senate\ntion decreased among Senate Republicans everywhere but\nwas Schweiker's 93-the first time in the history of the\nin the East, where support decreased and opposition in-\nstudy that a Republican led in this category. The highest\ncreased sharply. Eastern Republican support dropped to 31\nopposition registered by a Democrat was the 92 per cent\nper cent, from 40, and opposition rose to 61 per cent, from\nscore of Iowa's Dick Clark. In the House, the leading oppo-\n49, over 1974 levels.\nnent was New York Democrat Edward I. Koch, with 96 per\ncent opposition.\nPAGE 168-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1978 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 169\nConservative Coalition 2\nConservative Coalition 3\nState Rankings\nAverage Scores\nNorthern Democrats\nNorthern Democrats\nHere are the 10 states whose delegations supported the\nFollowing are the composite conservative coalition sup-\nByrd (W.Va.)\n64%\nByron (Md.)\n81%\nconservative coalition most frequently in 1975 and those\nport and opposition scores for 1975; scores for 1974 are in\nCannon (Nev.)\n58\nRunnels (N.M.)\n81\nparentheses:\nRandolph (W.Va.)\n48\nwhose delegations supported it least frequently, based on\nIchord (Mo.)\n79\nMontoya (N.M.)\n44\nstatistics from both chambers (figures in parentheses in-\nRandall (Mo.)\n69\nMcGee (Wyo.)\n32\ndicate 1974 rank).\nSouthern\nNorthern\nSlack (W.Va.)\n58\nMost Conservative\nDemocrats Republicans Democrats\nMurtha (Pa.)\n55\nMcKay (Utah)\n55\nRank\nState\nSupport\nOpposition\nHOUSE\n1\nNebraska (3)\n90%\n5%\nCoalition Support\nShipley (III.)\n52\n84\n5\nSenate\n70%\n(68%)\n63%\n(61%)\n17%\n(17%)\nSantini (Nev.)\n51\n2\nMississippi (2)\nSouthern Democrats\n)\n75\n(66\n)\n20\n(21\n)\nRepublicans\n3\nVirginia (1)\n79\n18\nHouse\n63\n(62\n4\nOklahoma (5)\n76\n15\nCoalition Opposition\nDaniel (Va.)\n98%\nDaniel (Va.)\n98%\nOPPOSITION\n5\nAlabama (8)\n76\n14\nSenate\n19%\n(18%)\n28%\n(27%)\n72%\n(72%)\nMcDonald (Ga.)\n95\nKelly (Fla.)\n95\n6\nNorth Carolina (4)\n74\n20\nHouse\n28\n(24\n)\n18\n(23\n)\n72\n(66\n)\nWaggonner (La.)\n94\nCollins (Texas)\n95\nHighest Coalition Opposition Scores. Those who voted\n7\nIdaho (not ranked)\n73\n19\nBurleson (Texas)\n94\nRobinson (Va.)\n95\nagainst the conservative coalition most consistently in 1975:\n8\nGeorgia (not ranked)\n71\n20\nPoage (Texas)\n92\nTaylor (Mo.)\n94\n9\nNew Mexico (not ranked)\n71\n18\nSatterfield (Va.)\n92\nSmith (Neb.)\n94\nSENATE\n10\nArizona (9)\n70\n10\nRegional Scores\nMontgomery (Miss.)\n91\nMoore (La.)\n94\nHolt (Md.)\n94\nLeast Conservative\nSUPPORT\nDevine (Ohio)\nSouthern Democrats\n94\nRepublicans\nRank\nState\nSupport\nOpposition\nThe parties' coalition support scores, by region, for\nBumpers (Ark.)\n55%\nSchweiker (Pa.)\n93%\n1975; scores for 1974 are in parentheses:\n13%\n1975 Coalition Votes\nFord (Ky.)\n46\nCase (N.J.)\n89\n1\nMassachusetts (3)\n81%\nHuddleston (Ky.)\n43\nBrooke (Mass.)\n86\n2\nRhode Island (1)\n14\n79\nHollings (S.C.)\n36\n72\nEast\nWest\nSouth\nMidwest\nJavits (N.Y.)\n78\n3\nNew Jersey (9)\n21\nFollowing is a list of all 1975 Senate and House\nBentsen (Texas)\n27\nMathias (Md.)\n71\n4\nlowa (not ranked)\n22\n74\nvotes on which the conservative coalition appeared dur-\nChiles (Fla.)\n20\nStafford (Vt.)\n69\n5\nMontana (7)\n23\n68\nDemocrats\n68\nSenate\n16%\n(18%)\n23%\n(21%)\n70%\n(68%)\n11%\n(12%)\ning the first session of the 94th Congress. The votes are\n6\nVermont (not ranked)\n26\n68\nHouse\n19\n(21\n)\n22\n(19\n)\n63\n(62\n)\n21\n(22\n)\nlisted by CQ vote number and may be found in the\nNorthern Democrate\n7\nConnecticut (5)\n27\nWeekly Report.\nClark (lowa)\n92%\n8\nHawaii (8)\n27\n58\n9\nWisconsin (not ranked)\n29\n68\nRepublicans\nAbourezk (S.D.)\n91\n65\nSenate\n31%\n(40%)\n75%\n(64%)\n87%\n(79%)\n70%\n(67%)\nSENATE VOTES (166)\nHathaway (Maine)\n90\n10\nWashington (4)\n29\nHouse\n59\n(54\n)\n78\n(67\n)\n87\n(81\n)\n77\n(68\n)\nCoalition Victories (80)-32, 33, 41, 56, 70, 71, 72,\nWilliams (N.J.)\n90\n80, 81, 88, 107, 126, 127, 141, 143, 158, 160, 190, 195, 199,\nMondale (Minn.)\n89\nCoalition Appearances, 1961-75\nOPPOSITION\n204, 205, 206, 207, 212, 219, 220, 237, 273, 313, 331, 340,\nStevenson (III.)\n87\nThe parties' coalition opposition scores, by region, for\n353, 355, 358, 366, 368, 372, 373, 380, 395, 397, 398, 403,\nLeahy (Vt.)\n87\nFollowing is the percentage of the recorded votes for\n1975; scores for 1974 are in parentheses:\n405, 410, 411, 414, 415, 427, 431, 432, 433, 439, 448, 449,\nHOUSE\nboth houses of Congress on which the coalition appeared:\n450, 451, 452, 454, 458, 479, 480, 481, 485, 493, 497, 517,\nEast\nWest\nSouth\nMidwest\n523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 560, 587, 588, 589.\nSouthern Democrats\n1961\n28%\n1969\nCoalition Defeats (86)-14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21,\nRepublicans\n27%\nDemocrats\n1962\n14\n1970\n22\nSenate\n77%\n(75%)\n63%\n(63%)\n19%\n(18%)\n76%\n(77%)\n22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 85, 86, 96, 102, 109, 112, 125, 128, 130,\nEckhardt (Texas)\n86%\n1963\n17\n1971\n30\nHouse\n75\n(65\n)\n69\n(67\n)\n28\n(24\n)\n71\n(66\n)\n137, 150, 166, 170, 175, 177, 180, 191, 193, 201, 213, 216,\nGude (Md.)\n78%\nFisher (Va.)\n86\n27\n309, 311, 312, 321, 336, 345, 347, 359, 361, 374, 375, 377,\nWhalen (Ohio)\n73\n1964\n15\n1972\nHarris (Va.)\n85\nConte (Mass.)\n67\n1965\n24\n1973\n23\nRepublicans\n381, 382, 384, 386, 396, 400, 401, 402, 404, 406, 407, 408,\nYoung (Ga.)\n84\n1966\n24\nBiester (Pa.)\n66\n25\n1974\nSenate\n61%\n(49%)\n17%\n(21%)\n5%\n(\n7%)\n19%\n(25%)\n409, 412, 417, 418, 419, 443, 444, 459, 468, 471, 476, 486,\nFascell (Fla.)\n81\n28\nHeckler (Mass.)\n62\n1967\n20\n1975\nHouse\n34\n(37\n)\n11\n(18\n)\n7\n(9)\n17\n(22\n)\n489, 494, 495, 499, 504, 509, 512, 513, 515, 516, 532, 537,\nLehman (Fla.)\n80\n1968\n24\n538, 540, 543, 567, 582.\nJordan (Texas)\n80\nIndividual Scores\nAllen (Tenn.)\n71t\nCoalition Victories, 1961-75\nHOUSE VOTES (170)\nFord (Tenn.)\n69\nPepper (Fla.)\n67\nSUPPORT\nCoalition Victories (89)-35, 37, 63, 74, 85, 98, 100,\nPerkins (Ky.)\n63\nTotal\nSenate\nHouse\nHighest Coalition Support Scores. Those who voted\n102, 104, 107, 108, 110, 118, 148, 154, 159, 160, 161, 164,\nt Rep. Allen (Tenn. not eligible for all votes in 1975.\n1961\n55%\n48%\n74%\nwith the conservative coalition most consistently in 1975:\n169, 179, 200, 202, 203, 205, 208, 209, 211, 217, 225, 229,\n237, 241, 246, 255, 264, 266, 275, 277, 282, 293, 296, 299,\nNorthern Democrats\n1962\n62\n71\n44\n312, 315, 322, 324, 345, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360,\n1963\n50\n44\n67\nSENATE\n47\n67\n361, 362, 370, 390, 403, 407, 410, 423, 427, 428, 430, 431,\nKoch (N.Y.)\n96%\n1964\n51\n1965\n33\n39\n25\nSouthern Democrats\nRepublicans\n432, 433, 440, 447, 457, 464, 468, 471, 472, 480, 481, 485,\nEdwards (Calif.)\n95\n1966\n45\n51\n32\n507, 546, 550, 555, 556, 557, 558, 592, 600, 601.\nDrinan (Mass.)\n95\n1967\n63\n54\n73\nByrd (Va.)#\n93%\nMcClure (Idaho)\n96%\nCoalition Defeats (81)-6, 11, 18, 19, 21, 30, 46, 50,\nMaguire (N.J.)\n94\n1968\n73\n80\n63\nNunn (Ga.)\n91\nHansen (Wyo.)\n96\n59, 66, 72, 86, 87, 119, 172, 182, 183, 194, 232, 251, 253,\nMineta (Callf.)\n94\n1969\n68\n67\n71\nMcClellan (Ark.)\n89\nFannin (Ariz.)\n95\n260, 265, 300, 301, 308, 310, 313, 318, 321, 323, 325, 326,\nSarbanes (Md.)\n92\n1970\n66\n64\n70\nAllen (Ala.)\n86\nThurmond (S.C.)\n95\n330, 347, 348, 349, 352, 353, 371, 378, 384, 395, 396, 402,\nTsongas (Mass.)\n92\n1971\n83\n86\n79\nJohnston (La.)\n83\nTower (Texas)\n95\n404, 406, 408, 409, 421, 426, 435, 437, 442, 452, 467, 475,\nMoakley (Mass.)\n92\n1972\n69\n63\n79\nStennis (Miss.)\n83\nHelms (N.C.)\n94\n478, 486, 487, 488, 496, 497, 513, 519, 534, 541, 543, 551,\nStudds (Mass.)\n92\n1973\n61\n54\n67\nTalmadge (Ga.)\n81\nHruska (Neb.)\n93\n552, 563, 568, 570, 574, 580, 583, 584, 591, 594, 604, 612.\nOberstar (Minn.)\n1974\n59\n54\n67\n92\n1975\n50\n48\n52\n# Sen. Byrd (Va.) elected as independent.\nHoltzman (N.Y.)\n92\nEdgar (Pa.)\n92\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nPAGE 170-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 171\nConservative Coalition - 4\nConservative Coalition - 5\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1234\n1 3 4\n1\n3\n4\n1 2 3 4\n- KEY\n5 Armstrong\n89\n78\n16\nKANSAS\nRandall\n69\n26\n59\n37\nMartin\n85\n9\n88\n8\nSebelius\nJones\n87 86 8\nBolling\n67\n23\n69\n14\nCONNECTICUT\n25\n70\n19\n59\n10 Broyhill\n92 85 11\nt Not eligible for all recorded\n25\n70\nKeys\nFord\nCotter\n22\n69\n11\n83\n25\n69\n-\nLitton\n36\n52\n48\n42\n11 Taylor\n81\nDodd\n12\n85\nWinn\n17\n83\n15\nTEXAS\n84t 11t 74 17\nvotes in 1975.\nTaylor\n94\n2\n82\n4\nNORTH DAKOTA\nGiaimo\nShriver\nPatman\n24 66 25 64\n80 10 76 17\nIchord\n33\n42\n32\n33\n79\n13\n77\n12\nAL Andrews\n75\n20\n63\nNot eligibie for all recorded\n5 Skubitz\n30\nWilson\n43t 49t 34 55\n78 16 80 15\n45\n9 Hungate\n38\n40\n50\nMcKinney\n34 53 40 58\nOHIO\n62 36 50 49\nKENTUCKY\nCollins\n10 Burlison\n95 4 91* 5*\nvotes in 93rd Congress.\nSarasin\n49\n51\n54\n43\nGradison\n79\n19\n-\n-\nMoffett\n8 90 -\nHubbard\nRoberts\n-Not a member of 93rd Con-\n72\n25\nMONTANA\n84 8 83 7\n-\nClancy\n84\nDELAWARE\nNatcher\n8\n85\n9\nSteelman\n53\n47\n53\n47\nBaucus\n78\n18\n59\n34\n19\n79\nWhalen\n24\n56\n46\n3 Mazzoli\n73\n15\n78\ngress.\n40\n50\nTeague\n53\n49\n36\n62\nMelcher\n49 8 56 14\nAL du Pont\n35\n57\n26\n67\nGuyer\n84\n13\n4 Snyder\n74\n20\nArcher\n84\n15\n80\n15\nNEBRASKA\n91\n2\n91\n8\nFLORIDA\nLatta\n89\n75\n8\n84\n5 Carter\n8\n89\n9\nEckhardt\nSikes\n7\n79 19 76 14\n1 Thone\n11 86 8 87\n86\n14\n63\n35\nHarsha\n78\n15\n80\n6 Breckinridge\n15\nBrooks\nFuqua\n68 22 69 16\n46\n48\n37\n58\n2 McCollister\n45 38 50 44\n87\n7\n86\nPerkins\n13\nBrown\n75\n16\n65*\n23*\nPickle\nBennett\n58 42 65 35\n36\n63\n38\n3 Smith\n69\n62\n30\n60\n29\nConservative Coalition\n94\n5\n-\n-\nKindness\nChappell\nLOUISIANA\n92\n4\n11 Poage\n79 10 81 11\nNEVADA\n92 82 8\n1\n2\n3\n4\nAshley\n26\n66\nKelly\n95\n4\nHebert\n17\n72\n12 Wright\n31\n4\n43\n8\nAL Santini\n59 36 46 42\n51\n39\n-\n-\nMiller\n87\n11\nBoggs\n74\n26\n13 Hightower\nSupport and Opposition: House\nYoung\n87 10 79 14\n39 46 35* 54*\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n85 9 -\n11 Stanton\n3 Treen\n64\n26\n62*\n35*\n14 Young\nGibbons\n53 33 34 56\n85\n4\n90\n3\nD'Amours\n23 68 31\n32\n66\n12 Devine\n94\n5\n4 Waggonner\n89\n4\n15 de Garza\nHaley\n84 15 83 13\n94\n4\n74\n92\n5\nCleveland\n20\n63\n25\n74\n14\n72\n26\n13 Mosher\nALABAMA\n38\n45\n31\n61\n16 White\n1. Conservative Coalition Support, 1975. Percentage of 170\n8\n81\n13\nFrey\n89 5 80 12\n5 Passman\n80\n69\n12\n67\n15\nNEW JERSEY\n83 16 74 22\nEdwards\n14 Seiberling\n9\n85 4 86 3\n10 Batalls\nMoore\n86\n94\n17 Burleson\n89 10 80 14\n94\nFlorio\n94\n95\n2\nconservative coalition recorded votes in 1975 on which represen-\n2 Dickinson\n16\n76\n-\n-\n15 Wylle\nBreaux\n81\n11\n73\n18\n18 Jordan\n84 11 87 5\n11 Rogers\n57+ 38+ 71 26\n77\n15\n64\n20\nHughes\n19 80 15 80\n38\n58\n16 Regula\ntative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement with the position of the\nNichols\nLong\n79t\n21t\n64\n29\n19 Mahon\n79\n19\n74\n18\n12 Burke\n56 12 74 17\n51\n45\n43\n51\n3 Howard\n84 16 87 10\nBevill\n8\n88\nMAINE\n8\n75\n17 Ashbrook\n91\n5\n72\n13\n20 Gonzalez\n41\nconservative coalition. Failures to vote lower both Support and Op-\n44\n111 80+ 12* 79*\n4 Thompson\n45\n37\n57\n35\n52\n29\n13 Lehman\nJones\n8\n78\n5\n73\n18 Hays\n34\nEmery\n46\n44\n40\n21 Krueger\n22 67 26 63\n54\n72\n22\n-\n6 Buchanan\n78\n21\n65\n25\n14 Pepper\n41\nFenwick\n36\n51\n19 Carney\n17\nposition scores.\n79\n13\n71\n18\n15 Fascell\nCohen\n79\n15\n22 Casey\n17 81 19 79\n49\n48\n80\n9\n38\n59\n6 Forsythe\n89\n9\nFlowers\n59\nMARYLAND\n27\n52\n43\n20 Stanton\n13 73 14 77\n23 Kazen\n87\n7 Maguire\n12\n57\n30\nGEORGIA\n4t 94+\n21 Stokes\n3\n84\n2\n71\n24 Milford\n2. Conservative Coalition Opposition, 1975. Percentage of 170\nALASKA\n82\n7\n74\n79\n7\n73\n15\nGinn\n75\n22\n74\n26\nBauman\n92\n8\n89*\n11*\nRoe\n8\nAL Young\n25\n72\n18\n71\n22 Vanik\n9\n79 8 83\nLong\n85\n9\n91\nUTAH\nconservative coalition recorded votes in 1975 on which represen-\nMathis\n34\n59\n36\n61\n9 Helstoski\n16\n70\n6\n84\n23 Mottl\nARIZONA\n26\n66\n-\n-\n84 15 80 17\nSarbanes\nMcKay\n3 Brinkley\n6\n92\n7\n10 Rodino\n55 39 51 35\ntative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagreement with the position of the\n92\nRhodes\n76\n12\n72\n16\n7\n81\n5\n89\nOKLAHOMA\nHowe\n8 35 14 72\n55\n-\nHolt\n94\n42\n44\n6\n91\n8\n11 Minish\n56\nUdall\n20\n76\nconservative coalition. Failures to vote lower both Support and Op-\n20\n77\n1 Jones\nSpellman\n72+\n20+\n73\n21\nVERMONT\n84 4 89 2\nYoung\n7\n84\n83\n13\n86\n-\n12 Rinaido\nSteiger\n45t\n55t\nByron\n36\n60\n2 Risenhoover\n62 25 56 15\nAL Jeffords\n12\n44\n49\n-\n81\n5\n82\n10\nFlynt\n69\n6\n78\n81\n12\n86\n12\nposition scores.\n13 Meyner\n4 Conlan\n10\n85\n3 Albert'\nVIRGINIA\nMcDonald\n95\n5\nMitchell\n5\n82\n4\n91\n14 Daniels\nARKANSAS\n20\n71\n22\n68\nSteed\nGude\n65\n25\n75\n22\nDowning\n54\n34\n56\n30\nStuckey\n78 13 62* 24*\n18\n78\n20\n74\n15 Patten\n87+ 8t 83 8\n3. Conservative Coalition Support, 93rd Congress. Percentage\n1 Alexander\nMASSACHUSETTS\n28\n66\n26\n73\n5 Jarman\n80\n6\n87\n9\n2 Whitehurst\n54\n18\n30\n16\nLandrum\n69\n5\n57\n13\nNEW MEXICO\n87 9 86 8\n2 Mills\nEnglish\nof 235 conservative coalition recorded votes in 1973 and 1974 on\n72\n9\n64\n13\n1 Conte\n87\n11\n-\n3 Satterfield\n3 Hammerschmidt\n89 6 85\n10 Stephens\n32\n67\n29\n67\nLujan\n92 3 96 3\n75 12 66 22\nOREGON\nDaniel\nwhich representative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement with the\n4 Thornton\n68\n31\nHAWAII\nBoland\n66\n31\n19\n75\n21\n71\nRunnels\n98+ 1t 93 1\n81 9 68 15\nAuCoin\n3 Early\n24\n59\n-\nDaniel\nMatsunaga\n16 72 20 75\nNEW YORK\n98\n12\n86\n97\n3\nposition of the conservative coalition. Failures to vote lower both\n2 Ullman\nCALIFORNIA\n32\n65\n31\n60\nMink\n7\n82\n4 Drinan\n37\n55\n50\n46\nButler\n6\n93\n5\n95\n97\nPike\n92\n3\n5\n93\n5\nSupport and Opposition scores.\n5 Tsongas\n25t 73t 32\n68\n3 Duncan\n1 Johnson\n48\n46\n-\nRobinson\nIDAHO\n5\n92\nDowney\n95\n98\n2\nWeaver\nClausen\n83\n9\n81\n13\n9\n90\n-\n11\n87\nHarris\n11\n79\n10\n82\nSymms\n82\n6 Harrington\n-\n89\n4\n8\n5\nAmbro\n15\n81\n85\n88\nMoss\n2 Hansen, G.\n89\n2\n7 Macdonald\n20\n78\nPENNSYLVANIA\nWampler\n4. Conservative Coalition Opposition, 93rd Congress. Percen-\n16\n70\n14\n72\n-\n14\n65\n21\nLent\n89 2 86 11\n69\n25\n60\n32\nBarrett\nLeggett\n19\n58\n16\n74\n10 Fisher\n7\n85\nILLINOIS\n8 O'Neill\n2*\n88*\n15\n76\n19\n74\nWydler\n12\n86\n-\n65\n26\n60\n37\nNix\ntage of 235 conservative coalition recorded votes in 1973 and 1974\nBurton, J.\n76\n9 Moakley\n19\n69\n13\n71\nWASHINGTON\n2\n86\n4\n89\n1 Metcalfe\n2\n78\n6\n92\n9\n86\nWolff\non which representatives voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagreement\nBurton, P.\n16\n74\n10 Heckler\n17\n78\nGreen\n90 6 89\nPritchard\n9\n26 72 26 67\n29\nAddabbo\n65\n91\n2 Murphy\n62\n17\n29\n36\n60\nMiller\n5\n11 Burke\n86\n11\n86\nEilberg\n10\n84\n18\n75\nMeeds\nwith the position of the conservative coalition. Failures to vote\nDellums\n5\n91\n89\n3 Russo\n29\n68\n-\n25\n75\n22\n77\n8 Rosenthal\n20 74 11 85\n3\n20\n12 Studds\n91\n2\n91\nSchulze\n82\n16\nBonker\n2 85 87\n4 Derwinski\n74 19\n67\n8\n92\n9\n91\nDelaney\n16\n81\n38t 62t 38 56\nYatron\nlower both Support and Opposition scores.\nStark\nMICHIGAN\n35\n59\n31\n64\nMcCormack\n2t\n95t\n3*\n92*\n5 Fary2\n9t 44+\n-\n10 Biaggi\n36 57 26 65\n-\n10 Edwards\n28\n50\n1 Conyers\n30\n56\nEdgar\n6\n92\nFoley\n19\n65\n24\n6 Hyde\n85 14\n4\n61\n3\n70\n11 Scheuer\n24 62 18 72\n11 Ryan\n7\n7 Collins\n2 Esch\n91\n8\n32\n66\n27\n67\nHicks\n58\n9\n71\n7*\n82*\n58\n24\n43\n12 Chisholm\n35 64 33 64\nShuster\n12 McCloskey\n44\n46\n31\n4\n88\n3 Brown\n4\n77\n90\n9\n91\nAdams\n5\n94\n8 Rostenkowski\n22\n71\n24\n62\n81\n15\n61\n34\n13 Solarz\n19\n71\n13 Mineta\n11\n79\n10 McDade\n9\n84\n-\nYates\n9\n4 Hutchinson\n-\n46\n53\n41\n55\nWEST VIRGINIA\n14 McFall\n33\n67\n33\n63\n8\n86\n89\n92\n3\n87\n6\n14 Richmond\n4\n91\n11 Flood\n5 Vander Veen\n-\n-\n31\n65\n38\n60\n1 Mollohan\n38\n32\n37\n54\n10 Mikva\n6\n85\n13\n86\n10*\n79*\n15 Zeferetti\n34\n6 Carr\n62\n12 Murtha\n33 44 49 43\n15 Sisk\n55 39 52* 47*\n2 Staggers\n82\n11\n73\n10\n11 Annunzio\n28\n55\n32\n64\n16\n83\n16 Holtzman\n26 57 38 55\n16 Talcott\n92\n2\n96\n13 Coughlin\nRiegle\n46\n43\n52\n3 Slack\n25\n75\n12 Crane\n91\n4\n78\n6\n9\n76\n5\n77\n17 Murphy\n58 40 60 37\n17 Krebs\n26\n45\n24\n8 Traxler\n57\n14 Moorhead\n18\n73\n14\n87\n4\n84\n10\n13 McClory\n71\n20\n60\n18 Koch\n81\nHechler\n35\n22\n75\n35*\n25\n75\n58*\n19\n81\n18 Ketchum\n96\n91\n15 Rooney\n14 Erlenborn\n9 Vander Jagt\n28\n69\n28\n61\nWISCONSIN\n72\n15\n60\n24\n76\n15\n66\n23\n19 Rangel\n16 Eshieman\n19 Lagomarsino\n92\n8\n85*\n12*\n5\n82\n5\n79\n6\n10 Cederberg\n85\n90\n62 6 80 12\nAspin\n15 Hali\n85\n20 Abzug\n13\n79\n14\n84\n9\n83\n11\n7\n83\n20 Goldwater\n2\n89\n94\n17 Schneebell\n21 Corman\n11\n81\n16\n80\n16 Anderson\n56\n11 Ruppe\n72 17 79 17\n2 Kastenmeier\n35\n45\n44\n54\n27\n51\n35\n21 Badillo\n15\n82\n9\n88\n3\n90\n78\n18 Heinz\n12 O'Hara\n39\n52\n41*\n56*\n3 Baldus\n86\n85\n9\n17 O'Brien\n75t\n13t\n74\n19\n22\n68\n19\n74\n22 Bingham\n21 74\n22 Moorhead\n12\n13 Diggs\n85\n90\n19 Goodling, W.\n15\n4 Zablocki\n66\n18 Michel\n4\n60\n23 Peyser\n41\n82 10 83 9\n56\n8\n60\n40\n60\n23 Rees\n21\n8\n83\n27\n57\n14 Nedzi\n40\n49\n20 Gaydos\n27\n56\n35\n63\n5 Reuss\n8\n90\n91\n3\n19 Railsback\n63 26 54* 37*\n23\n68\n15\n80\n24 Ottinger\n24 Waxman\n7\n91\n21 Dent\n8\n20 Findley\n15 Ford\n37\n87\n25 Fish\n45\n29\n59\n6 Stelger\n8\n87\n64 27 46 47\n12\n75\n10\n83\n70t 24+ 62\n25 Roybal\n16 Dingell\n52\n38\n53\n22 Morgan\n34\n42\n29\n63\n26\n59\n7 Obey\n26 Rousselot\n6\n10\n21 Madigan\n71\n23\n63\n29\n23\n65\n21\n63\n26 Gliman\n23 Johnson\n17 81 16 81\n86\n84\n44\n54\n44\n8 Cornell\n17 Brodhead\n52\n73\n57+ 13t 34*\n22 Shipley\n90\n-\n27 McHugh\n15\n79\n12\n52 38 54 37\n8\n12\n88\n-\n27 Bell\n11\n86\n24 Vigorito\n18 Blanchard\n28\n68\n32\n61\n9 Kasten\n2\n86\n6\n69\n23 Price\n24\n68\n24\n76\n15\n85\n28 Stratton\n88\n10\n-\n-\n-\n28 Burke\n48\n51\n50\n46\n25 Myers\n71\n28\nWYOMING\n582371\n24 Simon\n16\n77\n19 Broomfield\n-\n-\n73\n18\n67\n22\n29 Pattison\n29 Hawkins\nMINNESOTA\n14\n83\nRHODE ISLAND\nAL Roncalio\n30 Danielson\n28\n30 McEwen\n35\n59\nINDIANA\n26*\n62\n14\nQuie\n76\n12\n72\nSt Germain\n62*\n66\n14\n14\n79\n16\n20\n52\n24\n65\nMadden\n13\n82\n14\n81\n74\n22\n58\n36\n31 Mitchell\n77\n69\n26\n71\n23\nBeard\n31 Wilson\n2 Hagedorn\n16\n77\n29\n67\n15\n77\n2 Fithian\n37\n55\n-\n88\n8\n32 Hanley\n32 Anderson\n3 Frenzel\n25\n72\n36\n58\nSOUTH CAROLINA\n83\n6\n77\n4\n3 Brademas\n3\n91\n97\n66\n29\n41\n51\n33 Walsh\n33 Clawson\n63+ 32t 65 23\nDavis\n64\n4 Karth\n55\n39\n67\n24\n72\nRoush\n36\n35\n63\n16\n67\n15\n78\n34 Horton\n34 Hannaford\n-\n41\n36\n47\n5 Hillis\n66\n67\n5 Fraser\n49\nSpence\n24\n35 Conable\n91 5 94 4\n39\n58\n25\n12\n55\n5\n87\n35 Lloyd\n6 Nolan\n76\n21\n63\n25\nDerrick\n64\n31\n11\n76\n10\n74\n6 Evans\n42\n56\n11\n88\n36 LaFalce\n7 Myers\n92\n87\n7 Bergland\n24\n72\nMann\n36 Brown\n84 12 79 19\n37 Pettis'\n87t 12t\n6\n9\n18\n78\n11\n84\n37 Nowak\n19\n80\nHolland\n15\n78\n8 Hayes\n82\n8 Oberstar\n52\n32\n-\n15\n6\n92\n-\n-\n38 Kemp\n38 Patterson\n68\n17\n64\n18\n45\n34\nMISSISSIPPI\n84\n6\n70\n22\nJenrette\n46\n39\n-\n9 Hamilton\n54\n63\n39 Hastings\n39 Wiggins\n10 Sharp\n32\n68\nWhitten\n81\n16\n77\n74\n11\n86\n11\n20\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n40 Hinshaw\n8\n78\nNORTH CAROLINA\nPressier\n66\n31\n2 Bowen\n82\n11\n83\n1. Rep. Jerry L. Pettis (R Calif.) died Feb. 14, 1975. He opposed the coalition on the\n41 Wilson\n75\n15\n11 Jacobs\n24\n70\n-\n12\n14\n-\nJones\n72t 21t 76 13\nAbdnor\n90\n83\n9\nIOWA\n3 Montgomery\n91\n93\n3\n66\nFountain\none issue for which he was eligible. Rep. Shirley N. Pettis (R) sworn in May 6, 1975, to\n42 Van Deerlin\n14\n84 9 86 12\nTENNESSEE\nMezvinsky\n6\n89\n10\n90\n4 Cochran\n89\n5\n83\n8\n92\n4\n86\n9\n3 Henderson\n79\n17\n83\n13\nQuillen\n43 Burgener\n80t 41 77 7\nsucceed her husband.\nLott\n92\n4\n91\n2\nAndrews\n2. Rep. John C. Kluczynski (D III.) died Jan. 27, 1975. He was not eligible for any coali-\nBlouin\n11\n87\n-\n-\n67\n25\nCOLORADO\n66\n26\nDuncan\n89 10 92 6\nSchroeder\n24\nGrassley\n84\n16\nMISSOURI\nNeal\ntion votes. Rep. John G. Fary (D) sworn in July 15, 1975, to replace Kluczynski.\n74\n90\n-\n54\n41\nLloyd\n74\n26\nSmith\n29\n66\n26\n66\nClay\n2\n86\n2\n74\n19\nPreyer\n3. Rep. Carl Albert (D Okla.), as Speaker, votes at his own discretion.\n76\n61\n38\n57\n39\nEvins\n2 Wirth\n35 27 54 28\n2 Symington\n30\n59\n25\n63\nRose\n4. Rep. Richard Fulton (D Tenn.) resigned Aug. 14, 1975. His scores for 1975 were 19\n55\n3 Evans\n32\n62\n25\n69\nHarkin\n18\n76\n-\n30\n61\n30\nAllen'\n25+ 71+\n-\nper cent support and 28 per cent opposition. Rep. Clifford Allen (D) sworn in Dec. 2,\nBedell\n18\n80\nSullivan\n33\n57\n27\n60\n4 Johnson\n78 16 55 31\n-\n8 Hefner\n70\n24\n-\nBeard\n90 2 91 2\n1975, to replace Fulton.\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nPAGE 172-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 173\nConservative Coalition - 6\n1 2 3 4\n1 2 3 4\n1 2 3 4\nNorth-South Split\n- KEY\nALABAMA\nIOWA\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nAllen\n86 6 87 10\nClark\n5 92 85\nDurkin¹\n3t 85t - -\nSparkman\n66 8 66 14\nCulver\n2 86 -\nMcIntyre\n15 78 25 69\nt Not eligible for all recorded\nALASKA\nKANSAS\nNEW JERSEY\nGravel\n18\n48\n14\n46\nDole\n90 5 82 14\nWilliams\n6\n90\n8\n83\nvotes in 1975.\nStevens\n55 31 59 36\nPearson\n58 37 41 46\nCase\n8 89 10* 85*\nNot eligible for all recorded\nDEMOCRATS' REGIONAL DIVISIONS ROSE IN 1975\nARIZONA\nKENTUCKY\nNEW MEXICO\nFannin\n95 2 91 2\nFord\n45\n46\n-\nMontoya\n44 42 29 63\nvotes in 93rd Congress.\n80 1 69 2\n43 43 35 54\nDomenici\n85 7 79 19\n-Not a member of 93rd Con-\nSouthern Democrats split from their northern party\nGoldwater\nHuddleston\nARKANSAS\nLOUISIANA\nNEW YORK\n65\ngress.\nbrethren on 34 per cent of 1975 House and Senate votes,\nBumpers\n36 55 -\nJohnston\n83\n14\n23\nBuckley*\n69t 8t 77* 8*\nMcClellan\n89 6 92 6\nLong\n63\n17\n58\n23\nJavits\n10\n78\n13\n67\nonly rarely without Republican support.\nNORTH CAROLINA\nA majority of voting Republicans joined with the\n1975 North-South Split Votes\nCALIFORNIA\nMAINE\nCranston\n13\n86\n9\n84\nHathaway\n7\n90\n9\n86\nMorgan\n62 16 - -\nsouthern Democrats on 336 of the 409 North-South\nTunney\n16\n78\n11\n77\nMuskie\n7\n84\n7\n85\nHelms\n94 1 95 1\nCOLORADO\nMARYLAND\nNORTH DAKOTA\n1\n2\n3\n4\nsplits-166 out of 220 in the Senate and 170 out of 189 in the\nThe Democratic Party split along regional lines on\nall the conservative coalition votes that formed during\nHart\n13 80\nBeall\n58 40 66 27\nBurdick\n28 69 16* 82*\nHouse. And the Southerners' position usually was\nHaskell\n19\n72\n15\n75\nMathias\n14 71 19 61\nYoung\n92 4 75 15\nMASSACHUSETTS\nOHIO\nTEXAS\nsuccessful only when they had Republican support.\n1975-166 in the Senate and 170 in the House-and, in\nCONNECTICUT\naddition, on 54 other Senate and 19 other House votes.\nRibicoff\n8\n86\n8\n86\nKennedy\n4\n84\n4\n82\nGlenn\n23 69 - -\nBentsen\n58 27 49 36\nThe southern Democrats went their own way against\nThese additional votes are listed below by CQ vote\nWelcker\n34 61 45 49\nBrooke\n7 86 17 74\nTaft\n35 31 52* 32*\nTower\n95 2 91 3\nboth Republican and northern Democratic majorities on\nDELAWARE\nMICHIGAN\nOKLAHOMA\nUTAH\nBiden\n14\n74\n15\n78\nHart\n7\n61\n2\n90\nBartlett\n88\n1\n93\n3\nMoss\n17 63 9 77\nonly 73 of 1,214 House and Senate recorded votes during the\nnumber and may be found in the charts published in\nthe 1975 Weekly Reports. Conservative coalition vote\nRoth\n64\n28\n77\n20\nGriffin\n80 10 80 10\nBellmon\n79 14 59 11\nGarn\n87 2 -\nfirst session of the 94th Congress. Those issues for the most\nFLORIDA\nMINNESOTA\nOREGON\nVERMONT\nnumbers are contained in that study. (Conservative\npart dealt with strong regional, economic or emotional in-\nChiles\n75 20 45 44\nHumphrey\n7 79 12 79\nHatfield\n33\n61\n28\n51\nLeahy\n3 87 - -\ncoalition, p. 169)\nStone\n79\n19\nMondale\n7\n89\n5\n85\nPackwood\n37\n53\n32\n45\nStafford\n30 69 43 50\nterests.\nGEORGIA\nMISSISSIPPI\nPENNSYLVANIA\nVIRGINIA\nWithout Republican support, southern Democrats won\nNunn\n91 9 86 11\nEastland\n72\n3\n84\n4\nSchweiker\n5 93 21 75\nByrd**\n93 6 91 6\nTalmadge\n81 13 84 9\nStennis\n83 2 61 4\nScott\n36 49 58* 36*\nScott\n86\n10\n83\ntheir point on only three of those 73 votes, uniting in a\nSenate Votes (54)\n5\nHAWAII\nMISSOURI\nRHODE ISLAND\nWASHINGTON\nregional stance while Republicans and northern Democrats\n43, 46, 49, 51, 75, 93, 95, 103, 104, 115, 172, 184, 194,\n74\nInouye\n20\n55\n20*\n57*\nEagleton\n16\n75\n13\n75\nPastore\n17 77 18* 75*\nJackson\n20\n75\n26\nFong\n66 21 67* 20*\nSymington\n22 52 18 61\nPell\n7\n84\n8*\n88*\nMagnuson\n21\n70\n22\n69\nwere dividing.\n218, 222, 223, 225, 271, 294, 306, 310, 315, 316, 318, 319,\nIDAHO\nMONTANA\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nWEST VIRGINIA\n324, 326, 327, 328, 335, 346, 348, 349, 352, 385, 413, 455,\nChurch\n17\n69\n13\n67\nMansfield\n24 65 13 75\nHollings\n56 36 54 31\n64 35 52 48\nWith Republican support on 336 other votes, by con-\nByrd\nMcClure\n96 82 5\nMetcalf\n14 72 14 75\nThurmond\n95 92 3\nRandolph\n48\n48\n39\n53\ntrast, southern Democrats prevailed over northern\n461, 462, 483, 484, 500, 501, 533, 542, 544, 545, 550, 554,\nWISCONSIN\nDemocrats 169 times, a 50 per cent success rate for the\n557, 562, 564, 574, 602.\nILLINOIS\nNEBRASKA\nSOUTH DAKOTA\nStevenson\n8\n87\n9\n86\nCurtis\n88\n88\n1\nAbourezk\n7\n91\n7\n83\nNelson\n13\n86\n5\n86\nPercy\n28 60 33 48\nHruska\n93 0 92 2\nMcGovern\n4\n77\n7\n79\nProxmire\n17\n83\n19\n81\ntraditional congressional conservative coalition. (Conser-\nHouse Votes (19)\nINDIANA\nNEVADA\nTENNESSEE\nWYOMING\nvative coalition study, p. 169)\nBayh\n3 51 10 69\nCannon\n58 29 47 44\nBaker\n70 5 69 10\nMcGee\n32\n36\n28\n43\nHartke\n12 73 16 66\nLaxalt\n92 5\nBrock\n86 9 87 5\nHansen\n96 0 92 1\nHouse Democrats split along North-South lines on 189\n7, 14, 43, 45, 133, 167, 178, 191, 242, 285, 335, 397,\nrecorded votes, 31 per cent of the 612 recorded votes taken\n424, 425, 455, 562, 572, 573, 585.\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n*Buckley elected as Conservative.\n**Byrd elected as independent.\nin 1975. That was a marked increase in North-South splits\nfrom the 22 per cent record of 1974.\n1. Sen. John A. Durkin (D N.H.) sworn in Sept. 18, 1975, following a special election\nnecessitated by a dispute over the outcome of the 1974 general election. The seat was\nOn all but 19 of those party-split votes, however,\nOpposed rescission of $122.9-million in appropriations\nvacant from Jan. 3 to Aug. 8, 1975, when Sen. Norris Cotton (R) was appointed to serve\nsouthern Democrats were joined by a majority of House\nfor the Texas-built F-111 fighter-bomber and supported\nuntil a successor was elected. Cotton's scores for 1975 were 78 per cent support and 22\nRepublicans. In 1974, southern Democrats had stood alone\ndropping a $58.2-million appropriation to develop the F-18\nper cent opposition.\nin only 14 House recorded votes.\nfighter that the Navy had selected over the Texas-built F-\nIn the Senate, southern Democrats bucked northern\n16. (Vote 14, 1979 Weekly Report p. 454; Votes 424 and\nDemocrats on 37 per cent of 602 recorded votes in 1975. In\n425, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2138)\nConservative Coalition Support and Opposition: Senate\n1974, the Senate North-South split rate was 39 per cent.\nBacked government support for private efforts to\nIn splitting with northern Democrats on 220 Senate\ndevelop oil shale and other synthetic fuels and opposed\nvotes in 1975, southern Democrats were up against a\nfederal strip mining curbs. (Vote 133, 1975 Weekly Report\n1. Conservative Coalition Support, 1975. Percentage of 166\n3. Conservative Coalition Support, 93rd Congress. Percentage\nRepublican majority 54 times. In 1974, Senate southern\np. 994; Votes 572 and 573, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2754)\nconservative coalition votes in 1975 on which senator voted \"yea\" or\nof 285 conservative coalition roll calls in 1973 and 1974 on which\nDemocrats went against Republican and northern\nOpposed additional federal aid to ailing Northeast and\n\"nay\" in agreement with the position of the conservative coalition.\nsenator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement with the position of\nDemocratic majorities in 48 votes.\nthe conservative coalition. Failures to vote lower both Support and\nMidwest railroads. (Vote 7, 1975 Weekly Report p. 414)\nFailures to vote lower both Support and Opposition scores.\nDefended higher dairy and cotton price targets. (Vote\nOpposition scores.\nHouse\n43, 1975 Weekly Report p. 618; Vote 45, 1975 Weekly Re-\n2. Conservative Coalition Opposition, 1975. Percentage of 166\n4. Conservative Coalition Opposition, 93rd Congress. Percen-\nport p. 622)\nconservative coalition votes in 1975 on which senator voted \"yea\" or\ntage of 285 conservative coalition roll calls in 1973 and 1974 on\nHouse Republicans, generally closely attuned to\nOpposed U.S. contributions to the Inter-American\n\"nay\" in disagreement with the position of the conservative\nwhich senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagreement with the posi-\nsouthern conservatism on economic and foreign policy\nDevelopment Bank.\ncoalition. Failures to vote lower both Support and Opposition\ntion of the conservative coalition. Failures to vote lower both Sup-\nissues, left southern Democrats by themselves in 19 North-\nscores.\nport and Opposition scores.\nSouth splits on regional issues during 1975.\nSenate\nSouthern Democrats won only one of those 19 issues,\nturning back a northern-Republican-led attempt to drop a\nIn the Senate, southern Democrats more frequently\n$3-million federal subsidy for a private cotton industry\nfound themselves without majority Republican support,\norganization. That proposal lost by a three-vote margin,\nwinning only two of 54 votes in which they lined up against\nboth Republican and northern Democratic blocs.\n196-199, as southern Democrats voted 5-79, northern\nDemocrats 103-81 and Republicans 88-39. (Vote 285, 1975\nIn one of those votes, southern Democrats held off an\nWeekly Report p. 1580)\neffort to kill provisions to raise 1975 tobacco price supports.\nSouthern Democrats were less unified on other issues,\nSouthern Democrats voted 0-17 on that amendment, with\nhowever, and Republicans and northern Democrats were\nnorthern Democrats dividing 19-16 and Republicans 16-15.\nless evenly divided. Southern Democrats therefore lost on\n(Vote 115, 1975 Weekly Report p. 673)\n18 votes, including issues on which they:\nOn another issue, southern Democrats voted 16-1 to\ntable an amendment to emergency tax cut legislation (HR\nPAGE 174-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 175\nNorth-South Split 3\nNorth-South Split 2\n2166) to discount a 10 per cent earned income credit for tax-\nTotal\nNorth-South\nPercentage\npayers with children in computing income to determine\nRecorded\nDemocratic\nof\ntheir eligibility for federal benefit programs. Northern\nVotes\nSplits\nSplits\nDemocrats divided 18-23 and Republicans 16-16, so the\n1968\n514\n173\n34\nStands of Individual Democrats\nproposal was sidetracked.\nThe 52 votes that the southern Democrats lost to com-\n1967\n560\n148\n26\n1966\n428\n124\n29\nThe charts below and on the following page show\nCOLUMN 2 gives the percentage of recorded votes\nbined Republican and northern Democratic majorities in-\n1965\n459\n160\n35\nhow often individual Democrats voted with the southern\non which the member voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement\ncluded:\nA series of 10 recorded votes during a week of\n1964\n308*\n75\n24\nand northern positions on party-splitting issues. The\nwith the majority of voting northern Democrats in 1975.\n1963\n348\n84\n24\nfirst two columns are based on the 220 Senate roll calls\nmaneuvering in which opponents failed to block and delay\naction on a measure (HR 6219) extending the 1965 voting\n1962\n348\n74\n21\nand the 189 House record votes on which the majority of\nCOLUMN 3 gives the percentage of recorded votes\n1961\n320\n107\nvoting southern Democrats opposed the stand taken by\non which the member voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement\n33\nrights act. (Votes 306, 310, 315, 316, 318, 319, 1975 Weekly\nwith the majority of voting southern Democrats in the\n1960\n300\n119\n40\nthe majority of voting northern Democrats in 1975. The\nReport pp. 1644-45; votes 324, 326-328, 1975 Weekly Re-\n1959\n302\n83\n27\nlast two columns show the votes of Democrats on 370\n93rd Congress.\nport pp. 1728-29)\nSenate roll calls and 273 House recorded votes in the\nCOLUMN 4 gives the percentage of recorded votes\nThree preliminary votes and final passage of a measure\n*110 civil rights votes eliminated from the session's total of 418 for this study.\n93rd Congress.\non which the member voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement\n(HR 10481) extending federal aid to New York City. (Votes\nCOLUMN 1 gives the percentage of recorded votes\nwith the majority of voting northern Democrats in the\n544, 545, 550, 557, 1975 Weekly Report pp. 2745-47)\non which the member voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agree-\n93rd Congress.\nScattered votes on Northeast railroad reorganization,\nIndividual Scores\nment with the majority of voting southern Democrats\nFailure to vote kept the figures for most senators\ncommon-site picketing, foreign aid and defense spending,\nin 1975.\nand representatives below the maximum possible.\nexecutive pay, Senate cloture rules and various other\nThe list below shows those senators and represen-\nissues.\ntatives who supported the southern position most often and\nKey\nIndividual Differences\nleast often in 1975:\nt Not eligible for all recorded votes in 1975.\nTo some extent, of course, North-South splits reflected\nSENATE\nNot eligible for all recorded votes in the 93rd Congress.\ndifferences between rural and urban areas, both within\nNot a member of 93rd Congress.\nnorthern and southern states.\nMost 'Southern' Southerners. The southern\nIn the House, for instance, two Virginians were among\nDemocratic senators who voted most frequently with the\nSouthern Democratic Senators' Scores\nthe seven southern members who voted most consistently\nmajority of Southerners on the 220 party-splitting votes in\nwith the southern Democratic bloc on party-splitting votes.\n1975 were: Sam Nunn (Ga.), 90 per cent; John L. McClellan\nBut two freshman Virginia members, elected by districts\n(Ark.), 86; James B. Allen (Ala.), 85. Sen. Harry F. Byrd Jr.\nALABAMA\nFLORIDA\nKENTUCKY\nNORTH CAROLINA\nAllen\n85 7 86 11\nChiles\nincluding the Washington, D.C., suburbs, were among the\n(Va.), an independent, led all senators with 92 per cent.\n70 24 43 46\nFord\n40 50\nMorgan\n60 16 -\nSparkman\n66 14 65 16\nStone\n76\n21\nHuddleston\n39 47 35 54\nfive southern Democrats who most frequently bolted to\nLeast 'Southern' Southerners. The southern\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nLOUISIANA\nvote with the northern Democratic majority.\nDemocratic senators who voted least frequently with the\nJohnston\nHollings\n53 39 54 32\n74 22 59 28\nmajority of Southerners in 1975 were: Dale Bumpers (Ark.),\nLong\n59 23 58 24\nTEXAS\nIn the Senate, four first-term southern Democrats\nARKANSAS\nGEORGIA\nMISSISSIPPI\nBentsen\n50 33 46 39\nvoted least frequently with their region's party majority.\n34 per cent; Walter (Dee) Huddleston (Ky.), 39; Wendell H.\nBumpers\n34 56\nNunn\n90 10 86 12\nEastland\n69 78 7\nVIRGINIA\nMcClellan\nFord (Ky.), 40; Lloyd Bentsen (Texas), 50.\n86 90 7\nTalmadge\n82 12 81 9\nStennis\n81\n61\n5\nByrd*\n92 90 7\nMost 'Southern' Northerners. The northern\nByrd (Va.) elected as independent.\n1975 Splits\nDemocratic senators who voted most frequently with the\nmajority of Southerners were: Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), 60\nThe table below shows 1975 North-South splits:\nper cent; Howard W. Cannon (Nev.), 52; Jennings Randolph\nSouthern Democratic Representatives' Scores\n(W.Va.), 41; Joseph M. Montoya (N.M.), 39.\nALABAMA\nTotal\nNorth-South\nPercentage\n7 McDonald\n89 10\nNeal\n50\n43\n4 Roberts\n82\n82\n8\n3 Nichols\n83 12 85 7\n8 Stuckey\n75 15 61* 23*\n6 Preyer\n59 40 56 40\n6 Teague\n49 56 14\nRecorded\nDemocratic\nof\n4 Bevill\n78 20 73 19\n9 Landrum\n66 57 12\nRose\n52 32 62 29\n8 Eckhardt\n14 83 13 83\nVotes\nSplits\nSplits\nHOUSE\n5 Jones\n46 34 53 28\n10 Stephens\n70 64 14\nHefner\n68 26\nBrooks\n45 38 51 43\n7 Flowers\n77 15 70 19\nKENTUCKY\n11 Taylor\n77\n20\n81\n17\n10 Pickle\n67 32 62 27\nBOTH\nARKANSAS\n1 Hubbard\n70\n27\nOKLAHOMA\n11 Poage\n93 82 9\nCHAMBERS\n1,214\n409\n34\nMost 'Southern' Southerners. The southern\n1 Alexander\n56\n32\n56\n28\n2 Natcher\n52 48 55 45\n1 Jones\n74 19\n12 Wright\n61 33 47 41\n602\n220\n37\nDemocratic representatives who voted most frequently\n2 Mills\n54 19 30 16\n3 Mazzoli\n50 49 34 64\nSenate\nRisenhoover\n64 22\n13 Hightower\n84 10\nHouse\n612\nwith the majority of Southerners on the 189 party-splitting\n4 Thornton\n68\n30\n65\n32\n6 Breckinridge\n47 48 40 55\nAlbert\n14 Young\n76 22 68 30\n189\n31\nFLORIDA\n7 Perkins\n37\n61\n40\n60\n4 Steed\n65 24 76 22\n15 Garza\n74 20 63 25\nissues in 1975 were: W.C. (Dan) Daniel (Va.), 95 per cent;\nSikes\n72\n12\n80\n10\nLOUISIANA\n6 English\n85 13\n16 White\n82 17 74 21\nW.R. Poage (Texas), 93; Omar Burleson (Texas), 92; Joe D.\n2 Fuqua\n66\n23\n66\n17\n1 Hebert\n30 40 10\n17 Burleson\n92 95 3\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nNorth-South Split History\nWaggonner Jr. (La.), 90; G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.),\n3 Bennett\n56\n44\n61\n39\n2 Boggs\n39 48 38* 52*\n18 Jordan\n22 77 19 77\nDavis\n56\n37\n68\n22\n4 Chappell\n78\n11\n79\n13\n90 7 92 5\n19 Mahon\nWaggonner\n84 16 87 11\nDerrick\n60 34\n90; Larry McDonald (Ga.), 89; David E. Satterfield III (Va.),\n7 Gibbons\n51\n35\n33\n55\nPassman\n70 12 66 16\n20 Gonzalez\n44 43 42 52\n4 Mann\n79\n16\n78\n20\nThe table below compares the number and percentage\n8 Haley\n79 20 80 16\n7 Breaux\n75 17 64 19\nHolland\n51 34\n21 Krueger\n70+ 24+\n88.\nof 1975 splits in both chambers with figures for previous\n11 Rogers\n54t 39t 65 32\nLong\n52\n44\n47\n48\nJenrette\n47\n37\n22 Casey\n78\n9\n88\n10\n-\nLeast 'Southern' Southerners. The southern\n13 Lehman\n14t 78t 14* 77*\n23 Kazen\n87 12 60 29\nMISSISSIPPI\nTENNESSEE\n14 Pepper\n24 66 25 62\n24 Milford\n79\n10\nDemocratic representatives who voted least frequently\n70\n12\nyears:\n15 Fascell\n19 78 21* 77*\n1 Whitten\n76 12 85 11\nLloyd\n72 28\nTotal\nNorth-South\nPercentage\nwith a majority of their southern colleagues in 1975 were:\n2 Bowen\n80 13 82 13\nEvins\n39 25 53 26\nGEORGIA\nAndrew Young (Ga), 10 per cent; Joseph L. Fisher (Va.), 13;\n3 Montgomery\n90 3 91 4\nAllen²\n21t 75t\nRecorded\nDemocratic\nof\nGinn\n74\n23\n75\n23\n7 Jones\n66 24 68 14\nVIRGINIA\nWilliam Lehman (Fla.), 14; Bob Eckhardt (Texas), 14;\n2 Mathis\n77 10 83 9\nNORTH CAROLINA\nVotes\nSplits\nSplits\n8 Ford\n26 68\n1 Downing\n83t 11t 82\n9\n3 Brinkley\n83 15 79 18\n1 Jones\n69 24 75 13\nSatterfield\n88 92 6\nHerbert E. Harris II (Va.), 15.\nLevitas\n54\n45\n2 Fountain\n79 15 85 13\nTEXAS\nDaniel\n95 95 5\n409\n34\n5 Young\n10\n81\n78\n3 Henderson\n75 21 84 12\n1975\n1,214\nMost 'Southern' Northerners. The northern\nPatman\n35 40 34 32\n8 Harris\n15 85\n1974\nDemocratic representatives who voted most frequently\n6 Flynt\n68 7 79 10\n4 Andrews\n63 28 66 26\n45\n37\n42\n49\n10 Fisher\n13 86 -\n1,081\n326\n30\n1973\n1,135\n318\n28\nwith the majority of the Southerners were: Harold Runnels\n1. Rep. Carl Albert, as Speaker, votes at his own discretion.\n1972\n861\n330\n38\n(N.M.), 81 per cent; Goodloe E. Byron (Md.), 78; Richard H.\n2. Rep. Richard Fulton (D Tenn.) resigned Aug. 14, 1975. His scores for 1975 were 21\n1971\n743\n279\n38\nIchord (Mo.), 76; William J. Randall (Mo.), 66; John M. Slack\nper cent support and 27 per cent opposition. Rep. Clifford Allen (D) sworn in Dec. 2,\n1975, to replace Fulton.\n1970\n684\n233\n34\n(W.Va.), 56; George E. Shipley (Ill.), 53; John P. Murtha\n1969\n422\n153\n36\n(Pa.), 53.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 177\nPAGE 176-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nNorth-South Split - 4\nNorthern Democratic Senators' Scores\nParty Unity\nALASKA\nINDIANA\nMONTANA\nSOUTH DAKOTA\nGravel\n15 55 15 45\nBayh\n5 52 12 69\nMansfield\n25 67 16 70\nAbourezk\n7 88 12 77\nCALIFORNIA\nHartke\n14 73 17 63\nMetcalf\n14 73 16 74\nMcGovern\n4 75 78\nCranston\n11 88 11 81\nIOWA\nNEVADA\nUTAH\nTunney\n15 78 11 77\nClark\n5 93 84\nCannon\n52 36 44 47\nMoss\n17\n66\n78\nCOLORADO\nCulver\n3 88 -\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nHart\n14 80\nMAINE\nDurkin'\n2t 83t\nVERMONT\nPARTY UNITY VOTING ROSE SHARPLY IN 197\n-\nHaskell\n19\n74\nHathaway\n12 86 11 84\nMcIntyre\n15 77 22 70\nLeahy\n6 87 -\n71\n16\nCONNECTICUT\nMuskie\n12 80 83\nNEW JERSEY\nWASHINGTON\nPartisan voting in Congress increased sharply during\nRibicoff\n9 85 11 84\nMASSACHUSETTS\nWilliams\n8\n89\n85\nJackson\n19\n75\n23\n76\n1975 over previous years. Almost half the votes taken in\nKennedy\n4 83 83\nMagnuson\n21 72 21 70\nDELAWARE\nNEW MEXICO\nBiden\n15 72 16 77\nMICHIGAN\nMontoya\n39 45 27 63\nWEST VIRGINIA\n1975 reflected partisan divisions-those where a majority\nDefinitions\nHart\n6\n62\n87\nNORTH DAKOTA\nByrd\n60\n40\n52\n48\nof voting Democrats opposed a majority of voting\nHAWAII\nInouye\n19\n60\n20*\n57*\nMINNESOTA\nBurdick\n28 68 21 78\nRandolph\n41 55 37 54\nRepublicans. Of the 1,214 recorded votes, 584, or 48 per cent,\nParty Unity Votes. Recorded votes in t\nHumphrey\n7 80 12 77\nOHIO\nWISCONSIN\nwere partisan.\nIDAHO\nMondale\n6 89 85\nGlenn\n20 71 -\nNelson\n13 83 8 84\n16 69 15 64\nMISSOURI\nRHODE ISLAND\nProxmire\n23\n77\n23\nThe 1975 figure of 48 per cent compared with 37 per\nand House that split the parties, a majority\nChurch\n77\nILLINOIS\nEagleton\n16 75 16 73\nPastore\n16 77 15* 77*\ncent in 1974, the last session of the 93rd Congress. Partisan\nDemocrats opposing a majority of voting Rej\nWYOMING\nStevenson\n8 86 86\nSymington\n20 56 19 61\nPell\n9 85 9* 85*\nMcGee\n29 45 25 49\nvoting occurred on 41 per cent of the votes in 1973, 33 per\ncluded. Votes on which either party divides evenl\n1. Sen. John A. Durkin (D N.H.) sworn in Sept. 18, 1975, following a special election cant from Jan. 3 to Aug. 8, 1975, when Sen. Norris Cotton (R) was appointed to serve un-\ncent in 1972 and 40 per cent in 1971. Those figures follow a\nnecessitated by a dispute over the results of the 1974 general election. The seat was va-\npattern that has shown up in almost every Congress in the\nParty Unity Scores. Percentage of pa\ntil a successor was elected.\npast two decades-a higher level of partisan voting in the\nvotes on which a member votes \"yea\" or\nNorthern Democratic Representatives' Scores\nfirst session of a Congress, followed by a drop in partisan\nagreement with a majority of his party. Failu\nINDIANA\n3 Sullivan\ndivisions and an increase in bipartisan voting during con-\neven if a member announced his stand, lo\nARIZONA\n32 58 25 61\nOHIO\nscore.\n8 33 16 71\n1 Madden\n15 80 13 81\n4 Randall\n66 28 57* 39*\n9 Ashley\n26 66 16 70\ngressional election years.\n2 Fithian\n37\n56\n5 Bolling\n25\n69\n19\n58\n14 Seiberling\n10\n85\n92\nCALIFORNIA\n3 Brademas\n5 88 96\n36\n53\n48\n18 Hays\n35 44 44 38\nThis variance is due to the House, whose members\nOpposition-to-Party Scores. Percentage\n42\nunity votes on which a member votes \"yea\" 01\nJohnson\n35\n61\n31\n58\n4 Roush\n33 66 36 63\n8 Ichord\n76\n15\n75\n12\n19 Carney\n19 76 16 75\nare up for re-election every other year. The percentage\n11\n79\n12\n79\n6 Evans\n40 58 -\n9 Hungate\n33 55 42 56\n20 Stanton\n15 72 15 77\nof partisan votes in the House appears to see-saw from\ndisagreement with a majority of his party. A\nLeggett\n16\n70\n16\n70\n8 Hayes\n17\n81\n10 Burlison\n50\n50\n56\n41\n21 Stokes\n3 85 70\n5 Burton,\n9\n81\n2*\n90*\n57\n32\nMONTANA\n10 84 10 90\nthe first session of a Congress to the second session,\nparty unity and opposition-to-party scores\n9 Hamilton\n42\n66\n22 Vanik\n6 Burton, P.\n4\n83\n84\n10 Sharp\n31 69 -\n1 Baucus\n20 76 -\n23 Mottl\n27\n66\n-\nMiller\n10\n89\n11 Jacobs\n24 70 - -\nwith the first session being more partisan. The Senate,\n100 per cent only if he voted on all party uni\n-\n-\n2 Melcher\n37\n55\n30\n64\nOREGON\nDellums\n7\n89\n89\nIOWA\nNEVADA\n1 AuCoin\n21\non the other hand, has shown a consistent increase in\n60\n-\nStark\n5\n84\n9\n82\n1 Mezvinsky\n7 88 12 88\nAL Santini\n50 40 - -\nUllman\n36 53 48 45\npartisan voting since 1972. The percentage of partisan\nThen, southern Democrats voted with a n\n10 Edwards\n3\n94\n5* 89*\n2 Blouin\n12 85\nSmith\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n3 Duncan\n46 49 -\n11 Ryan\n20\n66\n23\n60\n31 65 28 64\n19 76 -\n32 66 - -\n4 Weaver\nvotes there has increased by four percentage points a year\n10\n88\nDemocrats on 35 per cent of partisan votes in\n5 Harkin\n1 D'Amours\n-\n13 Mineta\n6\n93\nPENNSYLVANIA\nfrom 1972 to 1975-from 36 per cent in 1972 to 40 per cent in\nand 44 per cent in the House.\n14 McFall\n33 66 35 60\n6 Bedell\n20 77\n-\nNEW JERSEY\nBarrett\n15 Sisk\n21 56 17 73\n1973, 44 per cent in 1974 and 48 per cent in 1975. In the\n39 31 37 51\nKANSAS\n1 Florio\n17 74 -\n-\nNix\n21 67 14 70\nHouse, the percentage has fluctuated, going from 27 per\nNorthern Democrats increased their support\nKrebs\n25 75\n12 82 - -\n21 Corman\n12 79 15 79\nHughes\n34 62\n-\nGreen\n4 88 89\n23 Rees\n22\n66\n9\n82\nMARYLAND\n3 Howard\n9\n86\n8\n74\n12 83 17 76\ncent in 1972 to 42 per cent in 1973, 29 per cent in 1974 and 48\nparty's position in 1975. They backed their part\n4 Ellberg\n24 Waxman\n4 Thompson\n9\n77\n7\n84\n72\n6 Yatron\n35 59 29 66\nper cent in 1975.\ncent of the votes in the Senate and 79 per cent in\n4\n-\n2 Long\n31 63 35 62\n85\n11\n7 91 92\n7 Maguire\n6t 93t\n-\n7 Edgar\n6 92 - -\nan increase from their 1974 support scores of 73\n25 Roybal\n9\n83\n3 Sarbanes\n28 Burke\n87\n5\nRoe\n3\n66\n25\n71\n17\n86\n73\n11 Flood\n32 64 39 58\nThe Democrats in both chambers won more of the par-\nthe Senate and 72 per cent in the House.\n6\n13\n29 Hawkins\n7\nHelstoski\n17 68 6 84\n12 Murtha\n53 39 51* 48*\n80\n5\n70\n6 Byron\n78 16 80 18\ntisan votes in 1975 than did the Republicans, as had been\n30 Danielson\n7 Mitchell\n10 Rodino\n26 64 15 63\n81\n8\n79\n5\n89\n14 Moorhead\n19 74 13 79\n5\n5\n90\n11 Minish\nthe case most of the time since the 83rd Congress (1953-54),\nSouthern Republicans supported their part\n31 Wilson\n20\ncent of partisan votes in the Senate and 81 per\n20 53 24 66\n76\n17\n79\n15 Rooney\n28 69 28 62\nMASSACHUSETTS\n30\n67\n13 Meyner\n11\n84\n-\n15\n20 Gaydos\n28 54 34 64\nwhen the Republicans last had majorities in either\n32 Anderson\n76\n2 Boland\n19\n75\n20\n72\n34 Hannaford\n71\n14 Daniels\n21 69 20 69\n21 Dent\n38 45 27 56\n-\n-\n12 85\nchamber. House Republicans, however, won more partisan\nHouse, a sizable increase over 1974 when they\n18\n3 Early\n35 Lloyd\n39 59\n15 Patten\n30\n65\n25\n74\n22 Morgan\n31 61 26 58\ntheir party on 73 per cent of partisan votes in\n4 Drinan\n6 93 96\n36 Brown\n14\n74\n14\n71\nNEW MEXICO\n24 Vigorito\n27 68 32 61\n(1971-72). votes than their Democratic rivals in the 92nd Congress\nand 74 per cent in the House.\n5 Tsongas\n6 92\n38 Patterson\n16\n77\nRunnels\n6 Harrington\n5\n81\n81\n86\n10\n67\n15\nRHODE ISLAND\nNorthern Republicans also supported their\n42 Van Deerlin\n24\n66\n15\n77\nNEW YORK\nGermain\n14 78 16 77\n7 Macdonald\n14 65 19 61\nOn average, Democrats voted with their party on\n8 O'Neill\n19 73 22 71\nPike\n24+ 74+ 30 70\nBeard\n15\n78\n-\n-\n6 92 86\n11 89\npartisan votes just slightly less than Republicans in\nmore votes in 1975 than in 1974. In 1975, they S\nCOLORADO\n1 Schroeder\n22\n76\n7\n88\nMoakley\nDowney\n-\nUTAH\ntheir party on 59 per cent of the votes in the Sen\nWirth\n19\n76\n11 Burke\n26 73 22 77\n3 Ambro\n22 75 -\n-\nMcKay\n52 42 52 35\n1975-69 per cent of the time compared with 70 per cent.\n3 Evans\n32\n62\n29\n66\n12 Studds\n8\n92\n91\n6 Wolff\n18 72 17 79\n2 Howe\n59\nThat was the reverse of 1974 when Democrats voted with\nper cent in the House, compared with 55 per\n40\n-\nCONNECTICUT\nMICHIGAN\n7 Addabbo\n8 84 11 85\nSenate and 60 per cent in the House in 1974.\nWASHINGTON\nCotter\n27\n67\n22\n1 Conyers\n8 Rosenthal\n4 90 2 90\n69\n5\n61\n67\n2 Meeds\n22\n71\n14\n80\ntheir party slightly more than Republicans-63 per cent to\n5 Vander Veen\nDelaney\n38+ 61+ 36 57\n3 Bonker\n16\n81\n62 per cent.\nDodd\n12\n84\n14\n85\n12*\n78*\n-\n-\nGialmo\n24 66 24 64\nCarr\n10 Blaggi\n29\n51\n15\n28\n56\n84\n4 McCormack\n38 56 27 64\nMoffett\n10\n88\n9\n88\nThe significant change in 1975 was the sharp increase\nParty Unity Scoreboard\n73\n11 Scheuer\n-\nRiegle\n10\n76\nFoley\n26 60 21 70\n8 Traxler\n12 Chisholm\nHAWAII\n24\n5 86 78\n72\n38*\n53*\n6 Hicks\n37 63 37 61\nin party voting in both chambers among members of both\n23\n12 O'Hara\n13 Solarz\n13 78 -\n22 67 21 70\n7 Adams\n19 69 10 82\nMatsunaga\n16\n71\n72\n14 Richmond\n5 90 -\nparties. The average House Democrat voted with his party\nThe table below shows the proportion of p\n-\nMink\n9\n80\n11\n88\n13 Diggs\n8\n59\n59\n15 Zeferetti\n35\nWEST VIRGINIA\n14 Nedzi\n60\n-\n23 69 16 79\non 69 per cent of partisan votes in 1975, up from 62 per cent\nroll calls in 1975, 1974, 1973, 1972 and 1971:\nILLINOIS\n95\nMollohan\n35\n42\n16 Holtzman\n48\n42\n15 Ford\n14\n6 90 3\n72\n12\n79\n1 Metcalfe\n3\n5\n73\n46\nStaggers\n27 56 39 54\n16 Dingell\n17 Murphy\n28\nin 1974. The average House Republican voted with his party\n75\n23\n25\n65\n22\n55\n63\nSlack\n56 41 60 36\nMurphy\n28 70 25 68\non 72 per cent of the partisan votes in 1975, compared with\nTotal\n17 Brodhead\n18 Koch\n4 94 7 91\nParty\n9 89 -\nRusso\n30 68\n4 Hechler\n19 Rangel\n6 84 3 89\n26 74 20 80\n63 per cent in 1974.\nRecorded\n18 Blanchard\n14 86 -\nUnity\nFary'\n10t 43t\n-\n20 Abzug\n4\n87\n3\n94\nWISCONSIN\nCollins\n10\n71\n8\"\n80*\n21 Badillo\n5\n88\n2\n77\nAspin\n15\n77\n8\n81\nThe average Senate Democrat voted with his party on\nVotes\nMINNESOTA\nRecorded Votes\n8 Rostenkowski\n23\n69\n23\n64\nKarth\n17 66 15 78\n22 Bingham\n14 84 90\n2 Kastenmeler\n18 79 11 86\n68 per cent of partisan votes in 1975, compared with 63 per\n1975\n9 Yates\n10\n85\n10\n88\nFraser\n13\n53\n85\n24 Ottinger\n9 88\n-\n3 Baldus\n23 72\n10 Mikva\nNolan\n13 84\ncent in 1974. The average Senate Republican voted with his\nBoth Chambers\n9 81 -\n27 McHugh\n14 83\nZablocki\n41 55 38 62\n1,214\n584\n-\n11 Annunzio\n29\n54\n30\n66\n7 Bergland\n21 74 15 80\n28 Stratton\n48 51 47 49\n5 Reuss\n8 88 90\nparty on 64 per cent of partisan votes in 1975, up from 59\nSenate\n602\n288\n15 Hall\n16\n83\n8 Oberstar\n10\n89\n-\n-\n29 Pattison\n15 82\nObey\n20 79 18 79\nper cent in 1974.\nHouse\n612\n296\n22 Shipley\n53 37 52 37\nMISSOURI\n32 Hanley\n26 71 34 60\nCornell\n13 87 -\n23 Price\n25 67 24 75\n1 Clay\n3 86 3 74\n36 LaFalce\n25 70 -\nWYOMING\nSouthern Democrats voted with their party on only 43\n24 Simon\n19 74 -\nSymington\n30 59 25 64\n37 Nowak\n-\nAL Roncallo\n35 59 28* 60*\nper cent of partisan votes in the Senate and 48 per cent in\n1974\n21 78\n1. Rep. John C. Kluczynski (D III.) died Jan. 27, 1975. He was not eligible for any north- south split votes. Rep. John G. Fary (D) sworn in July 15, 1975, to replace Kluczynski.\nthe House, indicating somewhat greater southern\nBoth Chambers\n1,081\n399\nDemocratic support of the party's position than in 1974.\nSenate\n544\n241\nHouse\n537\n158\nPAGE 178-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1978 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-P\nParty Unity 3\nParty Unity - 2\nPer Cent\nIndividual Scores\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1 3 4\nTotal\nParty\n- KEY\nRecord\nUnity\nof\nVotes\nRecorded Votes\nTotal\nHighest party unity scores-those who in 1975 most\nALABAMA\nIOWA\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nAllen\n26\n69\n30\n66\nClark\n91\n5\n80\n8\nDurkin'\n86+ ot\nconsistently voted with their party majority against the\nSparkman\n41\n41\n34\n47\nCulver\n90\n4\n-\nMcintyre\n81 12 73 19\nt Not eligible for all recorded\n1973\n41\nmajority of the other party.\nALASKA\nKANSAS\nNEW JERSEY\nvotes in 1975.\n1,135\n463\nGravel\n51\n22\n50\n13\nBoth Chambers\nDole\n86 8 77 17\nWilliams\n88 6 81 8\n237\n40\nStevens\n57\n27\n53\n40\n594\nPearson\n57\n36\n41\n46\n20 74 14* 82*\nNot eligible for all recorded\nCase\nSenate\n541\n226\n42\nSENATE\nARIZONA\nKENTUCKY\nNEW MEXICO\nvotes in 93rd Congress.\nHouse\nFannin\n86\n3\n86\n5\nFord\n68\n24\n-\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nMontoya\n52 29 74 17\n-Not a member of 93rd Con-\nGoldwater\n73\n2\n63\n6\nHuddleston\n66\n22\n67\n18\nDomenici\n77 16 73 22\ngress.\n1972\n33\nARKANSAS\nLOUISIANA\nNEW YORK\nBoth Chambers\n861\n283\n92%\nThurmond (S.C.)\n92%\nBumpers\n69\n20\nJohnston\n40\n53\n47\n40\nBuckley*\n71t 7t 76* 7*\n532\n194\n36\nCranston (Calif.)\nTower (Texas)\n92\nMcClellan\n30\n62\n30\n66\nLong\n39\n46\n43\n38\nJavits\n21 70 18 63\nSenate\n329\n89\n27\nClark (lowa)\n91\nCALIFORNIA\nMAINE\nNORTH CAROLINA\nHouse\nHathaway (Maine) 91\nHansen (Wyo.)\n92\nCranston\n92\n7\n85\n7\nHathaway\n91\n5\n86\n10\nMorgan\n37\n38\n-\nMcClure (Idaho)\n91\nTunney\n85\n8\n75\n12\nMuskie\n89\n4\n83\n9\nHelms\n90\n7\n86*\n6*\n1971\nMondale (Minn.)\n91\n40\nCOLORADO\nMARYLAND\nNORTH DAKOTA\nBoth Chambers\n743\n297\nLeahy (Vt.)\n91\nHart\n85\n7\nBeall\n55 40 66 29\nBurdick\n80\n14\n86*\n12*\n1\n2\n3\n4\nSenate\n423\n176\n42\nHaskell\n82\n11\n78\n12\nMathias\n22\n60\n21\n59\nYoung\n83\n13\n64\n26\n320\n121\n38\nHOUSE\nCONNECTICUT\nMASSACHUSETTS\nOHIO\nTEXAS\nHouse\nRepublicans\nRibicoff\n90\n5\n83\n10\nKennedy\n80\n4\n79\n7\nGlenn\n76\n15\n-\n-\nBentsen\n49\n36\n53\n33\nDemocrats\nWelcker\n42\n56\n42\n49\nBrooke\n19\n73\n21\n67\nTaft\n44\n21\n57*\n28*\nTower\n92\n5\n86\n5\nDELAWARE\nMICHIGAN\nOKLAHOMA\nUTAH\nBauman (Md.)\n93%\n3\n91\n5\n79 9 77 10\nOberstar (Minn.)\n97%\nBiden\n77t 13t 74 14\nHart\n68\n7\n86\n6\nBartlett\n89\nVictories, Defeats on Party Unity Votes\nMoss\nRobinson (Va.)\n93\nRoth\n65\n29\n72\n25\nGriffin\n74\n16\n82\n10\nBellmon\n80\n11\n57\n13\nGarn\n87\n4\nEdwards (Calif.)\n95\n94\nDaniel (Va.)\n93\nFLORIDA\nMINNESOTA\nOREGON\nVERMONT\nBrademas (Ind.)\nChiles\n50\n44\n63\n28\nHumphrey\n81\n4\n78\n11\nHatfield\n35\n55\n31\n53\n91\n2\nHouse\nTotal\n93\nDevine (Ohio)\n92\nLeahy\n-\nSenate\nReuss (Wis.)\nStone\n50\n47\nMondale\n91\n3\n81\n7\nPackwood\n48\n42\n40\n40\nStefford\n33\n63\n43\n48\n92\nCollins (Texas)\n91\nGEORGIA\nMISSISSIPPI\nPENNSYLVANIA\nVIRGINIA\nMineta (Calif.)\nLagomarsino (Calif.)\nNunn\n40\n59\n41\n57\nEastland\n19\n49\n23\n59\nSchweiker\n18\n81\n21\n76\n25\n73\n24\n72\n217\n224\n441\nByrd**\nDemocrats won, Republicans lost\nMezvinsky (lowa)\n92\nSmith (Neb.)\n90\nTalmadge\n39\n53\n38\n53\nStennis\n27\n60\n18\n41\nScott\n43\n43\n60*\n36*\nScott\n84\n9\n74\n13\nRepublicans won, Democrats lost\n71\n72\n143\nHoward (N.J.)\n92\nHAWAII\nMISSOURI\nRHODE ISLAND\nWASHINGTON\n1\n9\n92\nKelly (Fla.)\n89\nInouye\n65\n11\n64*\n8\nKoch (N.Y.)\n13*\nEagleton\n82\n9\n81\n8\nPastore\n83 10 79* 13*\nJackson\n83\n10\n82\n18\nDemocrats voted unanimously\nRepublicans voted unanimously\n27\n10\nFisher (Va.)\n92\nHolt (Md.)\n89\nFong\n65\n19\n63*\n20*\nSymington\n68\n12\n75\n8\nPell\n86\n6\n86*\n9*\n37\nMagnuson\n76\n11\n79\n11\nHutchinson (Mich.)\n89\nIDAHO\nMONTANA\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nWEST VIRGINIA\nSarbanes (Md.)\n92\n89\nChurch\n73\n10\n69\n10\nMansfield\n79\n15\n79\n12\nHollings\n61 32 53 35\nByrd\n63\n36\n69\n31\nShuster (Pa.)\nMcClure\n91\n3\n74\n10\nMetcalf\n69\n11\n74\n16\nThurmond\n92\n3\n91\n4\nRandolph\n68\n27\n71\n23\nILLINOIS\nNEBRASKA\nSOUTH DAKOTA\nWISCONSIN\nHighest opposition-to-party scores-those who in 1975\nStevenson\n87\n6\n84\n10\nCurtis\n83\n2\n83\n2\nAbourezk\n88\n8\n85\n7\nNelson\n89\n8\n86\n7\nParty Scores\nPercy\n38 50 38 43\nHruska\n90 2 92 4\nMcGovern\n76\n3\n81\n8\nProxmire\n86\n14\n81\n19\nmost consistently voted against their party majority.\nINDIANA\nNEVADA\nTENNESSEE\nWYOMING\nBayh\n55 71 7\nCannon\n55 32 62 29\nBaker\n68\n10\n65\n12\nMcGee\n50\n25\n53\n23\nParty unity and opposition-to-party scores below are\nHartke\n76 8 68 13\nLaxalt\n88 5\nBrock\n83 9 78 10\nHansen\n92 2 88 4\nSENATE\ncomposites of individual scores and show the percentage of\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\ntime the average Democrat and Republican voted with his\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n*Buckley elected as Conservative\n**Byrd elected as independent\nparty majority in disagreement with the other party's ma-\nByrd (Va.)t\n73%\nSchwelker (Pa.)\n81%\njority. Failures to vote lower both party unity and opposi-\nAllen (Ala.)\n69\nCase (N.J.)\n74\n1 Sen. John A. Durkin (D N.H.) was sworn in Sept. 18, 1975, following special elec-\nMcClellan (Ark.)\n62\nBrooke (Mass.)\n73\ntion necessitated by a dispute over the outcome of the 1974 general election. The seat\ntion-to-party scores.\n60\nJavits (N.Y.)\n70\nwas vacant from Jan. 3 to Aug. 8, 1975, when Sen. Norris Cotton (R) was appointed to\nStennis (Miss.)\n1975\n1974\n59\nStafford (Vt.)\n63\nserve until a successor was elected. Cotton's scores for 1975 were 55 per cent support\nNunn (Ga.)\nand 36 per cent opposition.\nDEM.\nREP.\nDEM.\nREP.\nHOUSE\n62\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n69\n70\n63\nParty Unity and Party Opposition: Senate\nParty Unity\n68\n64\n63\n59\nSenate\nMcDonald (Ga.)\n92%\nWhalen (Ohio)\n73%\nHouse\n69\n72\n62\n63\nDaniel (Va.)\n84\nGude (Md.)\n69\nOpposition to Party\n22\n22\n24\n26\nSatterfield (Va.)\n83\nPeyser (N.Y.)\n60\n1. Party Unity, 1975. Percentage of 288 Senate Party Unity\n3. Party Unity, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 478 Senate Party\n25\n28\nConte (Mass.)\n59\nMontgomery (Miss.)77\nvotes in 1975, on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement\nUnity roll calls in 1973 and 1974 on which senator voted \"yea\" or\nSenate\n21\n26\n56\nwith a majority of his party. (Party Unity roll calls are those on\n\"nay\" in agreement with a majority of his party.\n23\n21\n24\n26\nBurleson (Texas)\n77\nRinaldo (N.J.)\nHouse\nWaggonner (La.)\n76\nBiester (Pa.)\n56\nwhich a majority of voting Democrats opposed a majority of voting\nRepublicans. Failures to vote lower both Party Unity and Party\nt Sen. Byrd (Va.) was elected as an independent.\nOpposition scores.)\nSectional Support, Opposition\n2. Party Opposition, 1975. Percentage of 288 Senate Party Uni-\n4. Party Opposition, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 478 Senate\nty votes in 1975 on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagree-\nParty Unity roll calls in 1973 and 1974 on which senator voted\n(Figures in parentheses are for 1974)\nParty Unity History\nment with a majority of his party.\n\"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagreement with a majority of his party.\nSENATE\nSupport\nOpposition\nComposite party unity scores showing the percentage\nof time the average Democrat and Republican voted with\nNorthern Democrats\n78%\n(73%)\n11%\n(15%)\nhis party majority in partisan votes in recent years:\n43\n(35 )\n46\nSouthern Democrats\n(50\nNorthern Republicans\n59\n(55 )\n31\n(33 )\nYear\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n(73\n7\nSouthern Republicans\n85\n(11 )\n1975\n69%\n70%\n1974\n63\n62\nHOUSE\nSupport\nOpposition\n68\n68\n1973\n14%\n1972\n57\n64\n79%\n(72%)\n(14%)\nNorthern Democrats\n62\n66\n48\n(44 )\n42\n(42 )\n1971\nSouthern Democrats\n23\n1970\n57\n59\nNorthern Republicans\n69\n(60 )\n(28 )\n1969\n62\n62\n81\n(74\n13\nSouthern Republicans\n(15\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 181\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 180-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nParty Unity - 5\nParty Unity - 4\n1234\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n2\n3\n4\nKEY\nKANSAS\nRandall\n52\n43\n54\n40\nMartin\n84\n12\n82\n13\n7 Jones\n49\n40\n42\n42\nArmstrong\n86 8 79* 16*\nSebellus\n85\n11\n79*\n15*\nBolling\n85\n9\n67\n14\n10 Broyhill\n85\n11\n75\n22\nFord\n77\nCONNECTICUT\nKeys\n85\n10\nLitton\n70\n20\n60\n28\n11 Taylor\n40 58 42 57\nTEXAS\nt Not eligible for all recorded\nCotter\n83 13 76 14\nWinn\n76t 18+ 71* 21*\nTaylor\n85 9 79 9\nNORTH DAKOTA\n1 Patman\n61 18 51 16\nvotes in 1975.\nDodd\n82 11 -\n4 Shriver\n71 18 72 24\nIchord\n32\n59\n36\n53\nAL Andrews\n60\n34\n49\n46\n2 Wilson\n55 26 68 22\nGiaimo\n75 18 74 17\n5 Skubitz\n70 20 69 23\nHungate\n70\n20\n74\n23\nOHIO\n3 Collins\n91 88* 7*\n* Not eligible for all recorded\nMcKinney\n45 47 40 51\nKENTUCKY\n10 Burlison\n70\n30\n66\n32\nGradison\n81\n17\nI\n-\n4 Roberts\n35 57 36 54\nvotes in 93rd Congress.\n5 Sarasin\n63 36 48 52\n1 Hubbard\n51\n47\nMONTANA\nClancy\n83\n81\n13\n5 Steelman\n74 20 57 34\nMoffett\n86\n10\n-\nNatcher\n71\n29\n73\n27\n1 Baucus\n86\n11\n-\nWhalen\n26 73 22* 72*\n-Not a member of 93rd Con-\n6 Teague\n26 35 29 34\nDELAWARE\nMazzoli\n65\n33\n69\n29\n2 Melcher\n77\n17\n78\n13\nGuyer\n75\n21\n67\n28\n7 Archer\n85 88* 10*\ngress.\nAL du Pont\n60\n34\n51\n46\nSnyder\n78\n21\n72\n20\nNEBRASKA\nLatte\n82\n16\n15\n8 Eckhardt\n91 90\nFLORIDA\n5 Carter\n70\n28\n61\n27\nThone\n82\n18\n61\n37\nHarsha\n65\n24\n9 Brooks\n63 22 70* 24*\n33 51 34 55\n1 Sikes\n6 Breckinridge\n66 28 71 26\nMcCollister\n84\n11\n22\nBrown\n14\n68*\n22*\n10 Pickle\n55 57 33\n51 38 42\nFuqua\n7 Perkins\n80\n19\n83\n17\nSmith\n90\n8\n-\n-\nKindness\n85 10\n11 Poage\n24 72 34 58\nBennett\n50 50 49 50 50 49 50\nLOUISIANA\nNEVADA\n9 Ashley\n72\n20\n74\n14\n12 Wright\n64 31 67 22\n33 54 38 55\nChappell\nHebert\n18\n26\n19\n33\nAL Santini\n55\n37\n-\n-\n10 Miller\n86 12 77 23\n13 Hightower\n37\n51\n1\n2\n3\n4\nKelly\n89 9\nBoggs\n65 22 71* 19*\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n11 Stanton\n65\n28\n60*\n38*\n14 Young\n50\n47\n58\n39\nYoung\n82\n11\n79\n16\n3 Treen\n81 83 10\nD'Amours\n75\n24\n-\nI\n12 Devine\n92\n5\n15 de Garza\n43\n46\n49\n35\nParty Unity and Party\nGibbons\n52 70 21\n4 Waggonner\n21 76 26\n2 Cleveland\n69\n67*\n30*\nMosher\n39\n39\n39\n55\n16 White\n52 50 43\nHaley\n37 63 61*\n5 Passman\n35\n49\n33\n49\nNEW JERSEY\n14 Seiberling\n898937\n17 Burieson\n22 26 72\nOpposition: House\nALABAMA\n72 15 74* 18*\n84 16\nFrey\n6 Moore\n88 10\nFlorio\n80\n13\n-\n15 Wylle\n79 13 75 19\n18 Jordan\n91 88 8\n1 Edwards\n78 10 77 11\n10 Bafalls\n83 14\nBreaux\n43\n49\n47\n39\nHughes\n70\n27\n-\n16 Regula\n76t 24t 65 30\n19 Mahon\n45 54 39 58\n2 Dickinson\n32t 62t 33 58\n11 Rogers\n547 41± 48* 52*\nLong\n68 27 71* 23*\nHoward\n92\n3\n77\n7\n17 Ashbrook\n85\n8\n71\n11\n20 Gonzalez\n61 26 76 20\nNichols\n45 53 47 46\n12 Burke\n53 18 66 21\nMAINE\nThompson\n82\n4\n78\n4\n18 Hays\n62 18 64* 22*\n21 Krueger\n44t 51t\n1. Party Unity, 1975. Percentage of 296 House Party Unity\nBevill\n57\n22\n57\n25\n13 Lehman\n84 8*\nEmery\n61\n35\n-\nFenwick\n51\n40\n19 Carney\n90\n83\n22 Casey\n33 58 40 60\n5 Jones\n78t 10t 77 10\n72\n26\n65\n26\n14 Pepper\n2 Cohen\n56\n42\n45\n51\nForsythe\n68\n22\n58\n38\n20 Stanton\n80\n8\n81\n11\n23 Kazen\n46 54 61 32\nrecorded votes in 1975 on which representative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\"\nBuchanan\n39 51 44 46\n15 Fascell\n85 12 88 10\nMARYLAND\nMaguire\n85t 12t\n21 Stokes\n88\n3\n72\n24 Milford\n29 60 29 56\nin agreement with a majority of his party. (Party unity roll calls\nFlowers\nGEORGIA\nBauman\n93\n7\n86*\n14*\nRoe\n80\n16\n79\n13\n22 Vanik\n83\n9\n87\n13\nUTAH\nare those on which a majority of voting Democrats opposed a ma-\nALASKA\n48 49 54 45\n67\n19\n67\n21\nGinn\nLong\n67\n28\n73\n23\nHelstoski\n81\n9\n83\n8\n23 Motti\n64\n30\n-\nMcKay\n67\n28\n58\n30\nAL Young\n29t 57+ 34 58\njority of voting Republicans. Failures to vote lower both Party Uni-\nMathis\nSarbanes\n92\n7\n92\n8\n10 Rodino\n85\n3\n89\n8\nOKLAHOMA\nHowe\n75 22 -\nARIZONA\n69 17 67 21\n3 Brinkley\n36 60 41 56\nHolt\n89\n10\n84\n14\n11 Minish\n83\n13\n84\n13\nJones\n40t 49+ 43* 50*\nVERMONT\nty and Party Opposition scores.)\nRhodes\n44 2 80 10\n4 Levitas\n58 41 -\n5 Spellman\n90\n12 Rinaldo\n42t\n56+\n37\n61\n2 Risenhoover\n47\n36\nAL Jeffords\n48 46 -\nUdall\n82\n7\n82\n7\n5 Young\n85 85 6\nByron\n23\n72\n32\n65\n13 Meyner\n90\n6\nAlbert\nVIRGINIA\n2. Party Opposition, 1975. Percentage of 296 House Party Uni-\nSteiger\n18 61 28 60\nMitchell\n8\n14 Daniels\n82\n10\n79\n10\nSteed\n48\n40\n49\n47\n1 Downing\n25t 68t 30 60\n4 Contan\n79\n7\n80\n13\n6 Flynt\n86\n5\n85\n7 McDonald\n7 92\n8 Gude\n28\n69\n27\n68\n15 Patten\n81\n15\n82\n15\n5 Jarman\n75\n13\n16\n77\n2 Whitehurst\n81 13 77 13\nty recorded votes in 1975 on which representative voted \"yea\" or\nARKANSAS\n56\n32\n57\n29\n8 Stuckey\n31 57 49* 35*\nMASSACHUSETTS\nNEW MEXICO\nEnglish\n37\n61\n-\n3 Satterfield\n13 83 14 84\n\"nay\" in disagreement with a majority of his party.\nAlexander\n21\n54\n32\n39\n37 31\n9 Landrum\n1 Conte\n39\n59\n35\n62\nLujan\n69\n17\n63\n23\nOREGON\n4 Daniel\n93t 6t 87* 8*\n2 Mills\n19\n10 Stephens\n32\n49\n45\n39\n78\n19\n74\n2 Boland\n83\n12\n76\n15\n2 Runnels\n23\n66\n32\n50\nAuCoin\n68\n19\n5 Daniel\n15 84 18* 82*\n3 Hammerschmidt\nThornton\n56 41 60 38\nHAWAII\nEarly\n82\n15\n-\nNEW YORK\nUllman\n72 18 66 28\n3. Party Unity, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 384 House Party\n6 Butler\n87 9 85 11\nMatsunaga\n78 7 90 8\nDrinan\n91\n85\n14\nPike\n79t\n19t\n72*\n27*\nDuncan\n64\n30\n7 Robinson\n93 5 93 7\nUnity recorded votes in 1973 and 1974 on which representative\nCALIFORNIA\n83\n14\n76\n14\nMink\n85\n4\n91\n5 Tsongas\n91\n2 Downey\n88\n11\n-\n-\nWeaver\n89\n9\n-\n-\n8 Harris\n91\n9\nvoted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement with the majority of his party.\nJohnson\n74\n15\n26\nIDAHO\n6 Harrington\n78\n9\n80\n11\n3 Ambro\n79\n17\nPENNSYLVANIA\n9 Wampler\n80\n13\n77\n20\nClausen\n86\n5\n81\n9\n87 5 79 11\nSymms\n7 Macdonald\n74\n15\nLent\n61\n28\n59\n33\nBarrett\n71\n9\n80\n9\n10 Fisher\n92\n-\n-\nMoss\n74 10 76 10\nHanson, G.\n85\n5\n-\n8 O'Neill\n84\n6\n83\n8\n5 Wydier\n67\n25\n63\n31\nNix\n81\n10\n79\n8\nWASHINGTON\n4. Party Opposition, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 384 House\nLeggett\n82 88*\nILLINOIS\n9 Moakley\n91 6 88 9\n6 Wolff\n81\n13\n78\n15\nGreen\n88\n6\n88\n8\nPritchard\n59\n33\n43\n49\nParty Unity recorded votes in 1973 and 1974 on which represen-\n5 Burton, J.\n89\n88\n4\nMetcalfe\n81 2 80 3\n10 Heckler\n36 54 67\n7 Addabbo\n88\n4\n85\n9\nEilberg\n90 5 83 10\n2 Meeds\n87 87 7\ntative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagreement with a majority of his\n6 Burton, P.\n11 80 13\n11 Burke\n90\n10\n88\n12\n87\n12\n2 Murphy\n8 Rosenthal\n89\n4\n89\n7\n5 Schulze\n82t 15t\n3 Bonker\n86\n10\n7 Miller\n8\n85\n8\n3 Russo\n78 18\n12 Studds\n88\n11\n87\n13\n9 Delaney\n78\n21\n68\n25\n6 Yatron\n73\n23\n77\n17\n87\n4 McCormack\n76\n19\n78\n14\nparty.\n8 Dellums\n4 Derwinski\n71\n23\n65\n22\nMICHIGAN\n10 Biaggi\n68\n15\n18\nEdgar\n88\n8\nFoley\n76\n12\n80\n11\n9 Stark\n83 86 7\n95t 3t 88* 4*\n5 Fary*\n48t 4t -\nConyers\n61\n5\n67\n9\n11 Scheuer\n87\n7\n8 Blester\n42\n56\n31\n64\n6 Hicks\n80 19 78 21\n10 Edwards\n11 Ryan\n74\n14\n63\n17\n6 Hyde\n82 15\nEach\n54\n26\n42\n45\n12 Chisholm\n89\n5\n75\n7\n9 Shuster\n89\n10\n85\n15\nAdams\n80 11 82 9\n75\n6\n84*\n5*\n46\n52\n39\n57\n40\n35*\n55*\n7 Collins\n3 Brown\n77\n18\n65\n12 McCloskey\n48\n30\n13 Solarz\n8\n-\n-\n10 McDade\nWEST VIRGINIA\n13 Mineta\n92\n6\n8 Rostenkowski\n79\n10\n70\n13\n4 Hutchinson\n89\n86\n8\n14 Richmond\n-\nFlood\n82 14 78 19\n1 Mollohan\n55\n17\n62\n26\n16\n9 Yates\n89\n7\n84\n13\n5 Vander Veen\n91 81* 9*\n15 Zeferetti\n76\n19\n12 Murtha\n32 32*\n2 Staggers\n74 11 74 19\n14 McFall\n86\n13\n80\n10 Mikva\n86\n-\n18\n6 Carr\n81\n18\n20\n16 Holtzman\n57\n90\n8\n89\n9\n13 Coughlin\n58\n38\n46\n48\nSlack\n63\n32\n64\n32\n15 Sisk\n11 Annunzio\n72\n13\n82\n15\n71\n15\nRiegle\n77\n9\n72\n12\n17 Murphy\n62\n14\n70\n11\n14 Moorhead\n80\n9\n82\n9\nHechier\n69 31 76 24\n16 Talcott\n79\n13\n12 Crane\n84\n6\n76\n7\n17\n8 Traxler\n82\n13\n75*\n18*\n18 Koch\n83\n92\n6\n85\n10\n15 Rooney\n82\n16\n12*\nWISCONSIN\n17 Krebs\n82\n10\n13 McClory\n71 22 64 30\n9 Vander Jagt\n71\n17\n60\n26\n19 Rangel\n842876\n16 Eshleman\n10\n69\n21\n83\n9\nAspin\n79 11 82 10\n18 Ketchum\n71 17 64 23\n10 Cederberg\n76\n17\n20 Abzug\n78\n15*\n90\n10\n78*\n17*\n14 Erienborn\n79\n14\n5\n88\n10\n17 Schneebell\n2 Kastenmeier\n86\n11\n86\n12\n19 Legomarsino\n20 Goldwater\n81\n5\n75\n12\n15 Hall\n91 -\n11 Ruppe\n55 26 52* 33*\n21 Badillo\n86\n5\n71*\n6*\n18 Heinz\n44 48 46' 51*\n3 Baldus\n85\n11\n11\n16 Anderson\n56 31 45 40\n12 O'Hara\n77\n14\n80\n12\n22 Bingham\n88\n9\n86\n19 Goodling, W.\n82\n14\nZablocki\n76 20 80 18\n21 Corman\n91\n3\n82\n82\n85\n9\n17 O'Brien\n69t 19t 68' 24* 69t 68*\n13 Diggs\n64\n66\n3\n23 Peyser\n23\n60\n34\n55\n20 Gaydos\n68\n19\n76\n22\nReuss\n93 86 11\n22 Moorhead\n72\n18\n81*\n12*\n18 Michel\n82 78 10\nNedzi\n76\n14\n82\n11\n24 Ottinger\n90\n8\n21 Dent\n64\n22\n72\n13\nStelger\n71t 20+ 63* 32*\n23 Rees\n19 Rallsback\n54 31 51* 39*\n15 Ford\n76\n8\n25 Fish\n82\n57\n38\n43\n48\n22 Morgan\n81 15 76 9\nObey\n87 11 83 14\n24 Waxman\n87\n83\n8\n20 Findley\n64 26 51 40\n7\n16 Dingell\n81\n11\n74\n14\n26 Gliman\n46\n51\n45\n52\n23 Johnson\n68 21 73 18\n8 Cornell\n91 9 -\n25 Roybal\n26 Rousselot\n7\n84\n10\n21 Madigan\n65\n28\n61\n31\n17 Brodhead\n90\n-\n-\n27 McHugh\n88\n24 Vigorito\n82\n13\n79\n15\n85\n9 Kasten\n88 10 -\n53t 17+ 37* 39*\n22 Shipley\n54 31 59 29\n18 Blanchard\n90\n10\n28 Stratton\n66\n31\n59\n35\n25 Myers\n74\n25\n-\n-\nWYOMING\n27 Bell\n85 70 5\n23 Price\n81 91 8\n19 Broomffeld\n67\n21\n64\n26\n29 Pattison\n84\n13\nRHODE ISLAND\nAL Roncalio\n74\n19\n71*\n17*\n28 Burke\n71\n5\n24 Simon\n82 14\nMINNESOTA\n30 McEwen\n72\n17\n69*\n18*\n1 Germain\n84\n10\n81\n11\n29 Hawkins\n81\n5\n73 15 5\nINDIANA\nQuie\n71\n26\n62\n35\n31 Mitchell\n64\n33\n63\n31\n2 Beard\n84\n9\n30 Danielson\nMadden\n89\n4\n86\n8\n31 Wilson\n64 12 15\nHagedorn\n85\n10\n-\n32 Hanley\n86 11 78 17\nSOUTH CAROLINA\n75 22 78\" 13*\n2 Fithian\n69 24\nFrenzel\n69\n25\n50\n43\n33 Walsh\n55+ 40t 58* 31*\n1 Davis\n66\n29\n51\n42\n32 Anderson\n93\n3\n82 5 76* 5*\n3 Brademas\n94\nKarth\n77\n84\n10\n34 Horton\n40\n44\n44\n52\n2 Spence\n83 88 11\n33 Clawson\n80 12 -\n4 Roush\n73\n25\n76\n22\nFraser\n62\n83\n7\n35 Conable\n80\n17\n67\n23\n3 Derrick\n57 39\n34 Hannaford\n5 Hillis\n65 28 59* 32*\nNolan\n88\n9\n36 LaFalce\n75 23\n83\n14\n-\n-\n4 Mann\n36 58 39 57\n35 Lloyd\n81 10 77 8\n6 Evans\n62\n32\nBergland\n88\n86\n10\n37 Nowak\n89\n10\n5 Holland\n55\n31\n-\n36 Brown\n7 Myers\n83 15 74 18\nOberstar\n97\n2\n-\n86t 13t\n38 Kemp\n-\n83\n8\n72\n20\n6 Jenrette\n59\n27\n-\n37 Pettis'\n9\n8 Hayes\n88\n10\nMISSISSIPPI\n85\n39 Hastings\n76\n17\n68\n22\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n38 Patterson\n9 Hamilton\n69\n29\n75\n24\nWhitten\n33\n57\n35\n61\nNORTH CAROLINA\n1 Pressler\n58\n39\n-\n39 Wiggins\n66\n17\n65\n18\n12\n78\n12\n10 Sharp\n77\n23\n-\n-\n2 Bowen\n39\n54\n42\n54\n57\nJones\n49t\n45+\n41\n47\n2 Abdnor\n80\n17\n74\n20\n1. Rep. Jerry L. Pettis (R Callf.) died Feb. 14, 1975. He supported his party on four of\n40 Hinshaw\nthe five votes for which he was eligible and opposed on the other. Rep. Shirley N. Pet-\n67\n21\nJacobs\n65\n30\n-\n-\n70\n3 Montgomery\n17\n77\n22\n73\nFountain\n19\n36\n57\n38\n61\nTENNESSEE\n41 Wilson\n74 16 78 14\nIOWA\nCochran\n80\n15\n76\n17\n3 Henderson\n43\n51\n45\n50\n1 Quillen\n78+\n10+\n71*\n16*\ntis (R) sworn in May 6, 1975, to replace her husband.\n42 Van Deerlin\n2. Rep. John C. Kluczynski (D III.) died Jan. 27, 1975. He supported his party on the\n43 Burgener\n87\n9\n82\n11\n1 Mezvinsky\n92\n4\n89\n11\nLott\n79\n15\n80\n14\nAndrews\n45\n45\n47\n41\n2 Duncan\n83\n16\n81\n16\nBlouin\n86\n12\n-\nMISSOURI\nNeal\n64\n31\n-\n-\n3 Lloyd\n53\n47\n-\nthree votes for which he was eligible. Rep. John G. Fary (D) sworn in July 15, 1975, to\nCOLORADO\n84\nGrassley\n80\n20\n-\nSchroeder\n76\n22\n10\nClay\n89 3 75 4\n6 Preyer\n69\n30\n65\n30\n4 Evins\n47\n20\n53\n28\nreplace Kluczynski.\nSmith\n80 16 77 15\n3. Rep. Carl Albert (D Okla.), as Speaker, votes at his own discretion\nWirth\n13\n2 Symington\n74 15 79 11\nRose\n82\n56\n31\n58\n34\n5 Allen⁴\n74+ 21t\nHarkin\n78\n16\n-\n-\n3 Sullivan\n70\nHefner\n6 Beard\n4. Rep. Richard Fulton (D Tenn.) resigned Aug. 14, 1975. His scores for 1975 were 51\n77*\n16*\n69\n18\n76\n17\n15\n52\n42\n-\n-\n88 6 80 11\nEvans\nper cent support and 7 per cent opposition. Rep. Clifford Allen (D) sworn in Dec. 2, 1975,\nJohnson\n78\n18\n31\nBedell\n79 17 -\n-\n55\nDemocrats\nto replace Fulton.\nRepublicans\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 183\nPAGE 182-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by aditorial clients\nBipartisan Support 2\n1975\n1974\nBipartisan Support\nPresidential Victories, Defeats\nDem.\nRep.\nDem.\nRep.\nBipartisan Support\nThe table below gives details of presidential wins\nSenate\n73%\n68%\n72%\n66%\nand losses on bipartisan votes taken during 1975:\nHouse\n78\n76\n74\n74\nBIPARTISAN VOTING SHOWED DECLINE IN 1975\nBipartisan Opposition\nBipartisan Votes\n630\nSenate\n15%\n21%\n15%\nSenate\n19%\n314\nHouse\n12\n14\n11\nMembers of Congress were not bound by party\nHouse\n14\n316\ndifferences on about half of their recorded votes in 1975. Ac-\nDefinitions\ncording to Congressional Quarterly's annual study of bipar-\nPresidential Positions\n86\nIndividual Scores\ntisan voting, majorities of Democrats and Republicans\nSenate\n54\nvoted together on 52 per cent of the year's recorded votes.\nBipartisan Recorded Votes. Votes on which a\nHouse\n32\nBipartisan voting was somewhat more common in the\nmajority of voting Democrats and a majority of voting\nHighest bipartisan support scores-those who voted\nyears immediately preceding 1975. Majorities of both par-\nRepublicans agreed.\nPresidential Victories\nwith bipartisan majorities most consistently in 1975:\n65\nties agreed on 63 per cent of recorded votes in 1974. In 1973,\nSenate\n44\nthe total was 59 per cent. The 1975 figure of 52 per cent was\nBipartisan Support Scores. Percentage of bipar-\nHouse\nSENATE\n21\nthe lowest recorded since 1964, when bipartisanship showed\ntisan recorded votes on which a member votes \"yea\" or\n\"nay\" in agreement with the bipartisan majority.\nDemocrats\nup on 50 per cent of recorded votes.\nPresidential Defeats\nRepublicans\n21\nLast year was the first session of the 94th Congress\nFailure to vote lowers the score.\nSenate\n10\nJackson (Wash.)\n88%\nBeall (Md.)\n90%\nand, if past patterns hold, bipartisan voting will increase in\nHouse\n11\nBipartisan Opposition Scores. Percentage of\nRandolph (W.Va.)\n86\nStafford (Vt.)\n84\n1976 even though it is a presidential election year. Congress\nLeahy (Vt.)\n85\nas a whole usually has more bipartisan voting during the\nbipartisan recorded votes on which a member votes\nDomenici (N.M.)\n84\nFord (Ky.)\n84\nPearson (Kan.)\n82\nsecond session, largely because the House tends to be less\n\"yea\" or \"nay\" in opposition to the bipartisan majority.\nMondale (Minn.)\n84\nScott (Pa.)\n82\npartisan during years when its members are up for reelec-\nA member's Support and Opposition scores add to 100\nand block funds for negotiation of a new treaty on the\ntion.\nper cent only if the member voted on all bipartisan\nPanama Canal. (1975 key votes, Weekly Report p. 79)\nHOUSE\nIn 1975, 630 of the 1,214 recorded votes Congress took\nrecorded votes.\nDemocrats\nshowed bipartisan majorities. The votes were divided\nRepublicans\nOther Votes\nalmost equally between the House and Senate, with each\nNatcher (Ky.)\n93%\nRegula (Ohio)\n94%\nchamber recording scores of 52 per cent. In 1974, the House\nDemocrat William H. Natcher (Ky.) (93 per cent). House\nAmong the bipartisan votes taken in the Senate in 1975\nHall (III.)\n92\nmembers who voted against the bipartisan majority most\nwere 15 separate recorded votes on procedural questions\nThone (Neb.)\n91\nled in bipartisanship with 71 per cent, compared with 56 per\nBurke (Mass.)\n92\ncent in the Senate.\noften were conservatives Larry P. McDonald (D Ga.) (50 per\nthat arose as conservatives tried unsuccessfully to block a\nMcDade (Pa.)\n91\nPreyer (N.C.)\n92\nproposal to relax the Senate cloture rule and make it easier\nSarasin (Conn.)\n89\nDemocrats had a slight edge over Republicans in 1975\ncent) and Steven D. Symms (R Idaho) (43 per cent). Several\nMcFall (Calif.)\n91\nCarter (Ky.)\n88\nin supporting the bipartisan majorities. The average Senate\nliberal Democrats also were high on the list, including\nto cut off filibusters. A bipartisan majority in the Senate\nMurphy (III.)\n91\nGuyer (Ohio)\n88\nDemocrat was with the majority on bipartisan votes 73 per\nElizabeth Holtzman (N.Y.), Bella S. Abzug (N.Y.) and\nprevailed again on four votes defending a proposal to in-\nRoush (Ind.)\n91\nBuchanan (Ala.)\n87\ncent of the time, compared with 68 per cent for the average\nRonald V. Dellums (Calif.).\ncrease senators' staff allowances.\nSharp (Ind.)\n91\nSmith (Neb.)\n87\nIn the House, bipartisan majorities united on eight\nPerkins (Ky.)\n91\nSenate Republican. In the House, the average Democrat\nRinaldo (N.J.)\n87\nagreed with bipartisan majorities 78 per cent of the time,\nFord's Position\nvotes related to defense procurement, turning back efforts\nHanley (N.Y.)\n91\nto trim the Pentagon's buying power. Reflecting the public\nLloyd (Tenn.)\n91\nwhile the Republicans agreed on 76 per cent of the votes.\nMany of the bipartisan votes came on procedural or\ndissatisfaction with politicians, majorities of both parties in\nZablocki (Wis.)\n91\nIndividual Scores\nnoncontroversial matters, such as the Senate's 83-0\nthe House supported a modest pay increase for themselves\napproval in February of a resolution calling for a study of\ninstead of a more generous boost.\nHighest bipartisan opposition scores-those who voted\nMost of the members with high bipartisan voting\nthe food stamp program. But others occurred on more sub-\nagainst bipartisan majorities most consistently in 1975:\nscores were moderates from both parties. Those who op-\nstantive issues.\nposed the bipartisan majority most often were strongly con-\nPresident Ford usually was on the side of the majority\nSENATE\nservative, strongly liberal or, in some cases, \"maverick\"\non bipartisan votes where he took a clear position (86 out of\nBipartisan Scoreboard\nvoters who took unpredictable positions.\nthe total 630 bipartisan votes in 1975). Ford was with the\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nSenate\nmajority in 44 out of 54 bipartisan votes in the Senate, and\n21 out of 32 House votes.\nTotal\nByrd (Va.)t\nBipartisan\n38%\nPer Cent\nHelms (N.C.)\n50%\nThe Senate member with the highest bipartisan voting\nA bipartisan vote in the Senate, for example, approved\nRecorded\nRecorded\nAllen (Ala.)\n36\nof\nScott (Va.)\n45\nscore, 90 per cent, was Republican J. Glenn Beall Jr. (Md.).\nVotes\nVotes\nTalmadge (Ga.)\n31\nthe Ford administration's much-debated proposal to station\nTotal\nMcClure (Idaho)\n41\nNext in line was presidential hopeful Henry M. Jackson (D\nProxmire (Wis.)\n29\nU.S. civilians in the Middle East to monitor a peace\nFannin (Ariz.)\n40\nWash.) with 88 per cent. Conservative Republican Jesse A.\nBoth Chambers\nsettlement. The bipartisan majority bucked the President\n1,214\n630\nNunn (Ga.)\n27\n52%\nCurtis (Neb.)\n40\nHelms (N.C.) had by far the highest Senate bipartisan op-\nSenate\n602\non another foreign policy vote in the Senate, disapproving\n314\n52\ntByrd (Va) elected as independent.\nposition score, voting against majorities of both parties 50\nHouse\n612\n316\nfunds the administration wanted to support a faction in the\n52\nHOUSE\nper cent of the time. Another conservative Southerner,\nAngolan civil war.\nHarry F. Byrd Jr. (Va.), had the highest opposition score of\nFord was on the winning side of one surprise bipartisan\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nSenate Democrats-38 per cent. (Byrd was elected as an\nHouse vote in 1975-the 345-72 rejection of a proposal to\nindependent.) One of the few liberals among those high on\nauthorize a gasoline tax of 20 cents a gallon. The Ways and\nParty Scores\nMcDonald (Ga.)\n50%\nSymms (Idaho)\n43%\nthe opposition list (29 per cent) was William Proxmire (D\nMeans Committee had built its congressional energy con-\nSatterfield (Va.)\n30\nCollins (Texas)\n42\nWis.), who often is characterized as a maverick voter.\nThe following bipartisan support and opposition scores\nHoltzman (N.Y.)\n30\nservation program around the gas tax increase, but the\nCrane (III.)\n40\nare composites-the percentage of times the average party\nHechler (W.Va.)\n29\nPresident opposed the politically unpopular proposal.\nBauman (Md.)\n33\nmember voted with or against a bipartisan majority of the\nAbzug (N.Y.)\n28\nHouse\nHansen (Idaho)\n33\nBipartisan majorities in the House opposed Ford's posi-\nIn the House, the highest bipartisan scores went to\ntion by voting to overturn stringent new administration\nSenate and House. Failures to vote lower both support and\nBurleson (Texas)\n27\nSteiger (Ariz.)\n31\nopposition scores.\nDellums (Calif.)\n27\nShuster (Pa.)\n31\nRepublican Ralph S. Regula (Ohio) (94 per cent) and\nfood stamp rules, approve strip mining control legislation\nSchroeder (Colo.)\n26\nRousselot (Calif.)\n30\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 184-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 185\nBipartisan Support - 3\nBipartisan Support - 4\n1234\n1 2 3 4\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1234\n1 2 3 4\n- KEY\n5 Armstrong\n72 22 70* 19*\nKANSAS\nRandall\n81 10 83* 11*\nMartin\n74 16 80 15\n7 Jones\n80\n8\n66\n10\nCONNECTICUT\nSebelius\n79 12 75* 16*\nt Not eligible for all\nBolling\n86\n7\n71\n10\n10 Broyhill\n82 13 84* 10*\nFord\n74 14\nrecorded votes in 1975.\nCotter\n80\n9\n77\n8\nKeys\n78 18 -\nLitton\n81 77 6\n11 Taylor\n90 7 90* 9*\nTEXAS\nDodd\n78 15 -\nWinn\n84+ 7t 84* 7*\nTaylor\n73t 20t 60 22\nNORTH DAKOTA\nPatman\n63\n9\n59\n7\nNot eligible for all\nGiaimo\n78 9 76 10\n4 Shriver\n80\n4\n86\n6\nIchord\n77\n16\n71\n16\nAL Andrews\n83\n85\n5\nWilson\n66\n9\n75\n10\nrecorded votes in 93rd\n4 McKinney\n81\n9\n77\n5 Skubitz\n80\n10\n76*\n15*\nHungate\n84 83 12\nOHIO\nCollins\n53 42 52* 42*\n5 Serasin\n89\n9\n93\n5\nKENTUCKY\n10 Burlison\n86 14 79 18\nGradison\n84t 11t\nRoberts\n75 17 73 17\nCongress.\n6 Moffett\n75 20 -\nHubbard\n86\n10\n-\n-\nMONTANA\n2 Clancy\n70 22 65 21\nSteelman\n80 10 79 13\n-Not a member of 93rd\nDELAWARE\n2 Natcher\n93\n94\n6\nBaucus\n84\n12\n3 Whalen\n-\n83 12 79 14\n6 Teague\n44 11 49 13\nCongress.\nAL du Pont\n82 88 8\n3 Mazzoli\n86\n9\n94*\n12*\n2 Melcher\n80\n9\n78\n10\nGuyer\n88 7 87 5\nArcher\n67 28 67* 29*\nFLORIDA\n4 Snyder\n76\n21\n66\n23\nNEBRASKA\n5 Latta\n78 19 82 14\n8 Eckhardt\n72 18 72 16\nSikes\n77\n77\n9\n5 Carter\n88\n77\n10\nThone\n91\n9\n88\n8\n6 Harsha\n72\n14\n79\n12\n9 Brooks\n75 8 82* 7*\n2 Fuqua\n86 82 5\n6 Breckinridge\n81\n11\n83\n9\nMcCollister\n79\n13\n84\n14\nBrown\n78 16 76 11\n10 Pickle\n87\n79\n10\nBennett\n82 18 82 18\n7 Perkins\n91\n6\n95\n5\nSmith\n87\n10\n8 Kindness\n73\n19\n11 Poage\n70\n24\n69\n22\nChappell\n76 12 78 11\nLOUISIANA\nNEVADA\n9 Ashley\n74\n11\n12 Wright\n81 9 77 7\n1\n2\n3\n4\nKelly\n76\n20\n-\nHebert\n37\n5\n44\n7\nAL Santini\n83\n11\n10 Miller\n-\n-\n76\n22\n76\n24\n13 Hightower\n80 9\nYoung\n75 15 73* 22*\nBoggs\n80 83* 6*\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nStanton\n86 6 7*\n14 Young\n83 13 86 10\nGibbons\n78 10 78 9\n3 Treen\n69 22 66 25\nD'Amours\n86\n8\nDevine\n66\n28\n63\n28\n15 de Garza\n84 9 74 11\nHaley\n84 15 77 15\n4 Waggonner\n76\n21\n76\n19\n2 Cleveland\n80\n7\n85*\n10*\n13 Mosher\n65\n12\n11\n16 White\n90\n9\n83\n9\nBipartisan Support\nALABAMA\n8*\nFrey\n81 84 6\n5 Passman\n76\n12\n73\n11\n1 Edwards\n9\n83*\nNEW JERSEY\n14 Seiberling\n75\n78\n18\n79\n18\n17 Burleson\n70 27 68 28\n81t 14+ 79 13\n6 Moore\n81\n17\nFlorio\n15 Wylle\n16\n18 Jordan\n82 12 85 11\n71\n20\n67\n22\n10 Batells\n81\n11\n-\n-\n81\n10\n78\nand Opposition: House\n2 Dickinson\nNichols\n81\n11\n13\n11 Rogers\n87+ 7+ 88* 8*\n7 Breaux\n84\n74\n8\n73\n2 Hughes\n9\n16 Regula\n94+ 6+ 90\n19 Mahon\n85 14\n78\n13\n12 Burke\n58 75 11\nLong\n87\n84*\n9*\n3 Howard\n72\n12\n68\n11\n17 Ashbrook\nBevill\n84\n13\n60\n29\n33\n20 Gonzalez\n66 15 83 14\n21 Krueger\n79t 12t\n68\n6\n73\n7\n13 Lehman\n82+ 14t 76* 10*\nMAINE\n4 Thompson\n69\n14\n67\n13\n18 Hays\n75\n8\n71\n9\nJones\nBuchanan\n87 11 77 8\n14 Pepper\n75\n78\n4\nEmery\n85\n13\n-\n5 Fenwick\n75\n12\n19 Carney\n86\n9\n77\n10\n22 Casey\n74 14 83 14\n84\n85\n11\n2 Cohen\n86\n10\n87\n8\nForsythe\n20 Stanton\n74\n11\n23 Kazen\n86\n82 6 79 8\n15 Fascell\n12\n79\n12\n85\n10\n13\n79\n13\n81\n10\n1. Bipartisan Support, 1975. Percentage of 316 \"bipartisan\"\nFlowers\nGEORGIA\nMARYLAND\nMaguire\n77\n20\n21 Stokes\n-\n69\n17\n65\n13\n24 Milford\n70\n14\n12\nrecorded votes in 1975 on which representative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\"\nALASKA\n64\n14\n71*\n12*\nGinn\n83 14 83 15\n1 Bauman\n65\n33\n70*\n30*\nRoe\n87\n85\n7\n22 Vanik\n77\n18\n83\n16\nUTAH\nAL Young\n2 Long\n9 Heistoski\n23 Motti\nMcKay\n89 5 79 10\nin agreement with majorities of voting Democrats and voting\n2 Mathis\n61\n16\n65\n23\n82\n13\n80\n16\n73\n12\n76\n14\n74\n19\n-\nARIZONA\nRepublicans. Failures to vote lower both Support and Opposition\nRhodes\n71\n10\n69\n11\n3 Brinkley\n78\n17\n81\n13\n3 Sarbanes\n84\n13\n89\n13\n10 Rodino\n78\n11\n84\n10\nOKLAHOMA\nHowe\n90\n6\n-\n84 13\n4 Holt\n76\n21\n79\n18\n11 Minish\n7\nJones\nUdall\n41 5 79 7\nLevitas\n89\n89\n78t 14t 78* 14*\nVERMONT\n57 31 61 28\n5 Young\n68\n65\n16\n5 Spellman\n87\n11\n12 Rinaldo\nscores.\n87t\n7t\n89\n7\nRisenhoover\n68\n9\nAL Jeffords\n82\n11\n-\n-\n3 Steiger\n59 24 59 30\n6 Flynt\n57 20 58 26\n6 Byron\n83\n13\n82\n16\n13 Meyner\n77\n13\nAlbert3\nVIRGINIA\n4 Conlan\n2. Bipartisan Opposition, 1975. Percentage of 316 \"bipartisan\"\n7 McDonald\n48 50 -\nMitchell\n72\n21\n69\n19\n14 Daniels\nARKANSAS\n84\n5\n81\nSteed\n80\n13\n14\n1 Downing\n82t 10+ 81 9\n77\n9\n70\n11\n8 Stuckey\n81 69* 7*\nGude\n76\n18\n80\n13\n15 Patten\n87\n9\nrecorded votes in 1975 on which representatives voted \"yea\" or \"nay\"\nAlexander\n89\n9\n5 Jarman\n65 15 72 17\n2 Whitehurst\n81 12 82* 8*\n63\n7\n40\n3\n9 Landrum\n51\n14\n56\n11\nMASSACHUSETTS\nNEW MEXICO\n6 English\n85\n13\nI\n3 Satterfield\n-\n66 30 65 31\n2 Mills\nin disagreement with majorities of voting Democrats and voting\n77\n18\n77\n14\n10 Stephens\n68\n10\n70\n7\n1 Conte\n83\n12\n83\n10\nLujan\nOREGON\n4 Daniel\n83t 16t 77* 17*\n3 Hammerschmidt\n76\n12\n68\n16\nRepublicans. Failures to vote lower both Support and Opposition\n4 Thornton\n85\n8\n86\n8\nHAWAII\n2 Boland\n84\n5\n84\n6\nRunnels\n73\n19\n63\n19\nAuCoin\n77\n10\n-\nDaniel\n82 17 76* 23*\nMatsunaga\n78\n87\n9\n3 Early\n20\nNEW YORK\nUliman\nCALIFORNIA\n79\n6\n82\n7\nButler\n79 13 81 14\nscores.\n88 9 86 7\nMink\n71\n17\n78\n17\n4 Drinan\n75\n22\n79\n20\nPike\n1 Johnson\n86+ 12t 85* 13*\nDuncan\n84\n8\n7 Robinson\n80 19 76 23\n80 6 85 4\nIDAHO\n5 Tsongas\n81\n-\n2 Downey\n83\n16\n-\n-\nWeaver\n76\n20\nHarris\n-\n-\n84 14\n2 Clausen\n3. Bipartisan Support, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 694\nSymms\n49\n43\n43\n46\n18\n6 Harrington\n55\n21\n62\n21\n3 Ambro\n76\n16\nPENNSYLVANIA\n9 Wampler\n79 11 85 12\nMoss\n68\n17\n67\n74 13 11\nHansen, G.\n60\n33\n7 Macdonald\n69\n8\n67\n4 Lent\n82\n8\n80\n7\nBarrett\n66\n8\n78\n10\n10 Fisher\n87\n13\n-\n-\n\"bipartisan\" recorded votes in 1973 and 1974 on which represen-\nLeggett\n62\n22\n75*\n18*\nILLINOIS\n8 O'Neill\n79\n9\n80\n8\n5 Wydier\n5 Burton, J.\n75\n13\n76*\n13*\nNix\n79 11 68 11\nWASHINGTON\ntative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement with majorities of voting\nMetcalfe\n61\n12\n68\n12\n22\n73\n17\n9 Moakley\n83\n14\n80\n12\n6 Wolff\nGreen\nPritchard\n79\n6 Burton, P.\n67\n77\n14\n79\n12\n78\n18\n81\n13\n77\n7\n12\nDemocrats and voting Republicans. Failures to vote lower both\nMurphy\n91\n82\n6\n74\n10 Heckler\n80+\n11+\n78\n10\n7 Addabbo\nMiller\n74\n10\n78\n12\nEilberg\n84 8 83 9\n2 Meeds\n86\n8\n80\n12\n87 9\n67\n27\n68\n21\nRusso\n11 Burke\n92\n89\n10\n8\nSchulze\nBonker\n84\nDellums\n70\n19\n73\n19\n84\n14\n10\nSupport and Opposition scores.\n66\n20*\nDerwinski\n82 12 73 13\nStark\n24\n69*\n12 Studds\n80\n19\n83\n16\n9 Delaney\n87+\n9+\n80\n7\nYatron\n84\n6\n86\n5\nMcCormack\n80 7 83 7\n20*\nFary\n43t 4t\nMICHIGAN\n10 Biaggi\n78\n66\n9\nEdgar\n18\n5 Foley\n84\n6\n80\n10\n4. Bipartisan Opposition, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 694\n10 Edwards\n74t\n22t\n72*\n69\n11\n64\n15\nHyde\n85 13 -\nConyers\n47\n20\n49\n21\n11 Scheuer\n11 Ryan\n70\n20\nBiester\n82\n15\n84\n11\nHicks\n86\n11\n81\n16\n\"bipartisan\" recorded votes in 1973 and 1974 on which represen-\n10\nCollins\n64\n12\n77*\n11*\n72\n14\n77\n2 Esch\n58\n81\n12 Chisholm\n63\n22\n56\n14\nShuster\n65\n31\n69\n30\nAdams\n80 11 76 13\n12 McCloskey\n8 Rostenkowski\n82\n76\n6\n13 Mineta\n81\n16\n3 Brown\n86\n9\n79\n11\n13 Solarz\ntative voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagreement with majorities of\n76\n18\n10 McDade\n91\n6\n91\n4\nWEST VIRGINIA\n14 McFall\n91\n87\n9\n9 Yates\n79\n16\n78\n18\n4 Hutchinson\n78\n20\n72\n22\n14 Richmond\n73\n22\n-\nFlood\n90\n5\n90\n5\nMollohan\n67\n4\n80\n6\nvoting Democrats and voting Republicans. Failures to vote lower\n7\n82\n8\n74\n77\n10 Mikva\n70\n20\n15 Sisk\n5\n5 Vander Veen\n89\n10\n78*\n12*\n15 Zeferetti\n78\n8\n12 Murtha\n7 91* 7*\nStaggers\n84\nboth Support and Opposition scores.\n6\n11 Annunzio\n81\n6\n90\n6\n16 Talcott\n81\n80\n6 Carr\n78\n20\n16 Holtzman\n67\n30\n75\n21\n13 Coughlin\n85\n10\n86\n8\nSlack\n89\n6\n87\n7\n51 40 42 44\n17 Murphy\nMoorhead\nHechier\n71\n29\n77\n23\n17 Krebs\n88\n12\n12 Crane\nRiegle\n65 12 66* 16*\n68\n7\n66\n6\n83\n8\n79\n9\n24\n13 McClory\n76\n11\n82\n11\n18 Ketchum\n70\n21\n68\n8 Traxler\n83\n10\n81*\n9*\n18 Koch\n72\n21\n77\n18\n15 Rooney\n87 9 86* 5*\nWISCONSIN\n14 Erlenborn\n74\n16\n75\n9 Vander Jagt\n71\n9\n77\n19 Rangel\n16 Eshleman\n19 Lagomarsino\n84\n15\n79*\n17*\n66\n20\n74\n18\n59\n76\n7\nAspin\n78\n12\n69\n13\n16*\n15 Hall\n92\n8\n-\n20 Goldwater\n67\n12\n64*\n10 Cederberg\n81\n10\n84\n8\n20 Abzug\n64\n28\n74\n22\n17 Schneebell\n69 20 74* 17*\n2 Kastenmeler\n78\n22\n75\n22\n16 Anderson\n71\n9\n71\n6\n21 Corman\n79\n13\n78\n12\n11 Ruppe\n73\n10\n70*\n9*\n21 Badillo\n61\n22\n17\n18 Heinz\n80\n85\n9\nBaldus\n87\n9\n22 Moorhead\n74\n19\n77\n17 O'Brien\n77+ 8t 81* 10*\n12 O'Hara\n80\n8\n76\n12\n22 Bingham\n73\n19\n75\n17\n19 Goodling, W.\n18\nZablocki\n91\n6\n92\n6\n23 Rees\n71\n15\n73*\n15*\n18 Michel\n68 18 65 17\n13 Diggs\n53\n9\n46\n8\n23 Peyser\n67\n6\n84\n4\n20 Gaydos\n10\n86\n11\nReuss\n79 13 77 16\n77 82 5\nSteiger\n74t 15t 75* 15*\n24 Waxman\n67\n16\n19 Relisback\n14 Nedzi\n83\n11\n12\n24 Ottinger\n74\n20\n21 Dent\n67\n10\n76\n9\n25 Roybal\n73\n20\n71\n19\n20 Findley\n79 10 78 12\n15 Ford\n65\n11\n13\n25 Fish\n86\n8\n82\n8\n22 Morgan\n81\n7\n84\n4\nObey\n77 19 80 16\n21 Madigan\n85\n5\n82\n9\n26 Rousselot\n59\n30\n53\n35\n16 Dingell\n80\n9\n70\n13\n26 Gilman\n84\n11\n87\n9\n23 Johnson\n85\n5\n81\n6\n8 Cornell\n85 14 -\n22 Shipley\n81\n9\n76\n6\n27 Bell\n61 5 7*\n17 Brodhead\n70\n22\n-\n-\n27 McHugh\n83\n12\n24 Vigorito\n85\n7\n87\n6\n9 Kasten\n84\n12\n-\n23 Price\n86\n93\n6\n28 Burke\n70t 19t 57 10\n18 Blanchard\n10\n28 Stratton\n88\n10\n82\n9\n25 Myers\n85 13 -\nWYOMING\n81 14\n9\n75*\n12*\n67\n17\n59\n13\n24 Simon\n29 Hawkins\n19 Broomfield\n78\n9\n82\n8\n29 Pattison\n75\n16\nRHODE ISLAND\nAL Roncalio\n81\n30 Danielson\n84\n5\n73\n8\nINDIANA\nMINNESOTA\n30 McEwen\n68 14 67* 14*\nGermain\n82 9 81 10\n31 Wilson\n67\n74\n11\nMadden\n79 8 84 7\nQuie\n84\n9\n83\n10\n31 Mitchell\n86\n8\n89\n5\nBeard\n83\n-\n2 Fithian\n85\n7\n32 Anderson\n76 18 73\nHagedorn\n81\n13\n32 Hanley\n91\n6\n90\n4\nSOUTH CAROLINA\n33 Clawson\n61 24 57* 23*\n3 Brademas\n80\n12\n82\n13\nFrenzel\n80\n14\n79\n13\n33 Walsh\n84t\n5t\n83*\n3*\nDavis\n79\n11\n77\n12\n34 Hannaford\nRoush\n91 8 89 8\n80\n12\nKarth\n73\n9\n81\n9\n34 Horton\n78\n5\n88\n6\nSpence\n82 16 72 23\n5 Hillis\n85 84* 5*\n35 Lloyd\n90\nFraser\n47\n15\n70\n16\n35 Conable\n75\n17\n72\n15\nDerrick\n81 12\n36 Brown\n68\n15\nEvans\n85 12\n18\n72\n6 Nolan\n75\n20\n36 LaFalce\n88\n7\n-\n-\nMann\n9 80 11\n37 Pettis'\n85t\nMyers\n84 13 78* 16*\n11t\n-\n7 Bergland\n82\n9\n85\n11\n37 Nowak\n90\n8\nHolland\n73\n10\n38 Patterson\n82\nHayes\n84 14\n11\n-\n-\n8 Oberstar\n84\n12\n-\n-\n38 Kemp\n78\n15\n81\n14\nJenrette\n70\n11\n-\nHamilton\n90\n92\n6\n39 Wiggins\n69\n15\n64\n16\nMISSISSIPPI\n39 Hastings\n78\n9\n80\n7\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n40 Hinshaw\n6\n10 Sharp\n91 9\n46\n11\nWhitten\n77\n12\n74\n19\nNORTH CAROLINA\nPressier\n82\n12\n11 Jacobs\n73\n20\n-\n74\n80\n2 Bowen\n85\n8\n83\n9\n1 Jones\n85 7 74* 10*\nAbdnor\n83\n11\n81\n11\n1. Rep. Jerry L. Pettis (R Calif.) died Feb. 14, 1975. He supported the bipartisan ma-\n41 Wilson\n11\n42 Van Deerlin\n74\n13\n75\n11\nIOWA\n3 Montgomery\n73\n18\n72\n21\n2 Fountain\n84 11 83 12\nTENNESSEE\njority on the one vote for which he was eligible. Rep. Shirley N. Pettis (R) sworn in May 6,\n83\n14\n79\n11\nMezvinsky\n75\n19\n87\n13\n43 Burgener\n4 Cochran\n85\n9\n74\n15\n3 Henderson\n82\n9\n82\n13\nQuillen\n71t 16f 68* 15*\n1975, to replace her husband.\nBlouin\n78\n18\n-\n-\nCOLORADO\nLott\n75\n17\n72\n20\n4\n70\n7\n77\n10\nDuncan\n80\n17\n79\n19\n2. Rep. John C. Kluczynski (D III.) died Jan. 27, 1975. He was not eligible for any bipar-\nGrassley\n84\n16\n-\nSchroeder\n72\n26\n72\n21\nMISSOURI\n5 Neal\n83\n9\nLloyd\n91 9\ntisan votes. Rep. John G. Fary (D) sworn in July 15, 1975, to replace Kluczynski.\nWirth\nSmith\n89 8 82 8\n80 15\nClay\n70\n17\n60\n14\n6 Preyer\n92\n6\n90*\n5*\nEvins\n66 65 11\n3. Rep. Carl Albert, as Speaker, votes at his own discretion.\n3 Evans\n5 Harkin\n75\n18\n87 8 77* 12*\n2 Symington\n77 5 80 5\n7 Rose\n79\n7\n79\n9\nAlien\n85+ 10t\n4. Rep. Richard Fulton (D Tenn.) resigned Aug. 14, 1975. His scores for 1975 were 53\n13\n6 Bedell\n74\n22\n-\n4 Johnson\n75\n18\n64\n3 Sullivan\n77\n9\n78\n7\n8 Hefner\n84\n9\n-\nBeard\n67 24 65 24\nper cent support and three per cent opposition. Rep. Clifford Allen (D) sworn in Dec. 2,\n1975, to replace Fulton.\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nPAGE 186-Jan. 24, 1976\nReproduction prohibited whole except by editorial clients\nprohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 187\nBipartisan Support 5\n1 2 3 4\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1 2 3 4\n- KEY\nPolitics\nALABAMA\nIOWA\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nAllen\n53\n36\n74\n20\nClark\n77 19 74 16\nDurkin\n62t 16t -\nSparkman\n69 20 70* 9*\nCulver\n81\n13\nMcintyre\n77 11 82 9\nt Not eligible for all\nALASKA\nKANSAS\nNEW JERSEY\nrecorded votes in 1975.\nGravel\n63\n13\n55\n8\nDole\n76 15 81* 11*\nWilliams\n81 16 78 12\nStevens\n78\n12\n80\n11\nPearson\n82 6 78 8\nCase\n81 15 79* 16*\nNot eligible for all\nARIZONA\nKENTUCKY\nNEW MEXICO\nrecorded votes in 93rd\nIOWA CAUCUSES: AN EARLY TRIUMPH FOR CARTER\nFannin\n53 40 61 29\nFord\n84\n7\n-\nMontoya\n71\n9\n84\n5\nCongress.\nGoldwater\n34\n26\n41*\n21*\nHuddleston\n81t\n6t\n73*\n12*\nDomenici\n84\n9\n84\n7\n-Not a member of 93rd\nARKANSAS\nLOUISIANA\nNEW YORK\nMonths of spadework and a cool campaign style\nBumpers\n75\n11\n-\nJohnston\n78\n11\n76\n8\nBuckley*\n59t 24+ 55* 25*\nCongress.\nbrought Jimmy Carter a resounding victory in the Iowa\nMcClellan\n67\n21\n76\n19\nLong\n72\n15\n73\n12\nJavits\n78\n13\n70\n14\ncaucuses Jan. 19, bringing him within reach of the benefits\nCALIFORNIA\nMAINE\nNORTH CAROLINA\nCranston\n82\n15\n78\n11\nHathaway\n78\n18\n77\n16\nMorgan\n59\n18\n-\nand perils of early front-runner status.\nTunney\n73\n12\n73\n12\nMuskie\n80\n12\n75\n11\nHelms\n46t\n50+\n60*\n34*\nThe former Georgia governor won no delegates in Iowa;\nCOLORADO\nMARYLAND\nNORTH DAKOTA\n1\n2\n3\n4\nHart\n81\n13\n-\nBeall\n90\n7\n84\n11\nBurdick\n79\n13\n85\n12\nnone will be formally selected there for more than two\nHaskell\n77 14 78 11\nMathias\n75\n10\n70\n10\nYoung\n73\n18\n78\n12\nmonths. But within hours of the caucuses, he already had\nCONNECTICUT\nMASSACHUSETTS\nOHIO\nTEXAS\nRibicoff\n77\n16\n77\n16\nKennedy\n71\n13\n70\n15\nGlenn\n82\n9\n-\nBentsen\n73\n8\n71\n7\nthe newspaper headlines and television coverage that made\nWeicker\n78\n16\n75\n13\nBrooke\n73\n16\n72\n15\nTaft\n56t\n12t\n67*\n17*\nTower\n65\n29\n64\n24\nGeorge McGovern a credible Democratic contender in 1972.\nDELAWARE\nMICHIGAN\nOKLAHOMA\nUTAH\nBiden\n65\n18\n72\n18\nHart\n60\n15\n69\n19\nBertlett\n57\n32\n73\n24\nMoss\n82\n7\n75*\n8*\nThe caucus results quickly produced arguments that\nRoth\n71 23 78 18\nGriffin\n69\n17\n69*\n18*\nBellmon\n64\n24\n53\n14\nGarn\n69\n26\n-\nCarter would be unlikely to duplicate his showing in other\nFLORIDA\nMINNESOTA\nOREGON\nVERMONT\nstates. Rival candidates pointed out that Carter held no\nChiles\n74 16 80 11\nHumphrey\n77\n8\n79\n7\nHatfield\n70\n18\n73\n12\nLeahy\n85\n8\n-\nStone\n79\n19\nMondale\n84\n11\n75\n10\nPackwood\n79\n15\n70\n11\nStafford\n84\n10\n83*\n8\npolitical office in 1975, giving him an advantage in cam-\nGEORGIA\nMISSISSIPPI\nPENNSYLVANIA\nVIRGINIA\npaign days that will disappear now that others are running\nNunn\n70 27 83* 15*\nEastland\n46\n18\n63\n16\nSchweiker\n81\n15\n84\n13\nByrd**\n61\n38\n73*\n24*\nTalmadge\n61\n31\n73\n13\nStennis\n62\n24\n43\n14\nScott\n82\n10\n81*\n14*\nScott\n45\n45\n58\n30\nfull-time. Other analysts noted that Carter won in Iowa on\nHAWAII\nMISSOURI\nRHODE ISLAND\nWASHINGTON\npersonal charm and individual contact, and that this will be\nInouye\n72 6 72* 7*\nEagleton\n82\n7\n77\n10\nPastore\n77\n11\n83*\n10*\nJackson\n88\n9\n93\n6\nimpractical in larger states.\nFong\n76\n12\n71*\n10*\nSymington\n75\n6\n79\n6\nPell\n78\n13\n80*\n14*\nMagnuson\n83\n9\n83\n7\nIDAHO\nMONTANA\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nWEST VIRGINIA\nNevertheless, the importance of the Iowa result to\nChurch\n73\n7\n67\n10\nMansfield\n76\n17\n71*\n16*\nHollings\n74\n15\n76\n11\nByrd\n81 17 87* 13*\nCarter's national standing was hard to overlook. If nothing\nMcClure\n51\n41\n59\n24\nMetcalf\n71\n15\n74\n17\nThurmond\n57\n38\n68*\n23*\nRandolph\n86\n11\nof Iowa's Republican Gov. Robert Ray and much of the\n86\n8\nILLINOIS\nNEBRASKA\nSOUTH DAKOTA\nWISCONSIN\nelse, he opened up a wide margin over Sen. Birch Bayh of\nstate party leadership. A spokesman for the Republican\nStevenson\n75\n13\n80*\n13*\nCurtis\n47\n40\n63\n24\nAbourezk\n71\n20\n66\n20\nNelson\n75\n18\n78\n14\nIndiana, who drew less than half Carter's vote even though\nState Committee, however, stressed that the low uncom-\nPercy\n69\n14\n64\n12\nHruska\n61\n28\n69\n24\nMcGovern\n69\n13\n77\n11\nProxmire\n71\n29\n78\n22\nINDIANA\nNEVADA\nTENNESSEE\nWYOMING\nthe two were expected to finish about even. Also disap-\nmitted total indicated the satisfaction of party voters with\nBayh\n50\n6\n69\n9\nCannon\n79 11 80\n8\nBaker\n75 11 69* 11*\nMcGee\n71\n8\n73\n6\npointed were Rep. Morris K. Udall of Arizona, who finished\ntheir two options for President.\nHartke\n68\n15\n68\n13\nLaxelt\n60\n27\nBrock\n67\n20\n63\n21\nHansen\n60\n34\n65\n27\na poor fourth despite months of effort, and Sargent Shriver,\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n*Buckley elected as Conservative\n**Byrd elected as independent.\nwho did not show the strength he had hoped for in the\nThe Last War\nCatholic neighborhoods of the larger cities.\nThe only candidate other than Carter who seemed\n1. Sen. John A. Durkin (D N.H.) sworn in Sept. 18, 1975, following a special election\npleased was former Sen. Fred R. Harris of Oklahoma, who\nThe news coverage of the Democratic caucuses was un-\nnecessitated by a dispute over the outcome of the 1974 general election. The seat was\nfinished third. \"The winnowing-out process has begun,\" he\nprecedented. Never had a caucus state attracted so much\nvacant from Jan. 3 to Aug. 8, 1975, when Sen. Norris Cotton (R) was appointed to serve\nuntil a successor was elected. Cotton's scores were 50 per cent support and 20 per cent\ntold supporters, \"and we have been winnowed in.\nattention, either from candidates or reporters. The political\nopposition.\nWith 88 per cent of the caucus vote counted, Carter had\nnews from Iowa was nearly as frequent as the news from\n27.6 per cent, Bayh 13.2, Harris 9.9, Udall 6.0, Shriver 3.3,\nNew Hampshire, scheduled to hold the first primary Feb.\nBipartisan Support and Opposition: Senate\nand Sen. Henry M. Jackson of Washington 1.1. All the can-\n24.\ndidates fell below the 37.1 per cent recorded for an \"uncom-\nPart of this was due to a rules change. In 1976, all\nmitted\" preference. The heavy uncommitted vote was seen\ncaucus participants are required to state either their can-\n3. Bipartisan Support, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 660\nby some as a sign of disenchantment with all the con-\ndidate preference or their desire to remain uncommitted.\n1. Bipartisan Support, 1975. Percentage of 314 \"bipartisan\"\nvotes in 1975 on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in agreement\ntenders, but others said it simply reflected tactical\nThis permits an instant hard count of candidate strength,\n\"bipartisan\" votes in 1973 and 1974 on which senator voted \"yea\" or\ndecisions based on the political situation in individual\nand has made caucus coverage in all states simpler.\nwith majorities of voting Democrats and voting Republicans.\n\"nay\" in agreement with majorities of voting Democrats and voting\nFailures to vote lower both Support and Opposition scores.\nRepublicans. Failures to vote lower both Support and Opposition\nprecincts.\nPerhaps more important, however, was the success of\nMcGovern in the Iowa caucuses in 1972.\nscores.\nGOP Results\nMcGovern made an unexpectedly strong showing in\n4. Bipartisan Opposition, 93rd Congress. Percentage of 660\nIowa, winning 22.6 per cent of the vote, compared to 35.8\n2. Bipartisan Opposition, 1975. Percentage of 314 \"bipartisan\"\n\"bipartisan\" votes in 1973 and 1974 on which senator voted \"yea\" or\nIowa Republicans caucused Jan. 19 too, but the GOP\nper cent uncommitted and 35.5 per cent for the acknow-\nvotes in 1975 on which senator voted \"yea\" or \"nay\" in disagree-\n\"nay\" in disagreement with majorities of voting Democrats and\nrules of operation made the result unclear, and detracted\nledged frontrunner, Maine Sen. Edmund S. Muskie.\nment with majorities of voting Democrats and voting Republicans.\nvoting Republicans. Failures to vote lower both Support and Op-\nfrom the media attention. Republicans did not require\nMcGovern's percentage, seven times larger than his stand-\nFailures to vote lower both Support and Opposition scores\nposition scores.\ncaucus participants to state their candidate preference, so it\ning in the national polls at the time, was a breakthrough\nwas hard to tell who favored whom. The candidates\nin his effort to show that he was more than a fringe candi-\nthemselves did not give the caucuses much attention; Presi-\ndate.\ndent Ford did not visit at all and Ronald Reagan made only\nViewing the emphasis placed on Iowa by Democratic\na brief airport appearance.\ncontenders this year, Rick Stearns, McGovern's 1972 caucus\nThe only clue to Republican preference was a straw poll\nstrategist, commented: \"Like the generals fighting the last\nconducted at 62 randomly selected caucus sites of 583 par-\nwar, the candidates themselves make Iowa important in\nticipants. It was conducted by the GOP state committee to\n1976.\" Both McGovern and Muskie campaigned less than a\nspur interest in the event. The response was a virtual dead\nheat: 45.3 per cent for Ford, 42.5 per cent for Reagan, and\nweek between them in Iowa, used no broadcast advertising\nand left the bulk of the work to their staffs.\n10.6 per cent uncommitted. The Reagan campaign claimed\nBut this year's crop of contenders, hoping to duplicate\nthe poll showed Ford was in trouble in the Midwest, arguing\nMcGovern's grass-roots success, gave the state an un-\nthat the President should have done better with the support\nprecedented amount of personal attention. The six active\nPAGE 188-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 189\nPolitics 2\nPolitics 3\ncontenders spent a total of 85 days campaigning in the\nstate. Three of them-Carter, Harris and Udall-reported-\nPOLITICAL NOTES\nCANDIDATES '76: TYDINGS, METZENBAUM TRY AGAIN\nly spent over $10,000 apiece on broadcast media.\nCarter began organizing his Iowa operation in early\nTwo former Democratic senators launched comeback\n1975, well before the other candidates. He established a\nIllinois Filing\ncampaigns in mid-January, hoping their experience and\ndiversified, broad-based organization, headed by a promi-\nname-recognition will help them in primaries against am-\nnent labor leader, a leading McCarthy supporter in 1968, a\nSeven presidential candidates were certified by the\nbitious young House members seeking to move to the\nblack civic leader and the party's 1974 nominee for gover-\nIllinois Board of Elections for places on the advisory presi-\nSenate.\nnor. Carter himself campaigned frequently in Iowa. His\ndential preference ballot in the state's primary.\nJoseph D. Tydings of Maryland, ousted after one term\nappeal to varied segments of the Democratic electorate was\nThe three Republican entries are President Ford,\nin 1970 by Republican J. Glenn Beall Jr., believes voters\nevident in demographic information compiled by the\nformer Gov. Ronald Reagan of California and Lar (America\nwere misled that year. He was badly damagéd the month\nDemocratic State Committee from sample precincts.\nFirst) Daly. The four Democratic candidates are former\nbefore the election by charges of conflict-of-interest leaked\nThe committee divided the vote into five demographic\nGov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia, former Sen. Fred Harris of\nto Life Magazine by the Nixon administration. The charges\nareas-blue-collar, white-collar, city, town and rural\nOklahoma, Sargent Shriver and Gov. George C. Wallace of\nwere never substantiated, but they may have cost Tydings\nprecincts. Carter won about one-third of the vote in all but\nAlabama.\nhis seat.\ncity precincts, where he received an 18-per-cent share. The\nUnder Illinois law, the preference vote has no bearing\nNow he wants it back. But he has serious problems\nsample indicated that the runner-up among the candidates,\non the selection of delegates. Most of the delegates to the\nwithin his party from Rep. Paul S. Sarbanes, who has been\nBirch Bayh, made his best showing in town precincts,\nDemocratic and Republican national conventions are\nplanning to run for more than a year and has been organiz-\nHoward M. Metzenbaum\nJoseph D. Tydings\nwhere he won 19 per cent, but fell to a low of 4 per cent in\nelected separately, from congressional districts, with their\ning for months. Beall is considered vulnerable, but many\nthe rural precincts. The latter was a surprise, since Bayh\npresidential preference or uncommitted status identified on\nDemocrats question whether Tydings can get the nomina-\nhad stressed his Indiana farm heritage in bidding for votes\nThere are already several major contenders for that\nthe ballot.\ntion to oppose him.\nand was expected to do much better in rural Iowa.\nThe filing deadline for delegate candidates was Jan. 14.\nThe Ohio situation has some similarities. A former\nnomination. Former Gov. Warren E. Hearnes (1965-73) is\nAmong the other candidates, the state committee sur-\nthe only one who has announced, but candidacies are ex-\nFollowing is an unofficial breakdown of the preferences of\nDemocratic incumbent, Howard M. Metzenbaum, is run-\nvey indicated that only one, Harris, was able to carry over\ndelegate candidates. On the Democratic side, 170 are run-\npected from U.S. Rep. James W. Symington, who is Stuart's\nning against a House Democrat, James V. Stanton.\n10 per cent of the vote from any demographic area. He\nning pledged to Gov. Daniel Walker, 152 to Sen. Adlai E.\nson, and from U.S. Rep. Jerry Litton. Another likely\nBut there are differences. Metzenbaum's incumbency\nreceived 13 per cent of the vote in rural precincts, 11 per\nStevenson III, 135 to Wallace, 93 to Carter, 80 to Harris, 38\nentrant is Charles B. Wheeler Jr., the mayor of Kansas\nwas brief; he was appointed in January 1974 to fill a\ncent in cities.\nCity. Missouri Attorney General John C. Danforth is ex-\nto Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey (Minn.), 18 to Shriver, 14 to\nvacancy created when William B. Saxbe (R 1969-74)\nThe demographic analysis of sample precincts was just\nRep. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.), 10 to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy\nresigned to become attorney general. Four months later, he\npected to be the Republican nominee. He lost narrowly to\none measure used by the Democratic State Committee to\nSymington in 1970.\n(Mass.), seven to Sen. Birch Bayh (Ind.), one each to Sens.\nwas beaten by John Glenn for the Democratic nomination\nstimulate interest in the party caucuses. To assist the can-\nLloyd Bentsen (Texas) and Henry M. Jackson (Wash.),\nto a full term. His total service was less than a year.\nNew York\ndidates, the party made available lists of voters who had\nand 109 uncommitted.\nNevertheless, he is using his Senate experience as a\nattended earlier precinct caucuses. For the media, they es-\nOn the Republican side, 90 candidates for delegate filed\ncampaign issue. \"I was a good senator,\" he said when he an-\nThe New York Senate field added another candidate\ntablished a \"caucus central\" at the Des Moines Hilton and\npledged to Ford, 85 to Reagan and 56 uncommitted. The\nnounced, noting his fight against oil and gas companies.\nJan. 18. He is Abe Hirschfeld, 55, a wealthy building con-\nplaced volunteers at the 2,530 precinct caucuses around the\ntotal number of delegates may be reduced slightly by\nStanton, a three-term representative from Cleveland, said\ntractor who finished last in the Democratic primary in 1974\nstate to phone in the results. A spokesman at the state com-\nwithdrawals or failure to gain certification due to a lack of\nhe was running against bigness in business and bigness in\nand drew nearly a quarter of the vote with an intensive\nmittee estimated the entire operation cost $30,000, but ex-\nenough signatures on filing petitions.\ngovernment. He announced Jan. 19.\ntelevision campaign. His media blitz this year began with\npected the venture to pay off in contributions.\nBoth Metzenbaum and Stanton want the seat held by\nthe theme: \"Let a businessman put New York back in\nThe precinct meetings, attended by an estimated 45,000\nFlorida Ballot\nRepublican Robert Taft Jr., who defeated Metzenbaum in\nbusiness.\"\nDemocrats and 25,000 to 35,000 Republicans, were the first\nFourteen presidential candidates were placed on the\n1970. There is a third Democrat considering the con-\nThere are numerous Democratic possibilities for the\nstep in the multi-tier caucus process.\nballot Jan. 12 for the March 9 Florida primary. The list of\ntest-former Gov. John J. Gilligan (D 1971-75).\nNew York seat of James L. Buckley, who was elected in\nThe process is similar for both parties but unfolds on\ncandidates was announced by Secretary of State Bruce\n1970 as a Conservative but joined the Republican con-\ndifferent dates. Delegates elected in the Democratic\nSmathers, who headed the seven-member Presidential Can-\nUtah\nference in the Senate.\nprecinct caucuses go to county conventions on March 6,\ndidates Selection Committee. Listed on the ballot are all\nwhich in turn elect delegates to both the congressional dis-\nAnother Senate campaign came into focus Jan. 15 with\nGovernors\ntrict conventions on April 10 and the state convention on\nnationally recognized candidates. Other candidates may\nthe announcement by Jack W. Carlson, a Republican and a\nMay 29. Forty of the national convention delegates are\ngain a spot on the ballot by submitting a written request to\nformer assistant secretary of the interior, that he will\nAmid the rush of Senate announcements, there were\nthe Secretary of State, who will call a committee meeting\nchallenge Democratic Sen. Frank E. Moss of Utah.\ninteresting gubernatorial developments. Gerard J. Zeiller,\nchosen at the six district conventions. The remaining seven\nare selected by the state convention. At all levels, a can-\nafter Feb. 10 to consider the requests.\nThe Interior Department is something of a stepping\nNew Hampshire's former commissioner of health and\nThe committee approved the names of two\ndidate or uncommitted group must have at least 15 per cent\nstone to Senate politics this year; another assistant\nwelfare, announced a primary challenge to Meldrim\nof the vote to win a proportionate share of the delegates.\nRepublicans-Ford and Reagan-and 12 Democrats: Bayh,\nsecretary, Jack Horton, is expected to challenge Democratic\nThomson Jr., the state's incumbent Republican governor.\nThe results of the precinct caucuses do not dictate the\nBentsen, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Carter, Sen. Frank\nSen. Gale W. McGee in Wyoming.\nThomson, a hard-line conservative, turned back moderate\ncomposition of the Iowa national convention delegation.\nChurch (Idaho), Harris, Jackson, former Gov. Terry San-\nBoth are underdogs. Carlson, 42, said in announcing\nopponents to win the nomination in 1972 and 1974. His\nThe dispersal of the uncommitted bloc and the withdrawal\nford (N.C.), Gov. Milton J. Shapp (Pa.), Shriver, Udall and\nthat he would fight the \"runaway growth\" of government.\nRepublican rivals had been expected to launch a similar ef-\nof candidates before the convention will affect the Iowa\nWallace.\nHe may have opposition within the GOP from former U.S.\nfort against him in 1976; Zeiller may be their man.\nvote. In 1972 McGovern's national surge toward the\nClaiming that he was not a candidate, Church\nRep. Sherman P. Lloyd (1963-65; 1967-73), Utah Attorney\nAnd in Indiana, State Treasurer Jack L. New an-\nnomination resulted in his improved showing in the later\nattempted to have his name removed from the ballot. But\nGeneral Vernon Romney, or advertising executive Des-\nnounced his candidacy Jan. 14 for the Democratic guber-\nthe committee refused, noting that although not an an-\nmond Barker.\nnatorial nomination. The Democratic primary is attracting\nstages of the Iowa caucus process. He ended up receiving 35\nof Iowa's 46 votes on the first ballot.\nnounced candidate, Church had a campaign committee rais-\nHorton, 38, seems to have little opposition for his\na crowd even though the Republican incumbent, Gov. Otis\nThe Republican caucus process is similar to that of the\ning money. Florida law provides that a candidate may\nnomination. Other Wyoming Republicans have shown little\nL. Bowen, appears strong.\nDemocrats, with county conventions on Feb. 28 electing\nwithdraw his name only by submitting an affidavit stating\ninterest in an uphill contest against McGee.\nAlready announced on the Democratic side is the\nthat he is not a candidate and does not intend to become\nsecretary of state, Larry Conrad. Expected to join the field\ndelegates to the state convention on June 18 and 19. Thirty\none. Sens. Humphrey and Kennedy both submitted such\nMissouri\nis State Sen. Robert Fair of Princeton. Conrad is the best-\nnational convention delegates will be chosen in six con-\naffidavits.\ngressional district caucuses on June 18. The following day,\nIn a Missouri Senate development, former U.S. At-\nknown, but has made enemies within the party during his\nIn 1972 the names of 14 candidates appeared on the\nfive years in state government.\ntheir selections will be ratified and six more delegates\ntorney F. Russell Millin of Kansas City announced Jan. 9\nFlorida ballot-3 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Wallace\nIn making his announcement, New said Bowen was\nchosen by the full state convention.\nfor the Democratic nomination to succeed Stuart\n-By Rhodes Cook\nwas an easy winner in the Democratic primary.\nI\nlax about holding down state spending. He said he would\nSymington (D), who is retiring.\nshow \"how costly and reckless the spending is.\"\n-\nPAGE 190-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or part except by editorial clients\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial a\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 191\nCQ House Votes 1-8\nCorresponding to Congressional Record Votes 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11\nKEY\n5\nY\nVoted for (yea)\nKANSAS\n4 Randall\nYYYYYYYN\n9 Martin\nYYNYYYYY\nPaired for.\n5 Armstrong\nYYNYYYYN\n7 Jones\nSebellus\n?7YYYYNY\nYNYYNYYN\n5 Bolling\n?7YYYYYN\n10 Broyhill\nYNNYYYYY\n8 Ford\nAnnounced for.\nCONNECTICUT\nKeys\nYYNYYYY?\nNNYYYYYN\n6 Litton\n??YYYYYN\n11 Taylor\nYYYYYYYN\nTEXAS\nN\nVoted against (nay).\nCotter\nNNYYYYYN\nWinn\nYYYYYYYY\nTaylor\nYYYYYYYY\nNORTH DAKOTA\nPatman\nX\nPaired against.\n2 Dodd\nYYNYYYYN\nShriver\nYYYYYYYY\n77777YYN\n8 Ichord\n77YYYYYN\nAL Andrews\nYYYYYYYN\nWilson\nAnnounced against.\n3 Giaimo\n?7YYYYY?\nSkubitz\nYYYYY?NY\nYYYYYYYN\n9 Hungate\n77YYYYYN\nOHIO\nCollins\nP\nVoted \"present.\"\n4 McKinney\nYYYYY?YY\nKENTUCKY\nYNYYYNNY\n10 Burlison\n27YYYYYN\nGradison\nYYNYYYYN\n4 Roberts\nVoted \"present\" to avoid\n5 Sarasin\nYYYYYYYN\nHubbard\nYYYYYYYY\nYYYYYYYN\nMONTANA\nClancy\nYYNYYY?\n5 Steelman\npossible conflict of interest.\n6 Moffett\nYYNYYYYN\nNatcher\nYYYYYYYN\nYYNYYYYN\n1 Baucus\nNYYYYYYN\nWhalen\nYYNYY???\n?\nDid not vote or otherwise\nDELAWARE\nMazzoli\nTeague\nYYYYYYYN\n? YYYYNYN\n2\nNYYYYYYN\nGuyer\nYYYYYYYN\nArcher\n1. HR 7897. Indochinese Refugee Education Aid. Quie (R\nmake position known.\nAL du Pont\nYYYYYYYN\nSnyder\nYNYYYYYY\nYNNYYYYY\nNEBRASKA\nLatta\nYNNYYYYN\n8 Eckhardt\nFLORIDA\n5 Carter\nYYYYYNYY\nN??YYYYN\n1 Thone\nMinn.) amendment to reimburse local school districts only for the\nYYYYYYYN\nHarsha\n? N Y Y Y Y Y N\n9 Brooks\nSikes\nNYYYNYYN\n6 Breckinridge\nYYYY?YYN\nYYYYYYYN\n2 McCollister\nYNYYYYNY\nBrown\nYYNYYYYY\n10 Pickle\nactual costs incurred in providing education services to Indochinese\n2 Fuqua\nYYYYY? YN\n7 Perkins\nNYYYYYYN\nYYYYYYYN\n3 Smith\nYNYYYYNY\n8 Kindness\nYNNYYYYY\n3 Bennett\nNYYYYYYN\nLOUISIANA\n11 Poage\nNNNYNYNY\nrefugee students. Adopted 235-143: R 118-12; D 117-131 (ND 65-109;\nNEVADA\nAshley\nYY???YYN\nNYYYYYYN\nHebert\n12 Wright\n4 Chappell\n????????\nYY???YYN\nAL Santini\nSD 52-22), Jan. 19, 1976. (Story, p. 199)\nYYYYYYYN\n10 Miller\nYNNYYYYY\nYYNYNY?Y\n13 Hightower\n5 Kelly\nBoggs\nNYYYYYYY\nYYY??YYN\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n11 Stanton\nYYYYYYYY\n6 Young\nYYNYNYYN\n3 Treen\n14 Young\nYYNYYYYY\nYYYYYYYN\n1 D'Amours\nYYNYYYYN\n12 Devine\nYNNYYYYY\n15 de la Garza\n2. HR 7897. Indochinese Refugee Education Aid. Passage of\n7 Gibbons\nYNYYYYYN\n4 Waggonner\nYNYYYYYY\nYYYYYYY?\n2 Cleveland\nYYNYYYYY\n13 Mosher\nNYYYYYYY\n16 White\nthe bill to make federal grants to states to reimburse local school\nALABAMA\n8 Haley\nYYYYYYNN\n5 Passman\nNYYYYYNY\nYYYYYYYN\nNEW JERSEY\n14 Seiberling\nYYYYYYYN\n17 Burleson\n1 Edwards\nYNYYYYYY\n9 Frey\nYYNYYYYN\n6 Moore\nYYNYYYYY\nYNNYNYNY\nFlorio\ndistricts for the actual costs they incurred in providing education\nNYYYYYYN\n15 Wylle\nYYNYYYYN\n18 Jordan\n2 Dickinson\nYYYYY?YY\n10 Bafalis\nYYNYYO00\nBreaux\nY ? Y Y Y Y Y Y\nNYYYYYYN\n2 Hughes\nYYNYYYYN\n16 Regula\nYYNYYYYN\n19 Mahon\nservices to Indochinese refugee students. Passed 311-75: R 101-32;\n3 Nichols\n?NYYYPYN\n11 Rogers\nYYYYYYYN\nLong\nNYYYYYYN\nNYYYYYYN\n3 Howard\nNYYYYYYN\n17 Ashbrook\nYNNYYYY?\n20 Gonzalez\nD 210-43 (ND 162-14; SD 48-29), Jan. 19, 1976. (Story, p. 199)\nBevill\nYNYYYYYN\n12 Burke\n? ? N Y Y Y Y N\nMAINE\nPYYYYYPN\n4 Thompson\nNYYYYYYN\n18 Hays\nNYYYYYYN\nJones\n13 Lehman\n21 Krueger\nNYYY?YYN\n77777777\nEmery\nYYYYYYYN\nNNYYY?YY\n5 Fenwick\nYYNYYYYN\n19 Carney\nYNYYYYYN\n22 Casey\n6 Buchanan\nYYYYYYYY\n14 Pepper\nNYYYY???\n2 Cohen\nYYYYYYYN\nYNYYYYYN\n6 Forsythe\nYYNYYYY?\n20 Stanton\n27772227\n23 Kazen\n3. HR 10537. Federal Reclamation Projects. Johnson (D Calif.)\nFlowers\nYNYYYYYN\n15 Fascell\nNYYYYYYN\nMARYLAND\nYYYYYYYN\n7 Maguire\nNYNYYYYN\n21 Stokes\nYYYYYYYN\n24 Milford\nmotion to suspend the rules and pass the bill to authorize $77.3-\nALASKA\nGEORGIA\n1 Bauman\nYNNYYYYY\nYNYYYYYY\n8 Roe\nYYYYYYYN\n22 Vanik\nYYNYYYYN\nUTAH\nAL Young\nNYYYYNNY\n1 Ginn\nYYYYYYYN\nmillion for federal reclamation projects in Wyoming, North\n2 Long\nNYNYYYYN\n9 Helstoski\nNYYYYYYN\n23 Motti\nYYNYYYYN\nMcKay\n??YYNYNN\nARIZONA\n2 Mathis\nYNYYYYYN\n3 Sarbanes\nNYYYYYYN\n10 Rodino\nDakota, Oregon and South Dakota. Motion agreed to 284-110: R 59-\nNYYYYYYN\nOKLAHOMA\nHowe\nYYYYYYYN\nRhodes\nYNYYYYNY\n3 Brinkley\nYYYYYYYN\n4 Holt\nYNNYYYYY\n11 Minish\nYYNYYYYN\nJones\nYYYYYYYY\nVERMONT\n71; D 225-39 (ND 159-27; SD 66-12), Jan. 20, 1976. A two-thirds ma-\nUdall\n27777YY7\n4 Levitas\nYNNYYYYN\n5 Spellman\nNYYYYYYN\n12 Rinaldo\nYYNYYYYN\n2 Risenhoover\nNYYYYYYY\nAL Jeffords\nYYNYYYYN\njority vote (263 in this case) is required for passage under suspen-\nStelger\n77777NNY\nYoung\n??YYYYYN\n6 Byron\nYNYYYYYN\n13 Meyner\n72777YYN\n3 Albert\nVIRGINIA\nConian\nYYYYYNYY\n6 Flynt\nYNYYNYNY\n7 Mitchell\nNYYYYYYN\n14 Daniels\nsion of the rules.\nNYYYYYYN\nSteed\n777YYYNY\nYYNYYYNY\nARKANSAS\n7 McDonald\n22722272\n8 Gude\nDowning\nYYNYYYYN\n15 Patten\nNNYYYYYN\nJarman\nYNNYYYYY\n2 Whitehurst\nYYNYYYYY\nAlexander\n?YYYYYYN\n8 Stuckey\nNNNYYYNN\nMASSACHUSETTS\nNEW MEXICO\nEnglish\nYY?77YYY\n3 Satterfield\nYNNYYY?Y\n4. HR 3710. 101st Airborne Memorial. Nedzi (D Mich.) motion\nMills\nYNYYYYNN\n9 Landrum\nYNYYYYYN\n1 Conte\nYYNYYYYN\nLujan\n27727727\nOREGON\nDaniel\nYYNYYYYY\nto suspend the rules and pass the bill to authorize the 101st Air-\n3 Hammerschmidt\nYYYYYNYY\n10 Stephens\n77YYYYYN\n2 Boland\nNY?YYYYN\nRunnels\nYNYYYY??\nAuCoin\nYYYYYYYY\n5 Daniel\nYNNYYYYY\n4 Thornton\nYYYYYYYN\nHAWAII\n3 Early\nYYYYYYYN\nNEW YORK\nUllman\nborne Division Association to erect a memorial in the District of\nYYYYYY?N\n6 Butler\nYNNYYYNY\nCALIFORNIA\nMatsunaga\nNYYYYYYN\n4 Drinan\nNYYYYYYN\nPike\nYYYYYYYN\nDuncan\nYYYYYYYN\n7 Robinson\nYNNYYYYY\nColumbia or surrounding area. Motion agreed to 400-0: R 132-0; D\nJohnson\nNYYYYYYN\n2 Mink\nNYYYYYYN\n5 Tsongas\nNYYYYYYN\n2 Downey\nYYYYYYYN\nWeaver\nYYYYYYY?\n8 Harris\nNYYYYYYN\n268-0 (ND 189-0; SD 79-0), Jan. 20, 1976. A two-thirds majority vote\nClausen\nNYYYYYYY\nIDAHO\n6 Harrington\n?7YYYYYN\n3 Ambro\nYNNYYYYN\nPENNSYLVANIA\n7 Macdonald\nWampler\nYYYYYYNY\nMoss\n??YYYYYN\n1 Symms\nYNYYNNNY\nNYYYYYYN\n4 Lent\n(267 in this case) is required for passage under suspension of the\nYYYYYYYN\nBarrett\n77YYY???\n10 Fisher\nNYNYYYYN\nLeggett\nNYYYYYYN\n2 Hansen, G.\nYNYYYNNY\n8 'Neill\n?YYYYYYN\n5 Wydler\nYYNYYYYN\nNix\nNNYYYYYN\nWASHINGTON\nrules.\n5 Burton, J.\nNYYYYYYN\nILLINOIS\n9 Moakley\nNYYYYYYN\n6 Wolff\nNYYYYYYN\nGreen\nNYYYYYYN\nPritchard\nYYYYYYYY\n6 Burton, P.\nNYYYYYYN\nMetcalfe\nNYYYY???\n10 Heckler\nYY??YYN\n7 Addabbo\n?7YYYYYN\nEilberg\nNYYYYYYN\n2 Meeds\nNYYYYYYN\nMiller\nNYYYY?YN\n2 Murphy\nNYYYYYYN\n11 Burke\nNYYYYYYN\n5. S 2718. Railroad Revitalization. Staggers (D Va.) motion\n8 Rosenthal\nNYYYYYYN\n5 Schulze\nYYNYYYYN\n3 Bonker\nNYYYYYYN\nDellums\nNYYYYYYN\n3 Russo\nYYNYYYYN\n12 Studds\nYYYYYYYN\n9 Delaney\nYYYYYYYN\nYatron\nto suspend the rules and adopt the resolution (H Con Res 527) to\nYYYYYYYN\n4 McCormack\nNYYYYYYN\nStark\nNYNYYYYN\n4 Derwinski\nYYNYYNYN\nMICHIGAN\n10 Biaggi\n27227277\n7 Edgar\nNYYYYYYN\nConyers\nYYNYYYYN Foley\nNYYYYYYN\nrescind House and Senate action of Dec. 19, 1975, in adopting the\n10 Edwards\nNYYYYYYN\n5 Fary\n77NYYYYN\n11 Scheuer\nYY?YYYYN\n8 Blester\nYYYYYYYN\nHicks\nNYYYYYYN\n11 Ryan\nYYYYYYYN\n6 Hyde\nYYNYY?YN\n2 Esch\nconference report on the bill and to recommit S 2718 to the con-\n?2YYYYY?\n12 Chisholm\nYYYYYYYN\n9 Shuster\n7NNYYYNY\nAdams\nYYYYYYYN\n12 McCloskey\nNYYYYYYY\n7 Collins\nNYYYYYYN\n3 Brown\nYNYYYYYY\n13 Solarz\nference committee. Motion agreed to 383-15: R 128-4; D 255-11 (ND\nNY?YYYYN\n10 McDade\nYYYYYYYN\nWEST VIRGINIA\n13 Mineta\nNYYYYYYN\n8 Rostenkowski\nNYYYYYYN\n4 Hutchinson\nYYNYYYYY\n14 Richmond\nNYYYYYY?\n11 Flood\nNYYYYYY?\n1 Mollohan\nYYYYYYYN\n188-1; SD 67-10), Jan. 20, 1976. A two-thirds majority vote (266 in\n14 McFall\nNYYYYYYN\n9 Yates\nNYYYYYYN\n5 Vander Veen\nNYYYYYYN\n15 Zeferetti\nYYYYYYYN\n12 Murtha\nYYYYYYYN\nthis case) is required for passage under suspension of the rules.\n15 Sisk\nNYYYYYYN\n10 Mikva\n6 Carr\n2 Staggers\nNYYYYYYN\nNYYYYYYN\nNYYYYYYN\n16 Holtzman\n22227YYN\n13 Coughlin\nYNNYYYYN\nSlack\nYYYYYYYN\n16 Talcott\nNYYYYYYN\n11 Annunzio\nYNYYYYYN\nRiegle\n??YYYY7?\n17 Murphy\n(Story p. 197)\nNYYYYYYN\n14 Moorhead\nNYYYYY?N\nHechler\nYNNYYYYN\n17 Krebs\nNYYYYYYN\n12 Crane\n27227777\n8 Traxler\nNYYYYYYN\n18 Koch\nYYYYYYYN\n15 Rooney\nYYYYYYYN\nWISCONSIN\n18 Ketchum\nNYYYNYNY\n13 McClory\nYNNYYYYY\n9 Vander Jagt\nYYYY??\n19 Rangel\nYYYYYYYN\n16 Eshleman\nYYNYYYNN\nAspin\nNYYYYYYN\n6. HR 6721. Coal Leasing Amendments. Adoption of the\n19 Lagomarsino\nNYNYYYYY\n14 Erlenborn\nYYNYYYYY\n10 Cederberg\nYYNYYYNY\n20 Abzug\nNYYYYYYN\n17 Schneebeli\nYYNYYYYY\n2 Kastenmeier\nNYYYYYYN\nresolution (H Res 965) providing for House floor consideration of\n20 Goldwater\n? Y N Y Y ? Y Y\n15 Hall\nNYYYYYYN\n11 Ruppe\n?????YNY\n21 Badillo\n??YYYYYN\n18 Heinz\nYY??????\n3 Baldus\nYYYYYY Y N\n21 Corman\n227?7YYN\n16 Anderson\n?7 YYYYYN\n12 O'Hara\nNYYYYYYN\n22 Bingham\nthe bill (see vote 10, p. 194). Adopted 386-12: R 116-11; D 270-1\nNYYYYYYN\n19 Goodling, W.\nYYNYYYYY\nZablocki\nNYYYYYYN\n22 Moorhead\nNYNYYYYY\n17 O'Brien\nYYNYYYYY\n13 Diggs\n22277777\n23 Peyser\nYYYYYYYN\n20 Gaydos\nNYYYYYYN\nReuss\n7 ? Y Y Y Y Y N\n(ND 189-0; SD 8-1), Jan. 21, 1976.\n23 Rees\nNYYYY?YN\n18 Michel\nYN??772Y\n14 Nedzi\n?YYYYYYN\n24 Ottinger\nNYNYYYYN\n21 Dent\nYYYYYYYN\n24 Waxman\nNYYYYYYN\n19 Railsback\nYYYYYYYY\nFord\nStelger\nYYNYYYYN\nNYYYYYYN\n25 Fish\nYYNYYYYY\n22 Morgan\nNYYYYYYN\nObey\nNYYYYYYN\n25 Roybal\nNYYYYYYN\n20 Findley\nYYNYYYYN\n16 Dingell\nYYYYYYYN\n26 Gilman\n7. HR 6721. Coal Leasing Amendments. Hechler (D W.Va.)\nYYYYYYYN\n23 Johnson\nYYYYYYYY\n8 Cornell\nNYYYYYYN\n26 Rousselot\nNYNYYYYY\n21 Madigan\nYYNYY?Y?\n17 Brodhead\nNYNYYYYN\n27 McHugh\nNYYYYYYN\n24 Vigorito\nYNYYYYYN\n9 Kasten\nYYNYYYYN\namendment to prohibit any coal mining operations in the national\n27 Bell\n72777YYY\n22 Shipley\nNYYYYYYN\n18 Blanchard\nNYNYYYYN\n28 Stratton\nNYYYYYYN\n25 Myers\nYNNYYYYN\nWYOMING\npark system, the national wildlife refuge system, the national\n28 Burke\nNYYYYYYN\n23 Price\nNYYYYYYN\n19 Broomfield\nYYYYYYYY\n29 Pattison\nYY?7YYN\nRHODE ISLAND\nAL Roncalio\nNYYYYYNN\n29 Hawkins\nNYYYYYYN\n24 Simon\nNYYYYYYN\nMINNESOTA\nwilderness preservation system, the national system of trails and\n30 McEwen\nYNYYYYYY\nSt Germain\nNYYYYYYN\n30 Danielson\nNYYYYYYN\nINDIANA\nQuie\nYYNYYYYY\n31 Mitchell\nthe wild and scenic rivers system. Adopted 370-32: R 111-20; D 259-\nYYYYYYY?\nBeard\nNY???YYN\n31 Wilson\nNYYYYYYN\n1 Madden\nNYYYYYYN\n2 Hagedorn\nYYNYY?YY\n32 Hanley\nYYYYYYYN\nSOUTH CAROLINA\n12 (ND 186-2; SD 73-10), Jan. 21, 1976.\n32 Anderson\nNYYYYYYN\n2 Fithian\nYNNYYYYN\n3 Frenzel\nYYNYYYYN\n33 Walsh\nYYYYYYYN\nDavis\nY N Y Y Y Y Y N\n33 Clawson\nYYNYYNNY\n3 Brademas\nNYYYYYYN\nKarth\n?7YYYYYN\n34 Horton\nYYYYYYYN\nSpence\nYNNYYYYN\n34 Hannaford\nNYYYYYYN\n4 Roush\nYNYYYYYN\n5 Fraser\nNYYYY???\n35 Conable\n8. HR 6721. Coal Leasing Amendments. Ruppe (R Mich.)\nYNNYYYYN\nDerrick\nYYYYYYYN\n35 Lloyd\nNYYYY?YN\n5 Hillis\nYYNYYYYN\n6 Nolan\nNYNYYYYN\n36 LaFalce\nYYYYYYYY\nMann\nYNNYYYYN\namendment to delete from the bill language to limit the size of a\n36 Brown\nYYYYY???\n6 Evans\nYNNYYYYN\n7 Bergland\nNYYYYYYN\n37 Nowak\nNYYYYYYN\nHolland\n?NYYYYYN\nlogical coal mining unit to 25,000 acres. Rejected 97-301: R 78-52; D\n37 Pettis\nNYYYY???\n7 Myers\nYNYYYYYN\n8 Oberstar\nNYYYYYYN\n38 Kemp\nYY??7YYY\nJenrette\nYNNYYYYN\n38 Patterson\nNYYYYYYN\n8 Hayes\nYYNYYYYN\nMISSISSIPPI\n19-249 (ND 2-182; SD 17-67), Jan. 21, 1976.\n39 Hastings'\n?????\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n39 Wiggins\nYY?YYY?Y\n9 Hamilton\nYYYYYYYN\n1 Whitten\n77777YYN\nNORTH CAROLINA\nPressler\nYYYYYYYN\n40 Hinshaw\n2222222?\n10 Sharp\nYYNYYYYN\n2 Bowen\n72272YYN\nJones\nYNYYNYYN\nAbdnor\nYYYYYYNY\n41 Wilson\nNYYYYYY N\n11 Jacobs\nYYYYYYYN\n3 Montgomery\n22277YYN\n2 Fountain\nYNYYNYYN\nTENNESSEE\n42 Van Deerlin\nNYYYYYYN\nIOWA\n4 Cochran\n72772YYY\n3 Henderson\nYNYYNYYN\nQuillen\nYYNYYNNY\n43 Burgener\nNYYYYYYN\nMezvinsky\nNYYYYYYN\nLott\nYY???YYY\n4 Andrews\n7777??YN\nDuncan\nYYYYYYYN\nCOLORADO\nBlouin\nNYNYYYYN\nMISSOURI\n5 Neal\nYYYYYYYN\nLloyd\nYNYYNYYN\nSchroeder\nNYYYYYYN\nGrassley\nYYNYYYYY\nClay\nYYYYYYYN\nPreyer\nYYNYYYYN\nEvins\nNYYYYYYN\nWirth\nYYNYYYYN\nSmith\nYYYYYYYN\n2 Symington\nNYYYYYYN\nRose\nNYNYYYYN\nAllen\nYYYYNY??\nEvans\nNYYYYYYN\nHarkin\nYYNYYYYN\n3 Sullivan\nYNYYYYYN\n8 Hefner\nYNYYYYYN\nBeard\nYNNYY??Y\nJohnson\nYYYYYYYN\nBedell\nYYYYYYYN\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n1. Rep. James F. Hastings resigned effective at the close of business Jan. 20, 1976.\nPAGE 192-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.\nReproduction prohibited whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 193\nCQ House Votes 9-12\nCorresponding to Congressional Record Votes 12, 13, 14, 15\nNICE\n9\n6\nKEY\nY Voted for (yea)\nKANSAS\nYNYY\nMartin\nNYYY\nJones\nNYYY\nPaired for.\n5\nNYYY\nSebellus\nYYYY\nBolling\nNYYY\n10 Broyhill\nNYYY\nFord\nNYYY\nt Announced for.\nCONNECTICUT\nKeys\nNYYY\nLitton\nNY??\n11 Taylor\nNYYY\nTEXAS\nN Voted against (nay).\nCotter\n????\nWinn\nYY?Y\nTaylor\nYNYP\nNORTH DAKOTA\n1 Patman\n???Y\nX Paired against.\nDodd\nNYYY\nShriver\nYYYY\nIchord\nNYYN\nAL Andrews\nNYYY\n2 Wilson\nNY??\nAnnounced against.\n3 Giaimo\nNYYY\n5 Skubitz\nYNYY\nHungate\nN?YY\nOHIO\nCollins\nYNYN\nP Voted \"present.\"\n4 McKinney\nNYYY\nKENTUCKY\n10 Burlison\nNYYY\nGradison\nNYYY\nRoberts\nYNYY\nVoted \"present\" to avoid\n5 Sarasin\nNYYY\nHubbard\nNYYY\nMONTANA\nClancy\n????\nSteelman\nNYYY\npossible conflict of interest.\n6 Moffett\nNYY?\nNatcher\nNYYY\n1 Baucus\nNYYY\nWhalen\nNYYY\n6 Teague\nNY??\n? Did not vote or otherwise\nDELAWARE\nMazzoli\nNYYY\n2 Melcher\nNYYY\nGuyer\nNYYY\n7 Archer\nYNYY\nmake position known.\nAL du Pont\nNY?Y\nSnyder\nYNYY\nNEBRASKA\nLatta\nNYYY\n8 Eckhardt\nNYYY\nFLORIDA\n5 Carter\nNYYY\nThone\nNYYY\nHarsha\nNYYY\n9 Brooks\nNYYY\nSikes\nNYYY\n6 Breckinridge\nNYYY\nMcCollister\nYN??\nBrown\nYNYY\n10 Pickle\nNYYY\n2 Fuqua\nNYYY\nPerkins\nNYYY\n3 Smith\nYYYY\nKindness\nYYY?\n11 Poage\nYNYY\n3 Bennett\nNYYY\nLOUISIANA\nNEVADA\nAshley\nNYYY\n12 Wright\nNYYY\n9\n4 Chappell\nNYY?\n1 Hebert\n????\nAL Santini\nNYYY\n10 Miller\nYNYN\n13 Hightower\nNYYY\nKelly\nY N ?\nBoggs\nNYYY\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n11 Stanton\nYYYY\n14 Young\nYNYY\n6 Young\n????\n3 Treen\nYNYY\nD'Amours\nNY?Y\n12 Devine\nNYYY\n15 de Garza\n????\n7 Gibbons\nNYYY\n4 Waggonner\nNNYN\nNYYY\n13 Mosher\n??YY\n16 White\nNYYY\nALABAMA\nHaley\nNYYY\n5 Passman\nNY??\nNEW JERSEY\n14 Seiberling\nNYYY\n17 Burleson\nYNYN\n1 Edwards\nYYYY\nFrey\nNYYY\nMoore\nYNYY\nFlorio\nNYYY\n15 Wylle\nNYYY\n18 Jordan\nNYYY\nDickinson\nNNYY\n10 Batalls\n...Y\nBreaux\nYNY?\nHughes\nNYYY\n16 Regula\nNYYY\n19 Mahon\nNYYY\nNichols\nNYYY\n11 Rogers\nNYYY\nLong\nNYYY\nHoward\nNYYY\n17 Ashbrook\n????\n20 Gonzalez\nNYYY\nBevill\nNYYY\n12 Burke\nNYYY\nMAINE\nThompson\nNYYY\n18 Hays\nNYYY\n21 Krueger\nNYYY\nJones\nNYYY\n13 Lehman\n??YY\nEmery\nNYYY\nFenwick\nNYYY\n19 Carney\nNYYY\n22 Casey\nY N ? ?\nBuchanan\nNYYY\n14 Pepper\n????\n2 Cohen\nNYYY\nForsythe\nYNYY\n20 Stanton\n??YY\n23 Kazen\nNYYY\n9. HR 6721. Coal Leasing Amendments. Ruppe (R Mich.) mo-\nFlowers\nNYYY\n15 Fasceli\nNYYY\nMARYLAND\nMaguire\nNYYY\n21 Stokes\nNYYY\n24 Milford\nYNYY\ntion to recommit the bill (and thus kill it) to the Committee on\nALASKA\nGEORGIA\n1 Bauman\nYNYN\nRoe\nNYYY\n22 Vanik\nNYYY\nUTAH\nInterior and Insular Affairs. Rejected 80-319: R 62-69; D 18-250\nAL Young\nYNYY\nGinn\nNYYY\n2 Long\nNYYY\nHelstoski\nNYYY\n23 Mottl\nNY??\nMcKay\nNYY?\n(ND 3-182; SD 15-68), Jan. 21, 1976.\nARIZONA\nMathis\nNYYY\n3 Sarbanes\nNYYY\n10 Rodino\nNYYY\nOKLAHOMA\nHowe\nNYYY\nRhodes\nYNYY\n3 Brinkley\nNYYY\nHolt\nYYYN\n11 Minish\nNYYY\n1 Jones\nNYYY\nVERMONT\nUdall\nNYY?\n4 Levitas\nNYYY\nSpellman\nNYYY\n12 Rinaldo\nNYYY\n2 Risenhoover\nYN?Y\nAL Jeffords\nNYYY\n10. HR 6721. Coal Leasing Amendments. Passage of the bill to\nSteiger\nYNYY\nYoung\nNYYY\nByron\nNYYY\n13 Meyner\nNYYY\nAlbert\nVIRGINIA\namend the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to revise procedures\nConian\nYNYY\n6 Flynt\nNYYY\nMitchell\nNYYY\n14 Daniels\nNYYY\nSteed\nYYYY\n1 Downing\nYY??\nARKANSAS\n7 McDonald\n????\nGude\nNYYY\n15 Patten\nNYYY\nJarman\nYNYY\n2 Whitehurst\nYYYY\ngoverning the leasing and development of coal deposits on federal\nAlexander\nNYYY\n8 Stuckey\nYNYN\nMASSACHUSETTS\nNEW MEXICO\n6 English\nNYYY\n3 Satterfield\nYNYY\nlands. Passed 344-51: R 95-35; D 249-16 (ND 180-2; SD 69-14), Jan.\n2 Mills\nYNYY\n9 Landrum\nYNYY\n1 Conte\nNYYY\nLujan\n????\nOREGON\n4 Daniel\nYYYY\n21, 1976.\n3 Hammerschmidt\nYNYN\n10 Stephens\nNY?Y\nBoland\nNYYY\nRunnels\n????\n1 AuCoin\nYYYY\nDaniel\nYNYY\n4 Thornton\nNYYY\nHAWAII\nEarly\nNYYY\nNEW YORK\n2 Uliman\nNYYY\n6 Butler\nYYYY\nCALIFORNIA\nMatsunaga\nNYYY\n4 Drinan\nNYYY\nPike\nNYYY\n3 Duncan\nNYYY\nRobinson\nYYYY\n11. HR 10807. Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings\nNYYY\n2 Mink\nNYYY\n5 Tsongas\nNYYY\n2 Downey\nNYYY\nWeaver\nNYYY\n8 Harris\nNYYY\nAmendments. Adoption of the resolution (H Res 967) providing for\nClausen\nNYYY\nIDAHO\n6 Harrington\nNY??\n3 Ambro\nNYYY\nPENNSYLVANIA\n9 Wampler\nYYYY\nHouse floor consideration of the bill to authorize fiscal 1976-77\nMoss\nNYYY\nSymms\nYNYN\n7 Macdonald\nNYYY\nLent\nNYYY\nBarrett\n? ? Y Y\n10 Fisher\nNYYY\n4 Leggett\nNYY?\n2 Hanson, G.\nYNYN\n8 O'Neill\nNYYY\nWydler\nYNYY\nNix\nNYYY\nWASHINGTON\nfunds to carry out the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings\n5 Burton, J.\nNYYY\nILLINOIS\n9 Moakley\nNYYY\n6 Wolff\nNYYY\nGreen\nNYYY\n1 Pritchard\nNYYY\nAct and strengthen federal authority to enforce the prohibition\n6 Burton, P.\nNYYY\nMetcalfe\n????\n10 Heckler\nNYYY\n7 Addabbo\nNYYY\n4 Eilberg\nNYYY\n2 Meeds\nNYYY\nagainst tampering with auto odometers. Adopted 386-0: R 126-0; D\nMiller\nNYYY\n2 Murphy\nNYYY\n11 Burke\nNYYY\n8 Rosenthal\nNYYY\n5 Schulze\nNYYY\n3 Bonker\nN?Y?\n260-0 (ND 183-0; SD 77-0), Jan. 22, 1976.\nDellums\nNYYY\n3 Russo\nNYYY\n12 Studds\nNYYY\n9 Delaney\nNYYY\n6 Yatron\nNYYY\n4 McCormack\nNYYY\nStark\nNYYY\n4 Derwinski\nYYYY\nMICHIGAN\n10 Biaggi\n????\n7 Edgar\n??YY\n5 Foley\nNYYY\n10 Edwards\nNYYY\nFary\nNYYY\nConyers\n? Y Y Y\n11 Scheuer\nNY7Y\n8 Blester\nNYYY\nHicks\nNYYY\n12. HR 10807. Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings\n11 Ryan\nNYYY\n6 Hyde\nNYYY\n2 Esch\nNY??\n12 Chisholm\nNY?Y\n9 Shuster\nYNYN\nAdams\nNYY?\nAmendments. Passage of the bill to authorize $11.2-million in\n12 McCloskey\nNYYY\n7 Collins\nNYYY\n3 Brown\nYNYN\n13 Solarz\nNYYY\n10 McDade\nNYYY\nWEST VIRGINIA\n13 Mineta\nNYYY\n8 Rostenkowski\nNYYY\n4 Hutchinson\nYYYN\n14 Richmond\nNYYY\n11 Flood\n??YY\n1 Mollohan\nNYYY\nfiscal 1976-77 for the Department of Transportation to carry out\n14 McFall\nNYYY\n9 Yates\nNYYY\n5 Vander Veen\nNYYY\n15 Zeferetti\nNYYY\n12 Murtha\nNYYY\n2 Staggers\nNYYY\nthe Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, and to\n15 Sisk\nN?YY\n10 Mikva\nNYYY\n6 Carr\nNYYY\n16 Holtzman\nNYYY\n13 Coughlin\nNYYY\nSlack\nNYYY\nstrengthen the department's authority to enforce the prohibition\n16 Talcott\nNYYY\n11\nYNYY\nRiegle\n? ? Y Y\n17 Murphy\nNYYY\n14 Moorhead\nNYYY\nHechler\nNYYY\nagainst tampering with auto odometers. Passed 369-18: R 116-12; D\n17 Krebs\nN?YY\n12 Crane\n????\n8 Traxier\nNYYY\n18 Koch\nNYYY\n15 Rooney\nNYYY\nWISCONSIN\n18 Ketchum\nYNYN\n13 McClory\nNYYY\n9 Vander Jagt\n????\n19 Rangel\nNYYY\n16 Eshieman\nNY??\n1 Aspin\nNYYY\n253-6 (ND 180-2; SD 73-4), Jan. 22, 1976.\n19 Legomersino\nYY?Y\n14 Erlenborn\nNYYY\n10 Cederberg\nYYYY\n20 Abzug\nNYYY\n17 Schneebell\nYNYY\n2 Kastenmeier\nNYYY\n20 Goldwater\nYYYY\n15 Hall\nNYYY\n11 Ruppe\nYNYY\n21 Badillo\nNYYY\n18 Heinz\n????\n3 Baldus\nNYYY\n21 Corman\nNYYY\n16 Anderson\nNYY?\n12 O'Hara\nNY??\n22 Bingham\nNYYY\n19 Goodling, W.\nYYYY\nZablocki\nNYYY\n22 Moorhead\nYYYY\n17 O'Brien\n??YY\n13 Diggs\n????\n23 Peyser\nNYYY\n20 Gaydos\nNYYY\nReuss\nNYYY\n23 Rees\nNYYY\n18 Michel\nYNYY\n14 Nedzi\nNYYY\n24 Ottinger\nNYYY\n21 Dent\nNYYY\nSteiger\nNYYY\n24 Waxman\nNYYY\n19 Ralisback\nNYYY\n15 Ford\nNY??\n25 Fish\nNYYY\n22 Morgan\nNY?Y\nObey\nNYYY\n25 Roybal\nNYYY\n20 Findley\nNY?Y\n16 Dingell\nNYYY\n26 Gliman\nNYYY\n23 Johnson\nYYYY\nCornell\nNYYY\n26 Rousselot\nYNYY\n21 Madigan\nNYYY\n17 Brodhead\nNYYY\n27 McHugh\nNYYY\n24 Vigorito\nNY??\nKasten\nNYYY\n27 Bell\nYYYY\n22 Shipley\nNYYY\n18 Blanchard\nNYYY\n28 Stratton\nNYYY\n25 Myers\nYYYY\nWYOMING\n28 Burke\nNYYY\n23 Price\nNYYY\n19 Broomfield\nNY?Y\n29 Pattison\nNYYY\nRHODE ISLAND\nAL Roncalio\nNYYY\n29 Hawkins\nNYYY\n24 Simon\nNYYY\nMINNESOTA\n30 McEwen\nYNYN\nSt Germain\nNYYY\n30 Danielson\nNYYY\nINDIANA\n1 Quie\nNYYY\n31 Mitchell\nNYYY\nBeard\nNYYY\n31 Wilson\nNYYY\nMadden\nNYYY\n2 Hagedorn\nNYYY\n32 Hanley\nNYYY\nSOUTH CAROLINA\n32 Anderson\nNYYY\n2 Fithian\nNYYY\nFrenzel\nNYYY\n33 Walsh\nNYYY\n1 Davis\nNYYY\n33 Clawson\nYNYY\n3 Brademas\nNYYY\nKarth\nNYYY\n34 Horton\nNYYY\nSpence\n??YY\n34 Hannaford\nNYYY\nRoush\nNYYY\nFraser\n??YY\n35 Conable\nYYYY\n3 Derrick\n??YY\n35 Lloyd\nNYYY\nHillis\nYYYY\n6 Nolan\nNYYY\n36 LaFalce\nNYYY\n4 Mann\nNYYN\n36 Brown\n??YY\n6 Evans\nNYYN\n7 Bergland\nNYYY\n37 Nowak\nNYYY\n5 Holland\nNYY?\n37 Pettis\n????\nMyers\nNYYY\n8 Oberstar\nNYYY\n38 Kemp\nYNYY\n6 Jenrette\nNYYY\n38 Patterson\nNYYY\n8 Hayes\nNYYY\nMISSISSIPPI\n39 Vacancy\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n39 Wiggins\nY?YY\n9 Hamilton\nNYYY\nWhitten\nNYY?\nNORTH CAROLINA\nPressler\nNYYY\n40 Hinshaw\n????\n10 Sharp\nNYYY\nBowen\nNYYY\n1 Jones\nNYYY\nAbdnor\nYYYY\n41 Wilson\nNYYY\n11 Jacobs\nNYYY\n3 Montgomery\nNYYY\n2 Fountain\nNY?Y\nTENNESSEE\n42 Van Deerlin\nNYYY\nIOWA\n4 Cochran\nNYYY\n3 Henderson\nNYYY\n1 Quilien\nYNYY\n43 Burgener\nYYYY\nMezvinsky\n??YY\n5 Lott\nNYYY\nAndrews\nNYYY\nDuncan\nNYYY\nCOLORADO\n2 Blouin\nNYYY\nMISSOURI\n5 Neal\nNYYY\nLloyd\nNYYY\nSchroeder\nNYYY\n3 Grassley\nNYYY\nClay\nNYYY\nPreyer\nNYYY\nEvins\nNYYY\nWirth\nNYYY\nSmith\nNY?Y\n2 Symington\nNYYY\nRose\nNYYY\n5 Allen\nNYYY\nEvans\nNYYY\n5 Harkin\nNYYY\n3 Sullivan\nNYYY\nHefner\nNYYY\n6\nYNYY\nJohnson\nNYYY\n6 Bedell\nNYYY\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nPAGE 194-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nwhole or in part except by clients\nJan 24, 1976-PAGE 195\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCQ Senate Votes 1-3\nCorresponding to Congressional Record Votes 1, 2, 7\n1\n2\n2\n3\n2\n3\nKEY\nTransportation and Communications\nALABAMA\nIOWA\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nAllen\nY\nClark\nY Y N\nYYY\nY\nDurkin\nVoted for (yea)\nSparkman\nY\nCulver\nYYN\nYYY\nPaired for.\nMcIntyre\nt\nAnnounced for.\nALASKA\nKANSAS\nNEW JERSEY\nGravel\nYYN\nDole\nYYY\nYYY\nN\nWilliams\nVoted against (nay).\nStevens\nPearson\nYYY\nYYY\nX\nYYY\nCase\nPaired against.\nNEW MEXICO\nAnnounced against.\nARIZONA\nKENTUCKY\nRAIL MODERNIZATION BILL\nvice's record of growing debt and deteriorating service, the\nFannin\nN\nFord\nYYY\nMontoya\nYYY\nP\nVoted \"present.\"\nYYY\nVoted \"present\" to avoid\nHouse stunned postal officials in 1975 by voting to require\nGoldwater\nN\nHuddleston\nDomenici\nNYY\nLOUISIANA\nNEW YORK\npossible conflict of interest.\nARKANSAS\n?\nHouse and Senate conferees reached agreement Jan. 22\nthe Postal Service to come to Congress for annual\nBumpers\nYYY\nJohnston\nYYY\nBuckley*\nY\nDid not vote or otherwise\nMcClellan\nYYY\nLong\nYYY\nJavits\nYYY\nmake position known.\non a new version of the controversial rail modernization\nappropriations, a change that would end the Postal Ser-\nCALIFORNIA\nMAINE\nNORTH CAROLINA\nand deregulation bill (S 2718) that was acceptable to Presi-\nvice's independence. The Senate Post Office and Civil Ser-\nCranston\nN\nHathaway\nYYY\nMorgan\nttt\ndent Ford.\nvice Committee planned to consider that proposal, along\nTunney\n???\nMuskie\nYYY\nHelms\nYYY\nCOLORADO\nMARYLAND\nNORTH DAKOTA\nThe bill had been cleared by Congress on Dec. 19, the\nwith a Postal Service request for increased subsidies, in\nHart\nYYN\nBeall\nYYY\nBurdick\nYYY\nlast day of the first session, but was never sent to the Presi-\nJanuary or February. (1975 Weekly Report p. 2341)\n-\nHaskell\nYYY\nMathias\nYYY\nYoung\nNYY\nCONNECTICUT\nMASSACHUSETTS\nOHIO\nTEXAS\ndent because of the likelihood that Ford would veto it as in-\nRibicoff\nYYY\nKennedy\nYYN\nGlenn\nY Y N\nBentsen\nY Y\nflationary. The new compromise reduced the overall\nHouse Passage:\nWeicker\nNYY\nBrooke\nYYY\nTaft\nYYN\nTower\nNYY\nDELAWARE\nMICHIGAN\nOKLAHOMA\nUTAH\nauthorizations in the bill to $6.37-billion. As originally\nBiden\nYYY\nHart\nYYN\nBartiett\nNYY\nMoss\nY Y\napproved, the estimated authorizations totaled between $7-\nEDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING\nRoth\nY Y\nGriffin\nNYN\nBellmon\nYYY\nGarn\nYYY\nFLORIDA\nMINNESOTA\nOREGON\nVERMONT\nbillion and $7.5-billion. Final action is expected the week of\nChiles\nYYY\nHumphrey\nYYY\nHatfleld\nLeahy\nY Y\nJan. 26.\nThe House Jan. 20 passed by voice vote under suspen-\nYYY\nStone\nYYY\nMondale\n???\nPackwood\nNYY\nStafford\nNYY\nSince the bill had already been cleared, the House and\nsion of the rules barring floor amendments a bill (HR 9630)\nGEORGIA\nMISSISSIPPI\nPENNSYLVANIA\nVIRGINIA\nYYY\nSenate had to take the unusual parliamentary route of\nauthorizing $38.75-million for educational broadcasting\nNunn\nYYY\nEastland\nYYY\nSchwelker\nByrd**\nYYY\nTalmadge\nYYY\nStennis\n???\nScott\nYYY\nScott\nNYY\npassing a separate measure rescinding their December ac-\nfacilities and telecommunications demonstration projects\nHAWAII\nMISSOURI\nRHODE ISLAND\nWASHINGTON\nInouye\n???\nEagleton\nYYY\nPastore\nJackson\nYYY\ntion. The House adopted Jan. 20 a resolution (H Con Res\nfor fiscal 1977 and the budget transition period, July-\nYYY\nFong\n???\nSymington\nYYY\nPell\nYYY\nMagnuson\nYYY\n527) formally canceling the earlier congressional approval\nSeptember 1976.\nIDAHO\nMONTANA\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nWEST VIRGINIA\nChurch\nYYY\nMansfield\nYYY\nHollings\nByrd\nYYY\nof S 2718 and returning it to the conference committee. The\nThe non-controversial measure was a one-year exten-\nYYY\nMcClure\nY Y N\nMetcalf\nYYY\nThurmond\nYYN\nRandolph\nYYY\nvote was 383-13. The Senate then adopted H Con Res 527 by\nsion of the public broadcasting matching grants program\nILLINOIS\nNEBRASKA\nSOUTH DAKOTA\nWISCONSIN\nvoice vote Jan. 21. (House vote 5, p. 192)\nthat was first authorized in a 1962 law (PL 87-447).\nStevenson\nYY?\nCurtis\nNYY\nAbourezk\n???\nNelson\nY\nDesigned to stimulate greater use of education program-\nPercy\nY Y N\nHruska\nNYY\nMcGovern\nProxmire\nYYY\nObjections\nINDIANA\nNEVADA\nTENNESSEE\nWYOMING\nming, the biN would provide a federal share of up to 75 per\nBayh\n???\nCannon\nYYY\nBaker\nNYN\nMcGee\n???\nThe main objection voiced by the Ford administration\ncent for the purchase and installation of radio and televi-\nHartke\nYYY\nLaxalt\n???\nBrock\nYYY\nHansen\n???\nwas the level of authorizations in the first conference ver-\nsion broadcasting equipment.\nDemocrats\nRepublicans\n*Buckley elected as Conservative.\n**Byrd elected as independent.\nsion. One item the administration had strenuously objected\nThe $37.5-million in the bill reserved for the matching\nto, which was modified in the new version, was the $2.4-\nfunds program could not be used for the purchase of land or\nbillion authorization for improved passenger service in the\nfor building costs.\nNortheast corridor between Washington, D.C., and Boston.\nFive classes of applicants would be eligible for the\nFord had requested only $1.4-billion for a more modest\nauthorizations under the program: 1) public schools, 2)\nmodernization program. Conferees agreed on $1.86-billion.\nstate public broadcasting agencies, 3) public colleges and\nuniversities, 4) nonprofit public broadcasters and 5)\nRegulations Dropped:\nmunicipalities operating public broadcasting agencies. To\npromote the growth of public radio, which had lagged\nNEW POSTAL SERVICE POLICY\nbehind public television, the bill proposed separate\n1. S 2350. National Security Council. Passage, over the\n88-0: R 35-0; D 53-0 (ND 37-0; SD 16-0), Jan. 22, 1976. A two-thirds\npriorities for awards to television and radio stations.\nPresident's Dec. 31 veto, of the bill to make the secretary of the\nmajority vote (59 in this case) is required for approval of the\ntreasury a member of the National Security Council. Passed (thus\nratification of a treaty. A \"yea\" was a vote supporting the\nIn an effort to improve relations with Congress, the\nHR 9630 also authorized $1,250,000 in new funds for a\noverriding the President's veto) 72-16: R 20-15; D 52-1 (ND 37-0; SD\nPresident's position.\nU.S. Postal Service Jan. 12 announced the abolition of two\ndemonstration program to promote the development of\n15-1), Jan. 22, 1976. A two-thirds majority vote (59 in this case) is\npolicies that had been adopted in 1971 to protect the service\nnonbroadcast telecommunications-satellite, cable, fiber\nrequired to override a veto. A \"nay\" was a vote supporting the\n3. S 961. 200-Mile Fishing Limit. Bentsen (D Texas)\nfrom political pressure.\noptics and other means of transmission.\nPresident's position. (Story, p. 1498)\namendment, as amended by Stevens (R Alaska) perfecting\nDropping a regulation that had been the source of con-\nBoth the facility grants and demonstration programs\namendment, to require the secretary of state to enter into\nsiderable irritation to senators and representatives, the\nwould be administered by the Department of Health,\n2. Treaties. Resolutions of ratification of the following treaties:\nnegotiations with each foreign nation in whose waters U.S. long-\nPostal Service declared that henceforth members could go\nEducation and Welfare. HR 9630 was reported (H Rept 94-\nInter-American Convention on Political Rights for Women (Ex D,\ndistant fishermen fish for the purpose of reaching agreements to\n81st Congress, First Session); Convention on the Political Rights of\nprotect U.S. tuna and shrimp fishing interests there; if the\ndirectly to local postmasters with constituent complaints\n772) unanimously Jan. 19 by the House Interstate and\nWomen (Ex J, 88th Congress, First Session); International\nabout mail service. Previously, members of Congress were\nForeign Commerce Committee.\n-\nsecretary of state determined that any other nation refused to\nTelecommunications Convention (Ex J, 93rd Congress, First\nnegotiate such an agreement in good faith the secretary of the\nrequired to take problems to Postal Service headquarters in\nSession); Telegraph and Telephone Regulations (Ex E, 93rd\ntreasury would be required to impose an embargo against imports\nWashington, D.C., even though they might have a district\nCongress, Second Session); and Partial Revision of the Radio\nof seafood and seafood products from that nation. Adopted 71-16: R\noffice in the same building as the local postmaster.\nTRANSPORTATION NOTES\nRegulations (Ex G, 94th Congress, First Session). Adopted en bloc\n27-8; D 44-8 (ND 28-8; SD 16-0), Jan. 22, 1976.\nThe second regulation dropped by the Postal Service\nhad prohibited members from taking part in dedication\nceremonies for new post offices. That rule had been adopted\nHighway Bill\nin 1971 in an attempt to dispel the political image of the\nConferees to the bill (HR 8235) amending the Federal-\nPost Office Department that was reorganized into the\nAid Highway Act were appointed by the Senate Jan. 19 and\nPostal Service in 1971. The new policy was a compromise;\nby the House Jan. 20. Conferees' negotiations on the widely\nmembers may participate in opening day ceremonies, but\nvarying House and Senate versions were scheduled to begin\nthey may not make speeches.\nJan. 27 and were expected to take a month or longer. (House\nThe policy changes were announced by a Postal Service\npassage, 1975 Weekly Report p. 2900; Senate action, p.\nincreasingly nervous about its future. Angry over the ser-\n2785)\nPAGE 196-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nCOPYRIGHT 1978 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by aditorial clients.\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 197\nSpeaking in favor of the committee version during\nHealth/Education/Welfare\nfloor debate Jan. 19, Education and Labor Committee\nForeign Policy/National Security\nChairman Carl D. Perkins (D Ky.) contended that the ad-\nministration had promised to pay the full costs of educating\nthe estimated 43,000 Indochinese refugee children. \"But\nHouse Passage:\nnow,\" he added, \"the administration has backed down on\nHEARINGS BEGIN ON INTELLIGENCE PANEL PROPOSAL\nthese commitments and is giving out grants which average\nREFUGEE EDUCATION AID\nonly one-fourth of the costs of providing a regular\neducation.\"\nThe Senate Government Operations Committee Jan. 21\nunless the President repeatedly ignored the committee's\nAfter cutting back sharply the amount of money\nMost of the children, Perkins added, needed bilingual\nbegan eight days of hearings on proposals to create a com-\nviewpoint. In that case, he said, Congress could restrain the\nauthorized, the House Jan. 19, on a 311-75 vote, passed a bill\neducation and other special services which \"are going to\nmittee on intelligence oversight. Chairman Abraham\nexecutive through budgetary methods.\n(HR 7897) granting funds to local school districts to pay for\ncost more money than is involved in providing a regular\nRibicoff (D Conn.) said he hoped to have a bill reported by\nMansfield on the other hand, declared that Congress\nthe additional costs incurred for educating Indochinese\neducation.\"\nMarch 1 for consideration by the Senate Rules Committee.\nshould \"be in on the take-off\" of a covert plan. He told the\nrefugee students. (Vote 2, p. 192)\nCalling the committee version a \"rip-off,\" Albert H.\nTestifying in favor of a new Senate panel to monitor\ncommittee that if the intelligence panel was opposed to a\nUnder the bill as passed, each state would receive a\nQuie (R Minn.), ranking Republican on the committee,\nthe intelligence functions of the CIA, FBI, National Securi-\ncovert proposal, it should inform the administration and\ngrant, to be distributed to local school districts, equal to the\noffered the amendment cutting back funding. \"We ought to\nty Agency and other intelligence components of the federal\ntake the dispute to the Senate floor for a vote within 30\ncosts of supplying Vietnamese and Cambodian refugee\nreimburse school districts for what they actually spend on\ngovernment were Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield\ndays.\nchildren with English language instruction, special\nrefugee children rather than make lump sum payments\n(D Mont.) and Frank Church (D Idaho), chairman of the\nDiffering with both Mansfield and Church as well as\nmaterials and supplies and other basic education services\nwhich they can use for almost anything,\" he declared.\nSenate Select Intelligence Committee. Both called for an\nwith others on the Ribicoff committee who favored a new\nneeded because of the influx of the refugee students. Those\nCongress would not be justified in making payments to\noversight panel that would: 1) have a rotating membership\noversight apparatus was John G. Tower (R Texas), vice\ncosts could include additional teachers but could not take\na school \"where they hire no additional teacher, where they\nto assure the committee did not become too close to the\nchairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.\ninto account overhead and construction costs or transporta-\ndo not pay the teacher any more, where they do not buy any\nagencies being supervised; 2) consider all budgetary re-\nTower said that he \"too, initially leaned toward the\ntion expenditures.\nmore materials of any kind, where they do not have to buy\nquests of the various intelligence agencies on an annual\ncreation of a separate oversight committee,\" but \"I am now\nEach state's grant would be reduced by the amount it\nadditional school buses,\" Quie added.\nbasis, and 3) receive reports from the executive branch on\nof the view that haste and simplicity may be the enemy of a\nreceived in education grants under the Indochina Migration\nStill others sided with the Ford administration, oppos-\ncovert actions being planned before they were implemented\nsolution.\" Tower asserted that the legislation being drafted\nand Refugee Assistance Act of 1975 (PL 94-23). Under that\ning any additional grants altogether. \"We absorbed 80,000\nby the CIA. The third proposal was the most controversial.\nto set up the committee-which is expected to be released\nact, school districts were receiving $300 for each refugee\nHungarian refugees without special programs,\" said R.\nThe two senators differed, however, on an important\nby the select committee by the end of January-began with\nchild educated plus an additional $300 for each one enrolled\nLawrence Coughlin (R Pa.). \"We absorbed 450,000 displaced\nquestion raised by members of the Ribicoff committee:\nthe \"assumption that existing committees are incompetent\nover a total of 100.\npersons and 189,000 eastern Europeans without special\nwhether the intelligence panel should have the authority to\nto pursue implementation of the findings and recommen-\nMany members, especially those representing districts\nprograms. We annually absorb about 400,000 immigrants\nset in motion a congressional veto of a covert operation\ndations\" for improved oversight.\nwith large numbers of Indochinese refugees, did not believe\nwithout special programs.\"\nproposed by the White House. Church maintained that it\nBreaking with the bipartisan consensus that had ex-\nthe PL 94-23 grants were adequate to cover all of the costs\nQuie's amendment, which also would limit the program\nwas the constitutional function of Congress to \"advise\" the\nisted previously on the Senate intelligence committee,\nassociated with educating the refugee children.\nto fiscal 1976, passed on a 235-143 vote. (Vote 1, p. 192)\nexecutive branch on foreign activities, and that the\nTower said he was \"not prepared to accept the legislation as\nThe version of the bill reported by the Education and\nAn aide to Quie said a precise cost estimate could not\nlegislative branch's involvement should stop at that point\ndrafted because I believe serious analysis will reveal it to\nLabor Committee (H Rept 94-719) on Dec. 12, 1975, would\nbe made but suggested that Quie's amendment might cut\nbe both a premature and a simplistic solution to an ex-\nhave authorized grants to the states equal to the number of\nthe cost of the program to one-third of what the committee\ntremely complicated set of problems,\" Tower added.\n-\nrefugee children in each school multiplied by the state's\nversion would have cost.\naverage per pupil expenditure. The grant would be reduced\nAfter passing the bill, the House agreed to substitute\nby the amount the school received under PL 94-23.\nits language for that of S 2145, passed by the Senate Oct. 29,\nSenate Overrides Veto:\nThe Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of\n1975. The Senate bill would authorize $125.5-million in\nthe committee version of HR 7897 at $56.7-million in fiscal\nfiscal 1976-77 for reimbursements to school districts. (1975\nNATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL\n1976-77. The administration, which opposed the bill, placed\nWeekly Report p. 2384)\nI\nthe costs at $64.8-million for the two-year period.\n-By Martha V. Gottron\nThe Senate Jan. 22 voted to override President Ford's\nDec. 31 veto of legislation (S 2350) adding the secretary of\nAssociate Editors\nMichael L. Pleasants\nRobert J. Moore\nthe treasury as a member of the National Security Coun-\nWeekly\nDavid M. Maxfield\nDavid Tarr\nDavid Speights\ncil. The vote was 72-16, 13 more than the two-thirds\nPatricia Ann O'Connor\nPat Towell\nmajority necessary to override a veto.\nReport\nDonald Smith\nTed Vaden\nArt Department\nA date had not yet been announced for an override vote\nElder Witt\nElizabeth Wehr\nHoward Chapman (Director)\nEditorial Staff\nLaura Weiss\nRichard A. Pottern\nin the House.\nThomas J. Arrandale\nResearch Staff\nThe bill had been passed by the Senate Oct. 9 and by\nChairman of the Board\nElizabeth Bowman\nWayne Walker\nthe House without amendment Dec. 17. (Final passage,\nNelson Poynter\nMary Cohn\nEdna Frazier (Librarian)\n1975 Weekly Report p. 2834; veto message, p. 60)\nRhodes Cook\nJames R. Berger\nPresident and Editor\nPrudence Crewdson\nHarrison H. Donnelly\nGeneral Manager\nIn his veto message, the President argued that the bill\nEugene C. Patterson\nSusan Henry Davis\nWalter E. Eling\nPaul P. Massa\nwas unnecessary because many channels existed for advis-\nBruce F. Freed\nGary C. Hong\ning the President on the integration of foreign economic\nExecutive Editor\nJudy Gardner\nDiane Huffman\nSales Manager\npolicy. \"Most issues that come before the council on a\nAI Gordon\nWayne Kelley\nSusan B. Jenkins\nRobert C. Hur\nMartha V. Gottron\nregular basis do not have significant economic and\nDiantha Johnson\nmonetary implications,\" he said.\nSenior Editors\nRobert E. Healy\nHillary Johnson\nPromotion Director\nMercer Cross (Administration)\nEd Johnson\nDavid Loomis\nJames V. Bullard\nStuart Symington (D Mo.), the legislation's sponsor, in\nRobert E. Cuthriell (Research)\nKaren Landis\nWarden Moxley\nSenate debate Jan. 22 urged that the veto be overridden:\nRobert A. Diamond (Books)\nMary Link\nCarol J. Ott\nController\n\"That this President, or any President, would subscribe to\nAlan Ehrenhalt (Politics)\nMargaret Hurst Lowe\nBob Rankin\nJonathan C. Angier IV\nPeter A. Harkness (Managing Editor)\nCarolyn Mathiasen\nthe narrow view that national security is limited to only\nJohn L. Moore (Asst. Managing Editor)\nMary Neumann\nProofreaders\nProduction\ndiplomatic and military problems-and would not\nMichael D. Wormser (Asst. Managing Editor)\nPeg O'Hara\nEugene J. Gabler\nI. D. Fuller (Manager)\nSenators Frank Church (D Idaho)(C) and John G. Tower (R Tex-\nMatt Pinkus\nSumie Kinoshita\nKathleen E. Walsh (Asst. Manager)\nas) (R) listen as Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D Mont.)\nautomatically include economic considerations-is little\ntestifies before the Senate Government Operations Committee.\nshort of astounding.\"\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\nJan. 24, 1976-PAGE 199\nPAGE 198-Jan. 24, 1976\nCOPYRIGHT 1976 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.\nReproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients\no\nC\nCONGRESSIONAL\nQUARTERLY\nWeekly Report\nJan. 24, 1976\nPages 109-200\nEconomic Affairs\nPresidential Support\nThe Budget\n111\nFord's Support Up in Congress\n156\nRejecting an election-year \"policy of the quick\nHouse and Senate Scores\n161\nfix,\" President Ford sent Congress a $394.2-\nbillion fiscal 1977 budget that he said would\nVoting Participation\nput the nation on the path toward reduced in-\nNew Records for Attendance, Votes\n164\nflation and unemployment.\nHouse and Senate Scores\n166\nCongressional Reaction\n113\nFord Budget Cuts\n114\nConservative Coalition\nThe Budget Dollar\n115\nSupport Drops\n169\nThe Budget in Brief by Agency\n116\nHouse and Senate Scores\n172\nEconomic Assumptions\n118\nBudget 'Roadmap'\n119\nNorth-South Split\nThe Budget by Function\n120\nDemocrats' Regional Divisions Rise\n175\n122\nNorthern and Southern Democratic Stands 177\nNational Security\nInternational Affairs\n123\nParty Unity\nScience, Space and Technology\n124\nEnergy, Environment, Resources\n124\nOn the Upswing\n179\nHouse and Senate Scores\n181\nAgriculture\n126\nCommerce/Transportation\n126\nConsumer Protection\n127\nBipartisan Support\nCommunity and Regional Development 128\nDown in 1975\n184\nHousing\n129\nHouse and Senate Scores\n186\nEducation/Labor/Social Services\n130\nHealth\n132\nPolitics\nIncome Security\n134\nlowa Caucuses: Triumph for Carter\n189\nVeterans\n135\nMonths of spadework and a cool campaign\nLaw Enforcement and Justice\n135\nstyle brought Jimmy Carter a resounding vic-\nGeneral Government\n136\ntory Jan. 19, bringing him within reach of the\nRevenue Sharing, Fiscal Aid\n136\nbenefits and perils of early front-runner status.\nAllowances\n137\nPolitical Notes\n190\nUndistributed Offsetting Receipts\n137\nCandidates '76: Tydings and Metzenbaum\n191\nEconomy Notes\n137\nFord Budget Message Text\n138\nTransportation and Communications\nRail Modernization Bill\n197\nExecutive Branch\nNew Postal Service Policy\n197\nThe State of the Union\n140\nEducational Broadcasting\n197\nThe election-year agendas outlined by Presi-\nHighway Bill\n197\ndent Ford and Sen. Edmund S. Muskie drew\nsome clear philosophical battle lines between\nForeign Policy/National Security\nthe administration and Congress.\nIntelligence Oversight Proposals\n198\nFord State of the Union Text\n144\nNational Security Council\n198\nText of Muskie's Democratic Response\n149\nHealth/Education/Welfare\nInside Congress\nRefugee Education Aid\n199\nCommittee Secrecy\n152\nCongressional committees opened their\nExpiring Legislation\n110\ndoors to the public and press in record\nnumbers in 1975, continuing a trend begun in\n1973 with the adoption of House and Senate\nHouse Votes (1-12)\n192\nrules aimed at keeping closed meetings to a\nminimum.\nSenate Votes (1-3)\n196\nPAGE 200-Jan. 24, 1976"
}