Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
148848
label
Congressional Relations, 11/76-12/76
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
148848
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Congressional Relations, 11/76-12/76
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Staff Secretary
1976 Campaign Transition File
subjects
U.S. Congress. (1789 - )
U.S. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. (12/10/1816 - )
Legislative liaison
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
148848
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-01
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-11-01
month
11
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8e8c6bda7ab71956
ocrText
Congressional Relations, 11/76-12/76
Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: 1976 Campaign Transition File;
Folder: Congressional Relations, 11/76-12/76; Container 1
To See Complete Finding Aid:
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf
WITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES)
FORM OF
DOCUMENT
CORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
Memo
Moore to Carter,w/attachments, 9 PP.
Re: Meeting with Senate Chairman on 11/23/76
11/22/76
C
Memo
Moore to Voorde, 6 pp.
Re: Meeting with standing committee chairmen, and
various members of the Democratic leadership
n.d.
C
Memo
Eizenstat to Carter, w/attachments, 11 pp.
Re: Key House Members in the energy area
12/23/76
C
FILE LOCATION
Carter Presidential Papers, Staff Offices, Office of Staff Secretary, Pre-Presidential
Handwriting & Transition File, Congressional Relations, 11/76-12/76, Box 1.
RESTRICTION CODES
(A) Closed by Executive Order 12356 governing access to national security information.
(B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
(C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1429 (6-85)
MEETING OF PRESIDENT-ELECT CARTER AND SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN
Tuesday, November 23, 1976
The Capitol, Room S-207, 9:15 a.m.
Senator Mansfield
James 0. Eastland, Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
Senator Robert Byrd
Harrison A. Williams, Chairman
Frank Moss, Chairman
Committee on Labor and
Committee on Aeronautical
Public Welfare
and Space Sciences
Gale W. McGee, Chairman
Wendell H. Ford
Committee on Post Office and
Committee on Aeronautical
Civil Service
and Space Sciences
Quentin N. Burdick
Patrick Leahy
Committee on Post Office and
Committee on Agriculture
Civil Service
and Forestry
Jennings Randolph, Chairman
John L. McClellan, Chairman
Committee on Public Works
Committee on Appropriations
Howard W. Cannon, Chairman
John C. Stennis, Chairman
Committee on Rules and Administration
Committee on Armed Services
Vance Hartke, Chairman
William Proxmire, Chairman
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs
Richard Stone
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
James Abourezk
Committee on the Budget
Gaylord Nelson, Chairman
Select Committee on Small Business
Thomas F. Eagleton, Chairman
Committee on the District of
Edward M. Kennedy
Columbia
Select Committee on Nutrition
and Human Needs
John Sparkman, Chairman
Committee on Foreign Relations
Frank Church, Chairman
Special Committee on Aging
Abraham A. Ribicoff, Chairman
Committee on Government Operations
John 0. Pastore, Chairman
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
Henry M. Jackson, Chairman
Committee on Interior and
Hubert H. Humphrey, Chairman
Insular Affairs
Joint Economic Committee
- 2 -
Mike Gravel
Joint Committee on Congressional
Operations
Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
Adlai E. Stevenson, Chairman
Select Committee to Study the
Committee System
Robert Morgan
(Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
and Public Works)
futs- Impeace
No- ladder
7 More /watson
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
CARTER- - MONDALE
TRANSITION PLANNING GROUP
C
P.O. Box 2600
Washington, D.C. 20013
November 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM
To:
Fran Voorde
Fm:
Frank Moore
MEETING: Senate Leadership & Chairmen of Senate Committees
TIME:
Tuesday, November 22, 1976
9:15 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.
PLACE:
The Capitol
S-207, Majority Leader's Office
INVITED: Senators: Byrd, Moss Ford, Talmadge, McClellan, Stennis
Proxmire, Muskie, Magnuson, Eagleton, Long,
Sparkman, Ribicoff, Jackson, Eastland, Williams,
McGoo, Burdick, Cannon, Hartke, Cranston,
Nelson, McGovern, Church, Pastore, Humphrey,
Metcalf, Inouye, Stevenson.
Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (Montana). Retiring Majority Leader.
Assistant Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia). Committees:
Appropriations (Chairman of Interior Subcommittee), Judiciary, Rules.
Re-elected this year. Candidate for Majority Leader.
Frank E. Moss (Utah). Defeated in re-election bid this year. Out-
going Chairman of Aeronautical and Space Sciences.
Wendell H. Ford (Kentucky). Incoming Chairman of Aeronautical and
Space Sciences Committee whose chief responsibility is the NASA
budget authorization bill. Also member of Commerce Committee.
Elected in 1974.
Herman E. Talmadge (Georgia). Chairman, Agriculture and Forestry.
Member: Finance and Veterans Affairs.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
2.
John L. McClellan (Arkansas). Chairman, Appropriations. Member:
Government Operations, Judiciary. Appropriations Committee is
widely considered the most powerful Senate Committee. McClellan
generally permits Subcommittee Chairmen wide discretion in ar-
rangement of their Own bills.
John C. Stennis (Mississippi). Chairman, Armed Services. Member:
Aeronautical and Space Sciences and Appropriations.
William Proxmire (Wisconsin). Chairman, Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs. Member: Appropriations (Chairman of HUD-Independent
Agencies Subcommittee). His joint memberships give him consider-
able influence over housing and urban issues.
Edmund S. Muskie (Maine). Chairman, Budget. Member: Public Works
(Chairman, Environmental Pollution Suboommittee), Government Opera-
tions. Has just announced his withdrawal from race for Majority
Leader.
Warren G. Magnuson (Washington). Chairman, Commerce. Member:
Appropriations (Chairman of Labor-HEW Subcommittee), Budget.
Thomas F. Eagleton (Missouri). Chairman, District of Columbia.
Member: Appropriations, Labor and Public Welfare. Leading fight
for reform of D.C. budget. Outspoken member of the pro-Greek
group in Congress.
Russell B. Long (Louisiana). Chairman, Finance. Member: Commerce.
Tough manager of his Committee; was locked in an indecisive battle
earlier this year with more liberal Senators over his Committee's
tax reform bill.
John Sparkman (Alabama). Chairman, Foreign Relations. Member:
Banking and Urban Affairs.
Abraham A. Ribicoff (Connecticut). Chairman, Government Operations.
Member: Finance. Generally allows Subcommittee latitude in the
development of legislation, occasionally exercising control at full
Committee level.
Henry M. Jackson (Washington). Chairman, Interior. Member: Armed
Services, Government Operations (Chairman of Permanent Investiga-
tions Subcommittee). Interior has wide jurisdiction over energy
development issues, as well as Indian Affairs and National Parks.
James O. Eastland (Mississippi). Chairman, Judiciary. Member:
Agriculture and Forestry. Major issues in Judiciary this year have
included S. 1, the bill to reform and reconstitute all Federal
Criminal laws (which has not come to the Floor) and amendments
to Anti-Trust Laws.
3.
Harrison A. Williams (New Jersey). Chairman, Labor and Public Wel-
fare. Member: Banking and Urban Affairs, and Rules.
Gale W. McGee (Wyoming). Defeated this year in re-election bid.
Out-going Chairman of Post Office and Civil Service.
Howard W. Cannon (Nevada). Chairman, Rules. Member: Armed Services,
Commerce, Aeronautical and Space Sciences. Cannon is also Chairman
of the Joint Committee on the Inauguration of the President and Vice-
President.
Vance Hartke (Indiana). Defeated this year in re-election bid. Out-
going Chairman of Veterans Affairs.
Alan Cranston (California). Incoming Chairman of Veterans Affairs.
Member: Budget, Banking and Urban Affairs, Labor and Public Welfare.
Candidate for Majority Whip.
Gaylord Nelson (Wisconsin). Chairman, Select Committee on Business.
Member: Finance, Labor and Public Welfare.
George McGovern (South Dakota). Chairman, Select Committee on Nutri-
tion and Human Needs. Member: Foreign Relations and Agriculture.
McGovern has used Nutrition Committee to develop issues in food stamp
reform, and child nutrition, including school lunch programs.
Frank Church (Idaho). Chairman, Special Committee on Aging. Member:
Foreign Affairs and Interior. Aging Committee has been comparatively
inactive this year, primarily as a result of Church's work with the
CIA Committee.
John O. Pastore (Rhode Island). Retiring Chairman of Joint Connittee
on Atomic Energy.
Hubert H. Humphrey (Minnesota). Chairman, Joint Economic Committee.
Member: Foreign Relations, and Agriculture and Forestry. Candidate
for Majority Leader. Sponsor of Humphrey-Hawkins Bill, which in-
cludes provisions to expand the jurisdiction of the Joint Economic
Committee to include certain economic planning functions.
Lee Metcalf (Montana). Chairman, Joint Committee on Government Opera-
tions. Member: Government Operations and Interior.
Daniel K. Inouye (Hawaii). Chairman, Select Committee on Intelli-
gence. Member: Appropriations (Chairman of Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations), Commerce, District of Columbia.
Adiai E. Stevenson (Illinois). Chairman, Select Committee to Study
Committee System. Member: Banking and Urban Affairs, Commerce,
District of Columbia.
Quentin N. Burdick (North Dakota). Incoming Chairman of Post Office
and Civil Service. Member: Judiciary and Public Works. Major issues
before his Committee include a variety of proposals for reform of
Postal Service.
CARTER- MONDALE
TRANSITION PLANNING GROUP
J
C
P.O. Box 2600
Washington, D.C. 20013
TO: The President-elect
FROM: Jack Watson
David Aaron
Tony. Lake
SUBJECT: Your meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Tuesday, November 22, 10:30 a.m.
This memorandum was prepared primarily by Dick Moose, who
has just come from the Foreign Relations Committee staff to work
with the Foreign Policy Transition staff. The memo also reflects
the suggestions of Cy Vance and Zbig Brzezinski.
The objectives of the meeting are:
-- to evidence your recognition of the important role
which the Committee plays in the foreign policy area;
-- to lay the ground work for a close working relation-
ship with Committee members; and
-- to hear which issues are most on their minds.
We suggest the following format for the meeting:
-- You open with a brief statement of the underlying
themes in your foreign policy; and
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
-- seek the Committee members' views on what they
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
consider to be the most important foreign policy
issues, expressing your intention to work closely
with them.
As you know the Foreign Relations Committee's relationship
with recent Presidents, unlike that of its House counterpart,
has generally been strained and often characterized by strong
- 2 -
conflict. For that reason and because it might assist you in
understanding the origin of attitudes you may hear expressed, the
memo begins with a retrospective summary of the Committee's
differences with the Executive Branch over the past ten years.
BACKGROUND ON THE COMMITTEE
Your administration promises to be the first in ten years
with which a majority of the members of the Foreign Relations
Committee can feel comfortable.
The Committee's rift with its former colleague, Lyndon Johnson,
grew steadily from the Dominican Republic crisis in 1965 through
the steady escalation in Vietnam and to the very end of the
Johnson Administration. Although Fulbright and Aiken are gone, and
Mansfield and Symington soon will be, the memory of what they
regarded as Johnson's manipulation of the Committee remains strongly
embedded in the Committee's collective mind.
At the outset of his administration, the Committee was willing
to give Richard Nixon the benefit of the doubt. But in May, 1970,
the invasion of Cambodia unified them more strongly in opposition
to the President than ever before. Beginning in 1970 the Committee
began the first of what has become a long series of legislative
moves designed to restrain the President in the exerci è of his
national security functions.
At about the same time, I the Committee's investigations and
/
hearings brought to light numerous examples of secret and, in its view,
- 3 -
unwise commitments to foreign governments. The Commitments
Resolution (which states that no commitment is binding unless
approved by the Congress) and the Case Act (which requires that
all Executive Agreements be disclosed to the Congress) were direct
outgrowths of their hearings.
While Indochina and the commitments question occupied the
Committee's primary attention, Committee hearings provided a prominent
forum for the advocacy of strategic arms control and the lessening
of tension with the Soviet Union and China. When the January,
1973 Paris Agreement, which was supposed to end the war in Indo-
china, was followed by new openings in our relations with Moscow
and Peking, the Committee felt it would at last be able to "come
in from the cold." And indeed, apart from and despite the lingering
fighting in Indochina, the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy was
strongly supported for a time by the Committee, led by Fulbright.
The temporary supporting consensus was preserved despite
Watergate as the Committee came to regard Kissinger as the indis-
pensable architect and implementer of foreign policy. In no policy
area was this more evident than with regard to Kissinger's handling
of the Middle East crisis. Even there, however, one could see
some signs of a growing uneasiness about the Secretary's secretive,
go-it-alone approach. With the India-Pakistan conflict over Bang-
ledesh, the Cyprus crisis and Angola, uneasiness turned to mistrust
and disillusionment grew over the Secretary's failure to let them
in on the early stages of policy formulation.
At crucial moments during the last few years members of the
- 4 -
Committee have felt that the Secretary was unreachable. To them,
the Ford Administration seemed insensitive to moral and humani-
tarian issues such as human rights and food. More recently the
Committee has been frustrated by its inability to obtain a satis-
factory response to concerns over nuclear proliferation and
conventional arms sales.
CURRENT ATTITUDES AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE
Given this recent history of contentious, adversary relation-
ships, both Democrats and Republicans on the Committee are probably
hopeful that your administration will signal the beginning of a
new era of legislative-executive harmony. They are likely to be
responsive to your leads, particularly if they sense that you and
your Secretary of State are willing to listen to them. Indeed,
you are likely to have fewer problems with Committee members over
policy than you are with the increasing number of newer, more
independent minded and active non-Committee Senators.
Chairman Sparkman can be counted on for consistent support,
although not aggressive leadership. If Hubert Humphrey remains
active on the Committee, he can effectively supply much leadership.
The senior Republicans - Case, Javits, Pearson, and Percy - have
generally been nonpartisan and relatively liberal in their foreign
policy attitudes.
It is really only Frank Church who is a potential focal point
of dissent on the Committee -- but then, only on certain issues.
He can be expected to oppose both bilateral economic assistance
- 5 -
and military aid. (He will also continue his criticism of multi
national corporations.) And he is more likely than any other
member to raise the Committee battle cries of Congressional per-
ogative as well as the avoidance of foreign commitments and inter-
ventions.
Given the sometimes passive attitudes of many present Commit-
tee members, the naming of three new Democrats and one new Repub-
lican to fill vacancies (Mansfield, Symington, McGee and Hugh
Scott) in January, could affect the character of the Committee.
Should the new members be predominantly liberal, they, together
with incumbents Dick Clark, McGovern and Biden could constitute an
activist, though not necessarily dissenting, minority. Clark,
in particular, has a potential for Senate leadership in foreign
affairs extending beyond the Committee to other more junior
members of the Senate. On many issues these members might well
be influenced or joined by Church.
POINTS AND QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT RAISE
In opening the meeting, you might wish to review a few of the
foreign policy themes you emphasized during the campaign. For
example:
-- basing foreign policy on fully informed Congressional and
public opinion;
-- closer relations with allies, including NATO and Japan,
as well as clear support for friends such as Israel;
-- world order politics, (e.g., international efforts to
combat nuclear proliferation, working with the Third World);
- 6 -
-- controlling the arms race and arms sales;
-- making detente a two-way street;
-- human rights (e.g., southern Africa) ; and
-- working for peace in areas such as the Eastern Mediter-
ranean (Arab-Israeli and Greece-Turkey).
You might then ask for the Committee's views on a number of
issues with which you know it has recently been particularly
concerned:
-- the nexus between foreign and domestic policy;
-- the Middle East;
-- strategic nuclear issues;
-- conventional arms sales;
-- southern Africa;
-- human rights;
-- foreign assistance;
-- economic relations with the developing world; and
-- relations with China.
(2big suggests that you also raise the OPEC and boycott
issues, although these have not received so much attention from
the Committee.)
- 7 -
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE VIEWS ON KEY ISSUES
A. The Middle East: The committee is strongly supportive
of Israel. Humphrey, Case, and Javits are its leaders in this
respect and may seek a reiteration of your support for their
concerns. They may look for a general commitment (a) to fund fully
Israel's arms purchases; (b) to avoid an arms supply relationship
with Egypt;and (c) to avoid the imposition of a settlement on the
Israelis. You could answer (a) that Israel's security needs must
be met beyond question; (b) that future arms supplies to Egypt
need study and that you should not commit yourself now; and (c)
that no lasting settlement can or should be imposed on the Middle
East.
B. Strategic Nuclear Issues: Committee members generally
feel that the Nixon-Ford Administration was not nearly vigorous
enough in this area. (Both the Threshhold Test Ban and the
Peaceful Nuclear Explosions treaties have been before the Committee
without action for several months, reflecting a lack of enthusiasm
for them.) Although practically all members favor limiting the
arms race and many would opt for reciprocal reductions, as a group
they are as cautious on this point, as they are generally on detente.
You will not find them well informed on the current state of
negotiations but their views on general Senate attitudes toward
strategic arms limitations could be valuable.
- 8 -
C. Convential Arms Sales: The Committee, led by Humphrey,
was quite active last year in urging restraint in conventional arms
sales. It passed legislation giving the Congress a veto over
individual sales although the only sales which were threatened were
selected ones to Arab governments. Absent firm indications of new
restraints on sales the Committee may press for mandatory sales
ceilings or expanded congressional veto powers. Specific potential
sales which might be mentioned by the Senators would include those
to Iran (sophisticated aircraft), Saudi Arabia (missiles and aircraft),
Egypt (anything lethal) and Pakistan (deep interdiction aircraft).
D. Southern Africa: The disappointing state of Geneva talks
between the white Rhodesians and black nationalists raises the
question of what, if anything, the U.S. could or should do now.
The Committee is certainly pro-majority rule, but it is uneasy
about the possibility of U.S. involvement either militarily or
financially. with careful consultation they would probably support
Kissinger's "insurance plan" for Rhodesia and this could be important
given the likelihood of Senate opposition to Rhodesian financing
from both the right and left. Their views on the desirability of
and the practical political constraints on, a more activists U.S.
role in Africa could be useful. (Clark, who leads the Committee on
these issues, will not be present; he is in southern Africa).
- 9 -
E. Human Rights: The Committee has sponsored legislation,
now law, which seeks to condition both economic and military
assistance on acceptable human rights practices by recipient
governments. Except in the case of Chile, they have been reluctant
to legislate specific sanctions. Those who have thought most about
the subject recognize the limitations of Congress in this area and
would prefer to see the Executive take an affirmative position.
Seeking their views on what positive steps your Administration
should take would lay a useful ground work for the coming legislative
season.
F. Foreign Assistance: The Committee - except for Church's
reservation on bilateral economic aid - strongly supports develop-
ment assistance. They are prejudiced against grant military aid.
Because the Committee - in particular Humphrey - will have to carry
the ball for whatever programs you propose, it is essential to have
its understanding and support. Appropriations for international
financial institutions such as the World Bank, IDA, and the Asian
and InterAmerican Banks will be particularly critical given the
almost inevitable and sizable increases which will be called for in
their funding. Appropriation requests could climb from about
$600 million in fiscal 1977 to about $1.5 billion in FY 78. An
indication of the Committee's willingness to support you in this
regard would be helpful.
- 10 -
G. Economic Issues and Relations with the Developing World:
Many of the non-aid initiatives which have been proposed to help
meet the demands of the developing world, such as trade
preferences, commodity arrangements and debt relief, would require
legislative action. These matters would involve several
Congressional committee jurisdictions. Although the Foreign
Relations Committee has its own share of jurisdiction over foreign
economic policy, it has shown little interest in this area. You might
ask how active the Committee is inclined to be regarding new
initiatives to help the poorer countries. Frank Church is expected
to head a new subcommittee on foreign economic policy which might
take the lead on such matters. Thus, his views would be of particular
interest. Case could be skeptical on any such initiatives and Javits
cautious.
H. Relations with China: On its past record, the committee
should favor normalization of relations with China. You might ask
whether, in their view, we should consider such a move absent a
specific undertaking from Peking not to use force against Taiwan.
What should be done then about the mutual security treaty with
Taiwan? What Mansfield and Hugh Scott say to the Committee on
these points could weigh heavily with their colleagues.
CARTER - MONDALE
TRANSITION PLANNING GROUP
P.O. Box 2600
Washington, D.C. 20013
C
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
FROM:
Jack Watson
David Aaron
gov
Tony Lake
Subject: Meeting with House International Relations Committee,
November 23, 1:15 pm.
This memorandum was prepared primarily by Dick Moose,
after consulting with a member of the House Inter-
national Relations Committee staff.
Background
At this writing, it is uncertain whether Chairman "Doc"
Morgan will return from abroad in time for your meeting with
the House International Relations Committee. (Although the
Committee has 33 members, no more than 15 are likely to be
present.) If Morgan is not on hand, Clem Zablocki will
preside.
Zablocki is Morgan's likely successor as Chairman,
although there is some tension within the Committee on the
leadership question. Some of the members, including some of
the more liberal, feel that Zablocki has not been friendly
enough toward Israel. (He has voted against the Sinai
agreements and full funding of Israeli military aid requests.)
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
2.
Nevertheless, Zablocki is strongly supported by the House
leadership and apparently has the votes to win. (Zablocki,
incidentally, supported you very strongly in Wisconsin.)
Both the Democrats and particularly the Republicans
on the Committee are more liberal than the general House
membership. Although in past years the Committee has con-
sistently followed the Executive lead, it is by no means a
push-over. Zablocki, for example, was one of the primary
authors of the War Powers Resolution (which limits the
President's power to commit US forces in hostile situations).
The following are key individuals within the Committee:
Democrats
-- Lee Hamilton (Indiana) and Dante Fascell
(Florida) are the leaders of the moderate
to conservative Democrats.
-- Ben Rosenthal leads a group of New York
members (none of the rest of whom are expected
to be present) who are consistently liberal
and aggressively pro-Israel.
-- Don Fraser (Minnesota) leads the Committee
on human rights issues.
Republicans
-- Bill Broomfield (Michigan) - senior Republican.
-- Ed Derwinski (Illinois) - provides the
intellectual leadership among the Republicans.
3.
The members of this Committee are generally bright and
hardworking. Having fewer conflicting committee assignments
than their Senate counterparts, they usually have time to do
all their homework and can be quite sharp on details and
nuances. For this reason we suggest that you endeavor to keep
discussion of specific issues on a very general plane.
Suggested Format of the Meeting
As with the Senate Committee, you could begin by reviewing
the foreign policy themes of your campaign. Given the desir-
ability of limiting detailed discussion of sensitive topics,
you might prolong both this review and any opening pleasantries.
Then as time remains, you might seek the Committee members' views
on the issues you discussed with the SFRC, as well as any others
which are uppermost in their minds.
Summary of Committee Views on Key Issues
Anti-Boycott Legislation - The Export Administration Act,
which contains controversial provisions on the Arab boycott
and nuclear proliferation, will be the first item before the
Committee in the new session. It originated in the
International Relations Committee (in the Senate it was
handled by Finance rather than Foreign Relations) and was
passed last session by the House but was held up in the
Senate just before adjournment.
The House anti-boycott provisions are stronger than those
in the Senate bill and have caused much concern in business
4.
circles. Support for them within the Committee is almost
universal -- including even Zablocki. We recommend -- and
Zbig strongly agrees -- that you steer clear of comment on
the details of this legislation. You will recall that you
were generally in support of legislation in this area during
the campaign.
The nuclear non-proliferation provisions of the Export
bill are not troublesome. They closely resemble your policy
as enunciated during the campaign.
Turkish Bases Issue
Since the Cyprus crisis, the Committee has been the
primary locus of opposition to military assistance to Turkey.
Rosenthal, with Sarbanes (now elected to the Senate) and
Brademas, has led the effort to continue the embargo (a limited
amount of credit sales were allowed under the last military
aid bill). They can be expected to lead the fight against
implementing the Turkish base treaty which has been before
the Senate since earlier this year. We suggest you say, if
asked about the subject, that you are committed to seeking
a "rapid settlement" of the Cyprus issue, including the
withdrawal of all foreign military forces from the island,
as called for by U.N. General Assembly resolution 3212 of
November, 1974; but avoid getting into the question of the
base negotiations, pending your review of the issue.
5.
Other Issues
Korea - Don Fraser will continue his strong criticism
of Korea's human rights practices (as well as
those of many other governments) and his
opposition to continued military assistance and
US troop presence.
Middle East - The Committee will continue to press
for maximum funding of Israel's arms purchases
and to oppose arms sales to Arab governments.
TO: Fran Voorde
FROM: Frank Moore
1/
MEETING: House International Relations Committee
TIME:
Tuesday, November 22, 1976, 1:15 pm to 2 pm.
PLACE: Room EF 100, center of the Capitol.
INVITED: Majority and minority membership of the committee.
*********
BACKGROUND: The International Relations Committee has juris-
diction foreign relations generally; this jurisdiction includes
the major money authorizations for AID and for military assist-
ance programs and the departmental authorizations for the State
Department, AID, USIA, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
the Peace Corps, and the Board for International Broadcasting
(which oversees Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty). The
committee's jurisdiction also includes war powers and executive
agreements, international commodity agreements (except sugar),
and international organizations. The committee has special
oversight jurisdiction over intelligence activities relating
to foreign policy, international financial and monetary org-
anizations, and international fishing agreements.
The committee has long existed in the shadow of its Sen-
ate counterpart under the chairmanship of Sen. Fulbright: while
the Senate committee opposed the war in Vietnam, a majority of
the House committee continued to support it almost until the
end. The docility of the House committee can be at least
partially traced to Chairman Morgan, who guided the committee
with a loose reign. During recent Congresses, rules changes
have given increased staff to the subcommittees and the chair-
manships of many of the subcommittees have come into the hands
of liberal activists. The committee also recently acquired
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
from the Armed Services Committee jurisdiction over all inter-
national arms transfers; it has moved agressively to restrict
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
the military assistance program and DOD and commercial arms
sales.
The centerpiece of the committee's activity in recent
years is the War Powers Act, passed in 1973 over President
Nixon's veto. The law follows the intentions of the House
committee in every important particular, and significantly
restricts Presidental authority to commit U. S. troops over-
seas. The committee in recent years has also imposed heavy
reporting requirements on the Department of State and other
foreign affairs agencies, including the impact of weapons
development on arms negotiations, progress in attaining re-
spect for human rights by other nations, and the various
impacts of weapons transfers on U. S. foreign policy goals.
In addition, the committee has written into law a congressional
TO: Fran Voorde
FROM: Frank Moore
2/
veto veto over arms transfers in excess of $7 million. The
committee contends that executive branch agencies have been
extremely lax in complying with reporting requirements and
will probably be interested in future Adminsitration intentions
in this regard.
The committee presently has seven Democratic and one
Republican vacancy. The addition of so many younger and
probably dovish new members will continue the process of
strengthening the committee. Rep. Zablocki, if elected
Chairman by the Democratic Caucus, can be expected to exercise
strong and independent leadership, and cannot be presumed an
automatic supporter of Adminsitration policy. In fact, it
is likely that the House committee will be more difficult
for the Administration to manage than the Senate committee.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP: Following is the committee membership
in the 94th Congress:
Rep. Thomas MORGAN (Pennsylvania) -- Retiring.
Rep. Clem ZABLOCKI (Wisconsin) -- Independent, "even-handed"
on the Middle East, interested in a strong congressional role
in foreign policy.
Rep. L. H. FOUNTAIN (North Carolina) -- Conservative, not very
active in committee affairs.
Rep. Dante FASCELL (Florida) -- Aggressive, interested in
Cuban policy and Latin American relations generally; also
chairs the Co-mission on European Security (recently estab-
lished to monitor the Helsinki accords).
Charles DIGGS (Michigan) -- Interested in Africa policy, par-
ticularly relations with Rhodesia and South Africa.
Robert NIX (Pennsylvania) -- Generally inactive.
Donald FRASER (Minnesota) -- A dynamic liberal force on the
committee, concerned over international respect for human
rights, arms sales, importation of Rhodesian chrome, U. N.
affairs.
Benjamin ROSENTHAL (New York) -- Concerned over Middle East
policy and realtions with European nations. A force on the
committee.
Lee HAMILTON (Indiana) -- One of the most respected members
of the committee and highly influential on all committee
issues.
TO: Fran Voorde
FROM: Frank Moore
3%
Lester WOLFF (New York) -- Interested in Middle East issues
and in international narcotics control; also chairs the Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control established at the end
of the 94th Congress.
Jonathan BINGHAM (Now York) -- Aggressive and respected liberal,
concerned over Middle East policy, arms transfers, and trade
policy.
Gus YATRON (Pennsylvania) -- Greek extraction, interested in
Cyprus policy.
Roy TAYLOR (North Carolina) -- Retiring.
Michael HARRINGTON (Massachusetts) -- Aggressive, sometimes
erratic liberal; interested in intelligence activities and
Chile policy.
Leo RYAN (California) -- Generally not very active.
Don RIEGLE (Midhigan) -- Elected to the Senate.
Cardiss COLLINS (Illinois) -- Not particularly forceful on
the committee.
Stephen SOLARZ (New York) -- One of the brightest and most
aggressive of the freshmen, has focused on arms sales, par-
ticularly with regard to Iran.
Helen MEYNER (New Jersey) -- Strong interest in the U. N.;
farors U. S. support for international institutions.
Don BONKER (Washington) -- Another aggressive freshman, was
key in blocking aid to Angola.
Gerry STUDDS (Massachusetts) -- Although the most junior mem-
ber of the committee, not a freshman but a third-termer. Key
in 200-mile limit legislation, former foreign service officer.
William BROOMFIELD (Midhigan) -- Ranking minority member;
conservative but a possible supporter of a bi-partisan for-
eign policy.
Ed DERWINSKI (Illinois) Conservative, interested in Eastern
Europe: acerbic wit, generally responsible.
Paul FINDLEY (Illinois) -- Very active on the committee, pro-
ponent of Atlantic Union, intelligent and articulate.
TO: Fran Voorde
FROM: Frank Moore
4/
John BUCHANAN (Alabama) -- Highly respected internationalist,
sought with Fraser to block imports of Rhodesian chrome.
J. Herbert BURKE (Florida) -- Conservative, not very active.
Pierre DUPONT (Delaware) -- Elected Governor.
Charles WHALEN (Ohio) -- Liberal, internationalist, generally
votes with the Democrats.
Edward BIESTER (Pennsylvania) -- Moderately liberal, inter-
nationalist.
Larry WINN (kansas) -- Conservative, not overly active on the
committee.
Benjamin GILMAN (New York) -- Moderate, should support bipart-
isan foreign policy.
Tennyson GUYER (Ohio) -- Conservative, not overly active.
Robert LAGOMARSINO (California) -- Moderate, not overly active.
TO: Fran Voorde
FROM: Frank Moore
1/
MEETING: Senate and House Republican leadership.
TIME:
Tuesday, November 23, 1976, 2 pm.
PLACE:
Room EF 100, in the center of the Capitol.
INVITED: Senators GRIFFIN, CURTIS, STAFFORD, TOWER, and
STEVENS; Reps. RHODES, MICHEL, ANDERSON, DEVINE,
EDWARDS, CONABLE, and QUILLEN.
********
Sen. Robert GRIFFIN (Michigan) -- Senate Minority Whip; leading
candidate to succeed retiring Sen. Hugh Scott as Minority Leader.
Also serves as the No. 2 Republican on the Commerce Commitee and
as the most junior Republican on the Foreign Relations and Rules
and Administration Committees. May be challenged by Sen. Baker
for the Minority Leader post, but will probably beat him. Regard-
ed as a compromise choice between liberal and conservative Rep-
ublicans in the Senate. Politically astute, intelligent, co-
author of Landrum-Griffin.
Sen. Carl CURTIS (Nebraska) -- Chairman of the Senate Republcian
Conference, the caucus of all Senate Republicans. Also serves
as the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee and the No.
3 Republican on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. A staunch
conservative; Barry Goldwater's "tiger" at the 1964 Republican
National Convention. Likely to be a tough partisan in the 95th
Congress.
Sen. Robert STAFFORD (Vermont) -- Secretary of the Senate Rep-
ublican Conference. Also ranks as the No. 3 Republican on the
Public Works, Labor and Public Welfare, and Veterans' Affairs
Committees. The Republican liberal-moderate representative in
the leadership. Concerned about the environment; critical of
high levels of military spending.
Sen. John TOWER (Texas) -- Chairman, Senate Republican Policy
Committee; has been mentioned as a candidate for Minority Whip
but may chose to mind the store in Texas since he is up in 1978.
Also serves as ranking Republican on the Banking Committee and
No. 2 Republican on the Armed Services Committee. Staunch con-
servative, but prestige has been damaged by large Reagan victory
in he Texas primary this year.
Sen. Ted STEVENS (Alaska) -- Chairman, Senate Republican Cam-
paign Committee. Also serves on the Appropriations, Commerce,
and Post Office & Civil Service Committees. Liberal-moderate
Republican; could conceivably advance onto the leadership lad-
der as Senators line up for offices created by the Scott resig-
nation.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
2/
Rep. John RHODES (Arizona) -- House Republican Minority Leader.
Intelligent, staunch conservative. Highly partisan.
Rep. Robert Michel (Illinois) -- House Minority Whip. Also
serves as the No. 2 Republican on the Appropriations Committee,
where he also serves as the ranking member of the Labor/HEW
Subcommittee. Conservative, previously served as Chairman of
the House Republican Campaign Committee.
John ANDERSON (Illinois) -- Chairman of the House Republican
Conference, the caucus of all House Republicans. Represents
the liberals and moderates in the leadership, but conservatives
are so dominant among House Republicans that Anderson has
trouble holding onto the job he has, much less advancing. Also
serves as the No. 2 Republican on the Rules Committee, and
as such sometimes votes with leadership Democrats against the
conservative coalition. Key leader of the 50 or so Repub-
lican liberals and moderates; during the 91st, 92nd, and 93rd
Congress this bloc was often key on environmental and social
welfare issues.
Barber CONABLE (New York) -- Chairman of the House Republican
Policy Committee, which acts on legislation on behlf of the
Conference. In the 95th Congress, will serve as ranking Rep-
ublican on the Ways & Means Committee, and will thus have to
give up the Policy Committee job. Difficult to categorize
ideologically; extremely intelligent and forceful, particularly
on Ways & Means issues. Will play a key role on the committee,
since a few Republican votes can make the difference because
the committee is so evenly split. In the 94th Congress, often
cooperated with conservative Southern Democrats in a revival
of the Dixiecrat/Republican conservative coalition on the
committee.
Samuel DEVINE (Ohio) -- Vice Chairman of the House Republican
Conference. Also serves as the ranking Republican on the Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce Committee and the No. 2 Republican
on the House Administration Committee. Staunch conservative
and highly partisan; a key leader of the hard-core conservative
Republicans who number about 75.
Jack EDWARDS (Alabama) -- Secretary of the House Republican
Conference; also serves on the Appropriations Committee, where
is the ranking Republican on the Defense Subcommittee. Conser-
vative, but not as ideological as some.
James QUILLEN (Tennessee) -- Ranking minority member of the Rules
Committee. Although the Democratic leadership usually dominates
this committee, occasionally three Democrats will join the five
Republicans to produce an 8-7 conservative majority. Quillen
plays the role of organizing the minority on the committee,
although he cannot move to far without consulting John Ander-
son, a liberal/moderate Republican.
CARTER - MONDALE
TRANSITION PLANNING GROUP
P.O. Box 2600
Washington, D.C. 20013
01
C
December 2, 1976
TO:
Greg JC
FROM:
Fran from
RE:
Messages from Frank Moore
1. He has had distributed on the Hill a
telephone directory of staff working
on the Transition for their use.
2.
The President does have a small office
off the Senate floor --- It is strictly
a Ceremonial office
----
to use, for example,
for the signing of a bill should the President
choose.
It is inappropriate for the
President to have a working office on the Hill.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
CARTER - MONDALE
TRANSITION PLANNING GROUP
P.O. Box 2600
Washington, D.C. 20013
December 6, 1976
TO:
Robert Lipshutz
FROM:
Sam Bleicher
SUBJECT:
Options Paper on the Congressional Veto
Background
This paper lays out options for Presidential policy toward
legislation containing the so-called "Congressional Veto" -
provisions which authorize rulemaking or other action by an
Executive Branch agency subject to approval or disapproval
by one or both Houses of Congress or a Congressional committee.
Dozens of statutes currently contain such provisions, covering
the full range of government activities. The need for a policy
decision is important, and it is urgent in the following areas:
1. Import Restrictions on International Trade. Under the
International Trade Act of 1974, Presidential action which
conflicts with a recommendation of the International Trade
Commission must be reported to Congress, which may override
the President's decision by a majority vote in both Houses.
President Ford's rejection of Commission recommendations on
honey and gloves in October included a statement that he would
treat any override as unconstitutional. Unless President Carter
indicates that he does not share President Ford's view, several
Senators intend to push for an override and a constitutional
test.
2. Reorganization Authority. President Carter will be
seeking reorganization authority, which as presently
envisioned will include some form of Congressional veto.
If Carter stands on the Ford position that Congressional vetoes
are unconstitutional, Congress is unlikely to adopt the desired
legislation.
3. Judicial Salaries Litigation. A number of judges have
brought suit in the Court of Claims to have their salaries
increased, asserting, inter alia, that a Congressional veto
of a salary increase for them was unconstitutional, and that
the salary commission's recommendation increasing their salaries
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
2.
is therefore legally in effect. The case has already been
argued in the Court of Claims, but some observers think that
the Court is delaying its decision until it sees the decision
in Clark v. Valeo, below.
4. Federal Election Commission Regulations. In Clark V.
Valeo, Ramsey Clark has brought suit against the Federal
Elections Commission seeking a declaration that the
Commission regulations are invalid because the rulemaking is
subject to an unusual kind of one-House Congressional veto. The
Department of Justice intervened as a plaintiff, also arguing
that Congressional veto provisions are unconstitutional.
Special procedural sections of the Act allowed a prompt hearing
of constitutional claims before the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals en banc. Some observers think that the Court of
Appeals is reluctant to decide this case without an opportunity
for the new Attorney General to indicate his position on this
matter. But a prompt motion in this case would be essential.
Legal Issues
While the merits of the legal issues are complex and
abstract, a few observations are important to understand the
context of this problem:
1. The legal issue is open. There is virtually no case
law, and the arguments raise arcane issues of separation of
powers, the theory of delegation of rulemaking authority,
the distinction between legislative and interpretive rule-
making, and the Presidential veto power. Respectable
arguments can be made for several different conclusions.
2. Whatever view the President and the Attorney General
take on this issue, the Supreme Court will have the last word,
and probably within the next two years. Thus even a decision
to support the validity of the Congressional veto will not
necessarily immunize the government from the disruption of
invalidation or partial invalidation of the dozens of
statutes using this device.
3. Nevertheless, the President and the Attorney General
can influence the outcome of the litigation, both because of
the respect that the Court will show to the opinion of the
Attorney General on a matter of this character, and because
the Court would be reluctant to invalidate a practice
involving a relationship between the President and Congress
that both branches accept as constitutional. (See the opinions
of Justices Frankfurter and Jackson in Youngstown Sheet and
Tube V. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) .)
3.
Effect of a Ruling of Unconstitutionality
1. Existing Legislation
The effect on existing legislation is uncertain.
Some argue that the Congressional veto itself would simply
die. Others argue that the veto power cannot be severed from
the rulemaking power originally granted by Congress, so the
Executive Branch would be deprived of the rulemaking or
decisional authority involved. Since severability is a matter
of Congressional intent, each statute might require individual
litigation to determine the impact of the initial ruling,
unless Congress and the President could agree on the necessary
statutory revisions.
2. New Legislation
Much new legislation that may be sought over the next
four years is of the type that has traditionally included a
Congressional veto provision. If that device is held
unconstitutional, Congress may be unwilling to grant any
general authority in those areas, at least until it becomes
apparent that a general grant is essential if critical
government functions are to be performed. Unfortunately,
such a consensus may be slow to materialize, and valuable time
will be lost to this Administration's efforts to carry out
its programs.
Options
A. Litigation Options
(1) Pursue the Ford position that the Congressional
veto is unconstitutional.
(2) Argue vigorously that the Congressional veto
is constitutional.
(3) Take a middle ground, accepting certain kinds
of Congressional veto but not others.
(4) Pursue a policy calculated to avoid judicial
decision on this issue for as long as possible.
*
*
*
4.
(1) Pursue the Ford position that the Congressional veto
is unconstitutional. The advantage of this approach is that
at least in theory it provides for the strongest Presidency.
If Congress wished to have an active government, it would
eventually be forced to delegate broad powers to the
Executive. This approach would also avoid the embarrassment
that will follow a highly visible change of position on a
major issue of constitutional law.
The disadvantage of this option is that it would lead
to an immediate confrontation with Congress and stall
legislative action. If the argument for unconstitutionality
succeeds (which it is more likely to do if the Administration
supports it), substantial legislative energy will be diverted
from new legislation to reviewing and rewriting existing
statutes. In many instances Congress could replace the
Congressional veto with other limits on Executive authority,
such as restrictions on spending and more continuous oversight
and rule-reversing legislation.
(2) Argue vigorously that the Congressional veto is
constitutional. This approach would have the advantage of
avoiding confrontation with Congress and accusations that the
new Administration, like the Nixon-Ford Administration, is
pursuing an "imperial Presidency". If the argument for
constitutionality is successful, expanded use of the
Congressional veto can be anticipated, imposing greater
Congressional control over Executive actions. In some areas,
such as safety and health regulations and international trade,
such Congressional intervention may dilute the ability of the
Executive to pursue coherent, comprehensive regulatory programs.
(3) Take a middle ground, accepting certain kinds of
Congressional veto but not others. Given the openness of the
legal context, a creative Attorney General can find many ways
of "splitting the difference" - recognizing the validity of
the Congressional veto either with respect to certain kinds
policy questions (e.g. excluding foreign and defense policy
where the President has special constitutional responsibilities,
or limiting it to independent administrative agencies) or with
respect to different kinds of Congressional veto procedures,
such as requiring both Houses to disapprove or requiring a
two-thirds vote of both Houses to disapprove Executive actions.
This approach would permit the President and the Attorney
General to continue to support the argument of unconstitution-
ality in Clark V. Valeo, which contains an unusual kind of
one-House veto, while avoiding an across-the-board opposition
that would dramatically weaken Congress's position.
Unfortunately, the rationales for some of these compromises
do not fit existing needs for President Carter's legislative
goals.
5.
(4) Pursue a policy calculated to avoid judicial decision
on this issue for as long as possible. It may be possible
through appropriate litigation and settlement tactics to delay
decision on this issue, at least in broad terms, for two or
three years. For example, the judicial pay case could be
settled (especially since Carter has promised to raise judges'
salaries anyway), and the Justice Department could withdraw
as a plaintiff from Clark V. Valeo, leaving Clark with serious
standing and mootness problems. The international trade matters
have not yet begun their way through the judicial process.
The success of such an effort, however, depends on many factors
beyond the President's control. Private parties can bring suit
on these issues, and Congress may be unwilling to ignore the
constitutional problem simply because there is no litigation
that promises an immediate judicial resolution. The value
of delay depends on Congressional reaction in the interim.
B. Options on New Legislation in the Interim
The approach to legislation in the period before a
definitive judicial decision must be coordinated with the
litigation strategy. But certain distinctive problems do
arise. The options are:
(1) Proceed on the assumption of constitutionality.
(2) Proceed on the assumption of unconstitutionality.
(3) Proceed on an assumption of some middle-ground
position.
*
*
*
*
(1) Proceed on the assumption of constitutionality. The
advantage of this approach, if Congress can be persuaded to do
the same, is that new legislation can be approved and actions
taken by the President before any final judicial determination
is announced. The major disadvantage of this approach is that
it adds to the list of legislative programs that will be
jeopardized by a Supreme Court ruling of unconstitutionality.
Efforts to get favorable severability clauses in new
legislation would arouse Congressional suspicions about
the President's ultimate objectives and expectations, and
might therefore be counterproductive.
6.
(2) Proceed on the assumption of unconstitutionality.
President Carter could insist that Congress enact legislation
on reorganization and other matters that does not include a
Congressional veto, thus assuring its validity whatever the
litigation outcome, and veto the rest. Unfortunately,
Congress seems very unlikely to pass much acceptable
legislation. It may prefer to await the outcome of the
litigation. In that case a delay strategy in the litigation
would further delay legislative action.
(3) Proceed on an assumption of some middle-ground position.
The President could announce his willingness to accept certain
kinds of Congressional vetoes and his opposition to other
kinds (for example, indicating his opposition to legislation
requiring all regulations of all agencies to be subject to a
Congressional veto and/or a committee or one-House veto)
while at the same time indicating his willingness to accept
an appropriate form of Congressional veto. In that case,
legislation meeting the President's definitions of
constitutionality could be negotiated with Congress,
perhaps permitting progress on the legislative front. Other
legislation would have to be vetoed to retain credibility.
Even so, the Supreme Court could find that legislation
unconstitutional, based on its own analysis of the problem.
This would create the same kind of risks that are created
by following option (1), though their probability would
be lower.