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
148849
label
Consumer Advocacy Briefing - Options Paper, 11/16/76
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
148849
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Consumer Advocacy Briefing - Options Paper, 11/16/76
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Staff Secretary
1976 Campaign Transition File
subjects
National Association of Consumer Advocates
Consumers
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
148849
coverageEndDate
day
16
logicalDate
1976-11-01
month
11
year
1976
coverageStartDate
day
16
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
77ea5ec4174ab2a2
ocrText
[Consumer Advocacy Briefing-Options Paper, 11/16/76]
Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: 1976 Campaign Transition File;
Folder: [Consumer Advocacy Briefing-Options Paper, 11/16/76]; Container 1
To See Complete Finding Aid:
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf
MEMORANDUM
To:Jinmy Carter-
TO:
Jack Watson
Respy,
FROM:
Harrison Wellford
jw
SUBJECT:
Appendix to the Government Organization
Options Memorandum
C
DATE:
November 16, 1976
The attached document is the briefing/options paper
prepared by the pre-election Policy Planning Office
on the Agency for Consumer Advocacy, similar to what
has been prepared for each major regulatory agency.
I thought it would serve as a useful appendix to the
materials on Government Organization because creation
of the Agency for Consumer Advocacy is one of the major
regulatory issues ripe for immediate action.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
ENSURING EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE PUBLIC
THE AGENCY FOR CONSUMER ADVOCACY
AND OTHER INSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
A Briefinq/uptions Paper
Prepared for
President-Elect Carter
By
Carter-Mondale Policy Planning
Atlanta
November, 1976
This briefing/options book is designed to help the Presi-
dent-elect, his staff, and his appointees understand the options
available for the creation of an Agency for Consumer Advocacy.
It outlines its objectives, potential resources and methods of
operation; describes the chief options available to the Carter
Administration and their chief advantages and disadvantages; and
briefly outlines the Agency's consequent staffing needs.
This document presents a wide range of opinions and possible
options for consideration by the new Administration. Prepared by
Carter-Mondale Policy Planning, it is the work of a good many
people who were asked to participate both because of their ex-
pertise and the different perspectives and opinions they brought
to the task. The ideas in this book do not represent President-
elect Carter's positions or those of his administration. Similarly,
none of these ideas should be attributed to individual contri-
butors.
The following people contributed importantly to the develop-
ment of this book: Joan Claybrook, Philip Schrag (synthesizer),
Peter Schuck (editor/reviewer) and Carol Foreman Tucker. John
Harmon and Curt Hessler initiated and Bill Drayton, assisted by
Debbie Gottheil, directed Policy Planning's Regulation Project.
THE AGENCY FOR CONSUMER ADVOCACY
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTION - (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
1
TRANSITION PERSONNEL
5a
CARTER'S VIEWS
5b
ISSUES/OPTIONS
A. Office of Consumer Affairs in HEW
6
B. History of the ACA Proposal
9
C. The 94th Congress' Proposal
10
D. Deciding How to Create the ACA
15
E.
Design Issues
20
1. Independence
21
2. Power To Seek Judicial Review
23
3.
Information Gathering Powers
23
4.
Information Disclosure By ACA
24
5. Exemption from ACA's Jurisdiction
24
6. Grants-In-Aid
25
7. Ombudsman
28
8. Handling Consumer Complaints
31
9. President Ford's Consumer Offices
33
10. ACA's Budget & Life Expectancy
34
OTHER OPTIONS
A. In House Advocates
35
B. Agency Reimbursement of Private
Participants
37
C. Tax Credits for Advocacy Contributions
39
D. Linking the Options
40
A. Staffing
42
APPENDIX A
46
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES - APPENDIX B
48
INTRODUCTION
ENSURING EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE PUBLIC
THE AGENCY FOR CONSUMER ADVOCACY
AND OTHER INSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
Consumers and other diffuse interests have long been seriously
underrepresented in Federal decision-making, most especially in
the regulatory process that so critically if invisibly affects
their interests. Organized interests have too often been able to
bend national policy to suit their narrow purposes rather than
the broad public interest because only they participated routinely
in the process.
This briefing/options paper reviews what has been and what
might be done to ensure adequate public representation.
Most of the regulatory agencies were created to an important
degree in order to protect the public's interests. However, this
generation has learned that such bodies are likely to be ineffective
or perhaps to fall captive to those they were intended to control
if left unsupervised and, at least as important, unsupported by
representatives of their public constituency.
A decade of experimentation and extensive legislative con-
sideration has suggested four chief methods of ensuring that
diffuse public interests are effectively represented in Federal
regulatory decision-making:
- 2 -
1. In-house Advocates. Each agency would appoint in-house
Counsel to represent underrepresented and especially consumer
interests in its proceedings. This option promises expertise
and staying power, but such representation may not long
remain independent. Congress has recently created such an
office at the ICC.
2. Agency Reimbursement of Private Participants. Although
problems of cooption remain, this approach encourages greater
independence. The FTC and CPSC have recently begun to pro-
vide such support.
3. The Agency for Consumer Advocacy (ACA). This proposed Federal
agency would represent consumer interests in carefully selected
proceedings (and appeals therefrom) held by others, chiefly
regulatory agencies. Both houses of Congress passed such
legislation last year, but a threatened Ford veto blocked its
enactment. President-elect Carter and the Democratic platform
have both endorsed the ACA.
4. Tax Credits for Advocacy Contribution. Giving individual
citizens a tax credit for contributing up to $2.00 or $5.00
to the accredited advocacy fund of their choice would (1)
give public advocates an entirely independent financial base
and (2) make them serve their clients (the public's changing
felt needs sufficiently well to win their continuing support.
- 3 -
These four options are more likely to be complements than alter-
natives to one another.
Of these options, the ACA requires the new Administration's
most immediate attention - given the President-elect's campaign
commitments, the extensive consideration already given the idea,
its legislative ripeness, and its potential value as an early and
continuing signal of the Carter Administration's commitment to
ensuring that government serves the people's interests first.
Consequently this memorandum focuses first and primarily on the
choices available to the Administration in creating an ACA. It
concludes with relatively brief consideration of the other options.
Assuming that the President-elect continues to support
creation of an ACA, the principal decisions that must be made
during the transition relate to (1) the timing and priority of
the effort to establish the ACA, (2) the design of the ACA legis-
lation, and (3) the selection of an eventual Administrator and
perhaps interrelated allocation of responsibility for accomplishing
these tasks.
With respect to timing and priority, the President can
either take the initiative and, working with Congress and others
interested in the idea, push for his own strong version of the
legislation early in the new session of Congress (the "high
priority option") or he can permit Congressional supporters of
the ACA to advance their own versions while providing moderate
- 4 -
White House support and input during the session (the "moderate
priority option"). The advantages of the high priority option
are principally the brighter prospects for enactment during the
initial "honeymoon", the political benefits of an early victory,
and the sensitizing of a new Administration to the values
implicit in the ACA concept. On the other hand, the slower,
moderate priority option would (1) allow Congressional backers
greater credit and (2) give the Administration more time to
develop legislation it was sure it would like.
The policy options available in designing the ACA relate
to whether or not the ACA should also try to handle consumer
complaints; the degree of its independence from the President;
its relationship to state and local consumer protection functions
and whether or not it can assist them with grants in aid; the
disposition of the large number of consumer offices President
Ford created in other agencies as a means of combatting ACA
legislation; the extent of exemptions from the ACA's inter-
vention power; and the size of the ACA's budget.
Deciding among some of these options will affect the
balance of the ACA's political costs and benefits to the Adminis-
tration, the ability of the ACA to function effectively, the
ability of the President to influence the agency, and the
reorganization of the government's other consumer protection
functions.
- 5 -
The final set of options concerns the choice of a person
to shepherd the ACA legislation through Congress and to speak
for the President on consumer affairs during the pre-enactment
period (probably extending at least until July, 1977) and
(depending upon the degree of the ACA's independence) thereafter
as well. Since such a person may well be the appropriate
nominee as the eventual ACA Administrator (and may in any event
anticipate such a designation), the Administration should
probably begin to search for a possible Administrator during
the transition period.
TRANSITION
PERSONNEL
CARTER'S VIEWS
PRESIDENT ELECT CARTER'S VIEWS ON THE AGENCY FOR
CONSUMER ADVOCACY
"We also need to have within the government structure
itself a competent group who can speak for consumers.
Senator Magnuson and Congressman Brooks have thus far been
successful in getting this legislation passed - Consumer
Protection Agency or Agency for Consumer Advocacy. I am
strongly opposed to the proliferation of new agencies,
departments, bureaus, boards and commissions because they
add more to an already confused fededal bureaucratic structure.
This agency, in my opinion, is different. If I am elected
President, I would look on this group - a very small group by
the way - to help me probe constantly, to discover agencies
or functions which ought to be eliminated, to publicly reveal
inadequacies and inaccuracies that exist within the people's
own government, the agency would more than pay for itself.
There would also be a very low operating cost - I think $10,
$11, $12 million each year. This is about the amount of money
HEW spends every hour. So I strongly favor this legislation.
I hope the conference committee will pass it quickly and that
it will be adopted. I hope that President Ford will sign it
into law; if he should veto it, I hope that Congress can over-
ride his veto. If the veto should be sustained, I will con-
tinue to make it a major issue in the campaign this fall. If
I am elected President, I hope it will be one of the first
bills passed during the next administration."
Public Citizen Forum, Washington, D.C.
August 9, 1976
ISSUES/OPTIONS
- 6 -
THE AGENCY FOR
CONSUMER ADVOCACY
This section describes the existing Office of Consumer Affairs
in the Department of HEW, the genesis of the proposed Agency for
Consumer Advocacy (ACA) and the versions of the ACA which passed in
the last Congress. It then reviews the agruments for and against
the creation of a strong ACA. Finally, it discusses the most
important design and policy issues concerning the ACA that must
still be resolved before enactment.
The Office of Consumer Affairs in Hew
Apart from the Federal Trade Commission*, the government's
principal agency for analyzing and developing consumer issues is
the Office of Consumer Affairs, headed by the Special Assistant to
the President for Consumer Affairs. In the Johnson Administration,
the Office was located in the Executive Office of the President,
but President Nixon downgraded the agency to an office within the
Department of HEW. The office exists by virtue of an Executive
Order, not by statute.
*Discussed in a separate briefing/options paper
The FTC focuses on private sector consumer protection.
- 7 -
The Office has only 55 employees and a budget of $1,581,000.
Its duties are prescribed by Executive Order 11583 (May 26, 1971):
it advises the federal agencies and the President with respect to
consumer issues, receives complaints from the public and refers
them to other agencies, and encourages other agencies to establish
consumer-oriented programs.
The Office has been virtually dormant for years. Most con-
sumers are unaware of its existence. It does help to coordinate
the views of federal agencies on consumer legislation pending in
Congress, but it rarely leads a battle. Much of its time is
devoted to the making of speeches, the publication of press re-
leases and other "consumer information", and the convening of
consumer conferences around the nation. The Office has had some
small success in encouraging the development of voluntary complaint
handling mechanisms in a few industries. It has played almost no
role in policy formation. The largest unit within the office is
its internal management unit; the second largest is its public
relations group. The agency is so ephemeral that it published an
annual report last year for the first time, but it has not dis-
tributed that report to U.S. Depository libraries.
- 8 -
The Office has been hampered by the suspicion in which it is
held by major consumer organizations. This frostiness is to a
considerable extent a result of Ms. Knauer's on-again, off-again
support for a strong ACA (depending upon instructions from the
White House) and her strong support for Ford's plan to head off
the ACA by creating consumer affairs offices in each agency. The
Office has made grants to various consumer protection efforts,
such as seed money for a magazine to rate services in the Washington,
D.C. area. The Office does testify before Congress on proposed
legislation, but the quality of its presentations has been rather
low.
A large number of federal agencies have their own consumer
affairs offices, many of them established recently by the Ford
Administration to show that a new centralized consumer agency was
not needed. These offices are poorly staffed and have little
influence in their agencies. They do, however, play some role in
keeping consumer groups aware of what issues are pending in their
agencies, and in some cases they might be able to develop usefully.
- 9 -
History of the ACA Proposal
For six years, dissatisfaction with the low status and limited
role of the Office, and, to an even greater extent, dissatisfaction
with the degree to which consumer interests have been undervalued
by federal regulatroy agencies, has led a coalition of groups to
work to replace the Office with a much more important Agency for
Consumer Advocacy (ACA). The proposed Agency would take over the
advisory functions of the Office (including its important legis-
lative planning functions), but would accept, as well, the duty of
representing the interests of consumers in selected rule-making
federal agencies (called "host agencies" in this memorandum). The
ACA legislation's history conjures the image of waves battering a
shore. In 1970, a bill similar to the present version of the
proposal passed the Senate by a vote of 74-4, but died on a tie
vote in the House Rules Committee. In 1971-72, the House approved
the bill by 344-44, but it was filibustered to death in the Senate.
In 1974, another filibuster killed the bill--the final cloture
vote was 64 to 34. In 1975, the legislation passed both Houses,
but the Administration threatened to veto it, and the House margin
was only nine votes. In view of the veto threat the Congressional
leadership let the bill die in 1976 without convening a Conference
Committee. This extended legislative process has produced numerous
volumes of hearings and committee reports.
- 10 -
The 94th Congress' Proposal
The core of the legislation enacted by both houses of the
94th Congress, Section 6 of S.200, gave the ACA the responsibility
to perform as the consumers' advocate. This subsection describes
only this core provision. Other controversial provisions are
discussed in the subsequent section on Design Issues that follows.
Under S.200 the Administrator of the ACA is to be appointed
by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, for a term of four
years, but the term expires along with that of the President. The
Administrator has no regulatory or enforcement authority, but is
given certain intervention powers to require host agencies to con-
sider consumer perspectives. In formal proceedings affecting
consumer interests, the Administrator may intervene as a party or
may elect to participate but play a smaller role e.g.,amicus).
The Administrator must conform, however, to the host agency's
procedural rules.
In informal or unstructured host agency proceedings, the
Administrator may make written or oral submissions. He or she may
request an agency to initiate an administrative proceeding; and,
if it fails to do so, the agency must make a written, public
statement giving the reasons for its decision.
- 11 -
Finally, S.200 would give the Administrator the power to
participate in and initiate judicial review of host agency decisions
that affect consumers' interests.
The Arguments Pro and Con
This section lists the chief proponents and opponents and
their chief arguments.
Those in Favor - Although Congressional mail has apparently
run heavily against the ACA (in part because business groups have
worked to stimulate such mail), the organizational support for a
strong ACA among non-business groups is quite substantial. Pro-
ponents of the concept include: Common Cause, the Conference of
Mayors, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, The
Democratic Party (the 1976 platform), Ralph Nader, the National
Association of Attorneys General, the National Association of
District Attorneys, the National Consumers League, the National
Consumer Congress, the National Governor's Conference, and a sub-
stantial number of business groups and corporations, including
Montgomery Ward, Gulf and Western, Connecticut General Life Insurance,
Atlantic-Richfield, Polaroid, Mobil Oil, J.C. Penney's, and many
others. Nader and the Consumer Federation have made the issue
their Number One priority.
- 12 -
The proponents' case for the bill is that business interests
are well represented in the thousands of agency proceedings each
year that affect consumer interests, but that the few consumer
groups with a presence in Washington are unable to participate in
more than a very few of these determinations. The agencies,
charged with obtaining input from all sides, in fact hear almost
exclusively from industries and industry groups, and they quite
naturally turn to these groups, with whom they have established
working relationships over the years, for technical advice as
well as for suggestions on the wording of regulations. Moreover,
the right to judicial review of agency actions is often a hollow
one unless there is participation at the level of agency pro-
ceedings where the factual record is made. At present, industry
interests utterly dominate this fact-finding process.
This is not a charge of governmental corruption, nor do the
proponents believe that the problem could be cured by higher
ethical standards. Instead, it is a problem of structure--they
argue that a new institution is needed to discover what proceed-
ings are about to be initiated in host agencies, to determine
consumer protection priorities, and to provide consumer input to
regulators who in many cases would be delighted to hear more than
one viewpoint.
- 13 -
Appendix A describes a number of examples of specific instances
in which an ACA might have been able to influence an agency decision
in a way helpful to consumers. One such example follows:
In August 1976, FEA proposed to ratify practices
by refiners which FEA acknowledged to be illegal,
whereby refiners have recovered more than $1.3 billion
in costs in violation of FEA regulations. The refiners
claimed that they had made a "good faith" error, and
FEA accepted their arguments and initiated proceedings
to grant a class exception to the regulation that had
been violated. When a Congressional subcommittee
protested and a consumer organization threatened suit,
FEA decided to schedule individual proceedings to
consider refiner "hardship" on a case-by-case basis,
a procedure which effectively assures that no representa
tives of consumers can participate due to the expense
and protracted nature of such proceedings.
Those Opposed . Organizations which testified in 1975 in
opposition to the creation of an ACA included: the American Farm
Bureau Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, the American
Retail Federation, the Gas Appliances Manufacturers Association,
Gulf Oil, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the
National Milk Producers Federation. Clearly, many other business
groups oppose the ACA idea as well.
Those opposed to the proposal tend to make the following
arguments:
Contradictory Consumer Interests. It is argued
that the concept of "the interests of consumers" is
illusory and misleading because consumers may have
opposing viewpoints (a classic example is the debate
- 14 -
over mandatory seat belts). Therefore, the ACA will
inevitably speak in the name of "consumers", but will
in fact oppose the views of some consumers.
Cost. After an initial startup period, most
versions of the ACA proposal envision an annual appro-
priation of $30 million. Some oppose this expenditure;
others oppose the creation of any new federal agency.
Also, costs in host agencies may be increased as a
result of additional input. Since an ACA would
necessarily be staffed by relatively wellpaid pro-
fessionals (primarily lawyers, economists and policy
analysts), the projected level of authorizations would
buy relatively few ACA interventions. This, it is
argued, would lead to pressures for budgetary expansion
and/or ACA interventions based upon inadequate expertise
and technical competence.
Delay. Because contested proceedings tend to be
more time-consuming than uncontested ones, the ACA
would delay agency proceedings. Major investment
projects would sometimes be held up, creating much
additional expense. (A one-year delay in startup for
a nuclear energy plant costs some $300 million.)
Further Unnecessary Bureaucracy. Existing
regulatory agencies were designed to protect consumers,
- 15 -
and that is often their legal mandate. If they fail to
do so, what reason is there to expect that the ACA will
do any better? Since the new Administration is sympathetic
to consumer interests, a more sensible approach is to
make the existing agencies function better, rather than
creating another bureaucracy.
Unfairness. It is unfair to a business defendant
in a government proceeding to have both the regulatory
agency and the ACA ganging up on that defendant, particu
larly if the two agencies take inconsistent positions.
This unfairness is especially great where a small
business is the defendant.
Consumers Are Already Represented. It is argued
that consumer interests are indirectly represented in
many or most agency proceedings by business interests
which coincide with consumer interests (e.g., importers,
in International Trade Commission proceedings).
DECIDING HOW TO
CREATE THE ACA
How quickly and hard should the Administration press for the
creation of the ACA?
Assuming that he has decided to create an ACA, the President-
elect can either take the initiative and, working with Congress and
- 16 -
others interested in the idea, push for his own strong ACA legis-
lation early in the new session of Congress or he can permit
Congressional supporters of the ACA to advance their own versions
while providing moderate White House support and during the session
input. These might be called, respectively, the "high priority"
and "moderate priority" options.
The advantages of the high priority option are these:
--It would redeem a campaign promise to introduce
such a bill early in the Administration.
--It would give the administration a relatively
"safe" component for its first legislative program.
Since the bill has been under active consideration
for six years, it is unlikely that someone will
discover a major flaw that could embarrass the
Administration. Further, this is one of the few
highly visible new programs that the Administration
could sponsor at the very outset that does
not involve a large appropriation.
--The prospects for enactment of the bill are
brighter during the Administration's "honeymoon";
indeed, industry opponents of the bill will probably
be resigned to the bill's quick passage after the
election, but they might regroup for another battie
- 17 -
if substantial delay suggests ambivalence by the
Administration.
--An early success here would help build political
credibility and legislative momentum.
The Administration may feel unable to press other
consumer initiatives as long as it is negotiating for
the passage of this legislation.
--Getting the ACA in place quickly would help to
establish a proconsumer tone for the administration
and a sensitivity on the part of its appointees and
other officials to consumer interests.
The President will gain more public "credit" if
the Administration presses the bill actively instead
of simply responding to Congressional initiatives.
At the same time, it is essential to be sensitive
to the fact that this legislation has been entirely
a Congress-initiated project since its inception in
the late 1960's. A number of Congressional figures,
such as Senators Ribicoff and Percy and Congressman Rosen-
thal, have devoted an enormous amount of time and resources
to the bill. Unless the Administration is careful to
share both initiative and credit with Congress, enactment
of an Administration ACA bill could leave a residue of
bruised feelings.
- 18 -
It is unlikely (under either option) that the Carter Adminis-
tration will want simply to reintroduce the legislation developed
in the 94th Congress-for three reasons. First, the Administration
will have its own position on the current policy controversies, and
it may want to add an entirely new section or two to the basic
legislation (see the section of this memorandum on Design Issues,
below). Second, the bill was watered down in the 94th Congress in
order to obtain every possible vote so that a veto could be over-
ridden in the House (e.g., the Department of Agriculture was
partly exempted); the change in Administrations should occasion
reconsideration of these decisions. Third, the Administration will
surely want to make its own decisions on some of the interstitial,
low-level policy concerns that were resolved by particular language
in the draft of the 1976 version of the bill. Developing the
Administration's own version (including obtaining as much consensus
as possible from legislative sponsors and constituency groups) will
take several months, the exact number depending on how many stages
of review the Administration desires and how much discretion it is
willing to delegate to the person principally responsible for the
task.
- 19 -
There are several advantages to letting this work proceed
less rapidly than would be possible under the high priority approach:
--Having legislation ready by January or February
would mean that at least the early negotiations and
drafting would have to proceed without the participa-
tion of the Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs
(and/or ACA Administrator-designate?).
The President-elect could assign this preliminary work
to his transition staff and/or to a special appointee,
who might or might not be the Special Assistant-designate.
Such a special appointee would be the Administrator-Apparent
unless this possibility were explicitly ruled out.
--The Administration might want to postpone action
on the ACA until it had decided how best to organize
the government's several consumer agencies. (However,
since the ACA's core role as outside advocate suggests
that it should be independent, this may not be a
serious problem.)
--The Administration will want to work closely with
the ACA's Congressional sponsors in developing this
legislation. This is more difficult when Congress is
in recess. Even once Congress reconvenes, given the
strong leadership Congress has provided on this issue,
the Administration might decide to leave certain decisions
entirely to its legislative sponsors.
- 20 -
Whether the President-elect decides to proceed rapidly or
slowly, he should take care not to over-sell the ACA. The ACA's
small staff can only argue and litigate; it will have no direct
power to change anything. It will have to face long complex
proceedings in a wide range of areas, and it may not always
attract only rare first class talent.
Appendix B lists the Congressional Committees that have been
handling the ACA legislation and their chairpersons, key members
and key staff.
DESIGN ISSUES
This section discusses the major policy choices which must be
made in drafting/negotiating the Administration's ACA legislation.
The issues covered include: the degree of independence appro-
priate for the ACA; the ACA's power to seek judicial review of
agency decisions; its information-gathering powers; its power to
disclose information to the public; the extent of its jurisdic-
tion; grants-in-aid to state and local governments by the ACA;
the possible introduction of complimentary ombudsmen; whether the
ACA should handle consumer complaints; the treatment of President
Ford's recently established alternative consumer offices; the
ACA's budget; and a possible "sunset" provision for the new
agency.
- 21 -
Independence
The bills are not clear on the extent to which the ACA
would be independent of the President. The Senate bill gives
the Administrator a 4-year term coterminous with that of the
President; the House bill simply states that he or she shall
be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate. Neither discusses whether he or she merely serves
at the pleasure of the President or may be discharged only for
cause, but the Senate's formulation is thought by some to limit
the President's power to fire. Both bills describe the ACA as an
"independent agency" in the executive branch.
Some argue that "independence" would encourage the ACA to
drift, to find political support elsewhere (as in the Congress or
among the more influential consumer advocates), and to be un-
accountable to any political authority. Since much of the problem
which gave rise to the ACA has resulted from the "independence" of
the major regulatory agencies from political control, it might
compound the problem by setting one of the solutions to the pro-
blem (the ACA) adrift as well. Since the President tends to be
held accountable by the public for the performance of the agencies
anyway, the argument runs, he should be able to exercise control
over those agencies; responsibility and accountability should not
be divided.
- 22 -
Others (particularly Ralph Nader) argue that the ACA should
not represent the views of the President (except insofar as the
President selects the Administrator), but should represent the
views of "consumers" which, unlike the President's views, are not
adequately brought before the agencies. Some also argue that the
more independent an agency is from the President, the more he can
immunize himself from criticism for its performance, much as Ford
has attempted to do regarding the "independents."
The options, then, relate primarily to the duration of the
Administrator's term, whether the term is coterminous with that of
the President, whether he or she serves at the pleasure of the
President or may be discharged only for cause, and whether the ACA
may represent itself in court. It is likely in any event that
Congress would insist upon submission of ACA budget requests and
communications to the relevant committee, as well as to OMB.
Several other important considerations will flow from the
"independence" decision. First, the more the ACA is structured as
an agency independent of the President, the more the President
will need to retain a consumer affairs spokesperson, however
described. An independent ACA cannot speak for the President on
the Hill, before other agencies, or to private sector organi-
zations; indeed, the ACA may often take contrary positions on
consumer issues. Second, the decision on independence may well
determine the location of the ACA in the Federal establishment.
If the ACA is to be an "independent agency", it cannot be located
- 23 -
within an existing department, and its intervention functions
would appear to preclude locating it in the FTC or any other
regulatory agency. No recent version of the legislation has
located it within an existing agency.
The Power to Seek Judicial Review
There are a variety of issues relating to the circumstances
under which the ACA can initiate or intervene in court proceedings
involving agency actions or refusals to act. The Senate and House
bills differed somewhat on these issues, and it may be that the
Administration would wish to expand the powers of the ACA beyond
those conferred in the House and Senate bills. To select one
example, under the House bill, the ACA may not intervene in agency
enforcement proceedings, while the Senate version permits such
intervention as a matter of right.
The options here relate to various possible burdens of proof,
procedural prerequisites, and the like which must be met before
the ACA can go to court. These are not fundamental policy issues,
but rather natural "trading points" which may help in winning
needed legislative support.
Information Gathering Powers
Under both bills, the ACA could direct interrogatories to
businesses above a certain size (the House bill defines "small
- 24 -
business" more narrowly) if no agency proceeding is pending; when
a proceeding is pending and the ACA has intervened, the ACA can
request the "host" agency to issue subpoenas and the host agency
must ordinarily do so.
Since no one can reasonably dispute the ACA's need to obtain
data from business if it is to perform its role, the only questions
are whether it may do so directly or only through another agency,
how its data requests are to be enforced, and whether and to what
extent "small business" should be exempt from such requests.
Again, the options are infinite and no fundamental policy issues
are at stake, so long as the procedures are not too burdensome and
the ACA's date requests are enforceable.
Information Disclosure By the ACA
Under the Freedom of Information Act, agencies generally have
the power to disclose information that qualifies for an exemption
from mandatory disclosure. The House bill would deny this dis-
cretion to the ACA. Business groups are particularly concerned
about disclosure of trade secrets or other competitive infor-
mation.
Exemption From the ACA's Jurisdiction
The number of exemptions of certain agencies and issues from
being the subject of ACA intervention has risen and fallen as
- 25 -
political support for the ACA has waned and waxed. The Senate bill
now exempts proceedings involving weapons, the Alaska pipeline,
FCC license renewals, most labor disputes, agriculture, and fish.
The House bill contains somewhat narrower agricultural exemptions,
as well as one for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
With the possible exception of the exemption for labor dis-
putes (about which consumer groups are not concerned and which is
politically required), none of the present exemptions can really
be justified in principle, and simply reflected political realities
during the 94th Congress. The options in this regard are of course
numerous, but consumer organizations feel strongly that the
existing exemptions, particularly those relating to food policy,
must be eliminated or narrowed. Each of the exemptions is poli-
tically sensitive and much negotiation will be required to effect
changes in them.
Grants-in-Aid
Earlier versions of the ACA bill included a title under which
the agency would administer a modest program of grants to state
consumer protection agencies. This feature was deleted from the
94th Congress bill for political reasons. A Carter Administration,
committed to reducing the distance between citizens and government,
might wish to restore to the ACA legislation its now-deleted
provisions for grants in-aid to state and local consumer protection
agencies. The grants could give the recipients much freedom in
- 26 -
choosing the precise uses to which the money would be put; the old
provisions permitted the money to be spent for study of existing
consumer laws and programs, consumer law enforcement, consumer
education, and the development of innovative consumer programs.
Or the uses of the federal funds might be more limited. Senator
Ribicoff's 1973 version of the ACA bill contemplated an authori-
zation of twenty to forty million dollars per year for this grant
program.
The argument in favor of such a grant program is that most
consumer problems (other than those affected by national regula-
tion) are local in nature, and are best handled at the local
level. This is particularly true of law enforcement; violations
of consumers' rights are investigated with far greater efficiency
by most state agencies than by the Federal Trade Commission, with
its cumbersome procedures. At the same time, a small amount of
funds can produce a fairly substantial impact in this field; all
of the innovative programs that brought acclaim to Bess Myerson
in New York City cost less than one million dollars.
On the other hand, such a program would cost tens of millions
of dollars, and a broad program (one that gave the states much
discretion as to the use of the funds) might include some waste by
recipients that did not use the funds well.
- 27 -
Furthermore, it might be preferable to expand the regional office
program of the Federal Trade Commision, and to give those regional
offices more authority, rather than rely on state and local govern-
ments. (This option is discussed in detail in the briefing/options
papers, dealing with federal regulation of consumer transactions
and with the FTC.)
The bill might provide instead for a grant-in-aid program
restricted to the development of small claims courts and similar
dispute resolution mechanisms. Most of the work on designing such
a program has already been done, in the form of the Consumer
Controversies Resolution Act, which passed the Senate in 1976.
Such a restricted grant program would have several advantages.
It would probably be less costly in both the short run and
the long run than a general consumer protection grant program; the
1976 grant legislation contemplated an authorization level of $5
million in the first year, rising to $20 million in the second
year, not more than ten percent of which could be spent for
federal administration. And if any consumer program is non-
controversial, this is it: business and the consumer both benefit
from reducing the cost of complaint resolution.
The only disadvantage to the proposal, aside from its added
cost, is that more drafting work is necessary; the Senate Commerce
Committee staff concedes that the section of the bill setting
forth standards for awarding grants in particular, needs to be
- 28 -
reworked. By contract, the 1973 proposal for grants for general
consumer purposes is ready to go. However, the amount of time
necessary to perfect the small claims legislation is probably not
great.
Ombudsman
Rather than create the type of complaint-handling function
envisioned by S.200, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has
suggested a different option: Adding a new section to the ACA
bill to create in every major federal agency and department an
ombudsman office, which would process complaints made against that
agency. (The Democratic Party platform supports the creation of
such an office.)
CFA supports this option with the following arguments:
--ACA legislation has been pending for six years.
Congress is tired of the proposal and may not
enact it, even with Presidential support, unless
some new, exciting rider is added to make the bill
more attractive. (This seems to be CFA's principal
argument for tacking the Ombudsman concept onto
the ACA bill.)
--Studies show that many federal agencies are not
responding well to complaints from citizens; ombudsman's
- 29 -
offices could improve their responsiveness, an objective
of the ACA as well.
These arguments cut against the ombudsman proposal:
CFA may be wrong in its political judgment;
Presidential support may be all that would be
necessary to pass the ACA bill early in the session,
and tacking on a new, untried concept might bog
the ACA bill down in months of hearings.
Even if the ombudsman concept is excellent,
it is not directly related to the ACA's core
advocacy function. It should be considered sep-
arately on its own merits, and not as a section
of an already complex bill.
--No new legislation is needed to create agency
ombudsmen; they can be created by executive or
agency orders. Presumably, most agency heads
in a Carter Administration would wish to create
them anyway, and the cost of such units would be
very small relative to their agency budgets. If
created by statute, the cost of such offices
would be more visible and would be more likely
to compete with ACA funds.
- 30 -
--Creation of dozens of Ombudsman offices will
cost a substantial amount of money, perhaps
more than the ACA has presently contemplated.
--Drafting the necessary legislation may be com-
plicated, and might be inconsistent with the "high
priority" strategy, described above, or presenting
a Carter ACA bill to Congress shortly after
Inauguration.
--Possibly the Ombudsman's office should be central-
ized, rather than decentralized throughout the
government; possibly it should be an arm of Congress,
like the GAO. These and other questions require
thorough study.
If the Administration deemed it desirable to signal, at an
early time, its commitment to the Ombudsman concept, without
stalling the ACA bill, it might be possible to include in the ACA
bill a section creating a commission to study and report on the
various possible versions of a federal Ombudsman's office.
Alternatively, the bill might impose standards (e.g., independence,
staffing, funding, etc.) which must be met by any agency that
decides to establish such an office.
- 31 -
Handling Consumer Complaints
An extremely important issue is whether or not an agency that
has the two functions of developing the executive and legislative
consumer program, and of representing consumer interests in other
agencies, should have the additional function of receiving and
transmitting consumer complaints. Section 7 of S.200 provides
that when the Administrator receives complaints from consumers, he
or she shall transmit them to the respondent and to pertinent
federal, state or local agencies for their action; furthermore,
the Administrator shall maintain a public document room with an
indexed listing of such complaints (with respondents' comments).
This provision carries forward the complaint referral function of
the Office of Consumer Affairs, with the added twist of public
exposure.
The question of the ACA's complaint-handling role has not
received the attention that its importance warrants. The following
arguments are adduced in favor of formalizing the ACA's complaint
processing functions:
(1) there should be a single central depot for
consumer complaints against Federal agencies;
(2) the ACA could better structure its priorities
and positions through analysis of consumer
complaints; and
- 32 -
(3) Congress wants some place to send the flood of
mail it receives.
The arguments against a formalized ACA complaint-handling
function are probably more persuasive. (It is significant that
major consumer organizations oppose such a function for the ACA.)
Thus:
(1) since the ACA can only refer complaints anyway,
encouraging consumers to complain to ACA will
only create red tape and delay in the response
to the complaints, which will only exacerbate
consumer frustration and delay and therefore
hinder the efforts of other agencies;
(2) the ACA's priorities and positions cannot
realistically be based on complaint letters, and
in any event, the ACA can always examine and
analyze the complaint files of other agencies;
(3) because of argument (1) above,
ACA complaint-handling will only anger
Congress and make the ACA a lightning rod for
Congressional criticism;
(4) the provision for indexing complaints and res-
ponses from business will be costly in terms of
paperwork, and unfair; and
- 33 -
(5) perhaps most important, formalized complaint-
handling would swallow up scarce agency resources,
and to little avail. This phenomenon almost
destroyed the FTC's effectiveness in the 1960's.
President Ford's Consumer Offices
The Administration must decide whether or not it wishes to
abolish the many other federal consumer affairs offices by legis-
lation. The House version of the ACA bill would have eliminated
16 named consumer offices and six named advisory committees now
located in other agencies and would have transferred their appro-
priations to the ACA. OMB would also have been required to con-
sider transferring 17 other named consumer offices and perhaps
others as well. It is estimated that the transferred funds would
provide a substantial part of the appropriation needed by the ACA
(although if ombudsmen are set up in each agency, some of the
transferred functions will have to be re-created in the transferor
agencies). The Senate version of the bill did not contain such
a provision.
The advantage of the eliminate-and-transfer-funds approach is
obvious: the ACA bill ceases to be one which merely creates a new
federal agency; it becomes instead one that replaces at least
sixteen federal offices with a single office. On the other hand,
some of these offices may do some useful work that the ACA would
or could not perform and a more patient case-by-case examination
- 34 -
might be preferable. Some abolition of these offices could be
effectuated by Executive Order after enactment of the ACA bill.
Other options discussed above in the section on handling of
consumer complaints are also relevant here.
Perhaps the simplest option would be to require the ACA to
review the performances of these offices and make recommendations
to the President as to what should be done with each such office.
This would not only avoid another legislative issue and provide
time for study of the question, but it would assist the ACA in its
work by creating incentives for the other agencies to cooperate
with ACA, if only to reduce its criticism of them.
ACA's Budget and Life Expectancy
The House bill would authorize $10 million for the first two
years, and would abolish the agency after 7 years. The Senate
bill would authorize $15, $20, and $25 million for the first three
years, and has no expiration date for the agency. These are very
modest levels of funding (particularly since actual appropriations
would probably be even less), reflect no more than the political
realities during the 94th Congress, and would prevent the ACA from
participating in more than a relatively small number of pro-
ceedings. This is especially true since a large proportion of
ACA's employees will be lawyers, economists, and policy analysts,
persons at relatively high salary levels.
OTHER OPTIONS
- 35 -
OTHER OPTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONALIZING CONSUMER ADVOCACY
In addition to - or in lieu of - supporting creating of an
ACA, the President-elect may wish to consider other models for
encouraging expanded advocacy of consumer interests.* We review
three of these models:
In-House Advocates
Under this option the agency would provide its own in-house
consumer advocates. These staff members, unlike the consumer
ombudsmen (see page 27) who would simply handle complaints, would
perform advocacy and representational functions in the agency's
legal proceedings. The ICC and CAB have recently created such
offices.
This approach has several advantages:
(1) An internal advocate would have greater
expertise in the complex technical issues
handled by some agencies since it would con-
centrate its resources in one area.
*The administration could aid consumer representation in a variety
of other ways as well. It could reduce filing and copy fees, take
a more active responsibility for notice proceedings, facilitate
consumer access to technical data, support class action enabling
legislation, etc.
- 36 -
(2) It could develop a more systematic and
consistent intervention strategy than
public interest groups or even a consumer
agency that intervened only from time to
time could.
(3) It would stick with agency issues even when
they were unfashionable, although the
dangers of cooption during such periods
would rise.
(4) It could identify potential problems more
rapidly than outsiders.
(5) It could identify and develop on-going
relations with interests that would probably
otherwise not organize or be represented
The weaknesses of this approach have the same roots as its
strengths. Its expertise, consistency, and representational
advantages all come at the sacrifice of independence. Even if
separately budgeted, there will always be the high probability
that such internal advocates will be co-opted by the more "main
line" parts of the agency due to social and professional pres-
sures. Even if this does not in fact occur, the significant risk
that it will impair its credibility.
Creating such in-house public counsel offices would not
require new legislation in most cases. However, legislation would
- 37 -
generally be required to set these offices up as independent
entities and/or to give them the power to litigate cases in court.
(The Congress recently created such an office in the ICC, the
Office of Rail Public Counsel, which can take the ICC to court.
The Director of this Office is a Presidential appointee; the
position is now vacant.)
Agency Reimbursement of
Private Participants
Another less institutionalized way of promoting participation
is for the agencies to pay the costs incurred by private organi-
zations that intervene in their proceedings on behalf of broad
public interests. Most agencies have the authority to make such
expenditures now, though few do. (Legislation would clarify and
expand such authority.)
The FTC, under recent statutory authority, has been con-
ducting such a reimbursement program for more than a year, with
apparent success. During the first year, it awarded $500,000 to
small business, consumer, and other underrepresented groups for
participation in its trade regulation rule proceedings. The
Consumer Product Safety Commission has similarly reimbursed
consumer groups for helping to develop safety standards. During
the 94th Congress hearings were held on legislation (S.2715, the
"Kennedy-Mathias bill") that would extend such financial support
to participation in the proceedings (and subsequent court appeals)
of other agencies.
- 38 -
This approach is "non-bureaucratic": it creates no new
agencies or units within agencies. Instead, it facilitates parti-
cipation by citizen groups directly. If done well, such an
approach would allow independent and relatively vigorous self-
representation. Public interest groups generally favor this
approach to that of an in-house advocate.
The approach has, however, certain apparent vulnerabilities.
If no committed and competent group seeks to represent an interest,
the interest can easily remain unrepresented. De facto the agency
may have to stimulate citizen group involvement.
Because of the importance of agency initiative, and because
the agency decides who gets reimbursed, the agency can pretty well
determine both which interests can be represented before it and how
competently. Weak or captured agencies, i.e., those that need
effective outside representation the most, are most likely to abuse
this power. Even when acting in good faith, agency administrators
will find it difficult to determine which would-be advocate should
be awarded what proportion of the available advocacy budget.
Such discretion could be lodged in one or more neutral third
parties (including, perhaps, the ACA), but this approach might
prove cumbersome and would not avoid the necessity to exercise
judgment. Finally if the government's experience with contracting
for consulting services is any guide, care will have to be taken in
- 39 -
the design of any such grant program to tie the award to the
advocate's performance. Third party grantors will find such
judgments difficult to make without investing a good deal of
effort.
The Carter Administration could require selective executive
branch agencies to adopt such a reimbursement program without
seeking specific legislative authority. It could exhort the
independent agencies to do the same, or it could help sponsor
legislation that would require them to do so. It could also
support the enactment of S.2715, or a variant thereupon, if it
decided to press for a more comprehensive and uniform reimburse-
ment scheme.
Tax Credits For
Advocacy Contributions
Giving individual citizens a tax credit for contributing up to
$2.00 or $5.00 to any accredited group's Advocacy Fund would
create an entirely independent source of funding for public
advocacy. Moreover, each advocate would have to satisfy its
citizen constituency both that it was working in their interest and
that it was being effective in doing so. And, since a credit has
equal value to all taxpayers, the public advocates' clientele would
be broadly based.
This approach requires no government intervention or dis-
cretionary judgments. Having citizens, not bureaucratic sur-
- 40 -
rogates, as clients would sharpen public interest advocacy and
ensure that it responded quickly to changing needs. It would also
assist the growth of new public interest organizations.
However, such an increase in independence inevitably means
lessened government control. Liberal as well as conservative,
religious as well as secular, and unsympathetic as well as
sympathetic advocates will appear. Moreover, once in a while, a
well-funded advocate may choose to fight an agency more vigorously
than the agency would like or probably allow if it had control of
the advocate's budget. Moreover, such tax expenditures have
budgetary implications that are as real, and at least initially
less predictable than, direct expenditures for ACA representation.
Linking The Options
Ensuring adequate, independent, competent and quickly
adaptive representation for consumer (and others) that are now
under-represented in the government's regulatory decision-making
processes is an important objective. Although the Agency for
Consumer Advocacy probably deserves the most immediate attention
(taking into account the extensive consideration already given to
the idea, legislative ripeness, and campaign commitments), all
four options could probably make useful contributions toward
achieving this objective. They are complements more than alternatives.
- 41 -
The in-house advocate can develop an in depth understanding of
complex technical areas and of long, slow, complicated cases that
outsiders, be they in or outside the government, will be hard-
pressed to match. If there is a healthy public interest advocacy
of all persuasions and types, again both in and outside the govern-
ment, in-house advocates will feel much more willing to take risks
than they would if their only future career prospects were in
their host agency. Both ACA and agency in-house advocates will,
moreover, be more likely to retain an active and adaptive citizen-
orientation if they must compete for press coverage, professional
acclaim, and constituency favor with a large, independent private
citizen advocacy community.
STAFFING/
APPOINTMENTS
- 42 -
STAFFING
The President has only two major staffing decisions in
connection with ACA: (1) who should be appointed as Special
Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs (and Director of
the Office of Consumer Affairs in HEW) to carry out the draft-
ing/negotiation functions, and (2) who should be nominated to the
ACA Administrator position, once it has been created. Once the
Administrator is selected, he or she should have considerable
influence in determining who should be nominated to be Deputy
Administrator of the ACA.
As discussed above, these two decisions are interrelated; the
President must decide what the relationship between the Special
Assistant and the ACA Administrator should be, or whether they
should be the same person.
Here, the President has three options. He can say nothing
until the ACA law is passed, preserving his option to appoint his
Special Assistant as ACA Administrator or to select a different
nominee. In this case, many people will assume that the Special
Assistant is a candidate, but no one will be certain. Or the
President could make it known when appointing a Special Assistant
that he intended to nominate that Assistant as ACA Administrator.
Finally, the President could elect to select as Special Assistant
a person who rules himself or herself out as a candidate for ACA
Administrator; that is, a person who will serve for only a few
- 43 -
months while pressing for enactment of the bill, and who will then
leave office when the Office of Consumer Affairs is abolished.
Since the skills of the two jobs are similar (both officials
will draft legislative or regulatory language, negotiate with
consumer and business interests, and advocate consumer positions),
the choice among these options must be made on other grounds.
Saying nothing has the advantage of not confusing the issue of
support for the legislation with support for the candidate; that
is, a legislator who did not like the Special Assistant could still
vote for the bill without being certain that he or she was voting
to confirm the candidate.
It should be noted, though, that the Consumer Federation of
America has recently expressed support for the third option--the
interim public servant. It apparently fears that even the pos-
sibility that the Special Assistant will be appointed to the
position of Administrator might cause the legislation to be de-
feated.
Against the CFA position, three arguments can be made. First
success or failure of the bill is unlikely to turn on this parti-
cular ad hominum issue; indeed, if the Special Assistant proved to
be someone who could command the respect of those who have tradi-
tionally opposed the bill, the possibility of continuance in
office might even help enactment. Second, it might be difficult to
attract to the job the best possible person if the reward for doing
- 44 -
the job well were disqualification for promotion. Finally, the
Special Assistant's job should not be thought of primarily in
symbolic terms; the selection should not be made on the basis of
who will and will not alienate legislative support (although that
is obviously a factor). The function of the Special Assistant
during his or her short tenure will be not only to bring matters to
a point where the bill is voted up or down, but to work on the
details of the legislation, making perhaps daily decisions on
language and compromise proposals. The Administrator, subsequently,
may have to live with the decisions and compromises made by the
Special Assistant, and it may be that those decisions will be made
more sensitively if the Special Assistant believes that there 1S at
least a possibility that he or she will have to administer the law
as it is finally enacted.
The criteria for both positions seem reasonably straight-
forward. The person or persons selected should be lawyers, so that
they can make personal decisions on the finest details of legis-
lative or regulatory proposals. They should be persons highly
respected by the consumer movement; indeed, S.200 requires tht the
ACA Administrator be "an individual who by reason of training,
experience and attainments is exceptionally qualified to represent
the interests of consumers". At the same time, they should be
persons who are not "red flags" to the business community, pre-
ferably persons who are perceived by industry spokespersons as
reasonable and pragmatic. They should also be persons who have or
can gain the respect of the other agencies notwithstanding the
- 45 -
adversarial relationship that will often exist between them.
Legislative drafting and negotiating experience 1S highly desir-
able; as in the case of most appointments, good judgment and
unquestioned integrity rank high among the list of qualifications.
APPENDIX A
- 46 -
APPENDIX A
The following list of specific instances in which an ACA might
have been able to influence an agency in a way helpful to consumers
was compiled, for the most part, by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen.
--The Department of Transportation failed for seven years to
issue standards to improve the crash survivability of school
busses despite numerous Congressional requests. This failure
finally necessitated Congressional enactment of statutory
deadlines requiring DOT action.
--The Federal Energy Office (FEO) raised the maximum profit
margin for gasoline retailers from 8 cents to 11 cents per
gallon during the early months of 1974 to compensate them for
a reduction in sales caused by government allocation. But
when gasoline sales returned to normal, the FEO failed to roll
back the maximum profit margin to 8 cents.
--A 1975 Report by the Comptroller General of the United
States found that the Food and Drug Administration did not
comply with its own procedures to independently investigate
the cause of a recall of cardiac pacemakers by manufacturers.
The common defect in the pacemakers was a leakage of body
fluids through the plastic seal of the pacemaker causing
short circuiting. The FDA did not give adequate considera-
tion to possible alternatives and still has not issued any
standards to deal with this problem.
- 47 -
--Interstate Commerce Commission regulations which require
trucks to return empty from delivery, to make mandatory often
out of the way stops, and which allow companies to cooperate
in rate-setting, have been estimated to cost consumers several
billion dollars yearly. The trucking industry has little
incentive to argue with the ICC because it passes these costs
on to consumers who have no direct representation in ICC rate-
setting activities.
--Under the 1974 railroad reform legislation, the ICC is
required to issue guidelines defining "market dominance"
which, if found to exist, authorizes the ICC to suspend rate
reductions filed by railroads. The ICC has defined "market
dominance" so broadly and rigidly that it has effectively
eliminated the rate flexibility and price competition that
Congress wished to encourage. The Council on wage and Price
Stability protested this action, but no consumer organizations
were involved in the proceeding.
--An FEA regulation permitted oil refiners to collect
increased oil costs twice. This practice which has been
dubbed "double dipping" might have eventually led to $332
million in consumer over-charges. After 6 months this
loophole was discovered and eliminated, but only after a
consumer organization threatened suit.
CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES
- 48 -
APPENDIX B
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES*
(Involved in drafting the ACA Legislation)
SENATE
Committee on Government Operations
Chairman: Abraham Ribicoff (D-Conn.), 244-2823
Ranking Minority Member: Charles Percy (R-Ill.), 244-2152
Key Staff: Richard Wegman, Matt Schneider, 244-4751
HOUSE
Committee on Government Operations
Chairman: Jack Brooks (D-Tex.), 225-6565
Ranking Minority Member: Frank Horton (R-N.Y.), 255-4916
Key Staff: William Jones, 255-5051
Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security
Chairman: Jack Brooks (D-Tex.), 255-6565
Ranking Minority Member: Frank Horton (R-N.Y.),
255-4916
Key Staff: Elmer Henderson, 225-5147
Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs
Chairman: Benjamin Rosenthal (D-N.Y.), 255-2601
Ranking Minority Member: Garry Brown (R-Mich.),
255-5011
Key Staff: Peter Barash, 255-4407
While Mr. Brooks' subcommittee held hearings on the
bill, Mr. Rosenthal used his position, as both
chairman of the Consumer Subcommittee and a member
of Mr. Brooks' subcommittee, to play a most influential
role in drafting the legislation.
*The bill was not assigned to the Appropriations Committee because it
was not enacted into law.
Scn. Abraham Ribicoff (D) Elected 1962, seat up 1980; b. Apr. 9, 1910,
New Britain; home, Hartford; New York U., U. of Chicago, LL.B. 1933;
Jewish.
Career Conn. Gen. Assembly, 1939-42; Municipal Judge, Hartford,
1941-43; U.S. House of Reps., 1949-1953; Gov. of Conn., 1955-1961;
Secy. of HEW, 1961-62.
Offices 321 RSOB, 202-224-2823. Also Suite 707, 450 Main St., Hartford.
06103, 203-244-3545.
Committees
Government Operations (Chairman). Subcommittees: Federal Spending Practices, Efficiency and
Open Government; Oversight Procedures.
Finance (4th). Subcommittees: Energy; Health; International Trade (Chairman); Social Security
Financing.
Joint Economic Committee (4th, Senate Side). Subcommittees: Consumer Economics; Economic
Growth; International Economics; Priorities and Economy in Government; Urban Affairs.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
95
82
90
62
82
100
100
45
44
II
1973
90
91
100
78
82
-
92
-
-
14
1972
80
86
100
78
80
87
100
10
22
18
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
FOR
2) Busing
FOR
9) Cut Mil Brass
ABS
16) Forced Psych Tests
FOR
3) No Fault
FOR
10) Gov Limousine
AGN
17) Fed Campaign Subs
FOR
4) F-111
FOR
11) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
FOR
5) Death Penalty
FOR
12) Handgun License
FOR
19) Open Legis Meetings
FOR
6) Foreign Aid
FOR
13) Less Troop Abrd
FOR
20) Strikers Food Stmps
ABS
7) Filibuster
AGN
14) Resume Turk Aid
AGN
21) Gov Info Disclosure
FOR
Election Results
1974 general:
Abraham A. Ribicoff (D)
125,215
(68%)
($435,985)
James H. Brannen III (R)
60,017
(32%)
($66,162)
1974 primary:
Abraham A. Ribicoff (D), nominated by convention
1968 general:
Abraham A. Ribicoff (D)
655,043
(54%)
Edwin H. May, Jr. (R)
551,455
(46%)
Sen. John L. McClellan (D) Elected 1942, scat up 1978; b. Feb. 25, 1896,
near Sheridan; home, Little Rock; studied law in father's office and
admitted to Ark. bar in 1913; Baptist.
Career Practicing atty., 1913-17, 1919-35, 1939-42; Army, WWI;
Malvern City Atty., 1920-26; Prosecuting Atty., Ark. 7th Jud. Dist.,
1927-30; U.S. House of Reps., 1935-38.
Offices 3421 DSOB, 202-224-2353. Also 3030 Fed. Ofc. Bldg., Little
Rock 72201, 501-378-6101.
Committees
Appropriations (Chairman). Subcommittees: Defense (Chairman); Interior; Legislative; State,
Justice, Commerce, The Judiciary; Treasury, U.S. Postal Service and General Government.
Government Operations (2d). Subcommittees: Reports, Accounting and Management; Inter-
governmental Relations; Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The Judiciary (2d). Subcommittees: Antitrust and Monopoly Legislation; Criminal Laws and
Procedures (Chairman); Constitutional Rights; Federal Charters, Holidays and Celebrations;
Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights (Chairman).
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
10
18
20
25
41
15
22
42
80
89
1973
16
27
20
25
50
1
8
-
-
78
1972
10
0
44
25
75
0
18
60
90
69
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
FOR
8) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
15) Consumer Prot Agy
AGN
2) Busing
AGN
9) Cut Mil Brass
AGN
16) Forced Psych Tests
AGN
3) No Fault
AGN
10) Gov Limousine
FOR
17) Fed Campaign Subs
AGN
4) F-111
FOR
11) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
AGN
5) Death Penalty
FOR
12) Handgun License
AGN
19) Open Legis Meetings
AGN
6) Foreign Aid
AGN
13) Less Troop Abrd
FOR
20) Strikers Food Stmps
AGN
7) Filibuster
ABS
14) Resume Turk Aid
FOR
21) Gov Info Disclosure
AGN
Election Results
1972 general:
John L. McClellan (D)
386,398
(61%)
($516,573)
Wayne H. Babbitt (R)
248,238
(39%)
($72,643)
1972 runoff:
John L. McClellan (D)
242,983
(52%)
David Pryor (D)
224,262
(48%)
1972 primary:
John L. McClellan (D)
220,588
(45%)
David Pryor (D)
204,058
(42%)
Ted Boswell (D)
62,496
(13%)
Foster Johnson (D)
6,358
(1%)
1966 general:
John L. McClellan (D), unopposed
Sen. Henry M. Jackson (D) Elected 1952, seat up 1976; b. May 31, 1912,
Everett; home, Everett; U. of Wash., LL.B. 1935; Presbyterian.
Career Practicing atty., 1936-38; Snohomish Co. Prosecuting Atty.,
1938-40; U.S. House of Reps., 1941-53.
Offices 137 RSOB, 202-224-3441. Also 802 U.S. Courthouse, Scattle
98104, 206-442-7476.
Committees
Interior and Insular Affairs (Chairman). Subcommittees: Energy Re-
search and Water Resources; Environment and Land Resources; Indian
Affairs; Minerals, Materials and Fuels; Parks and Recreation.
Armed Services (3d). Subcommittees: Arms Control (Chairman); Military Construction
Authorization; Preparedness Investigating; Tactical Air Power.
Government Operations (3d). Subcommittees: Oversight Procedures; Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations (Chairman).
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (2d, Senate Side). Subcommittees: Communities; ERDA,
Nuclear Energy (Chairman); Legislation; National Security.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
62
82
90
43
100
71
88
17
90
11
1973
55
100
90
56
100
-
85
-
-
21
1972
40
100
91
56
90
40
100
11
80
38
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
FOR
2) Busing
FOR
9) Cut Mil Brass
AGN
16) Forced Psych Tests
FOR
3) No Fault
FOR
10) Gov Limousine
AGN
17) Fed Campaign Subs
FOR
4) F-111
FOR
11) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
FOR
5) Death Penalty
FOR
12) Handgun License
AGN
19) Open Legis Meetings
AGN
6) Foreign Aid
FOR
13) Less Troop Abrd
AGN
20) Strikers Food Stmps
FOR
7) Filibuster
AGN
14) Resume Turk Aid
AGN
21) Gov Info Disclosure
FOR
Election Results
1970 general:
Henry M. Jackson (D)
879,385
(84%)
Charles W. Elicker (R)
170,790
(16%)
1970 primary:
Henry M. Jackson (D)
497,309
(S4%)
Carl Maxey (D)
79,201
(13%)
Two others (D)
13,507
(2%)
1964 general:
Henry M. Jackson (D)
875,950
(72%)
Lloyd J. Andrews (R)
337,138
(28%)
Sen. Edmund S. Muskle (D) Elected 1958, scat up 1976; b. Mar. 28,
1914, Rumford; home, Waterville; Bates Col., B.A. 1936, Cornell U.,
LL.B. 1939; Catholic.
Career Practicing atty.; Navy, WWII; Maine House of Reps., 1947-51,
Minor. Ldr., 1949-51; Dir., Maine Ofc. of Price Stabilization, 1951-52;
Gov. of Maine, 1955-59; Dem. nominee for V.P., 1968.
Offices 145 RSOB, 202-224-5344. Also 112 Main St., Waterville 04901,
207-873-3361, and New Fed. Bldg., 151 Forest Ave., Portland 04101,
207-775-3131 ext. 561 or 562.
Committees
Budget (Chairman).
Government Operations (4th). Subcommittees: Intergovernmental Relations (Chairman); Reports,
Accounting and Management; Oversight Procedures.
Public Works (2d). Subcommittees: Environmental Pollution (Chairman); Economic Devel-
opment; Transportation.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
100
73
78
61
100
78
100
33
0
0
1973
95
82
100
75
100
I
91
I
-
0
1972
70
86
100
64
80
85
100
0
11
0
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
FOR
2) Busing
FOR
9) Cut Mil Brass
AGN
16) Forced Psych Tests
FOR
3) No Fault
FOR
10) Gov Limousine
AGN
17) Fed Campaign Subs
FOR
4) F-111
AGN
11) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
FOR
5) Death Penalty
AGN
12) Handgun License
FOR
19) Open Legis Meetings
FOR
6) Foreign Aid
FOR
13) Less Troop Abrd
FOR
20) Strikers Food Stmps
FOR
7) Filibuster
AGN
14) Resume Turk Aid
FOR
21) Gov Info Disclosure
FOR
Election Results
1970
general:
Edmund S. Muskie (D)
199,954
(62%)
Neil S. Bishop (R)
123,906
(38%)
1970 primary:
Edmund S. Muskie (D), unopposed
1964 general:
Edmund S. Muskie (D)
253,511
(67%)
Clifford G. McIntire (R)
127,040
(33%)
Sen. Lee Metcalf (D) Elected 1960, seat up 1978; b. Jan. 28, 1911,
Stevensville; home, Helena; Stanford U., B.A., U. of Mont., LL.B. 1936;
Methodist.
Career Practicing atty.; Mont. House of Reps., 1937; Asst. Atty. Gen. of
Mont., 1937-41; Army, WWII; Assoc. Justice, Mont. Supreme Ct.,
1946-52; U.S. House of Reps., 1953-61.
Offices 1121 DSOB, 202-224-2651. Also Diamond Block, Helena 59601,
406-442-4361, and Rm. 4435 Fed. Bldg., Billings 59101, 406-259-5966.
Committees
Government Operations (5th). Subcommittees: Intergovernmental Relations; Reports, Accounting
and Management (Chairman).
Interior and Insular Affairs (3d). Subcommittees: Environment and Land Resources; Indian
Affairs; Minerals, Materials and Fuels (Chairman).
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
95
70
90
70
88
83
100
9
14
18
1973
74
82
80
41
100
-
77
-
-
34
1972
40
100
100
76
100
57
100
10
0
6
Key Votes
I) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
ABS
15) Consumer Prot Agy
FOR
2) Busing
FOR
9) Cut Mil Brass
FOR
16) Forced Psych Tests
AGN
3) No Fault
FOR
10) Gov Limousine
AGN
17) Fed Campaign Subs
FOR
4) F-111
AGN
11) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
FOR
5) Death Penalty
AGN
12) Handgun License
FOR
19) Open Legis Meetings
AGN
6) Foreign Aid
FOR
13) Less Troop Abrd
FOR
20) Strikors Food Stmps
FOR
7) Filibuster
AGN
14) Resume Turk Aid
ABS
21) Gov Info Disclosure
FOR
Election Results
1972 general:
Lee Metcalf (D)
163,609
(52%)
($136,551)
Henry S. Hibbard (R)
151,316
(48%)
($286,748)
1972 primary:
Lee Metcalf (D)
106,491
(86%)
Jerome Peters (D)
16,729
(14%)
1966 general:
Lee Metcalf (D)
138,166
(53%)
Tim Babcock (R)
121,697
(47%)
Sen. James B. Allen (D) Elected 1968, seat up 1980; b. Dec. 28, 1912,
Gadsden; home, Gadsden; U. of Ala., U. of Ala. Law School.
Career Practicing atty., 1935-68; Ala. House of Reps., 1938-42; Navy,
WWII; Ala. Senate, 1946-50; Lt. Gov. of Ala., 1951-55, 1963-67.
Offices 6205 DSOB, 202-224-5744. Also 5th Floor, Frank Nelson Bldg.,
Birmingham 35203, 205-325-3449; and P.O. Box 3294, Montgomery
36109, 205-265-9507.
Committees
Agriculture and Forestry (4th). Subcommittees: Agricultural Credit and
Rural Electrification; Agricultural Research and General Legislation (Chairman); Environment,
Soil Conservation and Forestry; Rural Development.
Government Operations (6th). Subcommittees: Federal Spending Practices, Efficiency and Open
Government; Oversight Procedures; Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Rules and Administration (4th). Subcommittees: Printing; Restaurant (Chairman).
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
14
60
40
26
35
30
22
58
100
84
1973
5
36
10
29
50
1
8
-
-
70
1972
0
30
9
17
50
32
18
58
100
86
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
15) Consumer Prot Agy
AGN
2) Busing
AGN
9) Cut Mil Brass
AGN
16) Forced Psych Tests
FOR
3) No Fault
AGN
10) Gov Limousine
AGN
17) Fed Campaign Subs
AGN
4) F-111
AGN
II) RR Featherbed
AGN
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
AGN
5) Death Penalty
FOR
12) Handgun License
AGN
19) Open Legis Meetings
AGN
6) Foreign Aid
AGN
13) Less Troop Abrd
AGN
20) Strikers Food Simps
AGN
7) Filibuster
FOR
14) Resume Turk Aid
AGN
21) Gov Info Disclosure
AGN
Election Results
1974 general:
Jim Allen (D)
501,541
(96%)
($37,328)
Alvin Abercrombie (Prohib.)
21,749
(4%)
($1,428)
1974 primary:
Jim Allen (D)
572,584
(83%)
John Taylor (D)
118,848
(17%)
1968 general:
Jim Allen (D)
638,774
(70%)
Pery Hooper (R)
201,227
(22%)
Robert P. Schwenn (NDPA)
72,699
(8%)
Sen. Lawton Chiles (D) Elected 1970, scat up 1976; b. Apr. 3, 1930,
Lakeland; home, Lakeland; U. of Fla., B.S. 1952, LL.B. 1955;
Presbyterian.
Career Army, Korea; Practicing atty., 1955-71; Instructor, Fla.
Southern Col., 1955-57; Fla. House of Reps., 1958-66; Fla. Senate
1966-70.
Offices 2107 DSOB, 202-224-5274. Also Fed. Bldg., Lakeland 33801,
813-688-6681.
Committees
Appropriations (14th). Subcommittees: Agriculture and Related Agencies; District of Columbia
(Chairman); Foreign Operations; HUD and Independent Agencies; Interior; Labor and HEW.
Budget (7th).
Government Operations (7th). Subcommittees: Federal Spending Practices, Efficiency and Open
Government (Chairman); Intergovernmental Relations; Oversight Procedures; Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
43
30
78
33
65
70
75
64
67
44
1973
75
73
80
47
88
-
54
-
-
35
1972
35
11
73
58
90
50
83
40
50
45
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
FOR
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
FOR
2) Busing
AGN
9) Cut Mil Brass
ABS
16) Forced Psych Tests
AGN
3) No Fault
AGN
10) Gov Limousine
AGN
17) Fed Campaign Subs
FOR
4) F-111
AGN
11) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
AGN
5) Death Penalty
FOR
12) Handgun License
AGN
19) Open Legis Meetings
FOR
6) Foreign Aid
AGN
13) Less Troop Abrd
AGN
20) Strikers Food Stmps
AGN
7) Filibuster
FOR
14) Resume Turk Aid
FOR
21) Gov Info Disclosure
FOR
Election Results
1970 general:
Lawton Chiles (D)
902,438
(54%)
William C. Cramer (R)
772,817
(46%)
1970 run-off:
Lawton Chiles (D)
474,420
(66%)
Farris Bryant (D)
247,211
(34%)
1970 primary:
Farris Bryant (D)
240,222
(33%)
Lawton Chiles (D)
188,300
(26%)
Fred Schultz (D)
175,745
(24%)
Al Hastings (D)
91,943
(13%)
Jeel T. Daves III (D)
33,939
(5%)
Sen. Sam Nunn (D) Elected 1972, seat up 1978; b. Sept. 8, 1938, Perry;
home, Perry; Emory U., A.B. 1960, LL.B. 1962; Methodist.
Career Coast Guard, 1959-60; Legal Counsel, U.S. House of Reps.
Armed Services Comm., 1962-63; Farmer; Practicing atty., 1963-72; Ga.
House of Reps., 1968-72.
Offices 110 RSOB, 202-224-3521. Also Rm. 430, 275 Peachtree St. N.E.,
Atlanta 30303, 404-526-4811.
Committees
Armed Services (7th). Subcommittees: General Legislation; Manpower
and Personnel; National Stockpile and Naval Petroleum Reserves; Tactical Air Power.
Budget (10th).
Government Operations (8th). Subcommittees: Federal Spending Practices, Efficiency and Open
Government; Oversight Procedures (Chairman); Reports, Accounting and Management;
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
14
36
44
43
38
43
33
67
90
78
1973
30
40
30
22
63
-
46
-
-
66
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
FOR
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
AGN
2) Busing
AGN
9) Cut Mil Brass
AGN
16) Forced Psych Tests
FOR
3) No Fault
AGN
10) Gov Limousine
AGN
17) Fed Campaign Subs
AGN
4) F-111
AGN
11) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
AGN
5) Death Penalty
FOR
12) Handgun License
AGN
19) Open Legis Meetings
AGN
6) Foreign Aid
AGN
13) Less Troop Abrd
AGN
20) Strikers Food Stmps
AGN
7) Filibuster
FOR
14) Resume Turk Aid
FOR
21) Gov Info Disclosure
AGN
Election Results
1972 general:
Sam Nunn (D)
635,970
(54%)
($567,968)
Fletcher Thompson (R)
542,331
(46%)
($444,635)
1972 run-off:
San Nunn (D)
326,186
(52%)
David H. Gambrell (D)
299,919
(48%)
1972 primary:
David Gambrell (D)
225,470
(31%)
Sam Nunn (D)
166,035
(23%)
S. Ernest Vandiver (D)
147,135
(21%)
Twelve others (D)
178,001
(25%)
Sen. John Glenn (D) Elected 1974, seat up 1980; b. July 18, 1921,
Cambridge; home, Columbus; Muskingum Col., B.S. 1939; Presbyterian.
Career USMC, 1942-65; NASA Astronaut, 1959-65, First American to
orbit the Earth, 1962; Candidate for Dem. nomination for U.S. Senate,
1964, 1970; V.P., Royal Crown Cola Co., 1966-68, Pres., Royal Crown
Internati., 1967-69.
Offices 204 RSOB, 202-224-3353. Also 85 Marconi St., Columbus 43215,
614-469-6697.
Committees
The District of Columbia (4th).
Government Operations (9th). Subcommittees: Federal Spending Practices, Efficiency and Open
Government; Reports, Accounting and Management. Permanent Subcommittee on Investi-
gations.
Interior and Insular Affairs (7th). Subcommittees: Energy Research and Water Resources;
Environment and Land Resources; Minerals, Materials and Fuels; Special Subcommittee on
Integrated Oil Operations.
Group Ratings: Newly Elected
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
NE
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
NE
2) Busing
NE
9) Cut Mil Brass
NE
16) Forced Psych Tests
NE
3) No Fault
NE
10) Gov Limousine
NE
17) Fed Campaign Subs
NE
4) F-111
AGN
II) RR Featherbed
NE
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
NE
5) Death Penalty
NE
12) Handgun License
NE
19) Open Legis Meetings
NE
6) Foreign Aid
NE
13) Less Troop Abrd
NE
20) Strikers Food Stmps
NE
1) Filibuster
AGN
14) Resume Turk Aid
AGN
21) Gov Info Disclosure
NE
Election Results
1974 general:
John H. Glenn, Jr. (D)
1,930,670
(65%)
($1,149,130)
Ralph J. Perk (R)
918,133
(31%)
($292,838)
K. G. Harroff (Ind.)
76,882
(3%)
($7,978)
Richard B. Kay (Ind.)
61,921
(2%)
($3,944)
1974 primary:
John H. Glenn, Jr. (D)
571,871
(54%)
Howard M. Metzenbaum (D)
480,123
(46%)
Sen. Charles H. Percy (R) Elected 1966, seat up 1978; b. Sept. 27, 1919,
Pensacola, Fla.; home, Wilmette; U. of Chi., B.A. 1941; Christian
Scientist.
Career Corp. Exec., Bell & Howell, Co., Pres. and Chf. Exec. Officer,
1949-61, Bd. Chm., 1961-66; Navy, WWII; Rep. of Pres. Eisenhower to
pres. inaugurations in Peru and Bolivia, 1956; Repub. nominee for Gov.,
1964.
Offices 1200 DSOB, 202-224-2152. Also 219 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1860,
Chicago 60604, 312-353-4952, and Old P.O. Bldg., Rm. 117, Springfield
62701, 217-525-4442.
Committees
Government Operations (Ranking Member). Subcommittees: Oversight Procedures; Reports,
Accounting and Management; Permanent Subcommittees on Investigations.
Foreign Relations (5th). Subcommittees: Far Eastern Affairs; Multinational Corporations; Near
Eastern and South Asian Affairs; Western Hemisphere Affairs.
Joint Economic Committee (2d, Senate Side). Subcommittees: Consumer Economics; Economic
Growth; International Economics; Priorities and Economy in Government; Urban Affairs.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
82
78
100
100
69
93
55
33
44
19
1973
67
75
100
100
69
-
58
-
17
1972
60
88
100
100
89
57
100
55
44
41
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
FOR
21 Busing
ABS
9) Cut Mil Brass
FOR
16) Forced Psych Tests
ABS
3) No Fault
FOR
10) Gov Limousine
FOR
17) Fed Campaign Subs
FOR
J) F-111
FOR
II) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
FOR
5) Death Penalty
AGN
12) Handgun License
FOR
19) Open Legis Meetings
FOR
6) Foreign Aid
FOR
13) Less Troop Abrd
AGN
20) Strikers Food Stmps
ABS
7) Filibuster
AGN
14) Resume Turk Aid
AGN
21) Gov Info Disclosure
FOR
Election Results
1972 general:
Charles H. Percy (R)
2,867,078
(62%)
($1,408,822)
Roman Pucinski (D)
1,721,031
(38%)
($335,482)
1972 primary:
Charles H. Percy (R), unopposed
1966 general:
Charles H. Percy (R)
2,100,449
(56%)
Paul H. Douglas (D)
1,678,147
(44%)
Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R) Elected 1956, scat up 1980; b. May 18, 1904,
New York City; home, New York City; Columbia U., NYU, LL.B. 1926;
Jewish.
Career Practicing atty., 1927-41, 1945-46; Special Asst. to Chf. of U.S.
Army Chemical Warfare Svc., 1941-42; Army, WWII; U.S. House of
Reps., 1947-55; Atty. Gen. of N.Y. State, 1955-57.
Offices 321 RSOB, 202-224-6542. Also 110 E.45th St., New York 10017,
212-867-7777, and 445 Broadway, Albany 12210, 518-472-6182.
Committees
Labor and Public Welfare (Ranking Member). Subcommittees: Alcoholism and Narcotics;
Education; Employment, Poverty, and Migratory Labor; Health; Labor; Special Subcommittee
on Arts and Humanities.
Foreign Relations (2d). Subcommittees: Arms Control, International Organizations and Security
Agreements; European Affairs; Foreign Assistance and Economic Policy; Personnel; Western
Hemisphere Affairs.
Government Operations (2d). Subcommittees: Oversight Procedures; Executive Reorganization and
Government Research; Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Joint Economic Committee (Ranking Member, Senate Side). Subcommittees: Consumer
Economics; Economic Growth; Economic Progress; International Economics; Urban Affairs.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
89
82
100
85
100
94
100
22
33
0
1973
79
78
90
82
94
I
80
I
-
8
1972
80
90
100
92
80
72
100
42
20
15
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
FOR
2) Busing
FOR
9) Cut Mil Brass
AGN
16) Forced Psych Tests
ABS
3) No Fault
FOR
10) Gov Limousine
FOR
17) Fed Campaign Subs
FOR
4) F-111
FOR
II) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
FOR
5) Death Penalty
AGN
12) Handgun License
FOR
19) Open Legis Meetings
AGN
6) Foreign Aid
FOR
13) Less Troop Abrd
AGN
20) Strikers Food Stmps
ABS
7) Filibuster
AGN
14) Resume Turk Aid
AGN
21) Gov Info Disclosure
FOR
Election Results
1974 general:
Jacob K. Javits (R-L)
2,340,188
(46%)
($1,090,437)
Ramsey Clark (D)
1,973,781
(38%)
($855,576)
Barbara A. Keating (C)
822,584
(16%)
($192,462)
1974 primary:
Jacob K. Javits (R-L), unopposed
1968 general:
Jacob K. Javits (R-L)
3,269,772
(50%)
Paul O'Dwyer (D)
2,150,695
(33%)
James L. Buckley (C)
1,139,402
(17%)
Sen. William V. Roth, Jr. (R) Elected 1970, scat up 1976; b. July 22,
1921, Great Falls, Mont.; home, Wilmington; U. of Oreg., B.A. 1944,
Harvard U., M.B.A. 1947, LL.B. 1947; Episcopalian.
Career Army, WWII; Practicing atty.: Chm., Del. Repub. State Comm.,
1961-64; U.S. House of Reps., 1967-71.
Offices 4327 DSOB, 202-224-2441. Also 3021 Fed. Bldg., 844 King St.,
Wilmington 19801, 302-571-6291, and 200 U.S.P.O. Bldg., Georgetown
19947, 302-856-7690.
Committees
Finance (6th). Subcommittees: Foundations; International Finance and Resources; International
Trade; Private Pension Plans.
Government Operations (3d). Subcommittees: Federal Spending Practices, Efficiency and Open
Government; Intergovernmental Relations; Oversight Procedures; Reports, Accounting and
Management; Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
38
18
60
55
35
71
63
100
80
74
1973
40
9
80
83
29
-
15
I
-
83
1972
25
10
36
68
30
54
64
100
80
73
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
15) Consumer Prot Agy
FOR
2) Busing
AGN
9) Cut Mil Brass
FOR
16) Forced Psych Tests
AGN
3) No Fault
FOR
10) Gov Limousine
AGN
17) Fed Campaign Subs
AGN
4) F-111
AGN
11) RR Featherbed
AGN
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
FOR
5) Death Penalty
FOR
12) Handgun License
AGN
19) Open Legis Meetings
FOR
6) Foreign Aid
AGN
13) Less Troop Abrd
AGN
20) Strikers Food Stmps
AGN
7) Filibuster
FOR
14) Resume Turk Aid
AGN
21) Gov Info Disclosure
FOR
Election Results
1970
general:
William V. Roth (R)
96,021
(60%)
Jacob W. Zimmerman (D)
64,835
(40%)
1970 primary: William V. Roth (R). nominated by convention
Sen. Bill Brock (R) Elected 1970, seat up 1976; b. Nov. 23, 1930,
Chattanooga; home, Chattanooga; Washington and Lee U., B.S. 1953;
Presbyterian.
Career Navy, 1953-56; Brock Candy Co., Field Rep., 1956-60, V.P. of
Marketing, 1960-63; U.S. House of Reps., 1963-71.
Offices 254 RSOB, 202-224-3344. Also Rm. 319, Main P.O. Bldg.,
Knoxville 37901, 615-523-0992, and 204 Fed. Bldg., Chattanooga 37402,
615-756-4250.
Committees
Finance (6th). Subcommittees: Health; International Finance and Resources; Revenue Sharing;
Financial Markets.
Government Operations (4th). Subcommittees: Federal Spending Practices, Efficiency and Open
Government; Intergovernmental Relations; Reports, Accounting and Management; Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
14
18
70
55
24
26
0
70
100
94
1973
20
30
44
53
31
-
18
-
-
86
1972
0
0
14
47
17
11
0
88
100
88
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
AGN
2) Busing
AGN
9) Cut Mil Brass
ABS
16) Forced Psych Tests
AGN
3) No Fault
AGN
10) Gov Limousine
ABS
17) Fed Campaign Subs
AGN
4) F-111
FOR
11) RR Featherbed
AGN
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
AGN
5) Death Penalty
FOR
12) Handgun License
AGN
19) Open Legis Meetings
FOR
6) Foreign Aid
AGN
13) Less Troop Abrd
AGN
20) Strikers Food Stmps
AGN
71 Filibuster
FOR
14) Resume Turk Aid
FOR
21) Gov Info Disclosure
AGN
Election Results
1970 general:
William E. Brock III (R)
562,645
(52%)
Albert Gore (D)
519,858
(48%)
1970 primary:
William E. Brock III (R)
176,703
(75%)
Tex Ritter (R)
54,401
(23%)
James Durelle Boles (R)
4,942
(2%)
Sen. Lowell P. Welcker, Jr. (R) Elected 1970, scat up 1976; May 16,
1931, Paris, France; home, Greenwich; Yale U., B.A. 1953, U. of Va.,
LL.B. 1958; Episcopalian.
Career Army, 1953-55; Practicing atty.; Conn. Gen. Assembly,
1962-68; U.S. House of Reps., 1969-71.
Offices 324 RSOB, 202-224-4041. Also 102 U.S. Court House, 915
Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport 06603, 203-325-3866.
Committees
Commerce (5th). Subcommittees: Communications; Environment;
Oceans and Atmosphere; Surface Transportation; Special Subcommittee to Study Textile
Industry: Special Subcommittee on Freight Car Shortage; Special Subcommittee on Oil and Gas
Production and Distribution.
Government Operations (5th). Subcommittees: Federal Spending Practices, Efficiency and Open
Government; Reports, Accounting and Management.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
78
80
78
76
92
74
88
27
67
39
1973
55
50
80
82
47
I
42
-
50
1972
30
50
78
90
38
43
56
50
78
42
Key Votes
1) No-Knock
AGN
8) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
15) Consumer Prot Agy
FOR
2) Busing
FOR
9) Cut Mil Brass
AGN.
16) Forced Psych Tests
AGN
3) No Fault
FOR
10) Gov Limousine
AGN
17) Fed Campaign Subs
AGN
4) F-111
FOR
II) RR Featherbed
FOR
18) Rhod Chrome Ban
FOR
5) Death Penalty
AGN
12) Handgun License
AGN
19) Open Legis Meetings
FOR
6) Foreign Aid
AGN
13) Less Troop Abrd
ABS
20) Strikers Food Stmps
FOR
7) Filibuster
FOR
14) Resume Turk Aid
AGN
21) Gov Info Disclosure
FOR
Election Results
1970 general:
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R)
443,008
(42%)
Joseph P. Duffey (D)
360,094
(34%)
Thomas J. Dodd (Ind.)
260,264
(24%)
1970 primary:
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R)
77,057
(60%)
John M. Lupton (R)
50,657
(40%)
The Voters
Median voting age 42.
Employment profile White collar, 45%. Blue collar, 40%. Service, 14%. Farm, 1%.
The 9th congressional district of Texas is the eastern segment of the state's Gulf Coast-an area
Ethnic groups Black, 22%. Spanish, 7%. Total foreign stock, 7%.
of big refineries, petrochemical plants, and other factories. It is, in other words, an area dominated
by heavy industry, and it has one of the highest concentrations of blue collar workers in Texas. It
Presidential vote
is dominated by two urban centers of roughly equal size. On Galveston Bay, which leads into the
Houston Ship Channel, are the cities of Galveston (pop. 61,000) and Texas City (pop. 38,000).
1972
Nixon (R)
86,079
(60%)
Galveston, one of the oldest cities in Texas, is situated on a sand bar where the Bay empties into
McGovern (D)
58,117
(40%)
the Gulf of Mexico. It was the state's first port, but now handles far less tonnage than Houston or
1968
Nixon (R)
46,166
(32%)
Texas City. The other major population center in the 9th lies around Beaumont (pop. 115,000) and
Humphrey (D)
61,422
(42%)
Port Arthur (pop. 57,000). Like Galveston and Texas City, these are industrial towns dominated
Wallace (Al)
37,740
(26%)
by the oil and petrochemical industries. The 9th also includes a small portion of Harris County
and Houston.
Rep. Jack Brooks (D) Elected 1952; b. Dec. 18, 1922, Crowley, La;
Most of the residents of the district are migrants from the rural South. Some 22% of them are
home, Beaumont: Lamar Jr. Col., 1939-41, U. of Tex., B.J. 1943, J.D.
1949; Methodist.
black; another 6% are Cajuns from nearby southern Louisiana. To a surprising extent the people
here have retained populistic, Democratic voting habits. These political attitudes are fostered by
the Texas labor movement, which is stronger in the 9th than in just about any other part of the
Career USMC, WWII; Tex. House of Reps., 1946-50; Practicing atty.,
1949-52.
state. Though plenty of votes were cast here for George Wallace in 1968 (26%), Hubert Humphrey
still carried the district. In 1972, George McGovern ran only 2% behind Humphrey's 1968
Offices 2449 RHOB, 202-225-6565. Also 230 Fed. Bldg., Beaumont
showing-the closest the South Dakotan came to matching the Minnesotan in any Texas
77701, 713-838-0271.
congressional district. Also in 1972, the 9th was one of the few Texas districts to go for Democrat
Barefoot Sanders over Republican Senator John Tower.
Committees
Before the 1965 redistricting, Galveston-Texas City and Beaumont-Port Arthur were in two
separate districts. Congressman Clark Thompson, who served from 1933 to 1935 and from 1947 to
Government Operations (Chairman). Subcommittees: Communications;
1967, represented the former and was a member of the Ways and Means Committee. As the elder
Consumer Protection and Finance; Energy and Power.
of two incumbents thrown together by redistricting, Thompson decided to retire. His decision left
the seat to Jack Brooks, who continues to occupy it. Brooks is a Texas Congressman in the Sam
Judiciary (2d). Subcommittees: Monopolies and Commercial Law.
Rayburn tradition. He often, though not always, takes liberal positions on issues and stays close to
the House leadership. His rather liberal voting record, especially his vote for the Civil Rights Act
Group Ratings
of 1964, was noteworthy in the early 1960s, when his district included some east Texas rural
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
counties akin to the Deep South.
1974
45
80
42
40
83
47
36
42
As the third-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Brooks was an important part of the
80
38
1973
48
100
50
27
100
17
83
-
I
impeachment proceedings of 1974. There was little doubt where he stood. As Chairman of a
25
1972
25
90
64
40
86
25
100
9
Government Operations Subcommittee which had looked into the financing of the Nixon homes
100
35
in San Clemente and Key Biscayne, he had sharply criticized the White House, to the discomfiture
of many Republicans; and he is by nature a partisan, aggressive man. In any case, Brooks voted
Key Votes
for all five resolutions of impeachment, and was one of the main supporters of the unsuccessful
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
move to impeach Nixon for misappropriation of government funds.
6) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
11) Pub Cong Election $
AGN
2) Busing
AGN
7) Coed Phys Ed
AGN
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
ABS
Only 30 when he was first elected to Congress in 1952, Brooks has finally moved into the
3) ADM
FOR
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
AGN
positions of power he has long sought. He is now the number two member of Judiciary, in line for
4) B-1 Bomber
FOR
9) Pub Trans Sub
AGN
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
the chair if Peter Rodino should leave, and the Chairman of Government Operations. In that
5) Nerve Gas
FOR
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
AGN
latter position, he is expected to lead aggressive investigations into what has been going on in the
Executive Branch; if he does not share all the policy positions of the new Democratic freshmen, he
Election Results
is at least as aggressive as any of them.
1974 general
Jack Brooks (D)
37,275
(62%)
($79,023)
Coleman R. Ferguson (R)
22,935
Census Data Pop. 466,678. Central city, 60%; suburban, 38%. Median family income, $9,344;
(38%)
($12,805)
1974 primary:
families above $15,000: 17%; families below $3,000: 11%. Median years education, 11.5.
Jack Brooks (D), unopposed
1972 general:
Jack Brooks (D)
89,113
(66%)
($33,565)
Randolph Reed (R)
45,462
(34%)
($6,527)
The 3d district of California consists of most of the city of Sacramento and some of its suburbs.
The site of Sutter's Fort, Sacramento has been an important urban center since the Gold Rush of
1849; today it is the largest city in the Central Valley, the much-irrigated and incalculably rich
farmland north along the Sacramento River and south along the San Joaquin. Ever since the Gold
Rush, Sacramento has been a Democratic stronghold. These days the preference can be seen as a
The Voters
function of the large number of public employees-federal and local as well as state-who like
Median voting age 41.
most of their kind are not displeased with the idea of big government. In fact, the 3d district has a
Employment profile White collar, 62%. Blue collar, 25%. Service, 12%. Farm, 1%.
higher proportion of public employees than all but four others in the nation: three suburban
Ethnic groups Black, 5%. Japenese, 2%. Chinese, 2%. Spanish, 9%. Total foreign stock, 20%.
Washington districts and the state of Alaska. Moreover, Sacramento is one of the few American
Canada, UK, Germany, and Italy, 2% each.
cities with staunchly Democratic newspapers-part of the McClatchy chain that also dominates
journalism in Modesto and Fresno farther south in the Valley. As a result, Sacramento's
Presidential vote
Democratic voting habits are strong enough that this middle-class, middle-income district missed
1972
Nixon (R)
103,642
(50%)
by just a hair going for George McGovern in 1972.
McGovern (D)
101,927
(50%)
Naturally, the 3d sends a Democrat to Congress, and for the last 22 years he has been John E.
1968
Nixon (R)
71,328
(42%)
Moss. Now past 60, Moss looks rather like the businessman he once was, and certainly nothing
Humphrey (D)
87,014
(52%)
like a liberal young freshman. Yet for all those years he has been backing the causes and fighting
Wallace (AI)
10,602
(6%)
the fights the new freshmen have just begun. That Moss was not an ordinary, moderate liberal
Congressman became clear back in the late 1950s when he began sponsoring the Freedom of
Information Act. Almost alone, Moss worked to force the government to give citizens access to
Rep. John E. Moss (D) Elected 1952; b. Apr. 13, 1915, Carbon County
the information their taxes pay for. There was no lobby battling for such legislation, no public
Utah; home, Sacramento; Sacremento Col., 1931-33; Protestant.
demand or outcry-just John Moss. But finally, in the mid-sixties, FOIA passed. It has been
somewhat disappointing to its backers, including Moss: the courts have tended to read the general
Career Real Estate Broker; Retail merchant; Navy, WWII; Cal.
rule allowing access far more narrowly than its exceptions. So far, the FOIA's chief beneficiary
Assembly, 1948-52.
has been Ralph Nader and a few investigative reporters who have used it to ferret out information
bureaucrats and political appointees would prefer being kept secret.
Offices 2354 RHOB, 202-225-7136. Also 8058 Fed. Bldg., 650 Capitol
Mall, Sacramento 95814, 916-449-3543.
The independence and prickliness which kept Moss pressing for the FOIA when his own party
was in control of the Executive Branch also prevented him from achieving any leadership position
Committees
among House Democrats. But he has made his mark on the Commerce Committee. This body for
years has been dominated by Congressmen sympathetic to the points of view of the businesses
Government Operations (3d). Subcommittees: Government Information
which their laws and the agencies they oversee are supposed to regulate. Not John Moss. As a
and Individual Rights; Legislation and National Security.
subcommittee chairman in the 93d Congress, Moss took aim at what he considered abuses in the
brokerage industry; he was also one of the leaders in the move to set up an independent Consumer
terstate and Foreign Commerce (3d). Subcommittees: Oversight and Investigations (Chairman)
Product Safety Commission, outside what he feels are industry-dominate regulatory agencies.
It is typical of Moss's bluntness that he was the first member of Congress to suggest, back in
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (5th, House Side). Subcommittees: ERDA, Nuclear Energy:
National Security.
March 1973 as the Watergate mess was just breaking, that the House set up a procedure to pass on
the impeachment of the President. Other, cooler heads said such talk was irresponsible; they were
Group Ratings
wrong and Moss was right. If the impeachment process had not been short-circuited by Nixon's
resignation, television viewers would undoubtedly have been treated to Moss's loud, strident voice
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
coming out of his stolid visage in denunciation of the man he had spotted long before as a
1974
70
100
73
40
85
86
criminal President.
90
10
1973
0
95
8
100
73
79
81
100
75
-
With John Jarman of Oklahoma becoming a Republican early in 1975, Moss became the
1972
-
94
9
100
92
78
50
86
0
20
0
6
third-ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, but still, as the 94th Congress began, one
with little real power. Freshmen votes changed that. Commerce was one of the committees with
Key Votes
the largest infusion of new, liberal blood, and Moss ran against full committee Chairman Harley
Staggers of West Virginia for the chairmanship of the Special Subcommittee on Investigations.
1) Foreign Aid
AGN
6) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
11) Pub Cong Election s
AGN
This particular chair was a prize: the subcommittee had a budget 40% as large as all the other
2) Busing,
FOR
7) Coed Phys Ed
FOR
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
ABS
Commerce subcommittees put together. But Staggers, a pleasant, quiet man, had made little use of
3) ABM
AGN
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
the staff resources and the subcommittee's jurisdiction over virtually every regulatory agency.
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
9) Pub Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
Moss unseated Staggers comparatively easily, and can be expected to lead some searing probes of
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
AGN
federal agencies during the 94th Congress. It was, after all, promises of lenient treatment of
business that netted the Nixon people so much of the tainted money they used in Watergate and
Election Results
related misdeeds; Moss will be on the lookout for other, as yet undiscovered instances of
1974 general:
John E. Moss (D)
favoritism.
122,134
(72%)
($23,145)
Ivaldo Lenci (R)
46,712
1974 primary:
(28%)
($2,267)
Census Data Pop. 464,541. Central city, 44%; suburban, 56%. Median family income, $11,019;
John E. Moss (D), unopposed
1972 general:
families above $15,000: 27%; families below $3,000: 7%. Median years education, 12.5.
John E. Moss (D)
151,706
(70%)
($39,314)
John Rakus (R)
65,298
(30%)
($8,042)
The Voters
"Cowtown" is what Dallasites are inclined to call Fort Worth. Though the two are often
considered twin cities, Dallas (pop. 844,000) long ago eclipsed Fort Worth (pop. 393,000) in size
Median voting age 41.
and wealth. Other differences also exist. According to the cliche, Dallas is the end of the East and
Employment profile White collar, 47%. Blue collar, 39%. Service, 13%. Farm, 1%.
Fort Worth the beginning of the West. There is some geographical truth to this: the Balcones
Ethnic groups Black, 16%. Spanish, 7%. Total foreign stock, 6%.
Escarpment, which separates dry west Texas from humid east Texas, runs between the two cities,
somewhere around Freeway Stadium and Six Flags Over Texas in Arlington. Economically the
Presidential vote
idea makes sense too. Fort Worth did in fact get its start as a cowtown, a place where cowboys
drove longhorns to the railhead and later to local stockyards. In the years when Dallas was
1972
Nixon (R)
75,156
(62%)
becoming the leading banking and insurance center of the Southwest, Fort Worth was growing as
McGovern (D)
45,508
(38%)
a meat-packing, blue collar factory town.
1968
Nixon (R)
39,826
(37%)
Humphrey (D)
51,584
(48%)
Even the kinds of defense contracts awarded to the two cities illustrate how they differ. Dallas
Wallace (AI)
16,613
(15%)
produces radar systems, infrared detecting devices, and special communications equipment-all
spinoffs of its high technology, high value-added electronics and computer industries. Fort Worth,
meanwhile, is one of the nation's leading recipients of Defense Department funds, because the
Rep. Jim Wright (D) Elected 1954; b. Dec. 22, 1922, Fort Worth; home,
General Dynamics plant here produces the F-111-as the result of a contract award made during
Fort Worth; Weatherford Col., U. of Tex.; Presbyterian.
the Kennedy Administration after some Texas string-pulling.
Career Army Air Corps, WWII; Partner, trade extension and adver-
Given these differences, Fort Worth is, as one would expect, less Republican and generally less
tising firm; Tex. House of Reps.; Mayor of Weatherford; Pres., Tex.
conservative than Dallas. The 12th congressional district, which includes most of Fort Worth and
League of Municipalities, 1953.
the Tarrant County suburbs to the north, is therefore one of the state's more liberally inclined
scats. Since the elections of 1954, the 12th has sent Congressman Jim Wright to Washington.
Offices 2459 RHOB, 202-225-5071. Also 9A10 Fed. Bldg., 819 Taylor St.,
During his first years of service, Wright was the foremost liberal in the Texas delegation. He
Fort Worth 76102, 817-334-3212.
remains one of its enthusiastic backers of liberal positions on economic issues. But on other issues,
he has found that his views diverge from those held by most House Democrats. For one thing,
Committees
Wright has always supported American military intervention in Southeast Asia; in 1969, he was
chief sponsor of a resolution which, in the face of the Moratorium demonstrations, was meant to
Budget (3d).
be an endorsement of Nixon's Vietnam war policy. For another, Wright does not share the
enthusiasm seen in many younger, less senior Democrats-and some Republicans-for
Government Operations (9th). Subcommittees: Government Information and Individual Rights;
environmental causes.
Legislation and National Security.
Indeed. Wright's major role in Congress these days seems to be as an adversary to such causes.
He is A senior member of the Public Works Committee, a body whose leadership has always been
Public Works and Transportation (2d). Subcommittees: Aviation; Investigations and Review
more sympathetic to the idea of building dams and roads than to the notion that you ought to care
(Chairman); Surface Transportation.
about the rivers and earth you are building them on. In 1973, Wright was the main opponent of
the move to prevent opening the highway trust fund to expenditures for mass transit; he was
successful in the House, with the help of the highway lobby of course and of Gerald Ford, but he
Group Ratings
lost out in conference committee.
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
But if Wright is the friend of one big lobby, he is certainly not a favorite of the oil lobby which
1974
33
70
50
23
86
44
39
9
100
31
is so important in Texas politics. In 1974, he was head of a Democratic panel which was supposed
1973
42
80
70
43
94
53
57
-
I
24
to draw up an energy policy; though nothing came of his plan (House Ways and Means Chairman
1972
19
80
55
58
83
25
20
50
0
100
Al Ullman, among others, didn't like it), it was not what the oil companies wanted either. In any
case, the big oil money certainly did not flow to Wright when he ran for the Senate. In 1961, in the
special election to fill Lyndon Johnson's seat, he ran a close third behind William Blakeley, the
Key Votes
ultra-conservative Democrat who had been appointed ad interim, and John Tower, the Republican
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
11) Pub Cong Election $
AGN
who upset Blakeley in the runoff. In 1966, he wanted another shot at Tower's seat. But the Tory
2) Busing
AGN
7) Cood Phys Ed
AGN
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
FOR
establishment and Governor John Connally decided that state Attorney General Waggoner Carr
3) ABM
FOR
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
AGN
was to be the party's candidate. Unable to raise the big money, Wright went on TV and asked for
4) B-1 Bomber
FOR
9) Pub Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
$10 contributions. He received a lot of them, but not enough for a Senate race in Texas.
5) Nerve Gas
FOR
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
AGN
Wright might very well have won the Senate seat had he been able to get into either general
Election Results
election. Both time Tower was helped by liberal voters who refused to support the Democratic
nominee-and would certainly have voted for Wright. By now Wright has given up hopes of
1974 general:
Jim Wright (D)
42,632
(79%)
($118,839)
statewide office; at 54, he is comfortable in his senior position in the House. In the 12th district, he
James S. Garvey (R)
11,543
(21%)
($65,161)
wins routine reclection, usually without opposition.
1974 primary:
Jim Wright (D), unopposed
1972 general:
Jim Wright (D), unopposed
($2,765)
Census Data Pop. 466,930. Central city, 61%; suburban, 39%. Median family income, $9,441:
families above $15,000: 18%; families below $3,000: 9%. Median years education, 11.6.
Like the 1st, the 2d district of Florida is part of Dixie in the northern part of the state-a region
politically and sociologically not terribly different from neighboring south Georgia. For years this
Rep. Don Fuqua (D) Elected 1962; b. Aug. 20, 1933, Jacksonville; home,
area's affection for racial segregation and the Democratic Party controlled its politics. In the days
Alta; U. of Fla., B.S. 1957; Presbyterian.
before the one-man-one-vole rule, rural legislators from this part of Florida-known as the Pork
Chop Gang-dominated the state's politics. For some years, this part of Florida was
Carecr Army, Korca; Fla. House of Reps., 1958-62.
overrepresented in the U.S. House of Representative; the current 2d is basically a consolidation of
what were two separate districts before 1966.
Offices 2266 RHOB, 202-225-5235. Also 100 P.O. Bldg., Tallahassee
32302, 904-224-5710.
There are, however, two significant differences between the 1st and 2d districts-differences
that have not yet been decisive in congressional races, but still seem to have had a political effect.
Committees
For one, the 2d is Florida's blackest district; some 28% of its residents and 20% of the registered
voters are black. For the other, the 2d's two largest cities, Gainesville and Tallahassee, contain the
Government Operations (12th). Subcommittees: Intergovernmental Re-
state's two largest universities, the University of Florida and Florida State. Both of these schools
lations and Human Resources; Legislation and National Security.
draw most of their enrollment from south Florida, and these students, far more than those in most
Southern universities, tend to support liberal candidates for public office. Altogether, some 13% of
Science and Technology (4th). Subcommittees: Energy Research,
the 2d district's eligible voters are students. and although they have not yet turned out in
Development and Demonstration; Science, Research, and Technology; Space Science and
proportionate numbers, their impact has been noticeable.
Applications (Chairman).
Thus the 2d district contains two sizeable voting blocs inclined to oppose the generally
Group Ratings
conservative politics of the district's Congressman, Democrat Don Fuqua. Since he was first
elected to the House in 1962, Fuqua has usually voted with the dwindling number of conservative
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
Southern Democrats on the Hill. With two exceptions, he has had little trouble at the polls. In
1974
18
30
42
36
67
1966, he beat the more senior and slightly less conservative Rep. D. R. (Billy) Matthews when
50
67
30
88
64
1973
22
40
55
33
79
35
I
their seats were combined by redistricting.
33
60
1972
13
22
36
50
57
40
0
36
100
68
The other exception was in 1972. In the Democratic primary that year, Fuqua got by an
opponent who won most of his support from blacks and students without too much difficulty. Dut
his voting record was affected: in 1973, for example, he voted against the bombing of Cambodia.
Key Votes
Fuqua is now chairman of the Space Science and Applications Subcommittee and, like most
1) Foreign Aid
AGN
6) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
II) Pub Cong Election $
AGN
Florida Congressman, a big booster of the space program and the proposals for a space
2) Busing
AGN
7) Cocd Phys Ed
AGN
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
AGN
shuttle-which would incidentally create hundreds of jobs in Florida's ailing space industry.
3) ABM
FOR
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
FOR
13) Youth Camp Regs
ABS
4) B-1 Bomber
FOR
9) Pub Trans Sub
AGN
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
Census Data Pop. 452,633. Central city, 16%; suburban, 30%. Median family income, $7,071;
5) Nerve Gas
FOR
10) EZ Voter Regis
AGN
15) Farm Bill Veto
AGN
families above $15,000: 13%; families below $3,000: 19%. Median years education, 11.3.
Election Results
The Voters
1974 general:
Don Fuqua (D), unopposed
($32,316)
Median voting age 39.
1974 primary:
Don Fuqua (D)
64,226
(86%)
Employment profile White collar, 49%. Blue collar, 28%. Service, 16%. Farm, 7%.
Anthony P. (Tony) Wesolowski (D)
10,528
(14%)
Ethnic groups Black, 28%. Spanish, 1%. Total foreign stock, 4%.
1972 general:
Don Fuqua (D), unopposed
($24,186)
Presidential vote
1972
Nixon (R)
111,042
(69%)
McGovern (D)
50,861
(31%)
1968
Nixon (R)
30,161
(21%)
Humphrcy (D)
39,071
(28%)
Wallace (AI)
72,755
(51%)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania's second largest city, was the first urban center of the American
interior. Pittsburgh grew because of its propitious site; here the Allegheny and Monongahela
Rep. William S. Moorhead (D) Elected 1958; b. Apr. 8, 1923, Pittsburgh;
Rivers join to form the Ohio. And where that happens-at the Golden Triangle-remains the
city's local point: it is now filled with high-rise buildings, products of a downtown renaissance.
home, Episcopalian. Pittsburgh; Yale U., B.A. 1944, Harvard U., J.D. 1949;
When most of the nation's commerce moved over water, Pittsburgh's location was ideal; and
when the traffic switched to railroads, the city adapted nicely. By the turn of the century,
Pittsburgh, with its large deposits of coal nearby, was the center of the steel industry, then the
Career Navy, WWII; Practicing atty., 1949-59; Pittsburgh Asst. City
Solicitor, 1954-57; Mbr., Allegheny Co. Housing Auth., 1956-58; Mbr.,
nation's largest and also one of the fastest growing segments of the economy. Today, Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh Art Commission, 1958,
remains the headquarters of many of the nation's largest corporations: U.S. Steel and several
other steel companies; Westinghouse; H.J. Heinz; and the giant concerns associated with the
Mellon family, Alcoa, Gulf Oil, and Koppers.
Offices 2467 RHOB, 202-225-2301. Also 2007 Fed. Bldg., Pittsburgh
15222, 412-644-2870.
But in spite of the city's recent progress-its program of downtown renewal and its relatively
successful campaign against air pollution-Pittsburgh has been unable to keep pace with other
Committees
major metropolitan areas. Its major industry, steel, has not shown much dynamism lately. As a
result, the population of central city Pittsburgh has declined, and so also has the population of the
Banking, Currency and Housing (6th). Subcommittees: Financial Institutions Supervision,
entire Pittsburgh metropolitan area-the only major metropolitan area in the country to lose
Investment and Monetary Policy.
Regulation and Insurance; Housing and Community Development; International Trade,
population during the 1960s.
The 14th congressional district of Pennsylvania includes most of the city of Pittsburgh, plus a
Government Operations (6th). Subcommittees: Conservation, Energy and Natural Resources
few suburbs. The district takes in most of the city's landmarks: the Golden Triangle, the
(Chairman); Legislation and National Security.
University of Pittsburgh and its skyscraper campus, and Carnegie Mellon University. Though few
of the city's steel mills lic within the 14th, many of the steel workers do live here, mostly in ethnic
Joint Economic Committee (4th, House Side). Subcommittees: Consumer Economics; Economic
neighborhoods nestled between the Pittsburgh hills. Only 21% of the people in the district are
Growth; Fiscal Policy; Inter-American Economic Relationships; International Economics;
black it far smaller figure than in most major industrial cities; employment opportunities in
Urban Affairs (Chairman).
Pittsburgh peaked before the big waves of black migration from the South. Since the New Deal,
the 14th has been solidly Democratic; in 1972, for example, it was one of only four districts in the
Group Ratings
state (the other three were in Philadelphia) which gave George McGovern a majority of its vote.
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
The district's Congressman is liberal Democrat William Moorhead. After nearly 20 years in the
1974
73
91
83
67
93
93
67
18
20
0
House, Moorhead is now a senior member of the Banking and Government Operations
1973
84
100
92
69
100
78
100
-
-
0
Committees. In the 93d Congress, he served as Chairman of the Foreign Operations and
1972
94
100
100
78
86
87
100
9
0
0
Government Information Subcommittee, in which capacity he tried to get some changes in our
system of classifying documents. Now, in the 94th Congress, he is Chairman of the Conservation,
Key Votes
Energy. and Natural Resources Subcommittee. Back home, Moorhead has never encountered a
really serious challenge since he was first slated by Mayor (and later Governor) David Lawrence's
I) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
11) Pub Cong Election $
FOR
organization in 1958. He has been criticized for having close ties to the Mellons, until 1971 he
2) Busing
FOR
7) Coed Phys Ed
FOR
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
FOR
owned considerable stock in the Mellon bank, one of the nation's largest, while serving on
3) ABM
AGN
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
Banking and Currency. He received only 59% of the vote in 1972, but bounced back to 77% in
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
9) Pub Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
1974.
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
AGN
Election Results
93,169
(77%)
$23,929)
Census Data Pop. 470,537. Central city, 83%; suburban, 17%. Median family income, $8,952;
1974 general:
William S. Moorhead (D)
Zachary Taylor Davis (R)
27,116
(23%)
($1,129)
families above $15,000: 18%; families below $3,000: 11%. Median years education, 11.9.
1974 primary:
William S. Moorhead (D), unopposed
1972 general:
William S. Moorhead (D)
106,158
(59%)
($36,205)
The Voters
Roland S. Catarinella (R)
72,275
(41%)
($78,400)
Median voting age 47.
Employment profile White collar, 53%. Blue collar, 29%. Service, 18%. Farm, -%.
Ethnic groups Black, 21%. Total foreign stock, 25%; Italy, 5%; Poland, Germany, 3% each;
USSR. UK, Ircland, 2% each; Austria, 1%.
Presidential vote
1972
Nixon (R)
86,912
(48%)
McGovern (D)
95,687
(52%)
1968
Nixon (R)
60,996
(30%)
Humphrey (D)
122,887
(60%)
Wallace (AI)
20,721
(10%)
After putting in years of service on Capitol Hill, some Congressmen grow more grouchily
The Voters
conservative. They begin to feel comfortable in the company of their colleagues and resent the
Median voting age 41.
demands placed on them by outsiders. The veterans have metamorphosed from young crusaders
Employment profile White collar, 41%. Blue collar, 47%. Service, 10%. Farm, 2%.
to defenders of the establishment which they, after all, have become a part. The pattern is a
common one, though perhaps not seen as often today as in the past. The opposite pattern also
Ethnic groups Black, 2%. Total foreign stock, 15%. Italy, UK, 2% each; Germany, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, 1% each.
exists. Congressmen come to Washington as believers in political orthodoxy, convinced that
whatever is, is probably for the best. Then, after a few years in Congress, they change. They begin
to listen to argument and consider points of view not part of life back home; these politicians soon
Presidential vote
begin to vote and operate on committees in unorthodox fashion. Such is an increasingly common
1972
Nixon (R)
104,236
pattern in the House these days, and one exemplar is Congressman J. William Stanton of the 11th
(62%)
McGovern (D)
63,864
(38%)
district of Ohio.
1968
Nixon (R)
71,395
(47%)
This is not what one would have predicted when Stanton first came to Congress. His first
Humphrey (D)
62,840
(41%)
election, in 1964, was a considerable achievement. He ran in an 11th district that had rather
Wallace (AI)
17,970
(12%)
different boundaries than at present. It included the steel-manufacturing city of Warren (pop.
63,000). no longer in the district, along with the Democratic-leaning Cleveland suburbs of Lake
Rep. J. William Stanton (R) Eleated 1964; b. Feb. 20, 1924, Painesville;
County (Willowick, Wickliffe, and Willoughhy), industrial Ashtabula County in the far northeast
home, Painesville; Georgetown U., B.S. 1949; Catholic.
corner of the state, and Kent State University. The University was then less well-known than it is
today. and of course it cast far fewer liberal votes. The old 11th was clearly a marginal district,
Career Army, WWII; Lake Co. Commissioner, 1956-64.
having been won by a Democrat as recently as 1960. But Stanton, who campaigned as a
conventional Ohio Republican conservative, managed to run almost 20% ahead of the
Offices 2448 RHOB, 202-225-5306. Also 170 N. St. Clair St., Painesville
Goldwater-Miller ticket and to capture the seat with 55% of the vote.
44077, 216-352-6167.
Stanton's vote-getting prowess has been further demonstrated by his landslide reelection
victories in later elections-68% in 1970 and 1972, 61% in 1974. His success may be due in part to
Committees
his liberal position on many issues. He has voted, for example, for end-the-war legislation and
against the SST, and since his first election, his ADA and COPE ratings have risen substantially.
Banking, Currency and Housing (2d). Subcommittees: Economic Stabi-
A more typical wrench from tradition was his support for allowing states to divert some of their
lization; Housing and Community Development; International Trade,
highway trust fund money for mass transit. Stanton voted for the move against the stern
Investment and Monetary Policy.
opposition of fellow Ohio Republican William Harsha, ranking Republican on the Public Works
Committee.
Small Business (2d). Subcommittees: SBA and SBIC Legislation.
Stanton's big majorities, however, are probably less a response to his voting record than an
Group Ratings
appreciation of the kind of constituency service that helps so many congressmen win easy
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
reelection in technically marginal districts. Also, Stanton has been helped by successive
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
redistrictings, which have made the 11th more Republican. It has long since lost Warren and by
1974
30
36
67
69
64
47
36
33
90
40
1972 no longer included Kent or the easternmost (and most Democratic) suburbs in Lake County.
1973
28
27
67
93
32
53
38
I
63
The line-drawing was as much an accommodation of neighboring Democratic Congressmen as an
1972
19
30
70
80
43
52
50
91
100
52
attempt to aid Stanton, who doesn't need the help.
Stanton has been mentioned on a number of occasions as a candidate for statewide office, and
Key Votes
he would be helped, in the Cleveland media market anyway, by his own popularity and that of
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
11) Pub Cong Election $
FOR
20th district Congressman James Stanton, a Democrat and no relation. But Stanton has not made
2) Busing
AGN
7) Coed Phys Ed
ABS
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
AGN
the move to make the races and now, at 52, probably never will.
3) ABM
FOR
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
FOR
13) Youth Camp Regs
ABS
4) B-1 Bomber
ABS
9) Pub Trans Sub
AGN
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
AGN
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
Census Data Pop. 462,701. Central city, 0%; suburban, 79%. Median family income, $11,142;
families above $15,000: 25%; families below $3,000: 6%. Median years education, 12.2.
Election Results
1974
general:
J. William Stanton (R)
79,756
(61%)
($25,834)
Michael D. Coffey (D)
52,017
(39%)
($35,009)
1974 primary:
J. William Stanton (R), unopposed
1972 general:
J. William Stanton (R)
106,841
(68%)
($19,853)
Dennis M. Callahan (D)
49,849
(32%)
($22,822)
The 6th congressional district of Massachusetts is the North Shore district. Along and just back
The Voters
of the rocky coast north of Boston are the estates of some of the Commonwealth's oldest families
Median voting age 45.
including-to name some still important politically-the Saltonstalls and the Lodges. Only a few
Employment profile White collar, 52%. Blue collar, 36%. Service, 12%. Farm, -%.
miles away are the fishermen of Gloucester, suffering badly these days because the banks are
Ethnic groups Total foreign stock, 31%. Canada, 10%; Italy, 4%; Ireland, UK, 3% each; USSR,
being fished out by efficient Russian and Icelandic trawlers. Here also are the textile mill workers
Poland, Greece, 2% each.
in Haverhill and Newburyport on the Merrimack River, and the artists and summer people of
Rockport. To the south is Salem, where twenty witches were once hanged and pressed to death,
and where Nathaniel Hawthorne's House of Seven Gables still stands in a neighborhood of neat
Presidential vote
nineteenth century homes. Also to the south of the district is the boating suburb of Marblehead,
1972
Nixon (R)
104,027
(47%)
which Jews now share with WASPs, and Lynn, whose troubled shoe industry has been pressing
McGovern (D)
116,157
(53%)
hard for restriction against imports.
1968
Nixon (R)
76,125
(36%)
The 6th district is the site of the original gerrymander, named for the desire of its perpetrator,
Humphrey (D)
125,950
(60%)
Elbridge Gerry, to push together all the area's Democrats in one misshapen scat. Since then, the
Wallace (AI)
6,588
(3%)
North Shore's wealthy towns and Brahmin families have given the area a reputation for
Republicanism it has sometimes since ceased to deserve. In recent years the 6th has even
Rep. Michael Harrington (D) Elected Sept. 30, 1969; b. Sept. 2, 1936,
supported relatively unpopular Democrats like George McGovern. But for many years the district
Salem; home, Beverly; Harvard U., A.B. 1958, LL.B. 1961, 1962-63;
persisted in electing Republican Congressmen, at least if they were members of the Bates family:
Catholic.
George J. Bates of Salem won from 1936 to 1950, and his son William up through 1968.
But Bates died suddenly in 1969, and in the special election to fill the vacancy, Democratic state
Career Salem City Cncl., 1960-63; Practicing atty., 1962-; Mass. House
Representative Michael Harrington waged a sophisticated and vigorous campaign to beat
of Reps., 1965-69.
Republican state Senator William Saltonstall. The race tested the popularity of the Nixon
Administration's foreign policy and spending priorities: Harrington fervently opposed the
Offices 405 CHOB, 202-225-8020. Also Salem P.O., Salem 01970,
Vietnam war and the ABM while Saltonstall, son of former Senator Leverett Saltonstall,
617-745-5800.
supported Nixon on both issues. Harrington won that race with 52% of the vote; by 1970 he was
able to win with 61% over Republican Howard Phillips, who would go on to brief national fame in
Committees
early 1973 as the Nixon appointee who attempted illegally to dismantle the Office of Economic
Government Operations (20th). Subcommittees: Government Information
Opportunity.
and Individual Rights: Legislation and National Security.
Harrington has not always seemed happy with the pace of life in the House or with his position,
for a time, as one of its more junior members. In the 92d Congress Harrington managed to win
International Relations (15th). Subcommittees: International Organizations; Investigations.
assignment to the Armed Services Committee, but this rather contentious dove had a number of
run-ins with committee hawks that were so acrimonious that he moved to Foreign Affairs in 1973.
Group Ratings
(He had his revenge, however, since his Armed Services seal went to Ron Dellums of California.)
The Congressman also created a furor while serving on the special committee investigating the
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
CIA by accusing the Chairman, Lucien Nedzi, of not disclosing information he had received a
1974
100
100
92
87
86
88
100
25
10
0
year before on CIA involvement in assassinations. But the House decided not to condemn Nedzi,
1973
100
91
100
71
90
93
86
-
I
4
but rather to, in effect, condemn Harrington for allegedly making public information about CIA
1972
94
90
100
73
83
80
-
10
0
10
involvement in Chile.
With the assets of an Irish heritage and a Harvard education-not to mention a raft of cousins
Key Votes
well connected in Massachusetts politics-Harrington could conceivably be a strong contender
for statewide office; but with the Commonwealth's Senate seats held securely by Edward
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
11) Pub Cong Election $
FOR
Kennedy and Edward Brooke, that avenue seems blocked now. In any case, with the influx of
2) Busing
FOR
7) Coed Phys Ed
FOR
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
ABS
freshmen in to the 94th Congress. Harrington suddenly has dozens of new allies, and a chance to
3) ABM
AGN
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
be part of the majority of the House most of the time. So il may be that he will decide that a long
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
9) Pub Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
House career has its charms as well as its drawbacks.
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
Election Results
1974 general
Census Data Pop. 475,885. Central city, 10%; suburban, 72%. Median family income, $10,904;
Michael J. Harrington (D), unopposed
($29,810)
1974 primary:
families above $15,000: 25%; families below $3,000: 6%. Median years education, 12.3.
Michael J. Harrington (D)
39,798
(71%)
Ronald E. Kowalski (D)
15,943
(29%)
1972 general:
Michael Harrington (D)
139,697
(64%)
($114,317)
James Brady Mosely (R)
78,381
(36%)
($93,400)
The 34th congressional district of New York lies along the southern shores of Lake Ontario, and
includes the east side of the city of Rochester, eastern Monroe County, and Wayne County.
Rochester's economy, to a greater extent than those of other Upstate New York cities, depends on
white collar and highly skilled labor; major employers here are Eastman Kodak and Xerox. These
high technology companies have given the Rochester area a healthier economy over the years than
is found in Upstate cities which depend more on heavy industry.
The city of Rochester by itself is almost large enough to constitute a congressional district, and
if it were one it would almost certainly elect Democrats. Knowing this, Republican legislators for
years have split Rochester between two districts, adding plenty of heavily Republican suburban
and rural territory to each. Consequently, both the 34th and 35th congressional districts are
considered safely Republican. In the 34th, profoundly conservative Wayne County is a particular
Republican stronghold and, incidentally, the birthplace of the Mormon church (see Utah).
Since 1963, the 34th's Congressman has been Frank Horton, on most issues Upstate New
York's most liberal Republican. The political coloration has become traditional in the district;
some years ago (1947-59) its Congressman was Kenneth Keating, later U.S. Senator, judge on
New York's highest court, and Ambassador to India and Israel. Like Keating, Horton is more in
tune with New Deal liberals on economic issues than in step with the dovish Democrats who
today control their party's caucus in the House: he is really something of a liberal hawk, a sort of
Republican Scoop Jackson. However you describe his politics, it is clear he is very popular in the
34th district. In 1972 he ran 10% ahead of Richard Nixon here, and in 1974, despite the
Democratic trend and an opponent of substance, he got 68%. The only conceivable threat to his
tenure is conservative primary opposition, which shows no signs of developing.
Census Data Pop. 467,461. Central city, 38%; suburban, 62%. Median family income, $12,082;
families above $15,000: 34%; families below $3,000: 6%. Median years education, 12.2.
The Voters
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (3d, House Side). Subcommittees: Agreements for
Median voting age 44.
Cooperation; Legislation; National Security.
Employment profile White collar, 54%. Blue collar, 34%. Service, 11%. Farm, 1%.
Ethnic groups Black, 6%. Spanish, 1%. Total foreign stock, 27%. Italy, 7%; Germany, Canada,
3% each; UK, USSR, Poland, 2% each.
Group Ratings
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
ADA
Presidential vote
1974
55
70
91
71
67
65
46
27
90
23
1972
Nixon (R)
1973
44
64
92
93
55
53
50
-
-
36
130,757
(63%)
77,699
(37%)
1972
44
73
83
77
43
49
50
42
100
35
McGovern (D)
1968
Nixon (R)
98,521
(51%)
Humphrey (D)
88,744
(46%)
Key Votes
Wallace (AI)
7,584
(4%)
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
11) Pub Cong Election $
FOR
2) Busing
FOR
7) Cocd Phys Ed
FOR
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
FOR
Rep. Frank Horton (R) Elected 1962; b. Dec. 12, 1919, Cuero, Tex.;
home, Rochester; La. St. U., B.A., 1941, Cornell U., LL.B. 1947;
3) ABM
FOR
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
4) B-1 Bomber
FOR
9) Pub Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
Presbyterian.
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
AGN
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
Career Army, WWII; Practicing atty., 1947-62; Rochester City Cncl.,
Election Results
1955-61.
1974 general:
Frank Horton (R)
105,585
(63%)
($68,207)
Offices 2229 RHOB, 202-225-4916. Also 314 Fed. Bldg., Rochester
Irene Gossin (D)
45,408
(29%)
($26,379)
J. Warren McGce (C)
4,309
(3%)
($230)
14614, 716-263-6270.
1974 primary:
Frank Horton (R), unopposed
1972 general:
Frank Horton (R)
142,803
(73%)
($32,326)
Committees
Jack Rubens (D)
46,509
(24%)
($5,411)
Government Operations (Ranking Member). Subcommittees: Legislation
Richard E. Lusink (C)
5,603
(3%)
(NA)
and National Security.
If you take 1970 median family income as the standard, three of the nation's five richest
congressional districts lie in the suburbs of Chicago. The 14th is one of them. And of all these rich
Rep. John N. Erlenborn (R) Elected 1964; b. Feb. 8, 1927, Chicago;
districts, the 14th is indisputably the most heavily Republican and conservative. The district
home, Elmhurst; U. of Notre Dame, 1944, Ind. St. Teachers Col.,
includes practically all of DuPage County, a fast-growing, wealthy group of suburbs directly west
1944-45, U. of III, 1945-46, Loyola U., LL.B. 1949; Catholic.
of Chicago, which regularly produces higher Republican percentages than Orange County,
California. Appropriately, DuPage was also the site of the palatial estate of Colonel McCormick,
Career Navy, WWII; Practicing atty., 1949-50, 1952-64; Asst. State's
the longtime owner of the Chicago Tribune. For almost fifty years, McCormick's paper was the
Atty., DuPage Co., 1950-52; III. House of Reps., 1957-65.
house organ for his brand of conservative, isolationist Republicanism. And if DuPage County can
no longer be counted as isolationist, then it certainly has remained conservative; the Colonel
Offices 2236 RHOB, 202-225-3515. Also DuPage Co. Ctr., 421 N.
would not be displeased at how it has responded to the political choices put before it in the twenty
County Farm Rd., Wheaton 60187, 312-668-1417.
years since his death. In 1964, for example, DuPage gave 60% of its votes to Barry Goldwater; in
1972, 75% for Richard Nixon. Indeed, the suburbs of Chicago, led by DuPage, have become the
Committees
heartland of Illinois Republicanism, producing larger percentages and sometimes more votes for
the party's candidates than historically Republican Downstate Illinois.
Education and Labor (4th). Subcommittees: Labor Standards; Post-
secondary Education.
The Colonel might not be quite so pleased-at least not all the time-with the record of the 14th
district's Congressman, John Erlenborn. He is, to be sure, one of the leading conservatives on the
Government Operations (2d). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs;
liberal-dominated Education and Labor Committee, as well as second-ranking Republican on
Legislation and National Security.
Government Operations. But on occasion Erlenborn, if he has not exactly strayed from
orthodoxy, has at least taken some positions which one might not have expected from a
Group Ratings
representative of his constituency. He has, for example, worked to break down Executive Branch
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
secrecy, even at a time when that Branch was in the hands of his own party, and he voted for
1974
24
27
83
86
opening up the highway trust fund to spending for mass transit. Still under 50, he is one of the
33
35
15
67
100
54
1973
25
0
63
100
brighter conservative-to-moderate Republicans and, as might be expected, he has had little
22
33
17
-
I
60
1972
19
25
difficulty winning in this always Republican district.
73
82
17
47
100
100
100
67
Census Data Pop. 464,029. Central city, 0%: suburban, 100%. Median family income, $14,527;
Key Votes
families above $15,000: 47%; families below $3,000: 2%. Median years education, 12.6.
I) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
11) Pub Cong Election $
AGN
2) Busing
ABS
7) Coed Phys Ed
AGN
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
AGN
The Voters
3) ABM
FOR
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
AGN
Median voting age 40.
4) B-1 Bomber
FOR
9) Pub Trans Sub
AGN
14) Strip Mine Veto
FOR
Employment profile White collar, 65%. Blue collar, 27%. Service, 8%. Farm, -%.
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
AGN
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
Ethnic groups Spanish, 2%. Total foreign stock, 21%. Germany, 4%; Italy, Poland, UK, 2%
Election Results
each; Czechoslovakia, Canada, Sweden, 1% each.
1974 general:
John N. Erlenborn (R)
77,718
(67%)
($34,214)
Presidential vote
Robert H. Renshaw (D)
38,981
(33%)
($3,474)
1974 primary:
John N. Erlenborn (R), unopposed
1972
Nixon (R)
163,652
(75%)
1972 general:
John N. Erlenborn (R)
154,794
(73%)
($24,871)
McGovern (D)
53,631
(25%)
James M. Wall (D)
57,874
(27%)
($7,183)
1968
Nixon (R)
118,955
(67%)
Humphrey (D)
45,922
(26%)
Wallace (AI)
13,082
(7%)
Every major American city is divided into distinct neighborhoods. There is always a part of
town where the wealthier, more white collar, better-educated people tend to live. In Seattle, this
Rep. Joel Pritchard (R) Elected 1972: b. May 5, 1925, Seattle; home,
has been on the north side, in the hills between Puget Sound and Lake Washington. Accordingly,
Seattle; Marietta Col., 1946-48; Presbyterian.
the pleasant neighborhoods around the lake and the University of Washington have always been
the more Republican part of Seattle, even though many of the younger affluent people have
Career Army, WWII; Griffin Envelope Co., 1948-72, Pres., 1970-72;
moved out to the suburbs. The north side contains the heart of Washington's 1st congressional
Wash. House of Reps., 1958-66; Wash. Senate, 1966-70.
district-the only part of the state to send a Republican to Congress.
Offices 133 CHOB, 202-225-6311. Also 2888 Fed. Bldg., 915 2nd Ave.,
Before the 1972 redistricting. the 1st district was more Republican than it is now. A redistricting
Seattle 98174, 206-442-4220.
plan concocted by a geography professor sheared off several high income, heavily Republican
areas, and added some Democratic territory-notably Mountlakes Terrace, a blue collar
Committees
community just across the line in Snohomish County. But despite the addition and the presence of
the university, the north side of the city remains a Republican district; it also retains most of
Government Operations (11th). Subcommittees: Legislation and National
Scattle's largest suburb of Bellevue (pop. 61,000), a Republican area cast of Lake Washington. In
Security: Manpower and Housing.
the old district, the big race, when one took place, occurred in the Republican primary; in the new
district, there were real contests in both the primary and the general election.
Merchant Marine and Fisheries (8th). Subcommittees: Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the
For the 18 years before 1972 the 1st district saw little politica! turbulence at all. Things were
Environment; Merchant Marine.
quiet from 1952, when Republican Thomas Pelly was first elected, until 1970, when state Senator
Joel Pritchard challenged Pelly in the Republican primary. Pelly was then ranking Republican on
the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, but he was also 68; he refused to fly in
Group Ratings
airplanes, and so only visited the district when he could afford the time to take the train.
Pritchard, a liberal in the mold of Governor Daniels Evans, was well known in the district and
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
won 47% of the vote, and Pelly decided to retire in 1972.
1974
76
73
73
77
71
79
42
42
30
13
But it was not quite smooth sailing for Pritchard. Senator Henry Jackson, after his humiliating
1973
68
45
92
73
42
61
75
;
-
33
showing in the presidential primaries, was ready to flex his political muscles in Washington, and
he was strongly backing the candidacy of 30-year-old Democrat John Hempelmann, a former
Key Votes
Jackson staffer. Jackson was Hempelmann's main resource, and on the Senator's strength the
Democrat nearly won; Pritchard had a far lower than expected 51% of the vote. Once in office,
1) Foreign Aid
AGN
6) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
II) Pub Cong Election $
FOR
however, the Republican was able to use the advantages of incumbency to the point that he had
2) Busing
AGN
7) Coed Phys Ed
AGN
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
FOR
little difficulty in the Democratic year of 1974. He serves on the Government Operations and
3) ABM
AGN
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
AGN
Merchant Marine Committees, and is on record to the effect that no member of Congress should
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
9) Pub Trans Sub
AGN
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
serve more than 12 years: that means he will probably retire in 1984.
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
Election Results
1974
general:
Joel Pritchard (R)
108,391
(71%)
($84,093)
Census Data Pop. 465,810. Central city, 68%; suburban, 32%. Median family income, $12,084;
W.R. (Walkin' Will) Knedlik (D)
44,655
(29%)
families above $15,000: 33%; families below $3,000: 5%. Median years education, 12.7.
1974 primary:
($7,108)
Joel Pritchard (R), unopposed
1972 general:
Joel Pritchard (R)
107,581
(51%)
($112,933)
The Voters
John Hempelmann (D)
104,959
(49%)
($84,136)
Median voting age 42.
Employment profile White collar, 65%. Blue collar, 23%. Service, 12%. Farm, -%.
Ethnic groups Spanish, 2%. Total foreign stock, 25%. Canada, 6%; Norway, UK, 3% each;
Germany. Sweden, 2% each.
Presidential vote
1972
Nixon (R)
137,563
(58%)
McGovern (D)
97,967
(42%)
1968
Nixon (R)
NA
Humphrey (D)
NA
Wallace (AI)
NA
Roughly speaking, the 8th congressional district of New York encompasses the central part of
the borough of Queens. The district's tortuous boundaries were drawn to keep as many
conservative and Republican voters as possible within the confines of the adjacent 6th and 9th
districts; in effect, the 8th is a seat Republican redistricters conceded to the Democrats. The
district radiates in three direction like spokes from the hub of a wheel. The hub is Flushing
Meadow Park, site of the World's Fairs of 1939-40 and 1964-65, and today the home of Shea
The Voters
Stadium's Mets and Jets. One of the spokes passes through the middle class, predominantly Jewish
neighborhood of Flushing on its way to Long Island Sound. Another proceeds cast through Fresh
Median voting age 45.
Meadows and a neighborhood with the real estate promoter's name of Utopia, and on toward the
Employment profile White collar, 68%. Blue collar, 23%. Service, 9%. Farm, -%.
Nassau County line. The third spoke moves west from Flushing Meadow to include the high rise
Ethnic groups Black, 4%. Chinese, 1%. Spanish 2%. Total foreign stock, 59%. Italy, USSR, 8%
complex of Lefrak City, a small black ghetto in Corona, and the two and four family house
neighborhood of lower middle income whites called Jackson Heights.
each; Poland, 6%; Ireland, Germany, 4% each; Austria, 3%; UK, Greece, 2% each; Hungary,
Rumania, 1% each.
These seemingly disparate areas all have certain things in common. All have large Jewish
populations, as if the redistricters took care to gather together all the predominantly Jewish
Presidential vote
neighborhoods in Queens. And the district lines, as they writhe about manage to corral most of the
burough's big high rise apartment complexes and many of its public housing projects. Before
1972
Nixon (R)
94,222
(50%)
World War II, most of Queens was given over to neighborhoods of one and two family houses,
McGovern (D)
95,212
(50%)
inhabited by Irish, Italian, and German immigrants; it was a conservative suburban Republican
1968
Nixon (R)
61,484
(33%)
stronghold that happened, technically, to be part of a Democratic central city. But after World
Humphrey (D)
117,111
(63%)
War II, most of the growth here has come in the high rises, a large percentage of whose occupants
Wallace (AI)
8,709
(5%)
are Jewish and liberal Democratic voters. So the 8th district may be said to be postwar Queens.
The liberal Democratic mood of the voters here is shaken occasionally. There were fierce
Rep. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D) Elected Feb. 20, 1962; b. June 8, 1923,
neighborhood demonstrations when the Lindsay Administration wanted to built three 24-story
New York City; home, Elmhurst; Long Island U., CCNY, Brooklyn Law
high rises for lower and middle income residents in Forest Hills. Residents pointed out, correctly,
School, LL.B. 1949, LL.M. 1952; Jewish.
that such an infusion of population would strain public facilities in the area; another reason, of
course, for the strength, if not the existence, of the opposition was the fact that blacks and Puerto
Career Army, WWII; Practicing atty.
Ricans would be more common in the neighborhood. Perhaps it was only coincidence, but in
1972, just after this controversy began to boil, George McGovern only barely managed to carry
Offices 2372 RHOB, 202-225-2601. Also U.S.P.O. 41-65 Main St.,
the ordinarily heavily Democratic 8th district.
Flushing 11351, 212-939-8200.
How much the district had gone back to normal by 1974 can be measured by comparing
Committees
McGovern's 50% and Congressman Benjamin Rosenthal's 65% of the vote in 1972 with
Rosenthal's 79% performance in 1974. Clearly Watergate had obliterated the salience of issues like
Government Operations (8th). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer and
Forest Hills, and Nixon's Republicans had replaced McGovern's and Lindsay's liberals as the pet
hate of Queens homeowners and apartment dwellers.
Monetary Affairs (Chairman); Legislation and National Security.
International Relations (9th). Subcommittees: International Organizations; International Political
and Military Affairs.
Rosenthal has had an interesting congressional career, paralleling the metamorphosis of the
New York City congressional delegation in recent years. He was first selected to run for the seat in
Group Ratings
1962 by the Queens regular organization, at a time when young politicoes aspired more after
judgeships than seats in Congress. He was a quiet freshman, but in his first few years found
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
himself opposed to the Johnson Administration's policies in Vietnam, and increasingly voted with
1974
96
100
92
a small bloc of liberals who otherwise had never had the support of a Congressman from Queens.
50
75
93
1973
100
18
100
10
0
100
92
69
85
100
1972
100
-
-
100
12
By 1970, he was one of the leading advocates of consumer legislation in the House, and the
91
100
73
86
87
100
9
0
9
major force behind the Consumer Protection Agency. His advocacy for this proposal got this
rather stubborn young liberal in a feud with Chet Holifield, an oldtime liberal who had got more
Key Votes
conservative on his way to becoming Chairman of the Government Operations Committee.
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
Rosenthal also got into a bitter feud with fellow Queens Congressman James Delaney, whose vote
6) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
11) Pub Cong Election $
FOR
2) Busing
FOR
on the Rules Committee once killed the CPA. But today those quarrels have been patched up.
7) Coed Phys Ed
ABS
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
FOR
3) ABM
AGN
Rosenthal and Holifield managed to get together and co-sponsor the CPA bill before Holifield
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
4) B-1 Bomber
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
retired in 1974, and Rosenthal joined other liberals in electing the senior Delaney as chairman of
AGN
9) Pub Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
their state Democratic delegation. Moreover, Rosenthal has also been active in his position as a
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
member of the International Relations Committee; he was one of the leaders, for example, of the
Election Results
move to cut off military aid to Turkey in response to its treaty-breaking attack on Cyprus. The
House-and its Holifields and Delaneys-seem to have grown into the sort of liberal idealism that
1974 general:
Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D-L)
90,200
Rosenthal has practiced for so long; and the Congressman himself seems to have learned, in this
(79%)
($14,100)
Albert Lemishow (R-C)
23,980
more hospitable environment, how to work with other legislators to accomplish desired ends.
1974 primary:
(21%)
($880)
Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D), unopposed
1972 general:
Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D-L)
110,293
Census Data Pop. 467,691. Central city, 100%; suburban, 0%. Median family income, $12,244;
(65%)
($18,739)
Frank A. LaPina (R-C)
60,166
families above $15,000: 35%: families below $3,000: 5%. Median years education, 12.3.
(34%)
($6279)
The Loop is what one thinks of when one thinks of Chicago. Here, where high-rise construction
Rep. Cardiss Collins (D) Elected June 5, 1973; b. Sept. 24, 1931, St.
was pionecred, stand the city's giant skyscrapers, including the new Sears and Roebuck
Building-the world's tallest. Chicago also means the Near North Side, with its huge,
Louis, Mo.; home, Chicago; Northwestern U.; Baptist.
well-designed high-rise apartment buildings along Lake Michigan and, behind them, alternately
smart and raunchy shopping streets. This is all part of Illinois's 7th congressional district-the
Career Stenographer, III. Dept. of Labor; Secy., accountant, and
glamorous part, the part best known to the outside world. But beyond the Chicago River and the
revenue auditor, III. Dept. of Revenue.
miles of railroad track-Chicago is still the nation's biggest rail center-lies the grim West Side
Offices 1123 LHOB, 202-225-5006. Also 219 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1632,
ghetto. As one goes inland from the lakefront, the territory is at first a potpourri: the nation's
largest skid row on West Madison, followed by odd settlements of American Indians and
Chicago 60604, 312-353-5754.
Appalachians. Then comes the West Side ghetto, which casts the bulk of the votes here in the 7th
Committees
district.
The West Side is machine country. The black community here is more newly-arrived, less
Government Operations (17th). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer,
middle-class, and less well-organized than the blacks on the South Side (see Illinois 1). Some
and Monetary Affairs; Government Activities and Transportation.
wards that are virtually 100% black still elect Jewish or Italian ward committeemen-the last
vestige of their onetime ethnic composition. When the South Side wards broke party lines in 1972
International Relations (19th). Subcommittees: International Organizations; International
and voted for Republicans Charles Percy for Senate and Bernard Carey for State's Attorney, the
Resources, Food, and Energy.
West Side stayed true to the machine, casting huge Democratic majorities for all offices.
or all of Chicago's 50 wards, the 24th on the far West Side usually turns in the highest
Group Ratings
Democratic percentages-96% for George McGovern in 1972, for example. (Interestingly, the
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
all-black 24th ward sits right next to all-white, heavily Republican Cicero.) In 1970, George W.
1974
89
90
83
50
77
81
92
18
20
7
Collins, then 24th ward Alderman, became Chicago's second black Congressman. In December
1973
100
100
90
100
100
75
100
-
-
6
1972, Collins was killed in an airplane crash that also took the life of Dorothy Hunt, of Watergate
fame. Collins' successor in Congress is his widow, Cardiss Collins, who won a special election in
June 1973. Her margin was so large and her opposition so negligible (her Republican opponent
Key Votes
was Lar Daly, who likes to show up on TV talk shows wearing an Uncle Sam suit) that it appears
I) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
11) Pub Cong Election s
FOR
that machine control on the West Side is undisputed. In the House, Collins can be counted as a
2) Busing
FOR
7) Coed Phys Ed
FOR
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
FOR
solid vote for the Daley machine.
3) ABM
AGN
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
9) Pub Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
Census Data Pop. 464,283. Central city, 100%; suburban, 0%. Median family income, $7,536;
families above $15,000: 13%; families below $3,000: 16%. Median years education, 9.7.
Election Results
The Voters
1974 general:
Cardiss Collins (D)
63,962
(88%)
($7,292)
Donald L. Metzger (R)
8,800
(12%)
($18,822)
Median voting age 39.
1974 primary:
Cardiss Collins (D), unopposed
Employment profile White collar, 35%. Blue collar, 49%. Service, 16%. Farm, -%.
1973 special:
Cardiss Collins (D)
33,875
(93%)
(NA)
Ethnic groups Black, 55%. Spanish, 17%. Total foreign stock, 22%. Poland, 4%; Italy. 2%;
Angel Moreno (Ind.)
1,429
(4%)
(NA)
USSR, 1%.
Lar Daly (R)
1,311
(4%)
(NA)
Presidential vote
1972
Nixon (R)
33,266
(26%)
McGovern (D)
93,318
(74%)
1968
Nixon (R)
22,768
(15%)
Humphrey (D)
126,222
(81%)
Wallace (AI)
6,271
(4%)
Dozens of Protestant clergymen have served in the House of Representatives, but until 1974
only one Roman Catholic priest had ever been elected Congressman: Father Robert F. Drinan of
Rep. Robert F. Drinan (D) Elected 1970; b. Nov. 15, 1920, Boston:
the 4th district of Massachusetts. From any perspective, he is an unusual political figure. With no
home, Newton; Boston Col. A.B., 1942, M.A. 1947, Georgetown C.,
political experience. Drinan heat an incumbent Congressman not once but twice in 1970, heat a
LL.B. 1949, LL.M. 1950, Gregorian U., Rome, Italy, 1954; Catholic.
tough Republican challenger two years later, was the first Congressman to introduce a resolution
to impeach Richard Nixon. and voted as part of a large majority in the House Judiciary
Career 1956-70. Ordained Jesuit Priest, 1953-; Dean, Boston Col. Law School,
Committee to SO impeach him.
The story begins in 1970 when Drinan was finishing 14 years as the highly respected Dean of
Offices 224 CHOB, 202-225-5931. Also 400 Totten Pond Rd., Bldg. 1.
the Boston College Law School. Living near the school, the priest was resident of what then was
Waltham 02154, 617-890-9455.
the 3J district-- geographic monstrosity stretching from suburban Newton, just outside Boston,
some 100 miles out in a narrow corridor 10 the town of Fitchburg in central Massachusetts and
Committees
beyond. For 28 years Congressman Philip J. Philbin had represented the 3d, combining a liberal
record on domestic issues with a strong hawkish point of view as a member of the Armed Services
Government Operations (21st). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer
Committee. In 1968, after redistricting had added Newton and several other Boston suburbs to the
and Monetary Affairs; Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources.
district, Philbin won only 49% of the vote in a four-candidate Democratic primary, and only 48%
in the general election where an independent peace candidate finished second.
Judiciary (13th). Subcommittees: Civil and Constitutional Rights; Courts, Civil Liberties, and the
Administration of Justice.
This was obviously a constituency waiting for a candidate. About half the district's population
had not been represented by Philbin before 1968, and these people felt little rapport for this
Group Ratings
oldtime politician. The problem was to put together a majority composed of middle-class Newton,
ADA
COPE
with its large Jewish population: Waltham, a Catholic working-class suburb; and the upper
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
income, woodsy, WASPY towns of Weston, Lincoln, and Wayland-a majority large enough to
1974
100
91
100
81
86
94
100
17
10
0
overcome Philbin's predictable margins in the western end of the district. Drinan was chosen the
1973
100
91
92
73
75
100
100
-
-
7
candidate in a liberal caucus, and he became one of consultant John Marttila's first clients; a
1972
100
100
100
73
86
86
100
8
0
9
major grass-roots campaign beat Philbin in the primary. The old regular, refusing to accept defeat,
ran in the general election as an Independent, and with a strong Republican candidate in the field,
Key Votes
Drinan got just enough votes for a 38-36-26 victory.
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
Something similar happened in 1972. Republicans had been eycing the district for a number of
6) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
11) Pub Cong Election $
FOR
reasons. There was Drinan's low percentage in 1970; many Catholics oppose the idea of a priest in
2) Busing
FOR
7) Coed Phys Ed
FOR
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
FOR
3) ABM
AGN
politics; and Drinan had lost the heavily Catholic, mill-town western end of the district.
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
Redistricting complicated the picture, adding the prosperous Boston suburb of Brookline. Though
9) Puh Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
the home of Brahmins like Elliot Richardson, Brookline is important politically for its large and
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
elderly Jewish community. (In 1917 John F. Kennedy was born here in what was then and
Election Results
remains today a Jewish neighborhood.) The Republican candidate, state Representative Martin
Linsky, was well-financed. and used the Israel issue even against the pro-Israel Drinan.
1974 general:
Robert F. Drinan (D)
77,286
(51%)
($178,871)
What saved Drinan in that election was his constituent service organization in the western part
Jon Rotenberg (Ind.)
52,785
(35%)
($76,576)
of the district-which he carried. in contrast to 1970. For Republican Linsky carried Brookline
Alvin Mandell (R)
21,922
(14%)
($14,322)
and cut into the Congressman's strength in Newton and other suburbs. In 1974, Brookline was
1974 primary:
Robert F. Drinan (D), unopposed
again a trouble spot for Drinan, as it went for Independent candidate (and Democratic state
1972 general:
Robert F. Drinan (D)
99,977
(49%)
($199,703)
Representative) Jon Rotenberg. Drinan has a solid record of supporting Israel and working for the
Martin A. Linsky (R)
93,927
(46%)
($148,285)
rights of Soviet Jews: yet he keeps drawing opponents who try to imply, apparently on the basis of
John T. Collins (C)
11,141
(5%)
($22,579)
his even better known dovishness on Vietnam, that he is soft on Israel. The tactic seems not to be
working. but so far il has prevented him from winning an absolute majority of the vote.
The Voters
In his first term in the House Drinan, with his years of experience as a law school dean, was able
Median voting age 42.
to win a seat on the Judiciary Committee, which of course put him in the perfect position to act on
Employment profile White collar, 62%. Blue collar, 27%. Service, 11%. Farm, -%.
his conviction that Richard Nixon had violated the Constitution and the laws of the land. Even
Ethnic groups Black, 1%. Spanish, 1%. Total foreign stock, 37%. Canada, 11%; Italy, USSR, 5%
here, however, Drinan was frustrated as the Committee majority declined to vote impeachment on
each; Ireland, 3%; UK, Poland, 2% each; Germany, 1%.
the grounds that Nixon's bombing of Cambodia exceeded his legal powers, more it seemed out of
a general weariness and relief at having voted impeachment on other grounds than out of any
Presidential vote
sustained examination of the case Drinan was presenting. Drinan also served on the House
Internal Security Committee until 1975, when Phil Burton of California persuaded all
1972
Nixon (R)
92,341
(44%)
Democrats but the Chairman to leave it, and the committee, after more than 30 years of
McGovern (1))
116,100
(56%)
controversial existence. quietly went out of existence-which was Drinan's goal all along.
1968
Nixon (R)
63,795
(33%)
Humphrey (D)
124.055
(65%)
Census Data Pop. 476,130. Central city, 16%; suburban, 71%. Median family income, $12,409;
Wallace (Al)
4,202
(2%)
families above $15,000: 36%; families below $3,000: 5%. Median years education, 12.5.
Stuck smack in the middle of the Old South is the booming metropolis of Atlanta-"the city," it
Rep. Elliott H. Levitas (D) Elected 1974; b. Dec. 26, 1930, Atlant; home,
liked to boast, "100 busy to hate." The slogan grew out of Atlanta's reputation for racial tolerance
Atlanta; Emory U., B.S., LL.B., Rhodes Scholar, Oxford U., M.A., U. of
and moderation, which it earned back in the 1950s and 1960s. But if Atlanta has practiced little
Mich.; Jewish.
overt segregation and possesses the sophistication of some northern cities, it has also developed
some of their problems. Foremost among them, perhaps, is the white exodus from the central city,
Career Practicing atty., 1955-75; Air Force; Ga. House of Reps.,
as metropolitan Atlanta has grown apace-up 91% between 1950 and 1970-whites have moved
1965-75.
increasingly to the suburbs, while blacks have moved outward within Atlanta itself. The result: by
1970, the city of Atlanta was a majority black-the first such major city in the South-while the
Offices 506 CHOB, 202-225-4272. Also 141 E. Trinity Pl., Decatur
suburbs formed an almost all-white noose around its perimeter. Children growing up in
30030, 404-377-1717.
metropolitan Atlanta, whether black or white, may well have less contact with members of the
other race than they would have 20 years ago-or than they do in the now-integrated schools in
Committees
the small towns and counties of south Georgia.
Government Operations (25th). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer
Just about half the residents of suburban Atlanta live in DeKalb County, just to the east of the
and Monetary Affairs; Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources.
city; together with a small part of the city and small, just-suburbanizing Rockdale County,
DeKalb makes up the 4th congressional district of Georgia. This area is the home of the
Public Works and Transportation (20th). Subcommittees: Aviation: Investigations and Review;
higher-income, better-educated Atlanta suburbanites; statistically, it is far closer to many such
Public Buildings and Grounds; Surface Transportation.
northern areas than to south Georgia. Politically, DeKalb and the 4th behave more like a northern
constituency than like the non-Atlanta Georgia districts. When the district was first created in
1964, the result of a landmark Supreme Court case, it went for Lyndon Johnson and elected a
Group Ratings: Newly Elected
liberal Democratic Congressman, while the rest of Georgia switched from its traditional
Democratic allegiance to the Republicanism of Barry Goldwater. In 1966, like many northern
Key Votes
districts, the 4th elected a Republican Congressman and in the state elections gave a large
1) Foreign Aid
AGN
6) Gov Abortn Aid
NE
11) Pub Cong Election $
NE
majority to textile heir Bo Callaway over former chicken restauranteur Lester Maddox. In the
2) Busing
NE
7) Coed Phys Ed
FOR
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
NE
years that followed, DeKalb generally preferred the Republicans smooth, neutral-accented
3) ABM
NE
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
NE
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
candidates to the rural-oriented, Southern-accented candidates nominated by the Democrats. This
4) B-1 Bomber
FOR
9) Pub Trans Sub
NE
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
is the only part of Georgia which has consistently elected a significant number of Republican state
5) Nerve Gas
NE
10) EZ Voter Regis
NE
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
legislators.
But suddenly, in 1974, the 4th shifted-again in the same direction as the north. In the past
Election Results
three elections, Congressman Ben Blackburn, a quiet but staunch conservative, had been reelected
with very little difficulty; he had 76% of the vote in 1972. But in 1974 he had strong opposition
1974 general:
Elliott H. Levitas (D)
61,211
(55%)
($121,724)
from another Atlanta attorney, Democrat Elliott Levitas. Blackburn had supported Richard
Ben B. Blackburn (R)
49,922
(45%)
($160,151)
Nixon to the very end; Levitas, a member of the Georgia legislature, was counted as a liberal.
1974 primary:
Elliott II. Levitas (D)
36,137
(63%)
When the votes were in, Levitas had won in one of the biggest upsets in the South that year.
Bruce B. Gruber (D)
14,946
(26%)
Levitas will be working hard for reelection, but he can count on tough Republican opposition; the
Nick M. Belluso (D)
6,439
(11%)
4th may prove, once again, to be a good, if geographically unlikely, national barometer in 1976.
Census Data Pop. 459,335. Central city, 16%; suburban, 80%. Median family income, $11,750;
families above $15,000: 31%; families below $3,000: 5%. Median years education, 12.4.
The Voters
Median voting age 38.
Employment profile White collar, 66%. Blue collar, 25%. Service, 9%. Farm, -%.
Ethnic groups Black, 15%. Spanish, 1%. Total foreign stock, 5%.
Presidential vote
1972 Nixon (R)
110,574
(77%)
McGovern (D)
33,043
(23%)
1968
Nixon (R)
54,869
(48%)
Humphrey (D)
31,233
(27%)
Wallace (AI)
28,216
(25%)
The 6th district of Indiana was the scene in 1974 of one of the two biggest upsets in House races
The Voters
(the other was the 2d district of New York), when 28-year-old Democrat David Evans beat
24-year House veteran William Bray, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services
Median voting age 41.
Committee. An unlikelier place for such a result could scarcely be imagined. The 6th takes in
Employment profile White collar, 45%. Blue collar, 42%. Service, 11%. Farm, 2%.
about a third of the recently expanded city of Indianapolis, four suburban counties, and a couple
Ethnic groups Black, 4%. Total foreign stock, 4%.
of townships in another county; and almost all the territory is usually solidly Republican. The
exceptions are part of the Indianapolis black ghetto (put here to keep it out of the 11th district)
Presidential vote
and some working class neighborhoods around the Indianapolis Speedway; but in recent years,
the latter had been trending to the Republicans, in apparent disgust with liberal Democratic
1972
Nixon (R)
127,566
(74%)
McGovern (D)
45,691
(26%)
programs.
1968
Nixon (R)
98,265
(54%)
AI any rate metropolitan Indianapolis has always been one of our most Republican cities; il has
Humphrey (D)
55,664
(31%)
never had the really large influxes of Eastern European immigrants who provide so many of the
Wallace (AI)
27,095
(15%)
traditional Democratic votes in places like Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland, and its economic
base is decidedly white collar, with banks, insurance companies, and state government all being
Rep. David W. Evans (D) Elected 1974; b. Aug. 17. 1946. Lafayette:
major employers. Beyond that, there is an ethos here that is profoundly conservative, as one might
home, Indianapolis; Ind. U., B.A. 1967, 1967-70, Butler U. 1970-72.
expect in the city that is the headquarters of the American Legion and the home town of James
Whitcomb Riley, Benjamin Harrison, and Tom Charles Huston. Indeed, the 6th district was the
Career Parochial school teacher and asst. principal, 1968-74; Dem.
only one of Indiana's eleven as they exist today which went for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and so
nominee for U.S. House of Reps., 1972.
one might have thought that Congressman Bray would have no trouble, no matter how
Democratic the year.
Offices 513 CHOB, 202-225-2276. Also 4th Floor, Administration Bldg.,
But party landslides produce a kind of Darwinian natural selection. Democrats in 1974 did not
Weir Cook Airport, Indianapolis 46241, 317-269-7364.
necessarily capture the scals where the Republicans were-on the basis of presidential or
statewide votes-the weakest; rather, they tended to beat the Republicans who were the most
Committees
complacent, who had not been working their district hard year in and year out. That appears to
have been the case with Bray. Blessed with a supposedly solid Republican district, he had not
Banking, Currency and Housing (29th). Subcommittees: Economic
bothered to return on weekends or to send out thousands of newsletters like his younger and
Stabilization; International Development Institutions and Finance:
technically more marginal colleagues Elwood Hillis and John Myers, both of whom survived the
General Oversight and Renegotiation.
Democratic landslide. So Bray was ripe for being picked off. But even at that, Evans could
scarcely have hoped to win without the straight ticket voting behavior which remains stronger here
Government Operations (26th). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs:
in Indiana than just about anywhere else in the country.
Government Activities and Transportation.
And that, of course, will be Evans's problem in 1976. No one supposes that the Democratic
candidates for President or Governor or Senator Vance Hartke (assuming he gets the Democratic
Group Ratings: Newly Elected
nomination) will carry the 6th district, so Evans knows he must make it on his own. Numerous
ambitious young Indianapolis area Republicans undoubtedly see this as the district which could
Key Votes
elect them to Congress for years (or until they are chosen to run for statewide office), and so
1) Foreign Aid
AGN
6) Gov Abortn Aid
NE
11) Pub Cong Election $
NE
Evans is assured of plenty of competition. It will be one of the toughest scats in the country for the
2) Busing
NE
7) Coed Phys Ed
AGN
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
NE
Democrats to hold.
3) ABM
NE
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
NE
13) Youth Camp Regs
AGN
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
9) Pub Trans Sub
NE
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
5) Nerve Gas
NE
10) EZ Voter Regis
NE
15) Farm Bill Veto
ABS
Census Data Pop. 471,595. Central city, 54%; suburban, 46%. Median family income, $10,497;
families above $15,000: 20%; families below $3,000: 6%. Median years education, 12.0.
Election Results
1974 general:
David W. Evans (D)
78,414
(52%)
($15,846)
William G. Bray (R)
71,134
(48%)
-($45,740)
1974 primary:
David W. Evans (D)
10,407
(56%)
John Bardon (D)
5,528
(30%)
George F. Cooper (D)
2,526
(14%)
Some congressional districts seem to be made up of territory left over after everyone else has
Rep. Anthony Toby Moffett (D) Elected 1974; b. Aug. 18, 1944,
constructed his own constituency. Such a district is the 6th of Connecticut. Its population centers
Holyoke, Mass.; home, Unionville; Syracuse U., A.B. 1966, Boston Col.,
are widely dispersed, at just about the opposite ends of the district. Enfield and Windsor Locks, in
M.A. 1968.
the far northeast corner, are predominatly Italian-American and are part of the Hartford-
to-Springfield (Massachusetts) industrial corridor. In the southeast corner of the 6th are Bristol
Career Dir., Ofc. of Students and Youth, Ofc. of the U.S. Commissioner
and New Britain, the latter the city with the state's largest concentration of Polish-Americans. In
of Educ., 1969-70; Staff aide to U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale of Minn.,
the north central part of the district, amid the gentle mountains, are the mill towns of Torrington
1970-71; Dir., Conn. Citizens Action Group, 1971-74.
and Winsted, the latter of which is Ralph Nader's home town. In between these Democratic areas
are the Yankee towns (like Sharon, home of the Buckley clan) and some posh Republican
Offices 1008 LHOB, 202-225-4476. Also 245 Main St., Bristol 06010,
Hartford suburbs like Farmington, Avon, and Simsbury.
203-589-5750.
The 1964 legislature, which drew the district's lines (they have been altered only slightly since),
Committees
expected the 6th to elect a Democrat, and generally it has; but overall the district must be classed
as marginal. Indeed, in its relatively brief history, the 6th has had four different Representatives
-practically a record in this day when Congressmen seek ever-longer seniority. The first, Bernard
Government Operations (27th). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs:
Grabowski, was the last beneficiary of the tradition that the state's Congressman-at-Large be of
Manpower and Housing.
Polish descent; he was slated in 1962 when the incumbent rebelled against the leadership of
Democratic State Chairman John Bailey. Grabowski did fine while riding the coattails of the state
Interstate Investigations. and Foreign Commerce (27th). Subcommittees: Energy and Power; Oversight and
licket in 1962 and 1964; left to his own devices in this rather disparate constituency in 1966, he
lost. The winner was Thomas Meskill, the brash conservative Republican Mayor of New Britain,
Group Ratings: Newly Elected
who went on to the Governorship in 1970. So too did Meskill's successor, Ella Grasso, after a
narrow win here in the 6th in 1970 and a solid reelection in 1972.
Key Votes
That left the district once again up for grabs in 1974. The winner was an unlikely one, at least
from the perspective of traditional Connecticut politics: 30-year-old Toby Moffett, once a Nader's
1) Foreign Aid
AGN
6) Gov Abortn Aid
NE
11) Pub Cong Election $
NE
Raider and director of the Nader-inspired Connecticut Citizens' Action Group. Moffett's strong
2) Busing
NE
7) Coed Phys Ed
FOR
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
NE
suit was constituency service-something 6th district residents were used to; Grasso has had a
3) ABM
NE
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
NE
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
toll-free phone number she advertised as the "Ella-phone" to take complaints. Moffett used his
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
9) Pub Trans Sub
NE
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
campaign staff to solve constituent's problems all during the campaign and in the process
5) Nerve Gas
NE
10) EZ Voter Regis
NE
15) Farm Bill Veto
AGN
demolished the Republican candidate, Patsy J. Piscopo, by almost a 2-1 margin. This was an even
Election Results
better showing than Grasso herself was making in the district, or had made two years before, and
suggests that Moffett should have no trouble at all winning reelection-if he isn't already thinking
1974 general:
Anthony Toby Moffett (D)
122,785
(64%)
($144,806)
about statewide office. After all, the 6th district has produced the last two Governors.
Patsy J. Piscopo (R)
69-942
(36%)
($89,328)
1974 primary:
Anthony Toby Moffett (D)
19,448
(58%)
Stanley J. Pac (D)
14,070
(42%)
Census Data Pop. 505,331. Central city, 26%: suburban, 51%. Median family income, $11,898;
families above $15,000: 30%; families below $3,000: 5%. Median years education, 12.2.
The Voters
Median voting age 43.
Employment profile White collar, 50%. Blue collar, 40%. Service, 9%. Farm, 1%.
Ethnic groups Black, 1%. Spanish, 1%. Total foreign stock, 32%. Italy, 6%; Canada, Poland, 5%
each; Germany, UK, 2% each; Ireland, 1%.
Presidential vote
1972
Nixon (R)
136,430
(58%)
McGovern (D)
98,328
(42%)
1968
Nixon (R)
89,516
(44%)
Humphrey (D)
104,210
(51%)
Wallace (AI)
10,963
(5%)
Bergen County, the northeast corner of New Jersey, is one of the nation's most comfortable and
Ethnic groups Black, 3%. Total foreign stock, 36%. Italy, 9%; Germany, 5%; Poland, UK, 3%
wealthiest suburban areas. Just across the George Washington Bridge from New York, behind the
each; USSR. Ireland, 2% each; Austria, Canada, Netherlands, 1% each.
Palisades that line the Hudson, are some of the state's wealthiest suburbs, sparsely settled (because
of minimum acreage zoning). hilly, and tree shaded. Shopping centers, not skyscrapers, are the
most prominent landmarks here, and although there are some out of gas industrial towns along
Presidential vote
the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, the overall picture here is one of settled affluence and neat
1972
Nixon (R)
150,619
(66%)
prosperity.
McGovern (D)
76,583
(34%)
Bergen County is divided into two congressioant districts; the 7th occupies roughly the western
1968
Nixon (R)
121,037
(56%)
half of the county. Republicans drew the slightly irregular boundary lines to split the county's
Humphrey (D)
82,220
(38%)
centers of Democratic strength evenly between the two districts; accordingly, the 7th bulges
Wallace (AI)
11,103
(5%)
southward to take in industrial Hackensack and Jewish Teaneck, to go with the generally
Republican suburbs to the north and west. But the redistricters' strategy, as so many do, went
awry: and today both Bergen County districts, the 7th and the 9th, are represented by Democrats.
Rep. Andrew Maguire (D) Elected 1974; b. Mar. 11, 1939, Columbus,
-
Ohio; home, Ridgewood; Oberlin Col., B.A. 1961, Woodrow Wilson and
The 7th is the one which changed hands most recently, in 1974, with the defeat of Republican
Danforth Fellow, U. of London, England, 1963, Harvard U., Ph.D. 1966.
Congressman William Widnall, ranking minority member of the House Banking and Currency
Committee. Widnall had been responsible for some provisions of the nations' housing laws over
Career U.N. Advisor on Political and Security Affairs, 1966-69; Dir.,
the years and had generally had a moderate to liberal record. Indeed, for many years, he seemed
multi-development program, Jamaica, N.Y., 1969-72; Consultant, Natl.
to suit this district perfectly, and was reelected with correspondingly large majorities. If he had
Affairs Div., Ford Foundation, 1972-74.
won in 1974, he would have become the senior Republican in the House-but that was just the
trouble. At 68 he was visibly past his prime, unable to campaign effectively and apparently
Offices 1313 LHOB, 202-225-4465. Also 115 W. Passaic St., Rochelle
unwilling to give his constituents the sort of services they have come to expect from their
Park 07662, 201-843-0240.
congressmen.
Committees
But Widnall still would have been reelected had he not faced spirited competition in the person
of Democrat Andrew Maguire. ^ 35-year-old Ph-D. and former Ford Foundation official,
Maguire soundly beat two well known Bergen County figures in the Democratic primary and went
Government Operations (28th). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs;
Government Information and Individual Rights.
on to wage a textbook general election campaign. He enlisted volunteers, raised money, put out
good media and door-to-door literature, and generally convinced the voters of the 7th district that
Interstate and Foreign Commerce (29th). Subcommittee: Energy and Power; Health and the
he would represent them better and more actively than his opponent. He beat the previously
Environment; Oversight and Investigations.
unbeatable Widnall by a solid 50-44 margin.
In the House Maguire became part of the freshman contingent on the Commerce and
Government Operations Committees which has changed so drastically their basic balance on
Group Ratings: Newly Elected
major policy questions. He seems to show the kind of political astuteness and the stands on
issues-he is an outspoken opponent of the big oil companies-that enable young Congressmen to
turn a landslide year victory into a lifetime congressional career. Despite the Republican
Key Votes
background of his district, it would be unwise to bet against Maguire in 1976.
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
NE
11) Pub Cong Election $
NE
2) Busing
NE
7) Coed Phys Ed
FOR
Census Data Pop. 479,999. Central city, 0%; suburban, 100%. Median family income, $14,257;
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
NE
3) ABM
NE
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
NE
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
families above $15,000: 46%; families below $3,000: 3%. Median years education, 12.4.
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
9) Pub Trans Sub
NE
14) Strip Mine Veto
AGN
5) Nerve Gas
NE
10) EZ Voter Regis
NE
The Voters
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
Election Results
Median voting age 45.
Employment profile White collar, 65%. Blue collar, 27% Service, 8%. Farm, -X.
1974 general:
Andrew Maguire (D)
79,808
(50%)
($137,280)
William B. Widnall (R)
71,377
(44%)
($50,575)
Milton Gralla (Ind. Citizens' Action)
9,520
(6%)
($25,000)
1974 primary:
Andrew Maguire (D)
11,274
(52%)
Ned J. Parsekian (D)
5,488
(25%)
Three others (D)
5,029
(23%)
Of all the nation's 435 congressional districts, the one which has had the closest elections in the
Rep. Edward Mezvinsky (D) Elected 1972; b. Jan. 17, 1937, Ames;
last dozen years, not just in November but also-in primary contests, is the 1st district of lowa. To
home, Iowa City; U. of la., B.A. 1960, U. of Cal., M.A., J.D.; Jewish.
visitors from New York or Los Angeles, this southeast corner of Iowa along the Mississippi River
must look like rather an ordinary part of the Midwest, with a lot of farmland and some small
Career Legis. Asst. to U.S. Rep. Neal Smith, 1965-67; Practicing atty.,
manufacturing cities. But the 1st does have some distinctive features. The little city of Burlington
1967-73; la. House of Reps., 1969-71; Dem. nominee for U.S. House of
(pop. 32,000) has given its name to a major railroad and has a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist,
Reps., 1970.
John McCormally of the Hawkeye. Davenport (pop. 98,000). the largest city in the district, is A
marginally Republican town with a Democratic Mayor named Kathryn Kirschbaum; it is also the
Offices 1404 LHOB, 202-225-6576. Also 115 Fed. Bldg., Davenport
home of the Palmer School of Chiropractic. And lowa City (pop. 47,000) is the site of the State
52801, 319-326-4088.
University of Iowa, the largest institution of higher learning in the state, with 20,000 students.
Committees
But listing these features does not explain why this district has been one of the most marginal in
the nation. The real explanation lies in personalities, particularly that of former Congressman
Fred Schwengel. A sometimes liberal Republican with a wide range of interests, Schwengel is
Government Operations (22d). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer
and Monetary Affairs; Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources.
president of the National Capital Historical Society and a Lincoln buff. First elected to the House
in 1954, he was something of a loner, and despite his liberal record lost the district to college
Judiciary (17th). Subcommittees: Monopolies and Commercial Law.
professor John Schmidhauser in 1964. Schwengel won it back in 1966 and beat Schmidhauser
again in 1968-all by narrow margins. In 1970, Schwengel faced former state Representative
David Stanley in the Republican primary: Stanley, who had nearly beaten Senator Harold
Group Ratings
Hughes two years before, spent over $100,000 and got 44% of the vote. In the fall, Schwengel beat
ADA
COPE
LWV
antiwar Democrat Edward Mezvinsky by only 765 votes.
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
1974
96
100
100
From that time on, it looked like Mczvinsky's scat-and it was. He began by beating
69
100
76
92
33
10
0
1973
96
82
100
Schmidhauser by almost 2-1 in the Democratic primary. The general election was not so much a
87
100
95
75
-
-
11
matter of positions on the issues as a contrast in attitudes and styles. Schwengel, the 65-year-old
Key Votes
incumbent, was genial and often uncommittal on issues: Mezvinsky, the 35-year-old challenger,
earnestly spoke out against the Nixon Administration's policies. That, hard work, and a good
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
FOR
2) Busing
II) Pub Cong Election $
FOR
FOR
organization-plus strong majorities from students in Iowa City-gave Mezvinsky a comfortable
7) Coed Phys Ed
FOR
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
54-46 victory.
3) ADM
AGN
FOR
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
AGN
4) B-1 Bomber
AGN
13) Youth Camp Regs
FOR
Mezvinsky was the most junior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee which voted to
9) Pub Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
AGN
impeach Richard Nixon. His speaking style was not considered as arresting as some others', and
10) EZ Voter Regis
FOR
15) Farm Bill Veto
AGN
his advocacy of an article relating to Nixon's misuse of government funds on his person failed to
Election Results
carry. But if he did not completely shine, his carnestness and his position apparently did not hurt
him with his constituents. He faced-appropriately, considering the district's history-the
4974 general:
Edward Mezvinsky (D)
75,687
(54%)
strongest challenge Republicans have made in any Iowa district recently; Mezvinsky won again
James A. S. Leach (R)
($81,166)
63,540
(46%)
by a 54-46 margin. Provided he does not face such well-financed opposition again, he can
1974 primary:
Edward Mezvinsky (D), unopposed
($89,786)
probably look forward to more comfortable victories in the future.
1972 general:
Edward Mezvinsky (D)
107,099
(54%)
Fred Schwengel (R)
($113,546)
91,609
(46%)
Census Data Pop. 471,260. Central city, 21%; suburban, 9%. Median family income, $9,594;
($69,615)
families above $15,000: 18%; families below $3,000: 9%. Median years education, 12.3.
The Voters
Median voting age 42.
Employment profile White collar, 45%. Blue collar, 33%. Service, 14%. Farm, 8%.
Ethnic groups Black, 1%. Total foreign stock, 9%. Germany, 3%.
Presidential vote
1972
Nixon (R)
111,577
(56%)
McGovern (D)
87,448
(44%)
1968
Nixon (R)
93,947
(50%)
Humphrey (D)
81,468
(44%)
Wallace (Al)
11,007
(6%)
The 3d congressional district of Michigan centers on the cities of Kalamazoo (pop. 86,000) and
Battle Creek (pop. 39,000), and reaches north to include some of the suburbs of Lansing. This
historically Republican territory enthusiastically attached itself to the Party as soon as it was
created in 1854 and has seldom left it since. These are places where old fashioned
virtues-honesty, thrift, reserve-are taken seriously, and where they are considered the heart of
political morality. For years they were exemplified, at least for people here, by the Republican
Party, but that seems to have changed with Richard Nixon. For even before the Watergate
scandal broke, the 3d was moving left, giving George McGovern a higher percentage of its votes
than Hubert Humphrey, and coming increasingly closer to going Democratic in state elections.
Then came Watergate, and the 3d, like most of outstate Michigan, seemed ready for a shift to the
left.
Indeed, just as 1974 began, the 3d seemed especially likely to show a direct Watergate impact.
For the district's Congressman, Garry Brown, had got himself involved, innocently but involved,
in part of the scandal. Brown, a feisty, hardworking Republican. is a member of the House
Banking and Currency Committee, and could be counted on in the past to oppose just about
Rep. Carry Brown (R) Elected 1966: b. Aug. 12, 1923, Schoolcraft;
anything the populist then Chairman, Wright Patman, wanted. One of the things Patman wanted,
home, Schoolcraft; Kalamazoo Col., B.A. 1951, Geo. Wash. U., LL.B.
in the fall of 1972, was an investigation of Watergate. At the time, the scandal was generally
1954; Presbyterian.
ignored, except for the pages of the Washington Post -and among those inside the headquarters
of CREEP and the White House who were plotting to cover it up. One of their most pliant tools,
Career Army, 1946-47; Practicing atty., 1954-67; Commissioner of U.S.
as it turned out, was Garry Brown. The CREEP people didn't want Patman's men subpoenaing
Dist. Ct., West. Dist. of Mich., 1957-62; Mich. Senate, 1962-66, Minor.
them, and Brown was perfectly willing to cooperate. He helped line up every Republican on
Floor Ldr.
Banking and Currency against the Patman move; and either he or others got six of the Democrats
to vote that way, too-enough for a majority.
Offices 2446 RHOB, 202-225-5011. Also Rm. 2-1-36 Fed. Ctr., 74 N.
Brown's activity in this was typical. He is just as aggressive and unyielding when arguing against
Washington St., Battle Creck 49107, 616-962-1551.
the FDA on behalf of Upjohn, a Kalamazoo-based pharmaceutical manufacturer, or when
Committees
pleading the interests of the company that builds Checker cabs, a big employer in the 3d. In those
cases as in the Watergate, Brown does not seem to inquire into all the motives of his client; if he is
convinced the cause is O.K., he just goes ahead and fights. In his defense, Brown says that he just
Banking, Currency and Housing (3d). Subcommittees: Financial Institutions Supervision,
Regulation and Insurance; Housing and Community Development; International Trade,
did what any good partisan would do-to protect his party's interest in a general election.
Investment and Monetary Policy.
Whether that is how a Congressman should view his duties was the issue in the race in the 3d in
1974-or, rather, should have been the issue. But though Brown was terribly vulnerable he had the
Government Operations (4th). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs.
luck to draw an opponent who declined to use the strongest issues. The Democrats had looked
around for an ambitious young candidate; finding none of suitable quality, they settled on Paul
Joint Economic Committee (2d, House Side). Subcommittees: Consumer Economics; Economic
Todd, a 53-year-old former Congressman who had won in the 1964 Democratic landslide and had
Progress; International Economics; Priorities and Economy in Government; Urban Affairs.
been beaten by Brown two years later. Todd declined to use Watergate or the Patman
investigation in any way during the campaign. And when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon,
Todd came out in favor of Ford's action-allowing Brown to get into an anti-Nixon posture by
displaying some dissatisfaction with the pardon.
Group Ratings
ADA
COPE
LWV
RIPON
NFU
LCV
CFA
NAB
NSI
ACA
Even at that, Brown only won by a 52-48 margin, by far his closest race since he first won the
seat. Presumably he will not have as much trouble in 1976; the Watergate issue, and its peculiar
1974
38
27
75
64
71
38
27
67
78
33
relevance in the 3d, will have faded somewhat by then, and otherwise his constituents have
1973
20
9
67
100
12
56
13
-
I
65
relatively few complaints about him.
1972
13
9
60
88
50
56
0
100
100
64
Census Data Pop. 467,546. Central city, 19%: suburban, 44%. Median family income. $10,913;
families above $15,000: 25%; families below $3,000: 7%. Median years education, 12.2.
Key Votes
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
AGN
II) Pub Cong Election $
AGN
The Voters
2) Busing
FOR
7) Coed Phys Ed
AGN
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
AGN
Median voting age 40.
3) ABM
FOR
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
FOR
13) Youth Camp Regs
AGN
Employment profile White collar, 46%. Blue collar, 39%. Service, 13%. Farm, 2%.
4) B-1 Bomber
FOR
9) Pub Trans Sub
FOR
14) Strip Mine Veto
FOR
Ethnic groups Black, 5%. Total foreign stock, 10%. Netherlands, Canada, 2% each; Germany,
5) Nerve Gas
AGN
10) EZ Voter Regis
AGN
15) Farm Bill Veto
FOR
UK, 1% each.
Election Results
Presidential vote
1974
general:
Garry Brown (R)
70,157
(52%)
($52,305)
1972
Nixen (R)
118,023
(62%)
Paul H. Todd, Jr. (D)
65,212
(48%)
($42,961)
McGovern (D)
71,603
(38%)
1974 primary:
Garry Brown (R), unopposed
1968
Nixon (R)
91,974
(53%)
1972 general:
Garry Brown (R)
110,082
(60%)
($23,116)
Humphrey (D)
64.544
(37%)
James T. Brignall (D)
74,114
(40%)
($26,320)
Wallace (AI)
17,857
(10%)
The 1st district of Ohio is the eastern half of Cincinnati and suburban Hamilton County. This
is, by and large, the more prosperous half of the old river city, which was the cultural and
commercial capital of the Midwest even before the Tafts arrived. In some neighborhoods within
Cincinnati and in the hills beyond the city limits are the fashionable estates of the city's elite.
The Voters
Probably the most prestigious is the suburb of Indian Hill, home of Senator Robert Taft, Jr. To
the north, one finds a mix of shopping centers and high-income suburban terrain. Within the city
Median voting age 43.
itself are the formerly Jewish sections of Avondale and Walnut Hills, now predominantly black.
Employment profile White collar, 53%. Blue collar, 33%. Service, 14%. Farm, -%.
Many neighborhoods, like Norwood, a suburban enclave surrounded by Cincinnati, are inhabited
Ethnic groups Black, 20%. Total foreign stock, 9%. Germany, 2%.
mainly by migrants from the hills of Kentucky and Tennessee. The 1st also has most of the city's
Jewish population; from its early days as a heavily German river town, Cincinnati has had an
Presidential vote
important German Jewish community. Politically, it is more conservative and Republican than
Jewish communities in other major cities. Over the years, many prominent Cincinnati Jews have
1972
Nixon (R)
111,925
(66%)
supported the Tafts.
McGovern (D)
57,516
(34%)
1968
Nixon (R)
88,124
(49%)
Cincinnati has a well-deserved reputation for being a Republican city. Of the nation's 25 largest
Humphrey (D)
71,824
(40%)
metropolitan areas, only Dallas and San Diego turn in Republican margins with greater
Wallace (Al)
20,838
(12%)
regularity. Such has been the case since before the Civil War, when Cincinnati was a German,
pro-Union, and Republican island surrounded by a sea of Southern Democratic sentiment.
Morcover, Cincinnati has never attracted large numbers of those ethnic groups which have
Rep. Willis D. Gradison, Jr. (R) Elected 1974; b. Dec. 28, 1928,
traditionally voted for Democratic politicians. There are fewer blacks here than in Cleveland,
Cincinnati; home, Cincinnati; Yale U., B.A. 1948, Harvard U., M.B.A.
Detroit, or Buffalo, and very few people of Eastern or Southern European origin. And many of
1951, D.C.S. 1954.
the city's Appalachians come from solidly Republican mountain counties, bringing both their
politics and religion to the big Ohio city.
Career Investment broker; Asst. to U.S. Under Secy. of the Treasury,
1953-55; Asst. to U.S. Secy. of HEW, 1955-57; Cincinnati City Cncl,
1961-74, Vice Mayor, 1967-71, Mayor, 1971.
Out of Cincinnati have come several prominent Republicans, including Chief Justice Salmon P.
Chase, President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft, Speaker of the House Nicholas
Offices 1331 LHOB, 202-225-3164. Also 9407 Fed. Ofc. Bldg., 550 Main
Longworth (whose nonagenatian widow, the former Alice Roosevelt, still reigns as one of
St., Cincinnati 45202, 513-684-2456.
Washington's social elite), and of course the late Senator Robert Taft. In more recent years the 1st
district has produced a succession of congressmen of both parties who for one reason or another
Committees
have achieved some national prominence. The string started in 1964, when John Gilligan, then a
college professor and later Governor of Ohio, was elected Congressman in an upset; he was
lunking, Currency and Housing (10th). Subcommittees: Domestic Monetary Policy; Economic
waten here two years later by Robert Taft, Jr., later U.S. Senator. When Taft moved up to the
Subilization; Financial Institutions Supervision, Regulation and Insurance.
Senate, he was succeeded by William Keating, a Republican whose Cincinnati lawyer brother is a
utional crusader against pornography, and who in 1974 succeeded Francis L. Dale, the original
overnment Operations (14th). Subcommittees: Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs:
:ead of the Committee to Reelect the President, as president of Cincinnati Enquirer.
Government Activities and Transportation.
Keating is not particularly famous nationally-but he would have been if he had stayed in
Congress, for he was a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and would have been forced to
Key Votes
.ote on the impeachment of Richard Nixon. (His place on the Committee was taken by the 5th
district's Delbert Latta.)
1) Foreign Aid
FOR
6) Gov Abortn Aid
NE
11) Pub Cong Election s
NI
2) Busing
NE
7) Coed Phys Ed
AGN
12) Turkish Arms Cutoff
NI
Keating's resignation provided some guidance, however, for Judiciary Committee members who
3) ABM
NE
8) Pov Lawyer Gag
NE
13) Youth Camp Regs
AGN
remained on, for it necessitated a special election-one of that series which showed the vast
4) B-1 Bomber
FOR
9) Pub Trans Sub
NE
14) Strip Mine Veto
FOR
impopularity of Richard Nixon. The contenders were two members of the Cincinnati Council:
5) Nerve Gas
NE
10) EZ Voter Regis
NE
15) Farm Bill Veto
ΓO
Democrat Thomas Luken and Republican Willis Gradison. And though there was some
assgreement on other issues-Luken was against legalized abortion, Gradison wasn't-the main
Election Results
sue was Nixon, and Luken predictably won. As it turned out, this was the only special election
hose result was overturned in November: then Gradison, better financed and a more savvy
1974 general
Willis D. Gradison, Jr. (R)
70,284
(51%)
($126,407,
impaigner, won with 51% of the vote. That was still not an overwhelming endorsement,
Thomas A. Luken (D)
67,685
(49%)
($79,500
considering the Republican heritage of the district, but with the advantages of incumbency it
1974 primary:
Willis D. Gradison, Jr. (R)
16,437
(52%)
cems likely enough that Gradison will be able to win in the future.
Willia, E. Flax (R)
14,148
(45%)
William H. McKinney (R)
849
(3%)
Census Data Pop. 462,725. Central city, 48%; suburban, 52%. Median family income, $10,535;
amilies above $15,000: 26%; families below $3,000: 8%. Median years education, 12.1.