Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

It is their opinion they are protected by the Constitution, specifically the first amendment, and resist any effort to protect themselves by legislative statute.

Second, I offer this amendment because, while the legislative intent of this provision, as it is now in the bill, is clear at this moment, particularly in view of the history which has precipitated it, we cannot be so certain as to how it will be interpreted in the future. Specifically some court some day will decide because certain freedoms of the media are protected from Presidential regulation that others may be subject to it.

My staff and I have checked with a number of representatives of the media throughout the country, and all are in accord this amendment is not needed, in their opinion, for their protection.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from New York.

Mr. BINGHAM. Do I understand correctly eliminating the two lines in effect does not change the sense of the

Mr. WHALEN. That is correct. I would make a further observation, Mr. Bingham. I do believe we should make this clear in the report language. I am just simply suggesting the media representatives that I recently talked to, plus my previous experience with them, would indicate that they would rather not have this statutory protection. Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman would yield further, on the basis of that, I have no objection to the amendment.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman of Ohio.

All those in favor signify by saying "aye."

[Chorus of ayes.]

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Opposed, “no.”

[Chorus of noes.]

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The ayes have it; and the amendment is agreed to.

Are there other amendments to title II?

[No response.]

TITLE III

Chairman ZABLOCKI. If there are no further amendments to title II, the chief of staff will read.

Mr. BRADY [reading]:

Title III, amendments to the Export Administration Act of 1969.
Authority to regulate extraterritorial exports.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from New York.

Mr. BINGHAM. I ask unanimous consent title III be considered as

read and open for amendment.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Is there objection?

[No response.]

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The Chair hears none.

Title III is open for amendment.

Are there any amendments to title III?

[No response.]

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Illinois, I understand

you want to be recognized.

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ON H.R. 7738

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, if I could have the attention of the gentleman from New York and Ohio, I appreciate their interest in this product of their hard work, but, frankly, there are many of us, at least speaking for a number of members of the minority, who do not feel they were adequately informed as to what is in this bill. This is a very complex subject, and we feel it is incumbent on us to be better equipped to discuss and debate this particular bill before it moves any further along the way.

So, I would ask if we could defer consideration of this measure until sometime next week, and at that point we may either be supporting it or having helpful amendments, such as the one Mr. Solarz tried to pass. But we are, frankly, in the dark as to the real implications of this bill.

Mr. BINGHAM. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes.

Mr. BINGHAM. We devoted a whole section to this matter yesterday. The bill was carefully explained. The administration indicated they had no objection to it except as to matters we know they object to, like use of the concurrent resolution veto. I do not really understand the gentleman's position. We had extensive hearings and discussions in the subcommittee. There was no dissent on the bill in the subcommittee.

Mr. DERWINSKI. I do not want to turn this into a critique on the subcommittee system and the functions of this committee. When under the subcommittee procedure, unfortunately, unless someone has a lot of time on his hands, no one is there except the majority of the subcommittee holding the fort. So as a result of this you have a minimum number of members working at the subcommittee level. When you come up with a subject that is this historic a controversy, you just do not brush it aside with a simple explanation that the administration is for it with a few reservations; as it has been explained. Frankly, a number of us are concerned with the long-term implications of what you are trying to do. We are not satisfied. We have not been briefed properly. Mr. Whalen has not communicated in enough detail with the rest of us on this side. He is our ranking member. We just feel we need better information and, therefore, would suggest that we defer the matter until next week. If not, I will object to the lack of quorum at the time you are ready for final passage.

Mr. BINGHAM. Would the gentleman be willing to set a date for the final consideration of the bill on Monday afternoon?

Chairman ZABLOCKI. If the gentleman from New York is posing the question to the Chair, since the gentleman from Illinois would not be in a position to give him the answer, the earliest hour we could consider the bill for final approval would be 1:30 p.m. Monday. Mr. BINGHAM. My question was whether the gentleman from Illinois would be

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Would there be sufficient time over the weekend for the gentleman to study the bill and be fully informed? Mr. DERWINSKI. There are a number of members involved in this question of mine and we will do the best we can to cooperate. We do not want to be obstructionists here. We want to cooperate to the

[ocr errors]

extent we can. We just honestly at this point are not satisfied with what we grasp in this bill. But Monday at 1:30, subject only to whatever complications you have on the floor, that will give us time to finish some of the research we are working on now.

Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman would yield for a moment further, may I just say in this case on the day we reported out this measure from the subcommittee, we had six or seven members there, including both members of the minority.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. I understand-would the gentleman from Illinois yield?

Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. As I understand, the bill was reported out unanimously.

Mr. BINGHAM. It was.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. GUYER. I think in deference to the remarks of Mr. Derwinski, it is far more wholesome if all the committee has a better knowledge. It will facilitate passage on the floor and look better for the committee, even though you might mechanically put it through. I think it would be a more wholesome approach, and we would all be more conversant with the contents.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. It would be sufficient time for those who have questions to clarify them?

Mr. GUYER. Yes.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Whalen.

Mr. WHALEN. May I also state the minority counsel has submitted to each member of the minority a summary of this, which I think was received yesterday or the day before. I hope this draft would be studied between now and next Monday. Any questions, too, that I or my staff consultant, Mr. Popovich, can answer, we will be glad to do so. Chairman ZABLOCKI. The Chair would like to further state that the subcommittee staff prepared a section-by-section summary dated June 13. I would hope those members who have any questions about the legislation would carefully study the summary prepared and the section-by-section analysis.

Mr. IRELAND. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Yes.

Mr. IRELAND. Not to prolong what seems to have been concluded, I would like to take this opportunity to go on record and compliment the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bingham, for the way the subcommittee handled this. The attendance, not only at the last markup meeting of the subcommittee but throughout, was excellent. The information was quite detailed and substantial. I think he deserves a considerable amount of credit.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. In view of the situation, the Chair will agree that we postpone final action until Monday when the committee will

meet at 1:30.

Does the Chair understand the gentleman from Illinois is asking unanimous consent that amendments would also be in order?

Mr. DERWINSKI. No. What the heck, if we have amendments, we will process them on the floor.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. I would hope that if you have amendments that are serious amendments, any amendments coming from the gentleman from Illinois, that he would ask unanimous consent they

be considered in committee. We prefer to have amendments be considered in committee rather than be bombarded on the floor.

Mr. DERWINSKI. It would not be bombarded on the floor. I don't think this would be the kind of bill that would be treated in that fashion. I honestly don't know if by Monday we will have all our ducks in a row.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The only reason the Chair has made that observation is, as you know, it is our policy, certainly mine, that to the extent possible, we go with a united front with legislation from this committee to the floor.

Mr. DERWINSKI. If the united front is possible, fine. If it is not, it is not do to a lack of good will on all sides.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Thank you very much.

The committee stands adjourned until 1:30 Monday.

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1977.]

REVISION OF TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT

MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1977

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met in open markup session at 1:55 p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clement J. Zablocki (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The committee will please come to order. We are meeting today for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 7738, to revise the Trading With the Enemy Act.

MAKING THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT PERMANENT

The Chair has received two letters, one from the Honorable C. Fred Bergsten, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury, and an almost identical letter from Mr. Haslam, the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Commerce. We desire to have them placed in the record. Perhaps we ought to have the chief of staff read the brief letter. They are identical. Just read the one from Assistant Secretary Bergsten for the record. There may be some members who have comments. The chief of staff will read.

Mr. BRADY [reading]:

Department of Treasury, Washington D.C., 20220. Assistant Secretary, June 20,

1977.

Dear Mr. Chairman: At the June 16 hearings on H.R. 7738, a bill "With respect to the powers of the President in time of war or national emergency," I stated the administration's position on the proposed legislation.

There is, however, one further point which was not made. It is critically important that the Government's export control program continue without interruption or lapse. Accordingly, the administration again wishes strongly to urge that this legislative proposal include a provision amending the Export Administration Act to make it permanent legislation, as the administration supported draft recommends.

We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, Fred Bergsten.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Without objection the other letter signed by the General Counsel also will be made part of the record, although they are identical.

[The letter of June 20, 1977 from C. E. Haslam follows:]

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., June 20, 1977. Hon. CLEMENT ZABLOCKI, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At the June 16 hearings on H.R. 7738, a bill "With respect to the powers of the President in time of war or national emergency," Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Bergsten stated the Administration's position on the proposed legislation.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »