UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

// /7~ .~", ~ongrCSSional1Rc(ord

d PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 93 CONGRESS FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 119-PART 13

MAY 16, 1973 TO MAY 29, 1973

(PAGES 15853 TO 17214)

•

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1973 _C,'«'<"·",,'_""',··-C,'--'_

16152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-·HOUSE iSfity J7-, 'J9'78 proximately 18 months-sothat the revenue sources, and determines the'size' of ';' '·l();:seneftt.8 if6ril muse1iriis; paI'kB'.l1brarles. Congress will be able to establish a level the Federal Payment. Federal grants-in-aId and cultural activities which are financed by are available to the District as they are .to the Federal Government or are .located in the of Federal payment 1 year in advance state and local government.<;. District because it ,is .the Nation's Capital. of the beginning of the fiscal year in Great difficulty arises In trying to deter­ U.N"et cQSts. If anY'. after cOIll>iderin~.Other which such authorization would take mine precisely the costs and.benefits which compensation for tax base deficiencies and effect. accnle to the District of Columbia as a re­ the direct and Indirect taxes paid, of pro­ It is generally conceded that the prob­ sult of being the seat of the Federal Govern­ viding services to tax-exempt non-profit or­ lem of the Federal payment as it relates ment. Satisfactory techniques have not been ganizations and corporate oftlces doing busi­ to the District of Columbia leaves both developed for quantifying sUCh factors as the ness only with the Federal Government. of the principal parties relatively un­ infiuence of the Federal payroll, the tourist 12. Benefits of a relatively stable economy. trade dra>lrn by the Federal city, the effect Some of the above elements can be quan­ happy with the effort they expend to ar­ of Federal agency relocation and leasing deci­ tlfied; others are purely judgmental. The rive at an agreement regarding the level sions, the Impact of exempt Federal and re­ Commission believes that the Federal Pay­ of that payment. On the one hand, in lated property (I.e. embassies, national non­ ment will thus continue to represent a kind many instances the Congress deals with profit associations, etc.) as it relates to rev­ of equl11brium. balancing extraordinary net the matter in a relatively bulk increment enue collection, and the extra cost.<; the Dis­ benefits of the Federal presence with extraor­ manner, rather than approaching it on trict Incurs as a result of policing and clean­ dinary net costs, however these benefits and a refined statistical basis. However, ing up after national demonstrations. cost.<; may be defined. Adjustments In the Congress yielding in certain instances Many feel that the Federal Payment should Payment should be considered when these ex­ refiect only the extraordinary net cost (above traordinary element.<; change slgnlficantly to because it considers it does not have average or different in some way from com­ the extent that the adjustments can be based sufficient information on which to make parable cities) to the District of the Federal on measurable changes. a refined jUdgment, the authorization is presence. Others maintain that the Federal A continuing analysis of the elements af­ set on the basis of compromise rather Payment should be sufficient to make the fecting the level of the Federal Payment is than need for informed judgment. Mean­ District a model American city or, at least essential to recommending such adjustments while, the District government is often an orderly, attractive and pleasing National on a fall' and eqUitable basis. The Commis­ unhappy, it appears, because certain of Capital. In these approaches as well as others, sion believes that such analysis shOUld here­ its officials may feel that they have been there is little agreement as to Which costs after be conducted on a contInuing basis un­ and benefits are considered normal and which der the supervision of the Federal Office of unable to fully get across their story extraordinary, or how they should be refiected Management and BUdget in conjunction with to the Congress as far as justifying needs in the annual Federal Payment. Its annual review of the District Govern­ and convincing the Congress that a larg­ Although Intercity fiscal comparisons are ment's bUdget submission, and related inter­ er increase in the Federal payment is useful In determining the level of the Federal community revenue and expenditure com­ fully warranted. Payment, measurement difficulties preclude parisons developed by the District govern­ It is believed that the approach con­ establishing the Payment baSed solely on the ment. A background paper on the Federal tained in this bill would to a large extent difference between District expenditures and Payment may be found In Volume III of the revenues of average intercity rates. Neverthe­ Nelsen Commission Report. diminish, if not eliminate, this con­ less, Intercity comparisons are still extremely troversy and, in addition, permit the helpful as a starting point in determining Congress to act in a more informed man­ whether the standard of fairness seems to be HOUSE MEMBERS CALL FOR OVER­ ner as it relates to the Federal payment. observed for each new level of the Federal HAUL OF SOCIAL SERVICE REGU­ On the other hand, District government Payment. It is important to realize that the LATIONS officials, by providing for intercity fiscal knowledge gained from InterCity fiscal com­ comparisons in justifying their level of parisons is suggestive and not definitive­ The SPEAKER. Under a previous or­ request for a Federal payment, wUl be It must be used judiciously and its limita­ der of the House, the gentleman from informing the residents of the District tions must be understood. Minnesota (Mr. FRASER) is recognized that their need, at least on a basis com­ Because of the vital role the Federal Pay­ for 5 minutes. ment plays In District financial operations Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, today the pared with other cities, is justifiable; and Its effect on the economy and eftlclency and that their revenue-raising efforts, of those operations, the determination of the senate Finance Committee is holding such as those relating to real estate tax, level of the Federal Payment has been a the last of 4 days of hearings on the are comparable with like cities, given matter of primary concern to the Commis­ revised social service regulations issued the uniqueness of the Nation's Capital. sion. The Commission has not been a.ble to by the Department of Health, Educa­ Certainly, the information supplied the develop a precise mathema.tical formula nor tion, and Welfare, on May l. Congress by the District government and does It believe the SUbject is amenable to In a statement submitted to Finance the Offie of Management and Budget such precision. Nevertheless, a. list of sev­ Committee Chairman RUSSELL LONG, 84 eral Identifiable elements of costs and bene­ House Members have called for an over­ should also serve to inform and reassure fits to the District of the Federal presence local residents that their taxes are being has been assembled which bears on the SUb­ haul of the May 1 regulations. used by the local government in an effec­ ject and should be considered, among others We feel that HEW has moved beyond tive and efficient manner. in future dellberations. congressional intent by using the regu­ This manner of arriving at a Federal 1. Revenues unobtainable because of the lations to convert social services from payment should also serve to inform the relative lack of taxable commercial and in­ a program intended to keep people off dustrial property. welfare to one which is targeted almost Nation's taxpayers, "who give a substan­ 2. Revenues unobtainable because of the tial measure of financial support to the exclusively on welfare recipients. relative lack of taxable business income. In an effort to exclude most nonrecip­ operation of the District government 3. Potential revenues that would be real­ (S. Rept. 91-1122, page 2)" that the Ized if the following exemptions from Dis­ ients from the program, HEW has un­ Congress is performing its proper and trict taxes were eliminated: intentionally provided an incentive for informed legislative oversight in estab­ a. Non-resident income earned in the Dis­ welfare dependency. Under new income lishing a Federal payment for the Dis­ trict eligibility standards, many cash as­ trict of Columbia. Your support on behalf b. Other special exemptions from Individ­ sistance recipients with outside earnings of this measure is solicited, and in order ual Income taxes will be able to qualify for free day care, to provide those in the Congress who may c. Exemptions from sales taxes for example, while p'eople at the same 4. Recurring and non-recurring costs of income level who are entirely self sup­ not have had an opportunity to read unreimbursed services to the Federal Gov­ some of the background as it relates to porting will be unable to obtain the ernment. free service. Obviously, there will be this matter, the excerpt from the Nelsen 5. Other expenditure requIrements placed little incentive for the welfare recipient Commission report which relates to this on the District by the Federal Government to become financially self-sufficient un­ matter is reprinted below: whIch are unique to the District. der this arrangement. THE FEDERAL PAYMENT 6. Benefits of Federal grantS-in-aid rela­ A copy of our letter to Senator LoNG The Fiscal relationship between the Dls­ tive to aid given other states and local gov­ follows: 1;rlct of Columbia and the Federal Govern­ ernments. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ment has always been difficult to define, let 7. Recurring and non-recurring costs of Washington, D.O., May 15, 1973. alone quantify. Some aspects of the relation­ unrelmbursed services rendered the District Senator RUSSELL LONG, ship are more clearly understood than others. by the Federal Government. Ohairman, Senate Finance Committee, For Instance, It Is well known that the Con­ 8. Benefits derived through Treasury bor­ Washington, D.O. gress enact.<; most revenue measures for the rowing. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We want to Indicate District, appropriates annually the funds It 9. Higher than average sales tax revenue our concern about the revised regulations may expend Including those raised from local from tourist trade. for the social serVices program issue by the May 17, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 16153 Department of Health, Education and Wel­ this means that low income homeowners, made part of your committee's official hear­ fare on May l. farmers and people with modest savings w111 ing record on social service regulations. After reviewing these latest regulations be effectively cut off from the program. Here With best Wishes. together with the earller version publlshed again, we will be penalizing those people who Sincerely, on February 16, it appears to us that HEW are struggling to maintain their seif-suffi­ Brock Adams, Bella S. Abzug. Joseph P. has iost sight of the original objective of the ciency at poverty level Incomes. Addabbo. Thomas L. Ashley, Herman Badlllo. social services, program-the prevention of We are also concerned about the extremely John A. Blatnik, Jonathan B. Bingham, Ed­ welfare dependency. restrictive definition of services eligible for ward P. Boland. The new regulations, in effect, convert federal reimbursement. Funding wlll be cut John Brademas, Frank J. Brasco, George social services from a program intended to off for a wide range of programs, including E. Brown, Jr., Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, keep people off welfare to one Which is education, mental health, medical treatment Shirley Chisholm, WilHam Clay, John Con­ targetted almost exclusively on welfare and nutritional services. yers, Jr., James C. Corman. recIpients. A number of states have used social service Dominick V. Daniels, Ronald V. Dellums, In some areas, the regulations are actually funds to establish drug treatment and alco­ Frank E. Denholm, John Dent, Ron de Lugo, counter-productive. Welfare dependency, in holism control centers. By treating an indi­ Charles C. Diggs, Jr., Robert F. Drlnan, Bob fact, will be encouraged rather than dis. vidual's drug problem, a community agency Eckhardt. couraged. A good case In point is the new Is doing much to keep this person off the Don Edwards, Joshua Eilberg, Dante B. Fas­ income ellgiblity standards. The May 1 reg­ welfare rolls. Yet, most drug treatment pro­ cell, Walter E. Fauntroy, Richard H. Fulton, ulations state that· with the exception of grams w111 no longer be fundable under the Henry B. Gonzalez, Ella Grasso, Wllllam J. day care, potential welfare recipIents wlll new regUlations. Green. be ellgible for services only If their gross Many older people have maintained their Gilbert Gude, Michael Harrington, Au­ Income does not exceed 150% of their state's Independence and avoided Institutionaliza­ gustus F. Hawkins, Henry Helstoskl. Ken welfare payment standard. This means that tion with the aid of programs such as "Meals Hechler, Elizabeth Holtzman, James Howard. In every state, many welfare recipients with on Wheels". But many of these efforts, as Barbara Jordan, Robert Kastenmeler. outside earnings wlll be eligible for services well, wlll now be terminated as a result of Edward I. Koch, Robert L. Leggett. Spark while non-recipients at the same Income the new regulations. M. Matsunaga, Lloyd Meeds, Ralph H. Met­ level wlll be inel1glble. The accompanying These new federally-Imposed restrictions calfe, Patsy T. Mink, Parren J. Mitchell. John chart documents this point. run counter to efforts underway throughout Moakley. Clearly, HEW w11l have difficulty justifying the federal government to give states more WilHam S. Moorhead. John M. Murphy, an arrangement In which a non-recipient fiexlblllty In dealing With their own locally Claude Pepper, Bertram Podell, Richardson finds that he can not qUB.lIfy for free day Identified needs. For some reason, the ob­ Preyer, Charles B. Rangel. Thomas M. Rees, care service,· for example, while his welfare jectives of the New Federalism have been Donald W. Riegle. recipients· neighbor with an equal if not abandoned when It comes to social services. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Fred B. Rooney. Ben­ higher income can obtain the free service. Clearly, additional reVisions of the May 1 jamin S. Rosenthal, Dan Rostenkowskl, Ed­ What HEW is really te111ng people through regUlations are necessary if the social servIce ward R. Roybal, Paul S. 8a.rbanes, PatricIA these new regulations Is that you can do program is to meet the major goal laid out Schroeder, John F. SelberUng. much better for yourself if you stay on wel­ B. F. Sisk, James V. Stanton, Fortney H. fare so why bother trying to make It on for it by Congress-the prevention of wel­ Stark, Louis Stokes. W. S. Stuckey. Jr., Gerry your own. fare dependency. If the necessary adjust­ E. Studds, James W. Symington. Frank The new assets requirement wlll also tend ments are not made on an administrative Thompson. Jr. to discourage economic Independence. Under level, we urge the Finance Committee to Robert O. Tiernan, Lionel Van Deerlln, the revised regulations, potential recipients consider legislative action to deal with the Charles A. Vanlk, Antonio Borja. Won Pat. will have to meet the same assets test tlsed concerns we have just outllned. Sidney R. Yates. Andrew Young. John Cul­ for cash assistance recipients. In most states, We would appreciate having this letter ver, Robert Roe, Mike McCormack.

TABLE I.-ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL SERVICES FOR A FAMILY OF 4 UNDER HEW REGULATIONS I

Annual net Limit on family eligibility' for- Annual net Limit on family eligibility' for- AFDC earnings level' AFDC earningslevel' ---- payment at which Services payment at which Services standard eligibility for other than standard eligibility for other than State (annual) AFDC closes' day care Day care State (annual) AFDC closes' day care Day care

Alabama ______. __ $1,164 $2,106 $1,746 $2,716 Nebraska ___ ._••______. _____ $3,684 $5,886 $5,526 $8,596 Alaska ______, ______•___ 4,800 7,560 7,200 11,200 Nevada ••••_••_._. ______•• __ 2,112 3,528 3,168 4.928 Arizona ____ •______•_____ 3,384 5,430 5,070 7,896 New Hampshire'. ______._. 3,528 5,652 5,292 8,232 Arkansas•• __ , ______•______2,748 4,482 4,122 6,412 New 1ersey_.....____ •___ ._ .•_. 3,888 6,192 5,832 9,072 California_ ..______• ______3,768 6,042 5,682 8,792 New Mexico....______•••_. ___ 2,436 4,014 3,654 5,684 Colorado___ •_____ • ______. ___ 2,904 4,716 4,356 6,776 New York ______._..____ • 4,032 6,408 6,048 9,408 Connecticu!....._.._. ______• 4,056 6,444 6,084 9,464 North Carolina....._...______.. 1,906 3,219 2,859 4,447 Delaware ______._ ...___ ..... 3,444 5,527 5,167 8,039 North Dakota_ ...____ ._.._____ • 3,600 5,760 5,400 8,400 Washington, D.C __ •• ______• _____ 2,868 4,742 4,382 6,692 Ohio_._....._...__ ••• _____ •_., 2,400 3,960 3,600 5,600 Florida __ . ____ •___ • ______• 2,676 4,374 4,014 6,244 Oklahoma. ______•__ ..___ ._. 2,268 3,762 3,402 5,292 4,446 4,086 6,356 Oregon___ ._.____ •• ____ •__ •____ 3,204 5,166 2,724 Pennsylvania ______• 4.806 7,476 ~~~fi\~:: ::::::::::::::::::::: 4,008 6,372 6,012 9,352 3,756 5,994 5,634 8,764 Idaho __ • ______- _--- 3,384 5,436 5,076 7,896 Rhode Island __ • ____ ....___ .... 3,156 5,094 4,734 7,364 lIIinois ______.._. __ ._. _. __ ._ -. 3,264 5,256 4,896 7,616 South Carolina ______•______• 2,496 4,104 3,744 5,824 lndiana•••••______'____ •- __ 4,356 6,894 6,534 10,164 South Dakota ____ .,_____ . ____ • 3,420 5,490 5,130 7,980 lowa ______...... __ •______3,600 5,760 5,400 8,400 Tennessee __ • ______•____ • __ ..__ 2,604 4,266 3,906 6,076 Kansas_._ ••• _" ______•____ ••• 3,864 6,156 5,796 9,016 Texas..______.._____ • ______1,776 3,024 2,664 4,144 Kentucky __ ..______• ______2,808 4,572 4,212 6,552 Utah_._._. ______..___ ..._. ____ 2,820 4,590 4,230 6,580 louisiana ____ ...______1,296 2,304 1,944 3,024 Vermon!.. ..___ ._._..___ • ____ ._ 4,020 6,390 6,030 9,380 Maine ___ •• _____ .._____ • _. _____ 4,188 6,642 6,282 9,772 Virginia_. __ . ____ .._. ___ ._. __ ._ 3,132 5,058 4,698 7,308 Maryland ______.•___ •______._ 2,400 3,960 3,600 5,600 Washington ______•• __ ••______3,528 5,652 5,292 8,232 Massachusetts_ ••______.,_____ 4,188 6,622 6,262 9,772 West Virginia ______• ____ 1,656 2,884 2,484 5,796 Michigan•••_, __ , ___ , ______4,332 6,858 6,498 10,108 Wisconsin ••___ ._.___ .'"____ ._ 3,624 5,796 5,436 8,456 Minnesota._._. _____ •_____ ._. __ 4,068 6,462 6,102 9,492 Wyoming. _. _____ ••" __ ....____ 3,120 5,040 4,680 7,279 Mississippi.. ___ ...._. ______• 3,324 5,346 4,986 7,756 Puerto Rico .... ______•______• 1,584 2,736 2,376 3,696 Missour!. ....___ • ___ • ___ •___ • __ 3,636 5,814 5,454 8,484 Virgin Islands ______1,992 3,348 2,988 4,648 Montana....__ ••_____ ...______2,472 4,068 3,708 5,768

I Based on July 1972 data, except for West VirRinia (July 1911). Individual.s must als.o. have • Income limit for people on welfare. resources (assets) which are within the limits specified by the State for cash assIstance reCIpIents. • Income limit for people off welfare. Source: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. • Work expenses may be deducted frolll total earnings in calculating net earnings. Mr. Speaker, the following article [From the Mlnneapol1s Tribune. May 9, 1973) Phll1p Rutledge, HEW's acting administra­ from the Minneapolis TrIbune discusses MONDALE QUESTIONS LEAD Tq REVIEW OF HEW tor of social and rehabl11tation services, ac­ RULES ON SOCIAL SERVICES knowledged in an interview yesterday that the welfare-dependency incentive cre­ the department w111 restudy Its Income ated by the new social service Income (By Finlay Lewis) , ellgiblllty standards for the program as a eligibility standards. WASHINGTON, D.C.-Questions raised Tues­ result of Mondale's questions. This fiaw in the May 1 regulatIons was day by Sen. Walter F. Mondale. D-111nn.• Earller yesterday, Mondale produced fig­ brought to light· at the senate Finance have prompted the U.S. Department of ures during a meeting of the senate Fi­ committee. hearings by my colleague Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to nance Committee showing that in certain from Minnesota; Senator WALTER MON­ reexamine key positions of its regulations Instances welfare recipients could do better DALE. that will govern a $2.5-b11110n program of under the program than those who are not TheartIcle follows: social services. on welfare. 16154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - ..HOUSE Rutledge, HEW Secretary Casper WeIn­ presidential election campaign. I hope not.' have .taken.place.excePt.In,an .atmo­ berger and other department offic1a.ls ap­ and expect that the Ervin hearings will sphere created and permitted~y this Presi- peared before the committee to explain the bring out much of the information about dent. '...... regulations, most of which will go Into . It lstrue.that np .American .President has effect July 1- Watergate that has not yet been made been removed from office, and that is an im­ The regulations Will govern a program available to the Congress and the public, portant gloss of l1istory on the constitutional under which federal, state and local gov­ but the work of that committee is not text. But then no President in office has had ernments and private charities put up funds and cannot be enough. so many close associates charged with such to carryon a wide range of social services Under the Constitution, the House of grave abuse of power-or has had called into aimed at moving poor people off of welfare. Representatives has an independent re­ question the honor of the terms on which A corollary objective of the program-two­ sponsibility to oversee and inquire into he was elected. thirds of which is financed by the federal gov­ In thinking about the diffiCUlties of chang­ ernment--is to keep potential welfare re­ the conduct of "the President, Vice Presi­ ing Presidents, we should not forget how a cipients off of the pUbllc assistance rolls. dent and all civil officers of the United democracy may benefit from a cleansing Under HEW's. new regulations, a person States," and, if necessary, to discipline change In leadership. After the disastrous who is not already on welfare can qualify for them. The House must not shirk that Suez affair in 1956 Britain changed Prime social service benefits if his or her income is high duty. Ministers without changing parties. Even less than 150 percent of a particular state's Included at this point in the RECORD that was enough to lift much of the cloud welfare assistance standard. are two items from this morning's New from pUblic life, for all the lasting impact An exception to the income standard is of Suez. In the area of day-care services. Here a York Times-an article by Anthony The American system is less flexible than mother, for example, can receive a partial Lewis and an editorial: the parliamentary, but it does not condemn subsidy for day-care expenses until her In­ THE VOICE OF HISTORy-AT HOME ABROAD us to the rigid embrace .,of a President unfit come becomes more than 233 percent of the (By Anthony Lewis) for office. The Constitution speaks not only state's assistance standard. LONDON, May 16.-The Convention that of "removal" but of "resignation," Those Mondale's figures disclosed, however, that wrote the Constitution of the United States words were used again just six years ago, in every state the figure of 150 percent would debated only JUly 20, 1787, the clause making in the 25th Amendment. be at least $360 less than the maximum the Chief Executive of the new Government Is there any serious poSSibUlty of resigna­ amount of earnings that a welfare recipient removable on Impeachment and conviction. tion? It is an act of self-denial hard to imag­ is allowed to lteep under various employment The surviving notes of the debate, by James ine in any man ambitious enough to have programs. Madison, make highly pertinent reading in become President. But once before on a The situation arises because a welfare re­ 1973. momentous occasion Richard Nixon put his cipient is allowed to discount a flat $30 a Opinion In the Convention was divided. country ahead of his own ambition-when he month, plus one-third of his earnings in Some thought a limited term of office would decided not to challenge the 1960 election. computing his or her ellgibility for publlc be sufficient assurance against executive mis­ One cannot exclude a decision that only his assistance. behavior. But three of the Convention's lead­ resignation could open the way to a healing In Minnesota, Mondale's figures show that ing figures argued for impeachment: Benja­ of American politics. the basic assistance standard for a family min Franklin, Madison himself and his fellow The. succession of Spiro Agnew to the of four is $4,068. However, a welfare family Virginia, George Mason. Presidency would stlllieave us, however, un­ of four can actually receive $6,462 in income "No point is of more importance," Mason der the shadow of dOUbt about the integrity as a result of the discount provisions and said. "Shall any man be above Justice? Above of the 1972 election. The necessity is to re­ still qualify for HEW's program of social all shall that man be above it who can com­ move that shadow without leaving the services. mit the most extensive injustice?" country driven by partisan rancer. As it hap­ In contrast, a family of four that is not on Dr. Franklin warned that the absence of pens, the 25th Amendment offers a way out. welfare is disquaUfied from the social serv­ an impeachment provision.would leave the A I1ttle-noted section of the new amend­ ices program as soon as its income hits removal of an "obnoxious" executive to more ment provides that when there is no Vice $6,102. or 150 percent of $4,068. violent methods. Madison thought the clause President-as, for example, when one has "This simply means that many people who "indispensable ... for defending the com­ succeeded to the Presidency-the President are on welfare w111 receive more free serVices munity against the incapaCity, negllgence or shall nominate a successor, subject to con­ than those who are not on welfare-and perfidy of the chief Magistrate." firmation by majority vote of both houses of whose incomes are actually less than the wel­ The clause was approved in general terms. Congress. If Mr. Agnew undertook to resign fare recipients," Mondale said. On Sept. 8 it came before the Convention when a successor qualified, he would set in This situation might result In a "disin­ again in flnal draft form, listing as grounds motion a process bipartisan ill Its nature. centive" that would frustrate the effort for impeachment "treason and bribery," Such an Idea Is stUl staggering to contem­ to move people off of welfare, Mondale Mason thought that was too narrow. plate, but we shall have to begIn opening suggested. "Attempts to subvert the Constitution," he our minds to the constitutional possibUlties. Despite persistent questioning by Mondale warned, "may not be treason:' He first sug­ At the Convention of 1787 Gouveneur none of the HEW officials at the committee gested adding "maladministration," then Morris of Pennsylvania at first· opposed the session effectively rebutted his arguments. substituted "other high crimes and mis­ Impeachment clause but changed his mind In the InterView later, Rutledge said that demeanors." The amendment carried. after the debate. The President was not to be HEW analysist are studyIng Mondale's fig­ a king, he said: "The people are the king." ures but he agreed that there is an Inceme The framers of the Constitution plainly How ironic it would be if we now bound gap built into the regulations favoring those Intended impeachment to play a broad role ourselves to a king of shreds and patches. on welfare. as one of their several defenses against abuses or power. That was still the view "I'll have to see his arithmetic but he's UNANSWERED QUESTIONS raised a good point and we're going to an­ fifty years later, When c!e Tocquevllle said alyze the situation again," said Rutledge. the main object of the clause was "to With the opening of the Ervin committee "The question Is whether this amount of take power away from a man who makes ill hearings today, the nation carries forward money constitutes a disincentive or whether use of it." the task-already under way In several grand it doesn't. There's disagreement around that It is a historical anomaly, therefore, to jury rooms-of svrtlng out truth from ru­ question," added Rutledge, whose office ad­ treat the idea of impeaching a President as mor about the interlocking erimes.anq. .con­ ministers the social services program. almost sacrilegious. The notion that kings spiracies known as Watergate. Public testi­ In a zeparate interview, 1\lrs. Joan Hutch­ rule by divine right was pretty well under­ mony by many Witnesses over the.coming Inson, acting deputy assistant secretary for mined by the 18th century, and those Who weeks may 1llumlnate the role of one man welfare legislation, said that the policy of made the American Revolution hardly meant not likely to be called as a Witness, President discounting certain portions of a welfare re­ to enshrine it afresh in the Presidency. Nixon. cipients' income is I~tended to sen'e as a Of course the importance of the Presi­ The President's address to the nation on work incentive. dency in the America system, and in the April 30 clearly failed to resolve the gather­ world, has grown beyond what the men who Ing doubts about that role. His SUbsequent met in Phlladelphla in 1787 could have imag­ speech at a Republlcan fund-raising dinner WATERGATE ined. It is inconvenient to change Presi­ in Washington only made matters worse. He dents in mid-term; It is risky. But the risks has avoided holding a press conference where The SPEAKER. Under a previous or­ are not only one. way. he could be questioned. Yet sllenceanda de~ der of the House, the gentlewoman from We can live with a weakened Presidency; termlned attempt to carry on public business New York (Ms. AB2:UG) is recognized we have done so before, and the Presidential as if nothing had happened are not .con­ for 10 minutes. mystique is overdue for deflation. But can vincing or reassuring. The questions accu- we live with ourselves under a leadership mulate.. . Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, this that we know is tainted? For the inevitable Wl1at took place between the President and morning, the Ervin Committee opened obscurity about exactly what Richard Nixon John N. Mitchell, his former Attorney Gen­ its hearings into the Watergate scandal did cannot hide what everyone must know; eral and most trusted political confidant, and other events surrounding the 1972 that the lawlessness we call Watergate could during the two-hour conference last July 1