94TH CONGRESS 1st Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 94-382

AMENDING THE RULES OF THE SENATE RELATING TO OPEN COMMITTEE MEETINGS

SEPTEMBER 18 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1975.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. CANNON, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. Res. 9]

The Committee on Rules and Administration to which was referred the resolution (S. Res. 9), amending the rules of the Senate relating to open committee meetings, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and unanimously recommends that the resolution as amended be agreed to. The Committee reported this resolution instead of the proposed rule changes embodied in Title I of S. 5 (which had previously been reported by the Committee on Government Operations, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and then by unanimous consent referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration for its consideration of Title I, because Title I of S. 5 concerned itself with Senate procedure, and partially with House procedure).

The Constitution, Article I, Section 5, provides in part that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." Thus, the Committee took action on this resolution since the problem can well be handled in the Senate by simple resolution, obviating any necessity for the House of Representatives or the President of the United States of approving or disapproving changes in Senate rules-a right given solely to the Senate by the Constitution.

The form in which this resolution is recommended to the Senate for adoption emphasizes the responsibility of standing committees and subcommittees thereof to conduct their business in open session but, at the same time, reserves to each committee-which obviously is in a better position to know best what the public interest and the obligations of the committee to the public are the right on any particular occasion to make decisions to accomplish such ends. Any Committee meeting at the commencement of a new Congress to adopt or to change

its rules relative to closed or open sessions would convene in open session, and could go into closed session only by vote of the Committee. If a committee does not adopt special rules with regard to such procedure after a new Congress has convened and the membership thereof has been appointed, it would have to begin any of its meetings in open session and make its determinations to go into closed session for any desired purpose.

Any committee which has jurisdiction of legislation, or of any other matter, of a sensitive nature relative to confidentiality or secrecy could adopt particular rules of procedure with regard to how its meetings were to be conducted, particularly whether they were to be open or closed. This is significant because if a given proposal under consideration is of an extremely sensitive nature and the committee has to debate in open session whether or not it is to go into closed session, it could expose such critical information that there would then be no purpose for going into closed session.

All of the work of some committees might well be transacted in open session successfully in which case they would be free to adopt such procedures at the commencement of a new Congress. The work of other committees, because of the nature of the proposed legislation before them for action-as in the case of the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations would have need for closed sessions for certain purposes which the Senate may not now be able to anticipate. This resolution as reported would give committees handling such sensitive matters, particularly national security and rights of witnesses, the right to prescribe procedures best fitted to meet their own situation.

It should be emphasized that any rules adopted by any committee at the commencement of a new Congress would be acted on by the membership of that current Committee, giving each new membership of a Committee an opportunity to pass on the kind of procedure it would prefer.

Select and special committees were ommitted from this resolution because it is impossible for the Senate now to anticipate the nature or scope of hearings to be conducted by any such committees. The Senate when it passes a resolution to create a select or special committee could specify the procedures to be utilized, and it is obvious that the procedure of a special committee set up, for example, to investigate the CIA should operate under greater restrictions than one investigating small business practices.

Section 2 of the Rules Committee proposed substitute for Senate Resolution 9 would repeal section 133A (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, section 242 (a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, and sections 102 (d) and (e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. the need for which would be obviated by Senate Resolution 9 as reported by the Committee.

О

S.R. 382

SEPTEMBER 18 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 11), 1975.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. TALMADGE, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2375]

The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, reports an original bill (S.) to extend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, for three months and recommends that the bill do pass.

SHORT EXPLANATION

This bill provides an authorization for appropriations in the sum of $11,967,000 to carry out the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) during the three-month period, October 1, 1975, through December 31, 1975.

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The interim extension of authorization for appropriations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act provided in Public Law 94-51 (approved July 2, 1975) expires on September 30, 1975. This interim extension was granted to provide additional time for Congress to consider bills before both Houses to extend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, through September 1977.

Companion bills-S. 1629 and H.R. 6387-were introduced at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for this purpose, and to provide funding at the levels of $47,868,000 for fiscal year 1976 and $47,200,000 for fiscal year 1977.

The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry held hearings on S. 1629 on May 20, 1975, and heard from representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency; the U.S. Department of Agriculture;

several State departments of agriculture; farm organizations; trade associations; industry; and public interest groups. There was general agreement among the witnesses that the basic features of FIFRA are appropriate and that the authorization for appropriations should be extended. However, several issues did emerge in regard to the administration and interpretation of the Act.

Serious questions were raised in reference to the procedures and timeliness of pesticide registration, applicator certification, experimental use permits, cancellation and suspension procedures, the indemnity provision, and the interpretation of "inconsistent" uses.

It was determined that additional time was needed to consider fully the problems and explore alternatives. An interim extension of the authorization for appropriations for three months was passed to provide an opportunity for additional deliberations.

The House Committee on Agriculture is in the process of reporting a bill which will extend FIFRA, but substantive changes and amendments are included in this bill. There is inadequate time before the interim extension of authorization for appropriations expires for the Congress to consider the House bill and the new provisions. Therefore, the Committee believes that another three-month extension of funding would be appropriate at one-fourth the amount for fiscal 1976 in the original bills-$11,967,000.

This additional three-month extension will enable EPA to continue its implementation of FIFRA without undue interruptions while providing Congress time to assess the issues and consider the various alternatives proposed to remedy these issues.

ADMINISTRATION VIEWS

The Committee has received no views from the Administration on the bill being reported. However, on May 20, 1975, Mr. James L. Agee, Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials of EPA, testified in favor of extending the authorization for appropriations for FIFRA for 2 years as contained in S. 1629 and H.R. 6387, as originally introduced. Mr. Robert W. Long, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Conservation, Research and Education, of the Department of Agriculture, also testified on May 20 in favor of extending FIFRA for 2 years.

COST ESTIMATE

In accordance with section 252 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, the Committee estimates that the costs to be incurred by the Federal Government in carrying out the bill during the threemonth period October 1, 1975, through December 31, 1975, would be $11,967,000. The bill does not provide an authorization for activities under FIFRA beyond December 31, 1975. Thus, no cost would be incurred under the bill beyond that date.

The Committee has received no estimate of costs from any Federal agency.

S.R. 3S3

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT

*

*

*

SEC. 27. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.

*

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1975. The amounts authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year ending after June 30, 1975, shall be the sums hereafter provided by law. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this Act for the period beginning July 1, 1975, and ending September 30, 1975, the sum of $11,967,000. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this Act for the period beginning October 1, 1975, and ending December 31, 1975, the sum of $11,967,000.