activities will be substantially realized to the gentleman from North Carolina within the next few years and become a (Mr. HENDERSON).

permanent part of the overall anticrime Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I program which this Congress can appro- thank the distinguished chairman of the priately authorize and finance. committee, the gentleman from New Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield Jersey (Mr. RODINO) for yielding to me. such time as he may consume to the I would like to ask this question: Is my gentleman from Alabama (Mr. FLow- understanding correct that section 506 ERS). (c) was amended in the conference reMr. FLOWERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank port, and that that section provides for the gentleman for yielding. an increase of two supergrades from 20

Mr. RODINO. That is correct.

I would like to add my complete sup- to 22 for the agency? port to this measure. It is in almost every detail, and certainly in every substantive detail, the bill which passed the House.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I would also ask concerning section 517, and under subsection (a) it authorizes A word of commendation would be in employment of experts and consultants, order to our very distinguished chair- and under subsection (b) it provides that man of the Committee on the Judiciary these appointments may be made withfor the manner in which he conducted out the approval of the civil service laws the conference as its chairman. This re- and regulations? port is largely a product of his work.

It is a fine bill that I believe every Member of the House can support in every detail.

Mr. RODINO. Yes. That is in the act now, and was in the bill that passed the House.

I might point out to the gentleman Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Speaker, will with regard to section 506 that the Senthe gentleman yield? ate had sought to even further increase Mr. RODINO. I yield to the gentleman the number of supergrades, and the from Ohio, a member of the committee House resisted.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Speaker, I wish The Senate had requested four, and to commend the chairman of the Com- we conceded only two. mittee on the Judiciary, and the mem- Mr. HENDERSON. If the gentleman bers of the conference committee for do- will yield for one more question, I would ing an outstanding job of reconciling the like to commend the gentleman and the differences between the House and Sen- conferees for the efforts they did make, ate versions of this very important legislation as well as for the tremendous work that the full committee and subcommittee put in to develop this legislation in its present form.

but would point out that the gentleman from New York (Mr. DULSKI), chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, has consistently in the last Congress and in other Congresses written to the chairmen of other committees with regard to the problem of basic authorization of supergrades requested by the agencies.

As the chairman knows, there were some proposals which I had advanced as vigorously as I could, but which were not adopted in toto. But I would like the record to show that one of the imporWe also received requests to authorize tant provisions that has emerged in this 244 additional supergrades covering the bill is the provision that would allow requests of all the agencies, and that units of local government aggregating matter will receive our attention when more than 250,000 in population to get we come back from the recess. But I together and pool their energies and their think it is only fair to put on the record— resources, and to obtain grants from the and I do not do this for this conference State planning agencies of law enforce- report or for this committee, any more ment assistance funds to the entire group than I do for others-that the authority contained herein, if we find it not to be This was one of the principal objec- justified, we will specifically ask to repeal tives that I was concerned about, and I that authorization. And anyone who feel that this bill has moved substantially toward meeting that in a way which nobody quite foresaw, but which actually I think is an important step forward.

as a unit.

I want to commend the committee for accepting this concept.

might seek or take an appointment under this kind of an authorization where it is not fully justified by the separate commissions and agencies on a personnel basis, might run some risk of losing their

jobs.

Mr. RODINO. I would be happy to defer to the judgment of the gentleman from North Carolina, who serves on the committee that has primary jurisdiction

in this area.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially commend the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary, who gave yeoman service, Mr. HUTCHINSON. And of course, I again thank all of the members of the committee, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FLOWERS, Mr. SEIBERLING, Miss JORDAN, Mr. MEZVINSKY, Mr. McCLORY, Mr. SANDMAN, Mr. DENNIS, and Mr. FISH, for the part they played in not only bringing about the adoption of this measure, but I thank the gentleman for yielding. in actually upholding the position of the House in the conference. They did a great job, and I commend them.

Mr. HENDERSON. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation.

Mr. RODINO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. LONG). Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, the recent disclosure of secret taping in the White House has pointed out the need to secure the right Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, will of privacy for members of this free socithe gentleman yield?

ety. On Monday I introduced a bill that Mr. RODINO. I am delighted to yield would plug a legal loophole-a loophole while unfortunately not even this con

ference report on the Crime Control Act succeeds in closing.

My bill, H.R. 9667, would require that all parties-I repeat: all parties-to a conversation, telephonic or live, be informed before it is recorded. My bill is designed to stop the recently revealed White House practice of taping the conversations of Government officials and foreign diplomats.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the gentleman's speech.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of order? Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of this conference report.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman can speak to any matter involved in the conference report and not to any extraneous matter.

Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the information I am dealing with has to do with this act, the amendments to the Crime Control Act, and I feel that the remarks are in order.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is talking about a bill he introduced; he is not talking about this conference report at all.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will confine his remarks to the conference report before the House.

(Mr. LONG of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House. I did advise the gentleman we were talking about title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and his remarks pertain to title III, but the chairman insisted on taking the time.

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 8152 is a responsible bill, setting a definite course for Federal involvement in law enforcement and addressing many present shortcomings of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

The need for a comprehensive approach to court and corrections systems as well as law enforcement within each State is the primary thrust of the bill. A great deal of money has been spent in the past on useless hardware, while innovative programs in areas such as prison reform have been largely overlooked. The added emphasis on criminal justice and the requirement that States obtain approval for balanced plans as a prerequisite to funding will strengthen the role of the Federal agency in overseeing and stimulating badly needed judicial and prison reform.

The administration's special revenue sharing proposal for law enforcement fails to recognize this need for reform. In abrogating all responsibility for criminal justice systems to the States, it would perpetuate the outdated approach to corrections which prevails across the coun

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE_ CONFERENCE REPORT (S. REPT. NO. 93-349)

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8152) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and for other purposes, and ask that it be printed.

I also ask that a summary of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The summary is as follows:

SUMMARY OF H.R. 8152 "CRIME CONTROL
ACT OF 1973"

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, will be amended by the Crime Control Act of 1973. The following is a summary of sections of the Act which have been changed:

Part A-Section 101-The "troika" system of LEAA administration has been eliminated. All administrative and policy authority is now vested in the Administrator of LEAA. In lieu of two Associate Administrators, the amendment provides for two Deputy Administrators. One deputy will assist the Administrator in areas of policy and operations and would act for him in his absence or incapacity, and the second will be responsible for administrative management functions.

Part B-Section 203-The representative character requirement of State planning agencies and regional planning groups has been amended to include permissible representation of citizen, professional, and community organizations. It is now also a requirement that regional planning units be composed of a majority of locally elected officials.

A new provision has been added to subsection (d) of section 203 which now requires that all meetings of planning units at which any final action is taken on a State plan or application for funds be open to the public. This subsection also requires public access to all records except those required to

be kept confidential by local, State or Fed

eral law.

Section 204-Planning grants remain at 90 per centum of Federal funding, except that grants to regional planning units may be up to 100 per centum Federal funding. The "soft match" has been eliminated, and there is now a requirement that the State provide 50 per centum of the local share of "hard match." This match provision applies retroactively to previous year planning funds not obligated.

Section 205-The initial Part B planning allocation is increased from $100,000 to $200,000 per State and the remaining funds distributed according to relative population.

Part C-Section 301 (b) (10) has been added to the Act to provide for the use of Part C funds (both block and discretionary) for planning grants to interstate metropolitan regional planning units.

Match requirements for discretionary and action funds have been decreased from 25 per centum to 10 per centum, except for construction which remains at 50 per centum. Match must be appropriated money in the aggregate. In the case of a grant to a private non-profit organization such an organization may provide the match. Soft match was also eliminated with regard to funds made available under Part C prior to July 1, 1973, which have not been obligated (or were obligated and later deobligated) by the States or units of general local government in making awards.

Buy-In-There have been changes to the "buy-in" requirements which began in fiscal year 1973. Certain factors must be noted.

(1) Buy-in is now applicable to Part B. However, since the buy-in only applies to local funds (40 percent pass through) and because all local funds which go to regional units can be awarded without match, the net dollar effect of the buy-in on Part B planning funds will be small (see section 204).

(2) In respect to Part C the buy-in previously applied to the required pass through funds to local units of government. In percentage terms this amounted to 6.25 percent of the overall match requirement. As currently amended, the buy-in will now amount to one-half of the 10 percent cash requirement. Assuming funding levels similar to fiscal year 1973 this is actually a net decrease in the overall requirement. However, it must be noted that to the extent local construction is funded from Part C sources the buyin requirement would increase, since local construction must be a 50 percent match with the State providing one-half of that 50 percent.

(3) Buy-in is not applicable to Part E nor is it applicable to discretionary grants. The retroactive match provisions do not affect the fiscal year 1973 buy-in requirements. These requirements must still be met "in the aggregate" and apart from this retroactive pro vision (see section 523).

Additional Plan Requirements-A. Procedures for annual plan submission by units of local government over 250,000 population for approval by the State planning agency in whole or in part.

B. Maintenance and submission of reports and data as the Administration or National for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice may require to evaluate programs under this title.

C. Funding incentives to units of local government that coordinate or combine law enforcement activities.

D. Procedures so that applications by units of general local government shall be approved or disapproved in whole or in part within 90 days. It should be noted that this provision is limited to applications from units of local government and does not apply to other applicants.