The main change in H.R. 3695 from PL 89-491 is the abolishment of the ARBC and its replacement with an administration. The chief administrator is given almost dictatorial control and the citizen advisory board is relegated to a very inferior position. The intent, I am sure, is to foster efficiency through centralizing decision-making authority in order to make up for time lost during the last seven years. One of the biggest problems with the ARBC as presently constituted is its cumbersome size and general overall lack of leadership which has led to its seeming inability to carry out any project well. I strongly believe, however, that a primary failure of the ARBC is that it has not given meaningful representation to minorities, youth, women and other traditionally excluded segments of our society. We do not solve this problem by appointing a czar, especially if that czar is appointed by a President who has not shown himself open to the viewpoints of these excluded segments of our society. The wording concerning diverse group representation in H.R. 3695 should be strengthened to assure representation of and input from the groups which have been excluded to date. Section 3 (a) states that an American Revolution Bicentennial Advisory Board (ARBAB) will be established. It states further than the "members of the board shall be broadly representative of the Nation's people." However, under the bill the chief administrator is an ex officio member of the Board and will have the power to call meetings of the Board. This fact renders the ARBAB subservient to the administrator. As the bill is written, the administrator wouldn't be legally bound to call a meeting of the ARBAB. The Advisory Board should have the power to override any decision of the administrator, any member of the board shold have the power to call a meeting of it, and the board should choose a chairperson from among itself. Section 9 (a) states that "the federal government is authorized to carry out a program of grants-in-aid in furtherance of the purposes of this act." Since this is a national celebration, I consider that it would be more equable if the federal government would provide grants to the states up to 75% of the total cost of a program to be assisted instead of the 50% specified in H.R. 3695. Section 10 states that "whenever the President determines it to be in furtherance of the purposes of this Act, the functions authorized under this Act may be performed without regard to such provisions of law or limitations of authority regulating or relating to making, performance, amendment or modification of contracts, and the expenditure of Government funds as he may specify." I interpret this section to mean that tht President could bypass any decision of the ARBA or any act of Congress. Congressional power to legislate and influence the Executive branch has already been eroded enough. This section may give the President dictatorial power over the ARBA and we clarify the language to preserve Congressional and citizen input in the decision making process. If we pass this legislation as is, the Congress will join those presently excluded from planning the Bicentennial. The membership of the Joint Committee on the American Revolution Bicentennial should be expanded from 8 members proposed under Section 11(a) to 16 members with the same ratio of House to Senate and majority to minority parties. Increasing the membership of the committee would provide an opportunity for broadening the representation on it. I consider the requirement that the temporary administrator of the ARBA must have held a position in the executive branch unnecessary. I also feel that a definite limit should be put on the duration of time that a temporary administrator can hold that position without the approval of the Senate, and that permanent appointment of an administrator should be subject to the confirmation of the Senate. Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that the celebration of the Bicentennial Revolution has no meaning for Black Americans, for the poor, and for the other deprived people in our society except as that meaning can be found in the present day application of the revolutionary principles of self-determination, equality and justice that were articulated by the founding fathers. Many people in this nation, including most Black people justifiably feel that there will be nothing to celebrate in 1976 unless this nation begins to evidence a commitment toward removing the inequities which prevent us from full participation in this society and which make a lie those principles on which this nation was founded. This committee, and ultimately this Congress, has a responsibility to the people of this nation to make the Bicentennial of the American Revolution an occasion which all our people can celebrate. The Bills before us mean a return to business as usual. We can, and must, do better. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman and fellow colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I am here today to voice my objection to the proposed reform Bicentennial bills (H.R. 3695 and 3967) presently before this committee. There is certainly a great need to change the existing American Revolution Bicentennial Commission provided for under Public Law 89-491, but the change proposed by the administration will perpetuate the present problems with the Bicentennial Commission and raise some new ones. On July 4, 1966, the U.S. Congress passed and sent to the President the bill which became Public Law 89-491. It is appropriate to begin my discussion of the problems with the present Commission and the deficiencies of the legislation before us at the beginning, with a reading of the preamble to the law which established the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, as this Nation approaches the bicentennial of its birth and the historic events preceding and associated with the American Revolution which are of such major significance in the development of our national heritage of individual liberty, representative government, and the attainment of equal and inalienable rights and which have also had so profound an influence throughout the world, it is appropriate and desirable to provide for the observation and commemoration of this anniversary and these events through local, State, National, and international activities planned, encouraged, developed, and coordinated by a national commission, representative of appropriate public and private authorities and organizations." The problem with the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission is that in its almost seven years of existence it has failed to fulfill the Congressional mandate to provide for a meaningful commemoration of the birth of our national heritage of individual liberty, representative government, and the attainment of equai and inalienable rights. Since the enactment of Public Law 89-491, the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission (ARBC) has kept a low, almost subterranean profile, and the meager assortment of projects it has endorsed, have gained public attention only in the localities that stand to benefit from tourist dollars in 1976. Quoting from Harper's magazine, the executive director of one of the State bicentennial commissions stated that, "I don't think they've sat down seriously to consider the nature of the mandate from Congress, they're on this big birthday party kick and have been for 4 years." Aside from the ARBC's attempt to compile descriptions of bicentennial activities other groups are undertaking, the Commission has occupied itself solely in deciding what projects merit use of its logotype, identified as the greatest honor the Commission can bestow. The American Revolutionary Bicentennial logo has been freely bestowed upon commercial projects, raising the question of the propriety of Commission endorsement of commercial ventures. And it is clear that many of the Nation's largest businesses want to hitch a ride to commercial success on the back of Bicentennial planning. An internal "eyes only" memorandum dated February 29, 1972, from Hugh Hall, Director of the ARBC to Mr. Jack LeVant, former Director of the ARBC gives an insight into the extent of big business involvement in the Bicentennial. American Airlines, the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus and the McDonald's food chain are all identified as having big plans for associating their corporate names with the Bicentennial under the banner of the ARBC's freely bestowed logo. I am not claiming that involvement of these firms is, in itself, bad. In fact, I feel that the business community should have an active role in the Bicentennial celebration. I am, however, disturbed about what has been an exclusive emphasis on business projects in the planning of the American Revolution Commission to date. By now programs in keeping with the Congressional mandate should have been carried out that would have brought the real meaning of the American Revolution across to the American people and would have involved people of all colors and ages from all levels of society. This has not been done and we have nothing but a sense of stagnation. The failure of the ARBC is clearly illustrated by the fact that its youth advisory committee resigned, several congressional members of the committee resigned and public and private citizens have severely criticized it. As far as black Americans are concerned, the ARBC has only meant another token effort by the Federal Government to make the commemoration of our Nation's founding meaningful to the black community. According to the U.S. News and World Report, which recently published the results of a study of the ARBC, there is no program to involve blacks and other minorities in the Bicentennial celebration. The Afro-American Bicentennial Corp., a private nonprofit corporation, is the only viable organization planning ways that blacks can participate in this celebration, but they lack the resources to carry on an effective nationwide program. Mr. Chairman, the items which I have just discussed concerning the failure of the present ARBC, bring me to my criticism of the legislation presently before the subcommittee. It is my belief that even though the present ARBC is a total failure, H. R. 3695 is not the answer either. The main change in H.R. 3695 from Public Law 89-491 is the abolishment of the ARBC and its replacement with an administration. The chief administrator is given almost dictatorial control and the citizen advisory board is relegated to a very inferior position. The intent, I am sure, is to foster efficiency through centralizing decisionmaking authority in order to make up for time lost during the last 7 years. Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that the celebration of the Bicentennial Revolution has no meaning for black Americans, for the poor, and for the other deprived people in our society except as that meaning can be found in the present day application of the revolutionary principles of self-determination, equality and justice that were articulated by the founding fathers. Many people in this Nation, including most black people justifiably feel that there will be nothing to celebrate in 1976 unless this Nation begins to evidence a commitment toward removing the inequities which prevent us from full participation in this society and which make a lie those principles on which this nation was founded. This committee, and ultimately this Congress, has a responsibility to the people of this Nation to make the Bicentennial of this American Revolution an occasion which all our people can celebrate. The bills before us mean a return to business as usual. We can, and must, do better. I thank you for this opportunity. I don't have to really remind this committee how the Commission has been used for political purposes in the past. I am confident that the chairman is very anxious to bring about some real changes, but basically the foundation of my testimony is based on the fact that most Americans would like to join in and feel a part of this celebration and it is our feeling that the legislation is not flexible enough to allow most people to believe that 1976 is. not relegated merely to the commercial interests in this country, but to all of the people who feel that they have made a contribution to make this the great Nation it is. Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you very much, Mr. Rangle. Ms. JORDAN. Mr. Rangle, we, of course, wrestled yesterday with the problem of the way this whole bill is structured with the strong Administrator and advisory board which has no powers whatsoever. I wonder if you have any suggestions to offer as to how such an administration or new commission could be structured so we could get citizen input and at least make this Administrator responsive and answerable to a Board? Mr. RANGLE. Yes, Congresswoman Jordan. This is one of the difficulties in being a Member of Congress, when you are forced to make constructive criticism and to have some input into legislation which emotionally I have never attached myself to. I do believe, in reading the present administration setup, what it has done is given the President the power relegated, him the power to make any decisions which he deems fit in terms of making the Bicentennial a success. The only thing that I know, that we used to have, and hopefully the Congress will regain, is its representative role in Government. We cannot expect, overnight, to have minority communities and poor communities fully appreciate what we are trying to do and have them to volunteer and affirmatively move forward, but if this legislation could be worked in such a way that there would be direct, meaningful input by Members of Congress, I think that here, more than any other way, my community, Herman Badillo's community, your community and many other Congress peoples communities, will feel, by identifying with the Congress person, that there must be something to it if they are asking us to hang in. I don't know whether the legislation can be drawn that loosely, but it is the only way that I can think of that in such a short period of time that I would feel confident that I could go back and try to excite the imaginations of my community by something that happened in 1776. Ms. JORDAN. Do you think, Mr. Rangle, that the creation of this congressional oversight committee by this legislation is a step in the proper direction of involving Congress? Mr. RANGLE. No question about it but the erosion that is presently taking place in the House, it is a question of how meaningful is our Mr. RANGLE. No question about it but the erosion that is presently taking place in the House, it is a question of how meaningful is our oversight. I think I have reached, really, the end of my legislative patience, in just saying the executive branch of the Government is wrong. What does it mean that we have to take them to court and to find out what is congressional oversight? I would like to see something directly involving the Congress people that have a responsibility to sell this idea rather than leave it to Barnum & Bailey. Ms. JORDAN. Do you know whether the Congress people who were appointed to the commission, as it presently exists, made any effort to exercise real leadership in service with the commission? Mr. RANGLE. Fortunately for me, I don't have to embarrass them or myself, but whatever they did, they did before I came here or whatever they did not do, but obviously it has brought about a need for a change in that particular legislation and from what I read the role that they were supposed to play was merely advisory and it really shocked me to find out that the President's office had written looking for a black that was friendly to the administration to put him on the Commission. Ms. JORDAN. That didn't really shock you, did it? Mr. RANGLE. In a sense it did because I would like to believe the spirit of 1976 is something they would hold closer to them than just to play the regular Mickey Mouse games they played with us in the Congress. Ms. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Moorhead? Mr. MOORHEAD. No questions. Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you again, Mr. Rangle. We will now hear from the Honorable Parren J. Mitchell. STATEMENT OF HON. PARREN J. MITCHELL, CONGRESSMAN FROM MARYLAND Mr. MITCHELL. You have a copy of my statement, and I see a number of my colleagues who are here, who apparently want to speak to the committee. Therefore, I will not take the time to go through the statement. We will submit it for the record, with your approval. Mr. DONOHUE. Without objection, your complete statement will be made a part of the record. Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much. [The document referred to follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. PARREN J. MITCHELL It is ironic but true that the American Revolution Bicentennial must be as revolutionary in spirit as the first American Revolution. The framers of the legislation creating the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission understood this when they created a Bicentennial era, stretching from 1970 to 1987, lasting just as long as the original Revolution. The idea is not to have a once in a lifetime (once every 200 years), slam-bang, unforgettable Fourth of July celebration. Rather the idea is to have an ongoing commemoration of and recommitment to the ideals and principles of the American Revolution. President Nixon himself has suggested the theme of the "pursuit of happiness" in the Jeffersonian tradition. What this means in modern times exactly is unclear. Does it suggest that somehow the American quality of life in recent decades has been found lacking? Or is it rather that the President perceives that we as a people have grown away from the phrases and meanings that initiated the Nation. Regardless, the fact of course, is that the President conceives of the American Revolution Bicentennial Celebration as more than a one-shot, 1-day affair. The American Revolution Bicentennial must be revolutionary in character. It must be an event of the people. The values and traditions upon which our society and Government are based must be subject to a critical people's analysis. That which is inefficient, those which are disfunctional, and those which serve to enslave the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the people must be discovered, identified and eradicated. Not only must our existing values be subject to a critical analysis, but we must conceive and institute new values, traditions and institutions to take their place. The incredible thing is that we need only look to the first American Revolution as a guide for our actions. For the first American Revolution was all these things: A challenge to the old and accepted, and an invitation to the new and unusual. In a sentence, the American Revolution represented a critical examination and rejection of the traditional value system of George III and Great Britain. It substituted for that value system an entirely new structure comprised of democracy and protection of individual rights. I think you can see that I reject the "county fair" concept as to how the American Revolution Bicentennial should be celebrated. I share the concern of a growing number of Americans (including many in the Congress), that plans developed by 94-290-73-12 |