House Judiciary Committee Research Articles

Criminal Sanctions and Amnesty Bill Passes House Judiciary Committee

On July 30, 1975, the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 27 to 5, ordered Favorably Reported HR-8713, which would impose sanctions upon employers of aliens working without legal authorization, and provide amnesty for a limited class of aliens. The bill was voted against by Representatives Badillo (D.-N.Y.), Kindness (R.-Ohio), Edwards (D.-Calif.), Conyers (D.-Mich.), and Drinan (D.-Mass.). Representatives Thornton (D.-Ark.) and Holzman (D.-N.Y.) were not present, although Holzman cast the sole vote against the bill in the Subcommittee. This bill is the amended version of H.R. 982 as acted upon by the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law? (when numerous amendments are made to a bill as originally introduced, a new bill reflecting the amendments is frequently introduced for the sake of clarity. This is referred to as a clean bill.) As reported by the Judiciary Committee, the bill contains the follow? ing provisions:

The Nixon Group1

A sociometric analysis and an examination in terms of group process offer some clues toward the understanding of the actions and decisions by former President Nixon's advisory group, the young team. Review of the transcripts of the White House tapes and the hearings of the Senate Select Committee and the House Judiciary Committee suggests that, in contrast to the Kennedy group, the Nixon group was not a closely knit team with high esprit de corps and mutual respect. Rather, there were two strongly competing factions: Haldeman/Ehrlichman/Colson and Mitchell/Dean. The group was held together by a common dependence upon the president who set the basic tone and ideal for the group—to succeed one had to be driving, hard‐hitting against all “enemies,” willing to be pragmatic in accomplishing team goals. The existence of competing factions contributed to acceleration of riskiness and extreme measures and to a reduction of moral restraints. In that sense, the groupthink phenomenon described by Janis was evident in the Nixon group.

Committee Transfers in the United States House of Representatives

Previous articleNext article No AccessArticlesCommittee Transfers in the United States House of RepresentativesCharles S. BullockCharles S. Bullock Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 35, Number 1Feb., 1973 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2129039 Views: 4Total views on this site Citations: 11Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Periloux C. Peay Incorporation is Not Enough: The Agenda Influence of Black Lawmakers in Congressional Committees, The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 6, no.22 (Oct 2020): 402–438.https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2020.18Martin Ejnar Hansen Understanding Change in Committee Assignments between Elections: Evidence from the Danish Case, The Journal of Legislative Studies 19, no.44 (Dec 2013): 450–466.https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2013.812352 Sangjoon Ka, Cho Jin Man, JunYoungChoi, SohnByoungKwon Characteristics of Standing Committees' Operation in the National Assembly with an Analysis of Assembly Records, 21st centry Political Science Review 18, no.11 (May 2008): 47–68.https://doi.org/10.17937/topsr.18.1.200805.47Tracy Sulkin Issue Politics in Congress, 71 (Jan 2010).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616013K. Kanthak Exclusive Committee Assignments and Party Pressure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Public Choice 121, no.3-43-4 (Dec 2004): 391–412.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-004-1685-zWilliam F. West Oversight Subcommittees in the House of Representatives, Congress & the Presidency 25, no.22 (Sep 1998): 147–160.https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469809507799 Gary W. Copeland Seniority and Committee Transfers: Career Planning in the Contemporary House of Representatives, The Journal of Politics 49, no.22 (Oct 2015): 553–564.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131314HERBERT F. WEISBERG CABINET TRANSFERS AND DEPARTMENTAL PRESTIGE, American Politics Quarterly 15, no.22 (Nov 2016): 238–253.https://doi.org/10.1177/004478087015002003Steven S. Smith, Bruce A. Ray The Impact of Congressional Reform: House Democratic Committee Assignments, Congress & the Presidency 10, no.22 (Mar 2010): 219–240.https://doi.org/10.1080/07343468309508018 Lynette P. Perkins Member Recruitment to a Mixed Goal Committee: the House Judiciary Committee, The Journal of Politics 43, no.22 (Oct 2015): 348–364.https://doi.org/10.2307/2130372Louis P. Westefield Majority Party Leadership and the Committee System in the House of Representatives, American Political Science Review 68, no.44 (Sep 2013): 1593–1604.https://doi.org/10.2307/1959944

III. PRAYER AND BIBLE READING IN SCHOOL DEVOTIONS1

1Statement to the House Judiciary Committee on the Proposed Amendments to the Constitution Concerning Prayer and Bible Reading in Public Schools, May 8, 1964.

Broadcasting and the Antitrust Laws

Current questions of monopolization and restraints in radio and television broadcasting industry have aroused serious interest and study on many sides. To review role of Justice Department's Antitrust Division in study of such questions is purpose of this article. By a series of interrelated statutes, Congress marked out government responsibilities, on one hand, for antitrust enforcement and, on other, for regulation of broadcasting activities. Section four of Sherman Act leaves enforcement of that law to the direction of Attorney General.' And section 15 of Clayton Act imposes a like responsibility on Department of Justice.2 The Federal Communications Commission, in contrast, no power to enforce Sherman Act and only limited authority, never thus far exercised, to enforce Clayton Act section seven against carriers engaged in wire or radio communication or radio transmission of energy.3 In statutory framework, there would seem to be little basis for conflict regarding responsibility for antitrust enforcement. More broadly, however, Commission is obliged by statute to generally encourage larger and more effective use of radio in public interest.4 While conceivably public interest in broadcasting might have been served by stringent regulation, actually Congress adopted a different method. As Supreme Court put it in FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station,5 . . Act recognizes that broadcasters are not common carriers to be dealt with as such. Thus Act recognizes that field of broadcasting is one of free competition. With this in mind, former Commission Chairman McConnaughey, testifying before Special Antitrust Subcommittee of House Judiciary Committee, affirmed that Commission has obligation ... to maintain a system of broadcast compatible with antitrust laws.6 Underscoring importance of competition, Congress did not see fit, for example, to grant Federal Communications Commission power to give a broadcasting licensee any antitrust immunity.7 On contrary, Congress directed

Foreign Scientists

Participation of foreign scientists and scholars in meetings and conferences in the United States would be facilitated under the terms of two resolutions introduced by Representative Charles S. Gubser of California on July 27. These resolutions acknowledge that “the contribution of such aliens to the advancement of scientific and scholarly knowledge by their participation in such meetings, conferences, temporary employment, and other transactions in the United States is essential to the national defense and the furtherance of the industrial, technological, and cultural leadership of the United States,” and provide for prompt decisions on nonimmigrant visas for foreign scholars with a review board including scientists and scholars in its membership being available in the event of unfavorable decisions by the consul. The temporary admission of aliens otherwise specifically excluded by some sections of the McCarran Act would be made possible by the resolutions, which were referred to the House Judiciary Committee.