Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the American people want, need and are entitled to an opportunity to express themselves on the national budget and the debt ceiling. If my memory serves me correctly I believe that Congress recently raised the debt ceiling to somewhere in the neighborhod of 760 Billion Dollars to allow for an increased fiscal budget of some 460 Billion Dollars and that we are now paying an annual interest on our national debt in excess of 50 Billion Dollars. Now I may be off a few Billion Dollars in my estimates but if I am I believe the Committee will forgive me on the theory that it is insignificant. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, my mind is quite incapable of projecting a panoramic view of a Billion Dollars. I don't know what a Billion Dollars looks like, but Congress seems to have no great problem in dealing with such astronomical figures. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the American public would like to have, and that they are entitled to have, an opportunity to at least express their approval or disapproval of these fiscal matters which materially affect their lives and about which they are never consulted.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that perhaps one of the most perplexing problems confronting the American citizen is the foreign aid program. In my opinion the American people cannot understand how Congress could give away 197 Billion of their hard earned tax dollars to fifty-six different foreign nations from mid1946 to 1976, and I will be glad to furnish this Committee with the identity of each of these 56 countries and the amount of foreign aid received if you so desire. Then in addition to that sum of money the Congress has appropriated an additional sum in excess of 7 Billion dollars for the current year of 1977, and according to press reports President Carter wants to double that amount of foreign aid over the next five year period. I do not recall that the President had any such plank in his platform when he was running for President. Mr. Chairman, I want to state that I have personally made a public recommendation that the proceeds in their entirety allocated for foreign aid be immediately diverted to the financially distressed Social Security System. I realize that this suggestion will not meet with the approval of many members of Congress and perhaps some special interest groups representing foreign countries. I am inclined to believe that the 33 million recipients of Social Security will endorse my suggestion wholeheartedly as will their children and grandchildren upon whom support of their parents may fall in the event the Social Security System should go under. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that this is a very serious problem and one to which the American people would like to address themselves. I submit that this is especially true in light of the recent Korean scandal to which fire has been added by reason of the Korean government's refusal to cooperate in the investigation being undertaken by the Honorable Leon Jaworsky who was, as you know, Mr. Chairman, brought in to undertake the task when it became evident that the House Ethics Committee, and especially its chairman, were reluctant to pursue the scandal. And, Mr. Chairman, with these burning problems the American people cannot understand how the President today is insisting upon the release of 800 million dollars of foreign aid to Korea. Mr. Chairman, I submit that more Americans are informed about these facts than the Congress would like to believe and I further submit that many American tax payers are within possession of knowledge to the general effect that most foreign aid is handled through the United Nations and to a large extent controlled by the International Monetary Fund which has authority to lend as much as 100 million dollars to foreign countries for a period of fifty years without repayment or without the payment of any interest thereon and they further know that many such loans are negotiated and the proceeds thereof simply applied to former indebtedness so that the net results enures to the benefit of certain American capitalists, while not one dime of the money reaches the poor and destitute for whom it was originally intended. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that these facts are either known by the American taxpayers or they are believed to exist. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the American people are deeply concerned and they are distressed about a recent news release which indicated a delay of Social Security action by a conference committee because of a California Representative who objected to the Conference Committee meeting so that he could participate in a seventeen day junket to the Middle East along with members of the Armed Services Committee who had determined that they should all go to the Middle East, at taxpayers' expense, to look at something. I don't know exactly what they wanted to look at, but I assume they wanted to see something. Whether this junket required the presence of

wives and secretaries I am not advised, but while the Social Security System was in financial jeopardy another Congressional junket was arranged and enjoyed at tax payers' expense. I submit,, Mr. Chairman, that these matters justify an opportunity, and the right of the American tax payer to express himself. I might further add that I would be happy to personally offer my services, pro bono publico, to prepare an appropriate Bill for enactment by the people under the Initiative program which would deal with the matter of Congressional junkets at tax payer expense.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that perhaps one of the most vicious practices in which governments at all levels practice is that of subsidies. The gratuities that pour out of the pork-barrel are endless. The government subsidizes the tobacco industry, it subsidizes the peanut industry, it subsidizes the cotton industry, it subsidizes the wheat and corn indsutries, it subsidizes just about every imaginable propect where to do so appears to be politically expedient and all of this at the expense of, but without the consultation with, the American taxpayer. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the uninhibited program of national subsidies is largely responsible for our National Debt of over 700 Billion dollars. When subsidies are authorized Congress does not then increase taxes to pay for them, but rather they just print off some more money, increase the debt limit and we just move along to the next subsidy where the same formula is repeated. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that this has to stop somewhere and the best place to bring about a curtailment of the subsidy programs would be through the initiative of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I do not advocate, nor do I think that the American people would want to complete cessation of all subsidies, but I do believe the people would want the right to determine the programs and the amounts thereof.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the American people are sick and tired of crime and its acceleration throughout this nation and in my humble opinion there is no justifiable reason for the law abiding taxpayer to be bridled with the monumental cost of crime. Through a comprehensive and coordinated system the entire cost of crime could be shifted from the taxpayer to the convicted criminal and this observation covers the area from shoplifting to first degree murder. If we need more prisons-and I submit that we do they should be constructed without delay and using prison inmate labor where possible. To each prison there could be attached appropriate facilities for the manufacture and/or assembly of commodities used and useful in our every day lives. As an illustration, assembly line facilities are relatively inexpensive and a premium is generally placed on stupidity of assembly line personnel. When intelligence is introduced into an assembly line they often endeavor to inaugurate short cuts and foul up the whole production system. Automotive parts could be produced and made available at considerable savings to the American public. The manufacture and assembly of solar heating units might be undertaken so that the cost of such items would be more available to the American public. The prison inmates could be paid reasonable compensation for their labors, but from which would be deducted the entire expense of their original apprehension, subsequent prosecution and the expense of their incarceration including food, shelter and other necessitiets of life. And, Mr. Chairman, it would not be necessary to equip these penal institutions with colored televisions, swimming pols, extensive gymnasiums and other such facilities generally reserved for the more affluent. Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, not an entirely new concept. It is being done to some extent in many areas, but a nationalized program even at the consternation of bleeding heart parole boards and some labor union leaders, might well be submitted to the public through Initiative for their approval or rejection.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that there are many areas of deep concern to the American people and about which they would like to voice their opinions, but today we have no laws at the national level which provide the mechanics for a collective expression except for President and Vice President and even this is accomplished through archaic system of presidential electors. I think, Mr Chairman, that the American people might very well like to speak out jointly on the question of public education which is perhaps the most expensive single item borne by the American taxpayer. I personally believe, Mr. Chairman, that every child should at least be exposed to an education, whether it takes or not, but our public school system as operated today is costing the taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars annually and it is common

knowledge that many high school graduates can't even read. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the American people may appreciate an opportunity to vote on a proposition of converting all public schools to private schools under some arrangement where the physical school properties are turned over to the teachers under lease arrangements for operation by them under such arrangements as may appear appropriate with the cost of tuition either financed directly by Federal, State and local governments jointly, or guaranteed by them. I realize that this method has been pursued to some extent by the Federal Government and that they are now experiencing difficulty in recovering repayments of educational loans, in fact to such an extent that I understand that the government is now trying to locate a collection agency to pursue the delinquents. Of course, I don't understand why they need a collection agency when the Justice Department is full of lawyers, some of whom know how to prepare and file a law suit.

To mention briefly just a few more of the problems about which the American public might like to be heard, Mr. Chairman, I would include the United Nations. Today we are operating under the "one person, one vote" theory but such is not the case in the United Nations, where the smaller nations out vote the larger nations although the larger nations contribute most of the money for the operation of the United Nations.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the American people cannot understand the ever increasing expense of hospital care. Most hospitals receive subsidies for the purchase of the land on which they are constructed; additional gratuities for construction of the buildings and related facilities, as well as most of the equipment used therein and pay little or no taxes of any kind yet charge in excess of one hundred dollars a day for a room. Now, compare this situation with a first class motel where the owners are required to purchase the land, to provide funds for construction of the building and its equipment and they must pay taxes of every description, yet they seem to make a profit charging only twenty-five dollars a day. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the American people do not understand this and they would perhaps like an opportunity to express themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is entirely possible that the American people would like to express themselves on some of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which they may consider repugnant. I think the people would like to express themselves on the question of reverse discrimination and the so called quota system, which I personally consider to be one of the most diabolical schemes ever concocted by the mind of man-a vote of the American people may not agree with my thoughts-they may approve it wholeheartedly and if they do I accept their judgment. Maybe the Supreme Court, when they come to pass upon the Alan Bakke case now pending before them they will hold as they did in Colgrove vs. Green that the court will not get into that "political thicket."

Mr. Chairman, I could go on with this type of testimony ad infinitum, or perhaps I should say ad nausium. However, I believe that the illustrations I have enumerated should be persuasive in convincing the committee that the proposal here under consideration is both desirable and needed.

Mr. Chairman, I deem it appropriate that I should devote some discussion to the inevitable objections which we must encounter. All worthwhile projects are first subjected to a bombardment of criticism, some with merit, but mostly without merit. You will recall I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that we once had a Vice President of the United States, Mr. John Nance Garner, now of sainted memory. Mr. Garner had an expression which he often used to denote a negative value of something he disliked. I have never personally adopted Mr. Garners' expression because I fear that it has never received complete public acceptance. However, I believe Mr. Garner's expression may be appropriately applied to most of the objections which we are sure to encounter. Mr. Garner's expression about something he didn't like that it "wasn't worth a pitcher of warm spit." And, too, Mr. Chairman, when we consider the source from which the objections will come and the reasons behind them it is less difficult to realize that we have three kinds of people we have those who know what's going on; those who think they know what's going on, and those who wonder what's going on. Many people are inclined to make objections solely because in their mind to make an objection carries with it an implication of knowledge about the subject matter, when in truth and in fact they

know little or nothing about. This type of objection will mostly be in the form of a general objection-to the effect that the proposal will not work or that the people are incapable of originating or passing upon laws.

Then, Mr. Chairman, we will encounter that group of objectors who, inspired by certain motivating influences, will assail and bombard the proposal from every conceivable angle. They are almost certain to raise their dirty heads, their identity concealed, and cause the venim to spew. But when their identity is revealed, their nakedness exposed and their purpose revealed, their effectiveness will diminish. Lobbyists and leaders of minority and special interest groups can never be satisfied with nor accept the status quo because to do so would eliminate their usefulness.

I realize, Mr. Chairman, that some objections will be made to the effect that the Initiative proposal would tend to change our representative or republican form of government, and in support of their argument they would cite the Federalist papers. However, Mr. Chairman, I submit that in my sincere opinion the Initiative proposal implements our representative form of government and encourages voter participation as a substitute for voter apathy. When the people are permitted to participate in the law making process, debate is inevitable and from debate knowledge and understanding are certain to evolve.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to the concluding portion of my testimony and I trust that I am not being too presumptious when I suggest that the Committee give serious consideration to two possible amendments which I deem to be most important.

First, Mr. Chairman, I am distressed at the 3% signature requirement. I fear that such a requirement could result in defeating the intended purpose of the proposal. The expense and the effort which will be required to obtain signatures of 3 percent of the electorate who voted in the past Presidential election will be monumental and I fear self-destructive. Therefor, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Committee give careful consideration to some alternative method by which this burden may be reduced. It is well known that polls taken of even fifteen hundred people are used by the television net works to determine the national popularity of a television show. We know that polls of even less numbers of people are used to determine the progress of candidates for political office. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that a requirement of some two or three million signatures to a petition may be unnecessary and really inadvisable.

Mr. Chairman, my second suggestion of an amendment to the Initiative proposal is the creation of some agency whose sole purpose would be to act as a sort of clearing house for the reception of suggestions made by the public either directly to them or by the public to Senators or Congressmen for transmittal to such agency; that upon receipt by such agency of a sufficient number of suggestions made by the public the agency could cause an appropriate poll thereon to be made and if the results of such poll should indicate a strong favorable public reaction the agency should be authorized to prepare the appropriate legislation for submission at the next congressional election. The agency or commission which I am suggesting should, in my opinion, be self-executing and entirely independent of the Congress so that special interest groups would be unable to exercise any undue influence over the agency. Even further beneficial functions could be delegated to the agency such as appearing before Congressional committees in opposition to proposed special interest legislation. Such agency could also prepare, and cause to be distributed, pro and con arguments on Initiative proposals. Of course, such an agency or commission could be created by an Act of Congress as an implementation to the Initiative amendment, or it could be embodied within the Initiative amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion please permit me to say that I strongly endorse the Initiative proposal. In my testimony here I have first undertaken to qualify myself to speak on the subject; I have then undertaken to show a justification and a need for the Initiative amendment; I have discussed briefly the objections which I think are inevitable and to which I have expressed my sincere opinion as to their merit and effectiveness; and then I have concluded with two suggested amendments which I hope will receive consideration by the committee.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I cannot refrain from asking the question: Should the Government govern the people, or should the people govern the Government?

Again, Mr. Chairman, please permit me to express my appreciation for the opportunity afforded me to present my views to this committee on a matter which I deem to be of extreme national importance.

Thank you very much.

STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS

CERTIFICATE

I, Upton Sisson, do hereby certify that the foregoing 14 pages contain a true, complete and accurate transcript of my testimony prepared for delivery to the Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee holding hearings on S. J. Res. 67 introduced in the United States Senate on July 11, 1977, by Senator Abourezk and Senator Hatfield.

WITNESS MY SIGNATURE, this the First day of December, 1977.

UPTON SISSON.

INDIANAPOLIS, IND., December 1, 1977.

Senator JAMES ABOUREZK,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ABOUREZK: Enclosed please find an original and two copies of "Testimony of Stephen Laudig for the Hearings Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on the Voter Initiative Constitutional Amendment (S.J. RES. 67) Held December 13 and 14, 1977.”

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

STEPHEN LAUDIG.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN LAUDIG, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW Honored Sirs, Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before this subcommittee supporting passage of S. J. Resolution 67 which will establish the right of Americans to participate in the federal legislative process. For brevity's sake I will summarize why I support the adoption of this resolution and why any reasons presented against the adoption are either unsound or anti-democratic. First the reasons in favor:

1. Self-government is the most effective government and the initiative permits direct self-government.

2. The initiative immediately enhances citizens' rights to redress their grievances by providing wide access for participation in policymaking. 3. It would severely limit the ability of lobbyists to procure passage of legislation that is widely disliked by providing citizens with quasi-veto power. 4. The initiative arouses wide interest in important issues and the resulting debate would educate citizens on public affairs and consequently lessen the distance between the people and the government.

5. Independent judgment on the merits of an issue is encouraged.

6. Issues which cripplingly divide legislators can be resolved by the direct appeal to the true sovereign in a democracy, the people.

Secondly, rebuttal to the arguments against

1. The initiative is theoretically inconsistent with our constitutional representative government. Not so, rather the right of initiative is impliedly reserved In the Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendments and is arguably part of the constitutional framework even though it has been unused.

2. It is cumbersome and expensive to have the ballots printed and the State machinery used. Practice and experience have shown this argument false.

3. It is impossible for the voter to familiarize him or herself with the bills to permit intelligence judgment. The restrictions on qualifying for the ballot insure placement issues that compel attention and thought. An electorate competent to choose lawmakers is competent to choose laws.