[SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 1956]

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 52
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 28, 2006
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: July 14, 1955
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
~,)J 14 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 9013
permitted to sit this afternoon during
general debate.
The SP KER. Is there objection to
the requef the gentleman from Colo-
rado?
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
FREE IMPORTATION OF GIFTS
FROM MEMBERS OF ARMED
FORCES ON DUTY ABROAD
Mr. COOPER, from the Committee on
Ways and Means, reported the bill (H. R.
7205, Rept. No. 1175) to extend for 3
years the existing privilege of free im-
portation of gifts from members of the
Armed Forces of the United States on
duty abroad which was referred to the
Union Calendar and ordered to be
printed.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS,
1956
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H. It. 7278) making supple-
mental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1956, and for other pur-
poses; and pending that motion, Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
general debate proceed not to exceed 4
hours.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri?
Mr. TABER. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, there is nothing in
the request about the control of the time.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is sure
that that is understood.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I sup-
plement that with the request that the
time be equally divided, half to be con-
trolled by the gentleman from New York
[Mr. TABER] and half by myself.
Mr. TABER. Further reserving the
right to object, Mr. Speaker, is it expect-
ed that the bill will be concluded today?
The SPEAKER. It depends on how
fast the committee in charge of it works.
Mr. TABER. That is what I was try-
ing to do.
The SPEAKER. It is hoped that it
may be completed today.
Mr. TABER. It seems to me that 3
hours would be sufficient to cover what-
ever we would need on the bill. I won-
der if the gentleman could not reduce
that request to 3 hours.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have a
number of requests for time. The re-
quest is not to exceed 4 hours. If we can
conclude it in 3 hours or 2 hours or 1
hour, I would be very happy. We shall
consume no more time than is absolutely
necessary.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri [Mr. CANNON] ?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill (H. R. 7278) mak-
ing supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for
other purposes, with Mr. MILLS in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the unani-
mous-consent agreement, the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. CANNON] will be rec-
ognized for 2 hours, and the gentleman
from New York [Mr. TABER] will be rec-
ognized for 2 hours.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Missouri.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. RABAUT].
Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chairman, with
malice toward nobody but with determi-
nation to do my duty as I see it, I want
to report to this House that yesterday I
appeared before the Committee on Rules,
as was the request of the full Committee
on Appropriations. I told the Committee
on Rules that this bill was filled with
paragraphs that were subject to points of
order; that the bill probably contained
very few pages where a ruling could be
denied against points of order, and the
bill would be bad. I said there were so
few pages that I limited it to about four
pages that would not be subject to a
point of order.
I read to the committee a prepared
statement and said the bill contained
many of the paragraphs that were in the
final supplemental bill as handled by the
Committee on Appropriations every year,
and that a rule is usually granted.
The gentleman from New York [Mr.
TABERI, the gentleman from California
[Mr. PHILLIPS], and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. DAVIS] were present and
opposed a rule. Mr. DAVIS lent his moral
support.
Past history always allowed a rule. To
my surprise the committee failed to act,
and we find ourselves with a bill involv-
ing approximately $1,650,000. Twelve
subcommittees of the Committee on Ap-
propriations worked on this bill, prac-
tically the entire membership of 50; the
hearings comprise several volumes, yet
under the situation the House will not
be able to work its will as to accepting or
rejecting the many provisions and
amounts in this bill before us because a
point of order would lie in most instances.
Rather than to have a field day on
points of order I intend to ask unani-
mous consent to ask for deletion from
the bill of all the paragraphs subject to
a point of order so the House may work
its will on that part of the bill on which
the decision of the Rules Committee per-
mits us to function. This will represent
a big saving in time and much useless
talk.
I regret that under the circumstances
the normal procedure of originating an
appropriation bill in the House in this
instance, due to the denial of a rule,
passes over to the other body. We pass
over to them our prerogative of initiat-
ing appropriation bills. It will be en-
trusted in this instance to the Senate.
This, incidentally, is probably a new
inconvenience to the House as a result
of the Dixon-Yates fiasco. Previous to
the consideration of the public-works
appropriation bill on the floor of the
House, Republican Members held two
caucuses, and there is no denial of the
fact that they were concerned over
Dixon-Yates. As a result, when the
public-works appropriation bill came to
the floor of the House, we had a demon-
stration of logrolling never equaled in
my long years of service in this body,
and there was pork on both sides of the
aisle. The committee completely lost
control under the policy of "You rub my
back and I'll scratch yours." As a re-
sult, we took the bill to the Senate with
little or no grounds on which to argue
with that body, inasmuch as, living in
a glass house, we were unable to throw
a stone. That there is a connection be-
tween Dixon-Yates and that which is
taking place here today there is no doubt.
Then, when the public-works bill
emerged from the Senate-House con-
ference we had the camel's nose under
the tent with new expenditures that
eventually will hit proportions of from
$10 billion to $20 billion. And to-
day with a bill up for consideration in
the sum of $1,650,000,000, approxi-
mately, we still hear the echo of the
Dixon-Yates controversy. I think they
are now talking about settlement of
the controversy with damages running
into a few million of dollars and the
word being spread around is to be liberal.
So there seems to be no need under the
circumstances for the House to waste
its time since we come without a rule on
a bill that could prove of no use to us
or to those who sought to embarrass the
50 members of the Appropriations Com-
mittee who worked long and hard, as is
evidenced by the testimony compiled in
several volumes before us. So this is
my notice that I intend to cite the para-
graphs that are subject to points of or-
der and ask for their deletion from this
bill.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I opposed the rule be-
cause there was a paragraph in the bill
that I felt was not proper, and I do
not believe that the Members of the
House will feel it is proper if they read
it. When that point is reached I pro-
pose to offer a point of order against it.
On the other hand, there are in the
bill an enormous number of items, as
always appear in a supplemental bill
at the end of the session, that contain
language that makes them particularly
subject to a point of order.' Those para-
graphs have been before the House time
after time and very seldom, if ever, have
points of order been raised against them.
Frankly, I do not see how we can
meet our responsibility in connection
with the Government without considera-
tion of a very large number of items that
are covered in this bill. I cannot under-
stand just why any Member of the House
would feel that he should want to make
a point of order against an item unless
that item was, in his opinion, against the
interests of the Government. That will
be my approach to the problem and I
will confine my points of order to what
I believe may not be in the interests of
the Government.
With that statement, I shall feel
obliged to object to an omnibus request
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 9014
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14.
to be made before the reading of the
individual paragraphs.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the
United States-its Government-its in-
stitutions-and its people are in dire
danger.
They are confronted by the greatest,
the most powerful, the most ruthless, the
most modern, military organization in
the history of the world-ready to attack
at the first sign of weakness.
The Bolsheviks have announced, and
it has been their position from the be-
ginning, that communism and democracy
cannot live side by side and they they
propose to take over by force and vio-
lence the rights and property of every
people in the free world, as they have al-
ready taken over the satellite nations
which surround them.
It has not only been their open objec-
tive, their philosophy, their program, but
they have steadily and consistently or-
ganized and drilled armies, and equipped
them with modern armament, in order to
be in a position to carry out that objec-
tive at the first opportunity.
We are in danger not of defeat: not of
a situation which can be retrieved in
case of disaster. We face extermina-
tion.
The Russian dictatorship still adheres
to the Marxian philosophy of world rev-
olution and proletarian dictatorship. It
is arming and has continued to arm
feverishly. Their factories running in
three 8-hour shifts per day, are prepar-
ing to take over America, to destroy our
cities, to drive what is left of our popu-
lation into concentration camps and
slave-labor barracks. Do not say it can-
not be done. It has taken place before
our eyes in Russia and every Russian
conquest.
And, they have driven a knife between
us and our allies. In every former war
we have had powerful allies who held
the enemy in check until we could get
ready, until we could mobilize and pre-
pare. Today every potential ally is under
the guns of the Communist regime.
They could not survive 24 hours against
the barrage of atomic weapons which
Russia is prepared to launch within an
hour or sooner.
And therein lies our greatest danger.
War has developed so drastically that
it is now largely matter of who gets in
the first blow. The battleship I. now as
obsolete as the bow and arrow. The
mighty Missouri is a museum piece. At
one time our first line of defense, the
battleship and heavy naval guns, devel-
oped to a point where the ship that got
in the first shot, that made the first hit,
was practically in control of the situa-
tion.
To practically the same extent today
a Nation with sufficient bombs and the
planes to deliver them can with one
stroke simultaneously attacking every
center of communication, production,
transportation, and population, so para-
lyze us that there could be no recupera-
tion. The theory of retaliation upon
which we have depended so strongly in
recent years is no longer applicable.
Our military authorities tell us that with
a simultaneous attack with weapons
which Russia now has at her command
they could destroy at the first blow 53
of our major cities, including Washing-
ton. The only defense that has been
suggested is evacuation.
The President this week asks Attorney
General Brownell to conduct a study of
methods of invoking martial law, gov-
ernment by the Army, over the entire
country. Nothing could more vividly and
more emphatically delineate the situa-
tion in which we find ourselves-the
danger of the country today than the
study of this stark measure of last re-
course. Only the most imminent po-
tential menace could have prevailed on
the head of the government to resort to
such significant measures.
And the President has moved none too
soon. Russia today has military su-
periority over all the combined powers of
the entire free world. They have more
modern submarines by far.
Within the last fortnight we are told
it has just been discovered that Russia
has superiority in numbers and design
of planes with which to deliver the
atomic bomb around the globe. They
have acres of modern tanks. They have
a manpower which the free world can-
not approach. Within 30 to 60 days
they could sweep every free nation from
the continent.
And this situation is deplorably illus-
trated by the supine attitude of the
United States Government today.
Ah, you will remember, Mr. Speaker,
under the administration of Theodore
Roosevelt, a foreign power detained one
private American citizen and President
Teddy Roosevelt sent one message. He
said, "Pericardis alive or Raisouli dead."
And in 6 hours that American citizen
was released.
Mr. MCCORMACK, the majority leader,
placed in the RECORD this week a long
list of civilian and military personnel,
including priests, rabbis, ministers, nuns,
now detained without any authority of
law whatever and in contravention of all
international jurisprudence-American
citizens-and we do not dare to send
the Roosevelt telegram.
You will remember that when they
sank the Maine President McKinley de-
clared war. No one ever knew whether
the Maine was sunk by accident or by
a military enemy, but on the mere sus-
picion that a foreign power had sunk
an American ship in neutral waters we
declared war.
You remember the Lusitania. She
was not an American vessel. She sailed
under the flag and the commission of
another nation, but we had a few Ameri-
can citizens on board, and on the
strength of that insult to our national
honor Congress declared war.
Just the other day Russia deliberately
shot down an American plane under
conditions about which there could be
no question whatever. They did not
deny it. There was no excuse. What
did we say? We said, "Oh, don't pay
any attention to that. It was merely a
local incident." What would Teddy
Roosevelt have said to that? What
would McKinley have said? What
would the American Congress, which
declared the last World War, say about
that?
We have fallen on evil days. We can-
not defend our own nationals. We do
not dare to assert our nation integrity
under the most insulting ciristances.
They shot down an American plane and
then they came in as if they had knocked
us down on the street and said, "Well,
we'll pay half of your hospital bill."
They say, "We'll pay half of the loss of
your plane." And they laugh behind
their hands, and all of the communistic
world takes note that we dare not call
them to time. Here were international
criminals of the worst order destroying
our planes in time of peace, and we did
not dare resent it.
Mr. Speaker, we won the last war.
We did not negotiate with the enemy.
We called them in and said, "These are
the terms of peace. Sign on the dotted
line." And they signed. But today
bands of lawless brigands in Asia bush-
whack American citizens and we say,
"Now, now, now, you ought not to do
that. Be nice. Let us have a truce."
But we have to wait for months even to
get them to agree to a truce.
Mr. Chairman, that it was not the in-
trepid valor of our troops that won that
war. It was not the superb generalship
of the American command that won that
war. It was not the patriotic support of
the American people that won that
war-it was the superiority of American
science that won the war and ended the
war. It was the landing duck; it was
the proximity fuze; it was the all-seeing
radar; it was the atomic bomb that won
that war against European nations
which had always insisted, and which
the world had always conceded, were
superior in research, and leaders in every
scientific field of development and in-
vention. American science coming from
behind created the scientific instruments
and agencies that won the war.
It was the TVA that made these sci-
entific achievements possible. We could
not have developed them; we could not
have developed the bomb or the alumi-
num for the wings of the planes that
carried the bombs had it not been for
the TVA. And in this moment of dire
national peril, confronted by the most
menacing situation in the history of
American arms, there are those who are
moving to shackle TVA so that they can
have more dividends, so they can prof-
iteer on the American consumer.
Why are they opposed to TVA? Why
do they seek to destroy REA and AEC?
Oh, they say it would create a Govern-
ment monopoly. No; statements like
that are as obviously false as any state-
ment made by the Russian Government.
When our armies closed in on Japan,
when hundreds of thousands of Ameri-
can boys were poised for the drive in
which vast numbers of them would sure-
ly die, at that supreme moment one
American plane with material supplied
by TVA power-with one atomic bomb
which could not have been made without
TVA power-ended the war,
TVA saved the boys and sent them
home to their families; TVA saved bil-
lions of dollars to the American taxpay-
ers; TVA ended the war. But they say
TVA should never have been built. It
is socialistic. The natural resources of
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
the Tennessee Valley rivers belong to the
people. But they should be paying divi-
dends to private enterprise-to men like
Samuel Insull and Dixon and Yates.
How can they justify such piracy?
Oh, they say, "We want freedom."
What freedom? Freedom to plunder
the American consumer.
And they invariably wind up with
"The Government is trying to establish
a monopoly." No more barefaced effort
to deceive was ever made. We are op-
posed to a government monopoly. We
believe in private enterprise. We de-
mand that the private utilities control
at least 85 to 91 percent or more of the
business of production and distribution
of electric energy in the Nation. But
the last 21/2 percent at least, TVA and
REA municipal ownership, should be re-
tained-TVA by the Government, REA
by the private cooperatives, farmer co-
operatives, and municipal plants by the
cities which have built and developed
them. We must have these small yard-
sticks; we must have a policeman on the
corner. The American consumer must
be protected from exploitation and
profiteering by the giant nationwide
private monopolies.
"Oh," they say, "private monopolies
cannot overcharge the consumer. We
have Government regulation." The trou-
ble is that Government regulation never
regulates. We have an example of that
in my State.
Some years ago when competition be-
tween buses and passenger trains-and
between trucks and freight cars-be-
came heated, a cry went up for the State
of Missouri to establish a public utili-
ties commission to regulate passenger
fares and freight rates. And, thinking
it would keep down transportation
charges, we agreed to it.
The first thing they did was to call in
the bus companies and order them to
increase fares. "But," said the bus
companies, "we are getting a good return
on our investment. We are making good
money at the present rates." "That has
nothing to do with it," said the public
utilities commission-the government
regulation agency-"your rates are un-
fair competition with the railroads.
Raise your rates on the consumer." And
the buses raised rates that were already
producing an adequate income.
Government regulation does not regu-
late. The only effective regulation is to
keep a yardstick and the TVA, REA, and
municipal ownership must be retained to
protect the standard of living of the
American family.
Of course when Dixon and Yates start
their creeping monopoly there is danger
of forgetting the real value of TVA. But
Russia does not forget it. Our scientists
have just learned that Russia built and
has operated successfully since 1949 the
largest synchro-cyclotron in the world.
The largest we have ever built in
America has a maximum capacity of 450
million electron volts. But the Russian
plant has a capacity of 680 million volts.
The Dixon-Yates backers are proposing
to destroy even the small one we have.
But Russia is already outbuilding it.
Russia is looking ahead. And the Presi-
dent is trying to make arrangements to
maintain military government when the
Russian TVA and its products devastate
53 American cities-and tells Attorney
General Brownell to try to figure out a
place where Congressmen can assemble
when Washington is destroyed-if there
is a quorum left after the dust settles.
I appeal to the Congress to stop these
men who are scheming, who are main-
taining here in Washington such vast
lobbies, who are intimidating Members
back in their districts in a way that
amounts practically to blackmail, as you
have seen in the last 2 or 3 weeks. They
are trying to take over TVA. But they
cannot do it unless this Congress grants
them the power to do it.
Mr. Chairman, will we in time of dire
national peril give an irresponsible pri-
vate monopoly control of the economic
welfare of the Nation?
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7
minutes to the gentleman from Mary-
land [Mr. MILLER).
Mr. MILLER of Maryland. Mr. Chair-
man, the portion of this bill to which I
will address my comments has to do with
military construction, which forms the
principal item as far as the money in-
volved in this measure is concerned. Of
the over $1.6 million provided by the
various chapters, there is some $1.4 mil-
lion that has to do with military con-
struction throughout the world set forth
in chapter III.
While this comes to you in a supple-
mental bill, that huge sum for military
construction is really an integral part of
our military program and would nor-
mally come in the Defense Department
appropriation bill for the current fiscal
year had it not been for the fact that the
thousands of items involved had to be
processed. It was only in recent weeks
that the details of the needs requested
were presented to our committee. It
required long, hard sessions, but even so,
the time was too short to adequately
cover such a large program.
One thing that you will note about the
setup with respect to this chapter is that
included are projects the cost of which
totals roughly 25 percent more than the
money that has been allotted by appro-
priation or transfer. That unusual sit-
uation comes about due to the fact that
the services believe that inevitably in a
program of this magnitude, which re-
quires construction all over the conti-
nental United States and in many for-
eign countries, there will be slippages.
They have requested that selected proj-
ects that have been authorized be appro-
priated for, as they would like to get
them under way this year; but it is con-
ceded it will not be possible to get them
all under way during the fiscal year.
They cannot, however, at this time defi-
nitely determine the ones that may or
may not be delayed. _.
Our committee in its wisdom, has re-
duced the amount requested for the
overall program even further because we
felt that the slippage was sure to be
even greater than for which the services
had made allowance. But, there is still
nothing in the way of an austerity pro-
gram as far as the military portion of
this bill is concerned. While it is true
that there are only a limited number of
permanent establishments provided for,
the amount spent this year will greatly
improve the living conditions of the men
9015
in uniform both at home and abroad.
Our committee has urged those carry-
ing out the programs to concentrate on
necessary operational facilities, and
quarters for the soldiers, sailors, and
airmen; that first priority be given these
items wherever possible.
It is not practical to be arbitrary about
various categories, because where in one
location a post theater, for example,
might be in the nature of a luxury and
it may be that there are facilities that
can be used, in other areas, if the post
happens to be far away from civilization,
if it happens to be in a locality where
there are no amusements available, it
might be almost a necessity. So it is
that in a program as vast as this, with so
many thousand line items, it is hardly
the proper approach to say we will not
approve any type of building across the
board because it does not come within
a certain priority category, when at a
particular location it might be far more
important than would seem to be the
case in another locality.
The services, I think, are to be com-
mended in that there is a program going
forward and beginning to bear fruit of
standard types of construction to be used
for the most part in permanent installa-
tions. A new type of barracks has been
developed for 2 units rather than for 1
with a capacity of 327, I think it is, troops
in the Army, and a similar program for
the installations on land in the other
services. Standard types of bakeries, or
post-exchange buildings, theaters, and so
forth, have been worked out, and the
program is going forward with the effort
made to make living conditions and the
so-called fringe benefits better for the
men in the service. One of the very
important elements in this program is
the housing program for dependents, and
there are a good many million dollars
authorized to provide better living quar-
ters in proper localities for dependents
of those stationed in the area.
This chapter having to do with the
Department of Defense has received the
most careful study of the subcommittee
during the limited time available. Of
necessity, .it was impossible to analyze
the thousands of line items in great de-
tail. However, I am confident that we
have brought you a sound bill and I urge
its passage.
(Mr. MILLER of Maryland asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
15 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
LMr. MAHONI.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, it would
seem quite certain that this bill is to
some degree controversial. However, I
think probably the major items in the
bill, from the standpoint of money, are
not very controversial. This bill pro-
vides $1.8 billion for military public
works within the continental United
States and outside the limits of the con-
tinental United States.
This is not an austerity program. We
have come to the acceptance of the phi-
losophy that we are probably going to
be in a state of peril as a nation over a
considerable number of years. We have
abandoned the idea of temporary con-
struction, theater of operation type con-
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 9016
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14
struction. We are building our military
installations on a more or less permanent
basis. They cost a little more that way,
but I, for one, feel that the best interests
of national defense and economy are
served by more substantial construction
practices.
One of our troubles is the members of
the Committee on Appropriations are not
adequately prepared fully to comprehend
and discuss all the features of the mili-
tary portion of this bill. That is through
no fault of our own. The President.
through the Bureau of the Budget, did
not send down the budget requesting
$2.2 billion for military public works un-
til about the first day of July. The au-
thorizing legislation upon which this
portion of the bill is predicated is, I be-
lieve, to be signed perhaps this afternoon.
So we have not had the opportunity
which we desired and deserved in which
to screen these requests for funds.
It is true that in the overall picture
we have been pretty adequately briefed.
We are building in the Army toward a
reduced structure but a structure that
will take care of our people on a perma-
nent basis within the framework of our
present regular forces.
In the Navy we have about 1,000 oper-
ating ships and with all the support re-
quired on land and at sea we are building
to meet that requirement.
The Congress has been urging the
Executive over a period of years to hasten
the construction of a 143-wing Air Force
program. That program in the last cou-
ple of years had been reduced to the 137-
wing program. We are building the
base, so to speak, for that sort of Air
Force. And we have been told at great
length and with some degree of clarity
by the officials of the Department of De-
fense that these items in this bill are es-
sential toward the realization of our de-
mand for a 137-wing program.
As I say, this is not an austerity pro-
gram. It costs us about $5,000 every
time a serviceman does not reenlist;
and there are millions who do not reen-
list. For good or ill, we are trying to
make military life, since apparently it is
going to be with us for a long, long
time, more attractive to the young men
of our country. In the desert we are
building swimming pools. In other areas
we are building gymnasiums. We are
seeking to provide adequate recreational
facilities. We are building clubs for
noncommissioned officers and for en-
listed men. We are building officers'
clubs. We are doing a lot of things that
perhaps some people would like to be
critical of us for doing. But if we are
going to undertake to have these Ameri-
can men of the Armed Forces live some-
what like the rest of us and if we are
going to try to make military life more
attractive and keep them in the service
as a career, I think we have got to do
that sort of thing. At least, that is the
philosophy which we have accepted in
approving this bill. I am not ashamed
of the fact that we are building solidly
in military construction. I think that is
a step in the right direction.
Since we did not have an opportunity
to explore each individual project as
thoroughly as we should like to we are
selecting some engineers to spend their
time between now and the reconvening think the committee report is a very
of Congress making on-the-spot studies excellent document. I believe that by
of these various projects. I for one reading it you will get perhaps a better
think that such action is in the public picture than you will be able to get from
Interest and will be very helpful to the this sketchy discussion on the floor.
committee. It is impossible and I do
not think it was ever intended that the
Congress should inspect the way every
nail is driven and every plan is laid out
in every installation around the world.
It is our duty to initiate policy, to make
policy, and our overall policy with re-
spect to this bill, as far as military con-
struction is concerned, I think is good.
The bill is a little misleading It you
look at the table of figures. The Army
portion of the military public works is
not to be financed out of any new appro-
priation to be made today. It is to be
financed out of funds already available
to the Army and unused and unrequired
at this time for production and procure-
ment, funds which the Army had but
which it does not require now by reason
of the fact that we have slowed down
our military effort since the end of the
Korean war. So that generally is the
situation.
This bill provides for 523 projects in
many nations including our own. We
struck from the bill 14 projects. Of
course, some of the projects are small
and some of them are very large indeed.
We struck from the bill certain proposed
bases overseas. I for one have some very
serious concern about this farflung pro-
gram of base construction by the United
States taxpayers in other sovereign coun-
tries of the world. I have no special
alternative to offer, but I shall not be
surprised if we wake up a number of
years hence and find that these bases
are no longer available to us. If those
countries remain friendly, then perhaps
we will continue to draw considerable
benefit from the construction of these
bases. I think the construction of these
bases has meant a great deal in deter-
ring aggression, but I think it would be
foolish if we should fail to overlook the
perils and dangers which are inherent in
this operation, which almost seems fan-
tastic when you sit and think of it
soberly.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I commend the gentle-
man on that statement and want to say
to him that I certainly share his fears.
Mr. MAHON. I thank the gentleman
for his contribution.
Here is the picture in brief and in
round figures. There are $2 billion
worth of projects authorized. In the
new bill, which I think the President
will sign today, there are $2 billion more
authorized. The President through the
budget has asked for appropriations in
the sum of $2.2 billion. We have re-
duced that sum in this bill by $394 mil-
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield.
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Your re-
port came somewhat as a surprise to us
in Colorado, particularly in view of the
fact on Monday we went out and dedi-
cated the Air Force Academy, and then
on Tuesday, on page 32 of your report,
you say that all new funds for the con-
struction of the Air Academy are with-
held, and it is the wish of the committee
that no construction whatsoever be
started until it has been approved by this
committee. Also, I want to direct your
attentionto page 207 of the hearings of
your subcommittee wherein it was out-
lined that there was $15 million previ-
ously appropriated for the Air Force
Academy. The first question is: Is it
the intention of this committee that the
Secretary for Air should not stop all
plans that he has in connection with the
Air Force Academy until his plans have
been submitted and approved by your
committee?
Mr. MAHON. There is no disposition
whatever to insist that the plans for the
Air Force Academy be approved by the
committee because we are not engineers
or architects, but the Department of
Defense asked us to appropriate $79 mil-
lion for the Academy, which is to cost
over the long pull probably about $150
million. But, the Secretary did not
know what the plans would be. He was
not sure of the design. We were being
asked to approve $79 million of the tax-
payers' money to buy something that
even the Department of Defense did not
know what it was going to look like. I
think the gentleman from Colorado and
I, myself, would hesitate personally to
give the money for a house to be built
or an edifice to be constructed when we
did not know what it was going to look
like. After the plans are drawn, and
after the matter is agreed upon by the
Secretary, then we hope that the Depart-
ment can come back and get the money.
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Is that
due to the fact that the testimony on
page 206 of the hearings reflects that
the plans themselves will not be ready,
that is, the designs will not be finished
before September of this year; and is it
due to this fact that the committee hesi-
tated to approve the complete $79 mil-
lion for the going ahead of the construc-
tion at this time?
Mr. MAHON. I would say that the
plans, as we observed them, which are
not final and which have not been ac-
cepted by the Secretary, did not impress
us very much. It would appear to be
an appropriate edifice for a modern fac-
tory or something of that kind, but there
was so much controversy about these
lion, and the bill includes money in the plans and so many reservations by mem-
amount of $1,800,000,000. So that brief- hers of the committee that we hesitated
ly and in rough figures is the picture. to put the money in the bill.
For those who want to know about of course, we realize we take some
projects in their States and in their criticism for not putting the money in,
areas, let me refer you to the committee but the gentleman will recall the lines
report because the committee report has, of the Melancholy Dane who preferred
I think, a very excellent breakdown. I to bear the ills he had rather than to
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 9017
fly to others that he knew not of. We
did not know just what this leap was
going to be, and so in some degree of
caution we clamped down on the purse
strings for a time. I would like to exhibit
this artistic drawing of the chapel. This
seems to look like a tent of sorts, and
when I saw it a very familiar line from
an old hymn came to mind=tenting on
the old campground. I suggest that a
little bit of caution in the closing days
of the session might serve us well when
we return home.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Texas has expired.
Mr. DEANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman from Texas 5 additional
minutes.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
further to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Certainly
it does not subscribe to the testimony of
Mr. Wright, the architect, that this
chapel should be built up on the moun-
tain about a thousand feet, and that they
provide escalators to take them to and
from the services.
Mr. MAHON. I will say that we did
not undertake to pass on any design.
Personally, I was unable to hear the testi-
mony of Mr. Wright, except for a very
few minutes, but looking at these build-
ings in the artist's drawing now before us,
the Academy looks pretty flat. Maybe
we ought to go a little higher up and
see if we cannot get a little more glory
for our country out of this project.
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. It is my
understanding that it was the intent of
the committee that when the Secretary
has submitted definite plans, which may
remove some of the objections, particu-
larly that of glass, and substituting stone
or marble, and making it fit more into
the picture against the mountain side.
Mr. MAHON. I am inclined to think
it would. I thank the gentleman for
making a contribution.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield.
Mr. 'CHENOWETH. I would like to
relieve the gentleman's mind of the con-
cern and apprehension over this par-
ticular design of the chapel. I was in
Denver on Monday with other Members
of the House and Senate to attend the
dedication ceremonies of the temporary
Air Academy at Lowry Air Force Base.
I was very pleased to note that the de-
sign of the chapel has been changed, and
in my opinion, greatly improved.
Mr. MAHON. Yes. I think they were
originally proposing to make the sides
quite considerably out of glass. It would
have been quite expensive to hire work-
ers to keep this glass bright and shiny.
But I think we have been able to get
them to recommend less glass. If we
keep hammering away, we will have an
edifice of which we can be proud.
Mr. CHENOWETH. I think the gen-
tleman will be pleased with the new de-
'sign of the chapel.
Mr. MAHON. I am glad to hear that.
I do not want to ridicule this project. I
think we are trying to do a good job,
but we do not want to get so far out in
the bright blue yonder that we lose the
American People. The American people
are paying for this Academy, and they
ought to get something that would please
Americans generally.
Mr. CHENOWETH. I appreciate the
gentleman's attitude. I know he wants
to see the Air Force Academy the finest
school that can be constructed, and one
of which we can all be proud.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr, Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I note that
the committee has not seen fit to allo-
cate moneys for the proposed Bucking-
ham Center in Fort Myers, Fla., in my
district. I have studied the needs thor-
oughly, and have gone over the testi-
mony and discussed it with the Air
Force. It is my understanding that this
is a training center and the present fa-
cilities that the Air Force have do not
allow them to properly train the Air
Force for the defense of our country. I
wonder what comment the chairman
may have on that.
Mr. MAHON. There are rare excep-
tions when military facilities are lo-
cated on a political basis. In all my
experience I do not think I could name
very many. I know there are no politi-
cal implications to this project in Flor-
ida. We did not have time to go thor-
oughly into it. I have looked into this
matter further since the hearings were
concluded, and I am inclined to feel that
the project is necessary if we are going
to train these air-defense squadrons that
guard our cities and would be available
to us in the event of enemy attack. But
it is true they have another facility of
this general type in Yuma, Ariz. There
are other areas over the ocean that
would be available for use of the Armed
Forces. We were hoping that this in-
stallation could be suspended and some
of the other installations could be used.
But I think the Defense Department was
very probably correct, and I do not think
the gentleman should be concerned
about this problem. It should work out.
It is one of those things about which
there was a difference of opinion. I
think we made several mistakes in the
bill, I will say to the gentleman; perhaps
this i~ one.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Indiana.
Mr. ADAIR. Directing the attention
of the chairman of the subcommittee to
page 29 of the report, I find there an
item of $285,000 for an air-reserve base
at Fort Wayne, Ind., my home town. In
communicating with people in that com-
munity I find some differences of opin-
ion. There are those there who feel that
adequate quarters milt be had on a
rental basis rather than on a construc-
tion basis. The question I am address-
ing to the chairman, therefore, is: If con-
tinuing study should develop that it
would be better, in the interest of econ-
omy and in the interest of national de-
fense, to rent rather than build in that
community, is it the intent of the com-
mittee that that might be done?
Mr. MAHON. I shall take the liberty
of directing a letter to the Secretary of
the Air Force requesting that he hold
plans in abeyance on this construction
until he has thoroughly explored the
feasibility of renting facilities.
When we make these funds available
it does not mean that officials have to
spend them. If in the light of other
circumstances and developments they
can get along without this project in
Fort Wayne or elsewhere we want them
to do it. That is the policy of the com-
mittee. I think the gentleman is ren-
dering a great public service in raising
this issue.
Mr. ADAIR. I appreciate the state-
ment of the chairman of the subcom-
mittee, very much, as I am sure we both
want proper defense facilities. Yet at
the same time to have the American tax-
payer in mind.
Unanimous consent having been
granted, I wish to insert at this point a
portion of the committee report:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
INTERSERVICE ACTIVITIES
The budget estimate of $2,250,000 for ad-
vances to the Bureau of Public Roads for ac-
cess roads is approved. These funds are used
for the construction of roads to military in-
stallations and defense plants upon certifi-
cation by the Secretary of Defense under au-
thority of the Defense Highway Act of 1941,
as amended.
The bill includes the full amount of the
budget estimate, $4,200,000 for the construc-
tion of additional Loran stations by the Coast
Guard. The contemplated program will ex-
tend to certain vital areas the present Loran
system.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Submission of budget estimates
The most important comment the com-
mittee can make with respect to this chapter
in the accompanying bill is to call to the at-
tention of the Congress the apparent disre-
gard on the part of responsible officials of the
executive branch of the statutory responsi-
bilities of the Congress to fully evaluate and
pass upon the fiscal requirements of the
executive branch. Why this committee and
the Congress should be obliged to consider
during the closing days of each session of the
Congress measures of this magnitude and im-
portance is difficult to understand. A valid
reason has not yet been advanced.
It was testified that the services originally
requested of the Office of Secretary of De-
fense approximately 10,500 items, totaling
nearly $3 billion. While the number of items
and requested appropriation were somewhat
reduced by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, formulation of the final budget
estimates, received July 1, did take approxi-
mately 1 year. The Congress, having a
responsibility for the efficient and economi-
cal application of appropriated funds, was
obliged to give only hurried consideration
to the budget estimates because the new
fiscal year had already begun.
The committee is in position to appre-
ciate the mass of detail encompassed by the
estimates for military public works, but
must, nonetheless, insist that this program
be submitted to the legislative committees
during the month of January in order that
time may be available for full consideration
of the budget estimate. Mr. Franklin G.
Floete, Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Properties and Installations, has testified to
the effect that insofar as his office is con-
cerned, the program will be transmitted to
the Congress early in January of each year.
Status of authorizations
The total amount of authorizations re-
maining unfunded as of June 30, 1955, is
approximately $2,057,000,000. Total author-
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE JOY 14
Izations provided for In H. R. 6829. recently
enacted by the Congress, is $2,306,000,000,
or a total authorization availability in fiscal
year 1956 of $4,363,000,000. It should be
noted, however, that section 501 of H. It.
6829 provides for the repeal of certain prior
authorizations as of July 1, 1958. The iden-
tifiable total that will be so repealed is
$811 million, although it may reach a much
larger figure.
Committee recommendations
Against the total currently available au-
thorization of $4,363,000,000 the Department
of Defense has programed for construction
in fiscal year 1956 a total of $2,630,055,000.
Against this program a total adjusted ap-
propriation of $2,220,800,000 was requested,
the difference being considered as unneces-
sary because of general fluidity In a pro-
gram of this magnitude and because of nor-
mal and expected slippage generally accepted
by the ccnstruction industry. The original
budget estimate, transmitted to the Con-
gress prior to the enactment of H. It. 6829.
totaled $2,273,550,000, of which $800 million
was to be derived by transfer from the ap-
propriation "Procurement and production,
Army."
The committee recommends a decrease In
the program to a total of $2,471,745,000. To
implement this proposed program a total
appropriation of $1.879,491.000 is included
in the bill, a reduction of $394,059,000 In
the budget estimates. Of the total recom-
mended, the amount of $483,612,000 is to
be derived by transfer and $1,395,879,000
represents new appropriations. It Is fully
recognized that so long as we have an Army,
Navy, and Air Force we must have adequate
facilities and bases to maintain and house
these services, and the reduction effected
in the appropriation request should not be
Interpreted as a reduction in the needed
program. Action is predicated solely on
the considered judgment of the committee
as to money requirements based on Its
analysis of the program and the history
of military construction funding.
The difference between the contemplated
program and the appropriation recommended
is $592,254,000. The Department or Defense.
however, should not consider the entire list
or facilities included In the report as per-
manently approved. and It is expected that
all projects in this or previous programs
not specifically financed from available funds
and for which financing Is requested In the
future, will again be presented In the detail
program supporting future fund requests.
During fiscal year 1955 the amount of
$1,964,000,000 is estimated to be obligated
out of a total availability of $2,903,000,000,
leaving an unobligated balance on June 30
of $939 million. While a reasonable unob-
ligated balance is necessary In this type
program. 32 percent obviously Is excessive.
The recommended appropriation of $1,-
879.491,000, together with the unobligated
balance, provides an availability for obliga-
tion in 1956 of $2,818,491,000. This com-
pares with a total availability of $2,903,-
000,000 in fiscal year 1955. The elimina-
tion of specific projects In the amount of
approximately $150 million will, of course,
reduce the total estimated obligations in
1956. which is reported in the amount of
$2,235,000,000 for all three services. Thus,
even should the total obligations approach
$2,100,000.000, the remaining unobligated
balance of something over $700 million
should enable the services to continue with-
out interruption an orderly construction
program into the first quarter of fiscal year
1957. While the fiscal situation Is slightly
different in each of the three services, It Is
believed that, generally, each service will
be in position with the funds provided to
pursue its program as Initially planned.
Miscellaneous
Military considerations should be the para-
mount factor in decisions made by the De-
partment of Defense with respect to the
location of facilities and defense spending
generally. The committee has sought to
reduce the land-acquisition program to a
minimum. The Department now owns ap-
proximately 29,500,000 acres, representing a
total Investment. Including facilities, of
about $21,400,000.D00.
The committee is somewhat concerned
over the growing centralization of military
activities in the vicinity wherein Camp Car-
son and the Air Defense Command are now
located and the new Air Force Academy is
proposed. It Is suggested. therefore, that a
further study be made of this area with
especial reference to the water situation,
bearing in mind the potential growth in
population that the water and other re-
sources will serve In the foreseeable future.
Considerable discussion was had during
and subsequent to the hearings on the
matter of single bedroom family housing.
It is recommended that the programs of
each of the services for this type con-
struction be reviewed to insure that only
those single-bedroom dwellings will be con-
structed as definitely meet the tong-term
demands of the services.
It Is truited that the existing understand-
ing with the committee calling for the allo-
cation of adequate funds required for the
construction of a usable facility will con-
tinue. Disruption of the construction proc-
esses, no matter how short the duration, is
costly and shou!d be avoided,
DEPARTMENT OF TILE ARMY
The Department of the Army has requested
$545,000,000 for the appropriation "Military
Construction, Army." to be derived by trans-
fer from the appropriation "Procurement
and Production, Army." The committee rec-
ommends an appropriation of $483,612,000,
to be derived by transfer as proposed in the
estimate, a reduction of $81,388,000. This is
the first time since fiscal year 1953 that the
Army has requested funds for this appropri-
ation due to large unobligated balances that
were available and now have been reduced
through reprograming authorized by the
Congress. In addition, request has been
made for permission to reprogram $15,091,00D
of prior authorizations and the committee
recommends that this authority be granted
in the manner justified to the committee,
as set out In the following table:
Aberdeen Proving Ground. Md_-_ $150,000
Fort Dix, N. J------------------ 1,972,060
Fort Bragg, N. C ---------------- 339.000
Fort Campbell. Ky-------------- 4, 180.000
U. S. Military Academy---------- 8, 450,000
Total -------------------- 15,091,000
The Item In the above tabulation for the
United States Military Academy Is to be
specifically noted. In accordance with the
committee's report last year a survey was
made of the proposal to convert the riding
ball to classroom spaces and authority is
now given to proceed with this construction
as originally planned out of funds previously
authorized. Testimony indicates that the
rise in construction costs have increased the
current working estimate to $8,950,060. In
addition to approving the request to repro-
gram $8.450,000 permission is granted to use
additional available funds to cover the In-
crease in costs tdRaling $500,000.
The appropriation recommended, $483,-
612.000. Is to finance a program totaling
$553.880,c 0 as set forth in the following
tabulation. Those projects that have been
specifically denied are set out In the para-
graphs following the tabulation. These
amounts may be compared with a program
request of $566.533.000 and a funding re-
quest of $545.000.000. The committee recog-
nizes the need for latitude In a construction
program of this magnitude. and feels that it
has provided such latitude In approving an
amount only $70,268,000 below the estimated
cost of the recommended 1956 program. This
amount takes into consideration a slippage
of approximately 13 percent. It was testified
a slippage of 10 to 15 percent is generally
accepted as normal.
The committee feels that as the program
Is developed and as deletions are made due
to slippage in programing or construction,
first consideration should be given toward
providing quarters and necessary operational
facilities. If there are items which can or
must be deferred they should be in other
categories.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The program
For the Navy military public works pro-
gram, the committee had before it for con-
sideration a tentative program request for
1956 totaling $646,196,300, of which 8596,-
140,900 t5 new authorizations In the House
version of H. R. 6829 and $50.055,400 Is pre-
viously approved but unfunded projects.
Conference adjustments on H. It. 6829 had
the effect of reducing the total to $614,279,-
700 as shown in the table on page 15 of the
printed hearings. The committee has ap-
proved for funding projects totaling $606,-
479,700. a reduction of $7,800.000, represent-
ing reduction in one item and deletion of
two projects. These are commented upon
below. The approved total includes $61,-
937,700 for 3,650 family housing units.
The /unding
The budget estimate for appropriation pur-
poses to fund the 1956 program Is $528,550,-
000-somewhat less than the program pre-
sented for funding authority. The commit-
tee recommends appropriation of $439,950,-
000. a reduction of $88,600,000. The appro-
priation for 1955 was $98 million under
which. Ili combination with unobligated bal-
ances from prior years, the Department In-
dicates estimated obligations in 1955 of $248
million. Approximately $122 million un-
obligated will carry over Into 1956, most of
which, however, is stated to be committed to
previously approved projects.
Basically, the reasons advanced for not
requesting appropriation to an amount equal
to the total of the projects on which the
Department seeks funding authority are un-
foreseeable delays on projects occasioned by
land acquisition problems, timing of grant-
ing of base rights, etc. The total list of
projects, however, is justified as urgent, and
if delays occur on certain ones the Depart-
ment can proceed on others and thus ex-
pedite consummation of the total long range
construction requirements.
The reduction of $88,600,000 Is based on
several things. One is the final adjustment
in the conference on H. It. 6829 wherein sev-
eral projects in the original budgeted pro-
gram were dropped. Further, the commit-
tee has reduced or deleted three items as pre-
viously indicated. Still another reason-and
this is the foremost-is the fact that to get
this large program underway, the Depart-
ment does not need as much as requested.
The budget projects, as of the end of fiscal
year 1956, an unobligated balance of about
$242 million. A substantial portion of that
balance will be supported by detailed project
plans and specifications and thus required
to permit orderly flow of contract placement
In the ensuing few months pending availabil-
ity of 1957 funds to keep the program in mo-
tion. On the other hand, the evidence is
clear that a sizable part will not be sup-
ported by detailed plans. Contracts cannot
be advertised and construction obligations
Incurred without such plans.
The committee's action should in no way
slow down the orderly prosecution of the
approved program. The Department should
proceed, within the amount allowed, to have
detailed plans and specifications prepared
and ready on all approved projects as orig-
inally planned. Funding requirements for
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 9019
actual contractual purposes can be further
determined in the 1957 bill.
? w a ?
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The Department presented a program in-
cluding several thousand individual projects
at over 250 Air Force bases totaling $1,449,-
242,000. The committee has deleted specific
projects from this total in the amount of
$137,857,000. For appropriation in the new
fiscal year the Department requested $1,200,-
000,000, of which $255,000,000 was to be de-.
rived by the transfer of unobligated funds
available to the Army. The committee is
recommending for direct appropriation
$955,929,000, a reduction of $244,071,000 in
the overall funding request. This amount
for appropriation together with the balances
carried into the new fiscal year should be
sufficient to keep essential Air Force con-
struction going throughout fiscal 1956 and
provide adequate balances to keep the pro-
gram going into fiscal 1957.
The difference between the amount pro-
gramed for specific projects and the amount
to be appropriated is $355,456,000. In other
words this is the amount in the Air Force
program for which funds are not provided.
However, the projects which might have
been covered by this amount are not iden-
tified, and no priority list has been estab-
lished. A program as diversified as the Air
Force program must of necessity have a cer-
tain amount of flexibility in order that full
advantage may be taken of continually
changing requirements. The committee is,
accordingly, approving as eligible for con-
struction air bases and facilities at the above
stated cost in excess of the funds provided.
The committee is certain that many of the
projects still remaining in the program
should be given further study. It is ex-
pected that this will be done and that with
the funds appropriated only those projects
most vital to the Air Force program will be
undertaken.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
13 minutes to the gentleman from Kan-
sas [Mr. ScRIVNER].
(Mr. SCRIVNER asked and' was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Chairman, I dis-
like very much to find myself in some
disagreement with our committee chair-
man, the genial gentleman from Mis-
souri [Mr. CANNON], but I do not share
his alarm as to the comparative situation
between the United States and Russia.
I do not concede that they are ahead of
us in any way except perhaps in the
number of jet planes. We are as smart
as they, and a little smarter. They pos-
sibly have a greater number of jet fighter
interceptors, that is logical, because the
jet fighter is used to intercept bombers,
and we have, the largest number of
bombers that can carry death and devas-
tation to any corner of Russia today any
time we want to give the signal. We
not only have the machines, but also we
have the trained pilots who are superior
to any, and we proved our superiority in
Korea by a ratio of 15 to 1.
Furthermore, we have the adequate
bases, a circle of bases from which we
can attack, if necessary. We have su-
perior crews in every way, including navi-
gation, and we have the years of experi-
ence in long-range bombing which they
cannot possibly have and which they
cannot now get.
So I am not going to lose any sleep
at all tonight worrying about any state-
ment the gentleman has made. I am
going ahead and plan my life with a full
sense of security; I am going to urge my
daughter to educate her son, my grand-
son and not worry for 1 single minute
about reports of Russian superiority or
threats to this country.
Much as we may dislike it, we have
got to face the facts with which we have
to live for the next 25 or 50 years. When
we came out of World War I we thought
we were in for perhaps a century of
peace. We did not have it. We came
out of World War II thinking perhaps
we might have a quarter of a century
or maybe half a century of peace. We
do not have it, The Korean war is end-
ed. With those three examples we
should finally realize we must face facts
which are simply these: We must expect
for the next 25, 30, to 50 years we are
to have a large military force. If we
are to have that force-they are situ-
ated in widely scattered areas in all parts
of the world-we must give them facili-
ties with which to work. We have to
give them adequate housing. As a mat-
ter. of fact, there are quite a few mil-
lion dollars in this bill for family hous-
ing for the military services-the Army,
Navy, and Air Force.
In years past in connection with ap-
propriations we have heard about "self-
liquidating projects." We have seen
few, if any, of them. This public hous-
ing-and this is a very, very big public
housing program, make no mistake
about that-this military public housing
will be perhaps the nearest to a self-
liquidating project of anything we have
ever undertaken because we are required
by law to furnish our military men with
either housing or a rental allowance in
lieu of military housing. So that the
more military housing we have the less
money we pay out for rental allowances
which will then in turn pay for these
projects we are now building. Not only
that, but some of these bases are located
at some far away and out-of-the-way
places where there is no adequate hous-
ing for our men until we build them.
Even giving them the best housing we
can for the family, the duties they are
going to undertake will be pretty stren-
uous and arduous no matter how good
we make it.
I do not worry too much about some
of the situations we are told about.
Actually, however, I have visited some
of these, military bases here and abroad.
I have seen some of the housing quar-
ters in which some of our military peo-
ple have been trying to live with their
families. I am quite frank in telling
you if someone told me that I had to
serve at a certain place and live in cer-
tain quarters which I have seen them
live in, I would find it difficult to refrain
from resigning.
So this is not just doing something
out of the goodness of our hearts. We
are doing it for the good of the service
and to fill a very necessary need.
We have been told by the gentleman
from Texas that we are building up to
the 137-wing base. That is quite true.
For every new squadron, for every new
wing, we must have adequate bases.
You can put it down just as simply as
that. And according to the mission,
every new base is going to cost from 15
to 150 million dollars and in connection
with some of the bases it is going to cost
you considerably more than that. You
cannot operate 137 wings without bases.
You have to have everything that goes
with a base-you have to have, among
other items, runways, taxiways, han-
gars, shops, administration and opera-
tions buildings, fuel systems. All of
those things cost money. As we look at
this bill, it is merely a defense public
works bill. The big military part has
already gone through. Anyone can see
that our national defense is costly. It
takes men, it takes machines, it takes
money, not mere millions but billions of
dollars-thousands of millions of dol-
lars, which all comes out of the taxpay-
ers' pockets. The job we have to do,
working with the military, is to see that
we get a dollar's worth of defense for
every defense dollar we spend.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SCRIVNER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. MAHON. Since the gentleman
has referred to the cost of the Depart-
ment of Defense, I think it would be well
to place in the RECORD at this point the
complete figures. We appropriated for
the Army, Navy, and Air Force-the De-
partment of Defense-$31.8 billion. In
this bill there are appropriations of $1.8
billion for military public works, which
would make $33.6 billion for the De-
partment of Defense for the current
fiscal year.
Mr. SCRIVNER. I thank the gentle-
man for making that observation.
What this public works bill is doing
in part is to build up our bases for this
long pull, whether it is 10, 20, 30, 75, or
100 years.
The buildings we are now seeking to
construct for the main part are what
we term permanent buildings. We found
that our investment in semipermanent
types of buildings and barracks just did
not pay off. They were comparatively
low cost in the first place, but in the
long run they were not cheap. They are
now becoming dilapidated. Their main-
tenance is expensive. But, we just must
face the realization that without bases
our Navy and the Air Force and the
Army cannot operate. We must have
them.
It is a big bill, yes, but we should
expect, as soon as the 137-wing base
structure is completed, that there will be
a gradual tapering off of requests for
new construction, of public works money.
Maybe from 3 to 5 years should see the
tapering. We have bases some of which
probably existed for 100 years. All of
the buildings are not that old, but I can
show you military buildings that are 100
years old. And we have to go through
our old established bases and begin re-
constructing some of our worn out, dilap-
idated structures to carry on in the fu-
ture if we are to do the job that we feel
we are called upon to do. It is a big
bill. It has got to be paid. It must be
faced. We must face the fact that we
are going to be presented with similar
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
9020 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
requests to this for some time to come.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SCRIVNER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Why is It that the De-
fense Department does not use perma-
nent Installations such as the one we
have in Iowa constructed during the war
and has not been utilized since?
Mr. SCRIVNER. I do not recall at the
moment what permanent base the gen-
tleman is referring to.
Mr. GROSS. The Navy base at Ot-
tumwa, Iowa.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCRIVNER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Kansas.
Mr. REES of Kansas. The gentleman
has called attention to the need for ad-
ditional bases because of the extension
and expansion of the Air Force, and per-
haps in line with what the gentleman
from Iowa has alluded to, I am wonder-
ing whether the committee in its hear-
ings has discussed the question of the
number of bases that were closed after
World War II. I have in mind, for ex-
ample, the one at Herington, Kans.,
which was quite an important base.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Not only this year
but in years past we have discussed
many of those bases in detail. The one
the gentleman is referring to was a
training base, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. REES of Kansas. That is cor-
rect.
Mr. SCRIVNER. There were many
bases which were used for training in
World War II which are not usable now.
If they were to be used, you would have
to practically start from scratch be-
cause the type of planes that our fliers
are training in now cannot take off and
land on those fields today.
Mr. REES of Kansas. I appreciate
the gentleman's statement, but still I
have the feeling that there is a tendency
on the part of those in the Air Force to
sort of overlook some of these bases that
we have.
Mr. SCRIVNER. If you will read the
hearings, you will see that the request
made by the Air Force for land is very,
very, very small. As far as I can recall
now, the only new land we are buying
is where it is absolutely necessary for
the extension of runways, because with
our B-47's and B-52's you have to have
10,000- to 12,000-foot runways, and
many of our bases during World War II
were established with 6,000-, 7,000-, and
8,000-foot runways. That was all right
for the planes that we had then, but the
planes you have now just cannot operate
on those short runways.
Mr. REES of Kansas. I appreciate the
gentleman's statement.
Mr. SCRIVNER. If the Air Force
were to come up and say "We want to go
out and buy a block of ground right here
someplace for a new base," they would
not get very far, because we would point
out just what the gentleman from Kan-
sas and the gentleman from Iowa have
pointed out and say, "You have some
bases; you have land that you own, that
you bought in World War II. Use that.
Do not ask us to buy more land." or
course, our Air Force activities were
larger then than they are now. Our
Navy activities were larger in World War
II than they are now. Our Army was
far larger in World War II than now.
While we are still large, we are not as
large as in World War II. and as a result
we do not need as many bases as we did
then. Perhaps some day we will need
them. Who knows? Maybe we will
continue to expand. We may have to
go back to the bases In Kansas and other
States of the Union and make use of
them, as well as those we are presently
using. But that does not seem probable
in the foreseeable future.
Mr. REES of Kansas. If the gentle-
man will permit, I am making the in-
quiry and the observation largely on the
basis of what the gentleman has said,
that we are going to have expansion and
extension in respect to planes and bases.
Mr. SCRIVNER. We have the 137-
wing base structure pretty well under
way right now.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has again expired.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
15 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia IMr. SHEPPARDI, vice chairman of
the Subcommittee on Armed Services.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SHEPPARD. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Tennessee.
Mr. BAKER. Will the vice chairman
of the committee inform me as to
whether or not there is any money in
this bill for the construction of hospi-
tals abroad, outside continental United
States?
Mr. SHEPPARD. Is the gentleman
referring to the Navy portion of the bill,
or the whole bill?
Mr. BAKER. Any place in the bill.
Mr. SHEPPARD. I should like to
refer that question to my chairman, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON), as
to how many hospitals there are outside
continental United States in the bill.
I do not have the answer at hand.
Mr. MAHON. I will say to the gen-
tleman that the budget request orig-
inally contained about 10,000 line items,
such as hospitals, dormitories, quarters,
and what not. Those were for the au-
thorization bill. There are some hos-
pitals outside of continental United
States to be sure. There are hospitals
in north Africa where we have many
men. There are hospitals available to
our Armed Forces in all important areas.
Upon checking our records, I find that
there are no new hospitals in this bill
for overseas areas. These have been
provided in past appropriations and un-
doubtedly there will be some future re-
quests. This bill specifically provides
for a few infirmaries and dispensaries.
These are, of course, set up to care for
patients on a temporary basis at each
major facility until the patients can be
transferred to a regular hospital.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. SHEPPARD. I yield, certainly.
Mr. BAKER. Are there funds in this
bill for hospital purposes outside the
United States?
Mr. MAHON. I think so, but I would
have to take a little time to list the loca-
July 14
tions, and I shall undertake to supply
the Information.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman, I
should like at this time to address myself
strictly and specifically to the presenta-
tions of the Navy. I was, of course,
privileged to sit in on the policy evidence
that was submitted by the Secretary of
Defense and the respective Secretaries
and their comptrollers.
I want to pay my compliments to my
colleagues on my committee, Messrs.
Norrell, Andrews, Wigglesworth, and Os-
tertag. also Mr. Wilson, of our staff, for
the manner In which we were able to
handle the problem in a short period of
time and do the very best we could under
the circumstances that prevailed.
In order that the House may have my
views pertinent to the Navy aspect, I
will present to you these facts:
As in the case of the Army and Air
Force, the Navy presented for approval
a group of projects totaling more than
the request for actual appropriation.
Within the time available, the commit-
tee has reviewed the total list of projects
presented and with exception of those
I will mention In a moment, has given
the Navy the go-ahead on them. The
report contains the actual list by loca-
tion. Several hundred separate line-
item projects are involved.
The program is presented on this lag
or slippage basis, if I may use that termi-
nology, because experience shows they
always have difficulties and delays in
getting base rights, land acquisition, and
other unpredictable delays or changes of
one kind or another.
The program presented to the com-
mittee totaled $646,196,300 but the actual
request for appropriation is $528,550,000.
The presentation was made on the basis
of the House version of the authorization
bill and now that the conference has re-
solved the differences on that bill, we
have had to make some deletions from
and additions to the original program.
We have also disallowed 2 projects and
reduced 1 other. Then, on top of that,
we examined into the status of the
projected unobligated carryover, par-
ticularly as to availability of detailed
plans and specifications without which
they cannot advertise and award con-
tracts. We found that we could with-
hold some funds on account of this
factor.
All told, we have reduced the program
from $646,196,300 to $606,479,700, which
is a cut of $39,716,600. As to the appro-
priation request, we have cut it from
$528.550,000 to $439.950,000, a cut of $88,-
600.000. I think under all the circum-
stances we have cut about as much of
their money as we should. The money
cut is about 17 percent.
Now to recap the situation, and give
you the specifics on the projects deleted,
let me give you these figures:
The Navy originally presented proj-
ects for our approval totaling $646,-
196,300.
There were several projects which the
conferees on the authorization bill
dropped out and a couple which they
added, so we took them into account. A
list of them appears on page 15 of the
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 9021
Navy hearings. They make a net reduc-
tion of $31,916,600.
That left a total revised amount of
$614,279,700.
Then the committee cut out two proj-
ects and reduced another, totaling for all
three, $7,800,000, which we took out.
That leaves the total which is ap-
proved for funding listed in the report
and it totals $606,479,700.
The three projects we deleted or re-
duced are:
First. We took $2 million off the $6 mil-
lion request for replacement of facil-
ities destroyed or damaged by fire, hur-
ricane, and so forth. That gives them
the same as they had last year.
Second. We took out the $2 million put
In by the other body for plans for a new
drydock at the Puget Sound shipyard to
handle Forrestal carriers that may have
been battle damage. It was not budget-
ed, and we had no hearings on it, so we
did not feel we could include it at this
time.
Third. Then we deleted the item of
$3,800,000 for a new building at the naval
ordnance plant at Macon, Ga., for man-
ufacturing inert ammunition parts.
With the administration's present policy
prevailing having to do with getting the
Government out of competitive business,
it seemed to your committee rather
doubtful whether we should go ahead at
this time and expend $3,800,000 for a new
building and a business that would keep
the Navy in a fabricating category
wherein the field has a lot of competi-
tion from private business.
There is a difference of opinion about
this issue. In fact, there was a differ-
ence of opinion within our committee,
and an amendment was offered to correct
that situation. However, the commit-
tee as a whole sustained your Subcom-
mittee on Naval Appropriations in keep-
ing the deletion in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, in general, and rather
briefly, that covers the actions that have
been taken by the subcommittee han-
dling appropriations for the Navy. I have
been associated with this committee and
with this work, as you Members know, for
a good many years and so have my col-
leagues, the gentleman from Massachu-
setts [Mr. WIGGLESWORTH], and others
of my able associates. We feel that so
far as the Navy is concerned, we have
done the best job we could on the basis
of the evidence they presented and con-
sidering the availability of the properties
of the Navy, which the Navy is presently
using and which it is contemplating
using. Whether or not in the final
analysis what we are recommending will
be ultimately accepted by the House, of
course, remains to be seen. I assure each
and every one of you that in this instance
as in every other instance, I am per-
fectly willing to submit to the will of the
House as to the final conclusion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. OSTERTAGJ.
Mr. OSTERTAG. Mr. Chairman, as a
member of the Committee on Appropria-
tions' defense subcommittee and more
particularly on the Navy panel, I want to
pay tribute first of all to our distin-
guished chairman, the gentleman from
California-[Mr. SHEPPARD], for his able
and considered guidance of the work
of our subcommittee, and also pay tribute
to my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. WIGGLES WORTH],
who is the ranking minority member of
our subcommittee. Both of these gen-
tlemen have been courteous and fair and
I am grateful to them for their many
considerations and kindnesses. The gen-
tleman from California [Mr. SHEPPARD]
has ably described the general changes
and adjustments that have been made in
this particular phase of the military con-
struction appropriation bill. I might
point out that in the Navy's presentation
to us, there were some 632 projects in-
volved. It was pointed out that the
Navy plant, the construction plant, the
property itself, is valued at some $7 bil-
lion. And, too, it has been pointed out
that it will take approximately $12.5
billion more to bring the Navy's estab-
lishment up to modern standards and re-
quirements. I think it might be well
for us to pause a moment to reflect the
changes in the overall picture so far as
our Military Establishment is concerned.
With the Navy being called upon to meet
tremendous responsibilities worldwide,
and with the increased importance of
naval aviation in our defense picture, it is
reasonable to understand why we must
begin to move toward modernizing the
facilities that are so essential to our se-
curity and to our defense. Another point
I would like to make, which perhaps
might be overlooked in a general discus-
sion, is that the Navy has within the
military construction appropriation bill
some $15 million allocated for the pur-
pose of pollution abatement within the
continental United States.
I am not sure at this point whether all
of the other services have followed the
directive of the Executive order calling
for plans, programs, and steps to elimi-
nate pollution caused by our Military
Establishment, but the Navy has in this
instance provided some $15 million to
eliminate pollution in the waters and
streams of the United States of America.
These particular projects and this $15
million does not complete the job, but it
is a logical step forward, and I hope that
all of the services and the Defense De-
partment will move in unison in this
task, which is so essential to the preser-
vation of our water resources and to pub-
lic health. To my mind it does not make
much sense for the Navy to spend mil-
lions of dollars to eliminate waste and
pollution and treat sewage with the
Army and the Air Force right alongside
of that very facility dumping waste and
sewage into the same waters and
streams.
Mr. Chairman, there is much that
might be said about the many projects
that are approved and incorporated in
this bill. Among them, of course, are
the facilities for the shipyards, for the
fleet bases, aviation facilities, fleet sup-
port air stations, Marine Corps air sta-
tions, and many facilities overseas, in-
cluding places such as Hawaii, Okinawa,
the Philippines, French Morocco,
Alaska, Guam, Japan, Newfoundland,
Italy, and other points of vital impor-
tance to our defense.
As has been previously pointed out, the
committee approves and recommends a
total of $439,950,000 in new money, which
is a reduction of $88,600,000 over the
budget estimate for funding during fiscal
1956. Bear in mind that $122 million in
unobligated funds will carry over into
this fiscal year but it is understood that
these moneys are committed to projects
previously approved.
In the Navy, as in all other services in
our Defense Establishment, a general
fluidity in the program applies because
of slippage and other construction fac-
tors.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. OSTER-
TAG] has expired.
(Mr. OSTERTAG asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
15 minutes to the gentleman from Wis-
consin [Mr. DAVIS].
(Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-
man, I find myself in general agreement
with the statements which have been
previously made in connection with the
military construction program we have
before us today, and it is entirely to that
program that I wish to devote my allot-
ted time.
The chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON],
mentioned the difficulties under which
we were required to work in conducting
the hearings on the military-construc-
tion program. That certainly was true.
It seems that in this program, as long as
I have known it, we have always been re-
quired to labor under extreme difficulties
in trying to bring to the floor of this
House an appropriation bill for military
construction. The major responsibility
for that, of course, must lie with the ex-
ecutive department, because the repre-
sentatives of the Department of Defense
have failed to bring legislation before
this Congress in a timely fashion. I
know that the Committee on Armed
Services has gone out of its way to bring
authorizing legislation to the floor of
this. House promptly after it has been
submitted to it. There ought to be a
reasonable lapse of time after the au-
thorizing legislation has been before the
Congress, so that the staff of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations could go
through the justifications of the things
that have been authorized, so that the
committee would be prepared to conduct
hearings in an orderly and informative
manner after that legislation has been
passed. In my experience that has never
been the case.
I can recall that back in 1951, which
was the first year I served on the sub-
committee that handled this appropria-
tion, we were called back here in Septem-
ber, and a huge stack of justifications
was submitted to us; because at that
time we feared, with no little justifica-
tion, that the war going on in Korea
might well be the beginning of world war
III. So we attempted to get some grasp
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
9022 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
of what was submitted to us. and finally,
because the executive department itself
had not formulated a program for the
expansion of the physical facilities of the
Armed Forces commensurate with what
we thought might be ahead as a result of
Korea, we finally had to end up with a
lump sum without any pinpointing of the
appropriation whatsoever.
In 1952, it was substantially the same
story over again. Shortly before the
Congress had made up its mind to ad-
journ, huge stacks of justifications to the
extent of $1,800,000,000 were submitted
to the committee. Members of the com-
mittee, after some consideration of what
they might possibly do, finally ended up
again with a lump sum appropriation of
about $1,200,000,000.
We did a little better in 1952 than in
1951. At that time there was set up a
grid of so much for each command, and
so much for each purpose, broad cate-
gories such as pavements and utilities
within the amounts allotted by those
commands, and that grid plan was put
into operation for funding Air Force
construction, being known generally as
"the Davis grid." During that year,
1952, the executive branch and the Con-
gress were both pretty much at sea as
to what was going on in the field of
military construction. The Riley sub-
committee was established and an at-
tempt was made to go into the standard-
izing of facilities and the charges of
waste and inefficiency in this program
that were reported to the committee, in-
cluding the much-publicized situation in
French Morocco. I think the work of
that subcommittee still stands as an ex-
ample of judicious, conscientious investi-
gation into this kind of program, and I
think this entire Congress is indebted to
the gentleman from South Carolina for
the work which he accomplished in that
session.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield.
Mr. MAHON. I want to concur in the
gentleman's statement in regard to the
work of this subcommittee upon which
the gentleman from Wisconsin served so
effectively.
Does not the gentleman think that the
sort of job that was done there has paid
dividends and been helpful to us with
respect to further developments in mili-
tary public works?
And does not the gentleman think that
the public works program as it has pro-
gressed through the years since Korea
has gradually improved and is improved
now over last year and the year before?
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I am sure
that is the case. and I think we can trace
the standardization of facilities both in
terms of physical structures and the
costing structures in the Military Estab-
lishment to the work which was done by
that subcommittee in 1952.
It was not until the late autumn of the
year 1952 that the executive department
finally began to attempt to get these
things under overall control. We had
the three branches of the service running
off in three different directions with dif-
ferent criteria of construction and no
attempt to standardize the structures or
costing. Late in 1952 Frank Creedon
was appointed as a Director of Installa-
tions within the Department of Defense,
by the Secretary of Defense, in an at-
tempt to coordinate the military public-
works program. There was a conscien-
tious man. He did as much as he was
permitted to do under the circumstances.
The trouble is that he was not given the
authority to do the job that needed to be
done.
Then came 1953, and in that year there
was an overall revision that took place,
because Defense Department officials
were attempting to get their feet on the
ground with respect not just to installa-
tions but to the whole operational con-
cepts of the armed services; and in that
year our subcommittee attempted to pin-
point each particular line item, and there
was a grant of funds to construct each
of the approved line items. The diffi-
culty was that the Armed Forces simply
were not equipped in terms of organiza-
tion and manpower to proceed in an
orderly fashion on the size of the con-
struction program that was contem-
plated. So there were slips and lapses
here and there. Therefore, we went into
the 1955 fiscal year with huge unobli-
gated balances.
Last year we adopted a new system.
We tried to work out something that rep-
resented a workable compromise between
the years of 1951 and 1952 when we had
to literally give them a lump sum and
say: "You put it wherever you think it
will do the most good," and what we
attempted to do in 1953, the pinpointing
of a certain amount of money for every
single line item. That was the dual sys-
tem that was put into effect by the sub-
committee last year of setting up a pro-
gram and saying: This is the program
upon which you can build, but we know
you are not going to be able to build all
of those things. You are going to have
trouble acquiring land here, you are go-
ing to have difficulty with architecture
there, difficulty with planning some-
where else and difficulty with letting
contracts; so we will appropriate a less-
er amount and let you use that money
across the broad field of the specific
items of the program we have approved.
That permitted them a flexibility
which proved, in my opinion, to be very
effective. At the time of the hearings
this year it was clear that this huge un-
obligated balance had disappeared in
all three branches of the service. It is
true there is what may appear to be a
large amount of money carried over un-
obligated into this 1956 fiscal year, but
in any construction program of this kind
and of the magnitude that it involves,
there has to be, in my opinion, an ob-
ligated carryover in the neighborhood of
about 20 percent in order that the pipe-
lines will be filled for the first quarter
of the new fiscal year before the new
money becomes available. That has
been accomplished substantially as of
this date and I would say under the
flexible program which this subcommit-
tee Instituted last year, we are in pretty
good shape as far as the unobligated
balances of this program are concerned.
The executive branch apparently
thought it was a good idea too, because
July 14.
the program that was submitted to the
committee this year was geared to that
basis: a program on the one hand and
a smaller amount of requested money
on the other that could be obligated
across the field of the approved program
of construction items.
Our programs for military construc-
tion in past years, at least in recent
years, have been characterized by a
couple of things that I think should be
called to your attention, primarily be-
cause they do not apply to the program
that we have before us now. One of
them was what we used to call an
austerity program. We were dealing
with the bare essentials, we were doing
things plainly, without frills, at what
we thought was a minimum reasonable
cost.
The second characteristic of that pro-
gram as we knew it then was that we
were going to get it done in about the
1957 fiscal year. We anticipated that
requests for appropriations would taper
off in the next fiscal year after this one.
Neither of those things is applicable
to the program we have before us. It is
not proper to call this an austerity pro-
gram because instead of dealing mainly
in operational requirements without
frills, this program, for the first time,
is geared to a number of frills. In other
words, there is emphasis on welfare ac-
tivities, service activities, and recrea-
tional activities, and that is completely
consistent with what apparently is the
prevailing view and part of the prevail-
Ing program to make life pleasant
enough in the armed services so that
enlistment rates will remain high and
we will not need to resort to selective
service to such a large extent.
The second thing is that we forgot any
thought of tapering off in the 1957 fiscal
year. I suppose the program submitted
to you next year will be just as large as
the one we have before us this year, and
I will be surprised if the one that is sub-
mitted for fiscal 1958 is much smaller
than the one we now have before us.
I do not know when we can reasonably
anticipate a tapering off of the requests
for military construction.
The only major criticism that I would
have with respect to the bill as it is now
reported would be a failure to pinpoint
the limitations on the overall program.
I think the money that is involved-and
I suppose that is a major consideration-
is completely consistent with my own
personal point of view. But, I do feel
that we have failed to pinpoint limita-
tions on the overall program, and, of
course, where the commitments are
made. When you commit yourself to the
building of a program, it does not make
too much difference whether you are
going to put the money in this year or
next year it is going to cost just as much,
and if the cost of construction continues
to go up. It will cost more, perhaps, if the
money is put in in a subsequent year.
But there again I cannot place any im-
mediate responsibility on the part of the
members of the committee. It is part
of the failure of the executive branch to
submit this program to the Congress in
a timely fashion. We have been prom-
ised improvement on that score in the
next year by Assistant Secretary of De-
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 9023
fense Floete, because I think we on the
committee owe a responsibility to the
Congress and the people of doing a better
job than it has been physically possible
for us to do in presenting this year's
program.
So, with those weaknesses, which are
not important weakness on the part of
anyone in this room, or for which they
must accept major responsibility, I sup-
port the bill as it stands before us, and
I hope the majority of this House will
do likewise.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to
the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. REES of Kansas. I just want to
say that this House and the Congress
and the country are indebted to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin who just ad-
dressed the House and the group to
which he belongs for the splendid service
rendered this country in dealing with
this most intricate problem.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to
the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. SCRIVNER. I concur in the re-
marks made by the gentleman from Wis-
consin about the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. RILEY], but I believe he
has been unduly modest, because the
gentleman from Wisconsin labored with
-the gentleman from South Carolina on
that committee and helped bring about
that possible result.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I thank the
gentleman.
I suppose it might be proper for me
to add here, if the gentleman from South
Carolina who has just risen will bear
with me, I think I took more than the
normal amount of disappointment when
the subcommittee organization for'
handling this program was changed in
this 84th Congress, because I felt there
was an unusual affection and under-
standing and conscientious cooperation
that existed among the members of the
subcommittee that handled this pro-
gram during the 83d Congress, and that
certainly includes a man who devoted
all his working hours to furnishing the
members of the subcommittee with the
information they needed to attempt to
do an intelligent job with respect to this
program, and, of course, I refer to Frank
Sanders, who served as the executive
clerk of this subcommittee during the
83d Congress.
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to
the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. RILEY. I wish to concur in the
remarks made by the gentleman from
Kansas in regard to the splendid con-
tribution of the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin. I wish to express my appreciation
to the gentleman from Wisconsin for
the very extravagant remarks he has
made about me. The study referred to
was a cooperative movement on the part
of the Committee on Appropriations in
order to bring about a more realistic
and a more practical program in the
construction of military bases. This
committee was originally set up by the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. CANNON] in an effort to coordinate
the military construction program and
work out a useful and at the same time
an economical construction program in
the services. Through the efforts of the
staff and the members of the committee,
with the exception of the gentleman who
is speaking, they did work out a program
and spotlighted it to the Army, Navy and
Air Force. I think the program has
progressed and is still progressing. I
think it has become more realistic and
more practical and I believe will continue
in that direction as a result of the study
made by this committee and the spot-
lighting of the weaknesses and the recog-
nition on the part of the military defense
forces of the suggestions of this sub-
committee.
I appreciate the gentleman from Wis-
consin bringing this matter to the at-
tention of the House, and I am sure the
House appreciates the very fine service
that he has given. He has given un-
stintingly of his time and efforts and
talents to bring success to this program.
It has been a bipartisan movement.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-
man, I simply want to say when these
remarks are submitted to me for revi-
sion, I intend to take the liberty of strik-
ing out the exception which the gentle-
man made with respect to himself.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gen-
tleman from Missouri [Mr. HULL].
(Mr. HULL asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD).
Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, this col-
lege, the Command and General Staff
College, at Ft. Leavenworth, Kans., is
the senior tactical school of the United
States Army and the only Army school
of combined arms. Upon the proper ac-
complishment of its mission depends the
successful tactical implementation of
our war plan. It is an extremely criti-
cal component of our national defense.
The course of instruction at this col-
lege is being conducted in three build-
ings which were originally constructed
and used respectively as a stable, riding
hall, and World War II temporary gym-
nasium. They are inadequate for the
accomplishment of the mission of the
college and have been uneconomical to
maintain since they were converted to
college classroom space and are becom-
ing progressively more expensive to keep
in a a serviceable condition. They do
not measure up to the facilities pro-
vided for similar level colleges operated
by the other services and are not in
keeping with the dignity of this college
and United States world leadership in
the eyes of the many foreign dignitaries
who visit here each year and of the se-
lect allied officers in the student body-
85 from 42 allied countries this year.
Further, the Department of the Army
program planning is aimed toward an
increase of over 25 percent in the student
load of selected Regular Army, National
Guard, and Reserve officers by Septem-
ber 1957, the date planned for the open-
ing of this building.
Throughout the years many of our
greatest military leaders have studied at
this institution and I know of by own
personal knowledge that this new facility
is a necessity. Furthermore, to deny
this much-needed academic building is
to detract from the dignity and prestige
of our country.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. HOLIFIELD].
(Mr. HOLIFIELD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, in
looking through the report of the sub-
committee I note, on page 11, at the bot-
tom of the page, the committee reports
that they eliminated $12,650,000 to pro-
vide for the design and construction of
a hull of a new atomic-powered mer-
chant ship. And, on page 51, at the
bottom of the page of the report, it says:
The merchant ship Reactor, for which $21
million was programed, has not been au-
thorized, and the funds have been disal-
lowed.
I want to compliment the committee
on this particular action. As a member
of the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy since its inception, I believe that
I can state, without exaggeration, that
I am one of those on the committee who
wants to see an atomic reactor of a type
that would be available for a surface
ship developed just as quickly as it can
be developed. In fact, we put into the
authorization bill for construction sev-
eral items along this line, one of which
for $25 million was to be used for re-
search and development in reactors,
which I regret to say has been elimi-
nated by the committee. But I shall
speak at some length on that at a dif-
ferent time.
But in regard to the $21 million re-
actor fund that was disallowed for a
merchant ship, the committee followed
the general thinking of the majority of
the members of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy. There are several rea-
sons why we were against that $21 mil-
lion item. The main reason was that an
attempt at this time to build a Nautilus-
type reactor which would have been
merely an enlargement of the reactor
which is used in the submarine Nautilus
would have been very expensive. It
would have involved, for the ship, the
hull, and the reactor, anywhere from $34
million to $47 million. It would have
produced a ship which had an obsolete
atomic reactor in it. It could not have
carried a pound more of cargo. It would
have cost, according to our estimates,
approximately 10 times as much to run
it as an ordinary merchant ship. In
other words, fora quarter of the cost
and for a tenth of the operating cost
you can have a merchant ship that will
do all the functions which this ship
would perform.
In the authorization legislation from
the Atomic Energy Commission there
was a $50 million item for the develop-
ment of what we commonly call a car-
rier-type ship reactor. This carrier-type
reactor would not be a single reactor, it
would be-created in multiples of 2, 4, 6,
8, something on that line. When those
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE JOY 14
reactors are developed any one of more
of those reactors can be placed in a
merchant ship and used for ship pro-
pulsion, so, in effect, that type of re-
search and development work is going
on. It will go on under Admiral Rick-
over, who is the best man I know of to
get the job done, with the limited num-
ber of physicists, scientists, and engi-
neers who are capable of doing that
high-class work. I am sure under the
program already authorized this work of
building a reactor which is appropriate
for a merchant marine ship will be done.
Therefore, I compliment the committee
on recognizing these facts and deleting
these amounts from the appropriation
bill.
Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield.
Mr. HAYS of Ohio. There are a great
number of merchant ships moored up
and down the Hudson and in other har-
bors that are available in case of neces-
sity. As I understand, if this reactor is
developed, it will be of a type that can
perhaps be placed in those ships to make
them fast and usable and bring them up
to date.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think there is a
possibility of that being done, all right,
although the hull that may be needed
may be of a special type.
Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Mis-
sissippi [Mr. WHITTEN].
(Mr. WHITTEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I
shall not belabor the committee by going
into the various phases of our military
program and the system of handling the
military programs in our appropriation
and legislative process. The hearings
clearly point this out.
I have served on the Armed Services
Appropriations Committee, being back
on it this year after being off for a num-
ber of years. You could not be on a
committee where the members are more
able or one where they work harder or
where it is more of a pleasure to serve
with them. My complaints have been
directed toward the expansion of per-
manent real estate bases and on the size
of the whole military operations contin-
uing at present levels for 20 or 30 years.
I have also raised the question if per-
haps by appropriating the full amount of
money that completed contracts might
cost in advance, we were not inviting the
actual expenditure of those funds. In
our efforts to restrict or to contain the
public works expansion of the military,
I wonder if sometimes we have not fol-
lowed a program which tends to make
the Armed Services Committee and the
Appropriations Committee really the
Public Works Committee. It is to them
that chambers of commerce, cities and
towns look for spending military money
by locating military establishments
there. I say that without any criticisms
of any individuals involved, but it has
come to our attention in these hearings
in several instances where selections
were made, expenditures were made,
where certain military considerations
and costs to the Government seem to be
laid aside for pressure of various kinds.
I hope we can go into these matters
more fully next year and get some cor-
rection.
For one I have tried to point out the
reasons in the hearings and have urged
investigations to substantiate the case I
believe the hearings have made.
We have succeeded in our efforts to
get these matters investigated. I am
pleased to state at the present time we
have in the Committee on Appropria-
tions investigations either cleared or
going on at the moment on procurement,
public works and on many, many other
activities of the Department of National
Defense. This information will be made
available to the committee next year,
and at that time we will be able to sus-
tain many of things, I think, which we
see should be corrected.
Mr. Chairman, my prime purpose in
taking this time is to put into the RECORD
and to bring to your attention actions of
the appropriations' subcommittee for
agriculture. I know it has been noised
abroad in the last day or two that the
Committee on Appropriations had put
various legislative provisions in the ap-
propriation bill. There are several of
those in the agricultural subcommittee's
part of this bill. In every instance.
these are at the request of President
Eisenhower in connection with aid to the
low-income farmer. I havebeen serving
on this appropriations' subcommittee for
some 10 years, for 5 years I have been
chairman of it. During that period of
time I have never written legislation in
that bill nor has our subcommittee,
where we did not first go to the leaders
of legislative committee on agriculture
and asked if they did not wish us to do
it. This is no exception, I went to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
COOLEY I and to the gentleman of Texas
[Mr. POAGEI pointing out that this was
the last appropriation and that the
President had asked for certain rela-
tively minor and small amounts of
money to carry out his program, and
asked if they did not think it wise to put
it in this bill. The said it would be
O. K. to go ahead: then the amounts
were put into this bill. The only excep-
tion to that is we have in the bill pro-
vided a grade 17 for a salesmanager of
the Commodity Credit Corporation.
That is a $7 billion corporation. It has
had no sales policy and no sales manager.
In our recent report on our regular
appropriation bill, we pointed out those
facts and I am pleased to note that sub-
sequent to that the Department of Agri-
culture has appointed a sales manager
for the Commodity Credit Corporation.
He was appointed July 1. In other
words, while that item appears in the bill,
it is only a question of whether you pay
him at the same rate as others in the
Department who do similar work. We do
not have to pass any authorization for
the creation of the position. The right,
already existed with the Department.
We just found fault because they did not
see fit to exercise it. Personally, I do
not know whether objections will be
made to the items In this bill or not.
Personally. I cannot see that the items
we have in our bill are going to in any
way cure the present ills that face the
low-income farmers. I do feel, and our
committee felt, and we so expressed our-
selves in our report that the farm situa-
tion is bad enough; and we felt we
should give the Persident and the ad-
ministration these requested funds to
try to relieve the situation. Again, may
I say I cleared that with the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. COOLEY] and
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. POAGE].
We acted after they said the thing to do
was to go ahead, and if subsequently
any change was made in attitude, we
could raise it when it reached the floor
of the House. If the items go out, I do
not think we will have lost a great deal.
But, I will say to the committee that
your subcommittee on agricultural ap-
propriations have put these items in the
bill because, certainly, we want to be in
a position of supporting the President
in his efforts to relieve this low-income
farm situation. I cannot help but say,
however, in our report we also pointed
out that the suggested course of the ad-
ministration was missing the boat and
would not relieve the situation which
they attempt to relieve.
Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTEN. I yield to my col-
league from Minnesota.
Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr.
Chairman, the distinguished gentleman
from Mississippi [Mr. WHITTEN] has
stated the position exactly as it exists.
We have placed these items in the bill at
the request of the administration and
both the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
WHITTEN 1 and I hope that in spite of the
fact that points of order would lie
against them, that they will remain in
the bill.
Mr. WHITTEN. I thank the gentle-
man. May I say there has been one ex-
ception insofar as legislation we have
had in this bill in former years is con-
cerned.
One exception where we have asked
for a rule was at the request of the legis-
lative committee on agriculture. Two
or three years ago the committee had
failed to pass a new authorization bill
for the ACP program, and at their re-
quest we included funds and asked for
a rule. Except for that, may I again say
the legislative provisions have always
been cleared with the leaders of that
committee. The ones we have today are
at the request of the President. I do not
think it will do a great deal, but I am
willing for him to have his chance to
bring about some relief for the low-in-
come farmers.
I have asked permission to revise and
extend my remarks, and I will include
a copy of our report and such other in-
formation which we have, which more
clearly shows this picture.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
On April 26. 1955, the President submitted
to Congress a message calling attention to
the need for further assistance to the more
than 1,500,000 American farm families which
now have an Income of less than $1,000 per
year. In the words of the President:
"In this wealthiest Nation where per capita
income is the highest in the world, more
than one-fourth of the families that live
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
on the farms still have cash income of less
than $1,000 a year. They neither share fully
in our economic and social progress; nor
contribute as much as they would like and
can contribute to the Nation's production
of goods and services."
In an effort to meet this problem, the Bu-
reau of the Budget on May 26, 1955, sub-
mitted to the Congress supplemental budget
estimates (H. Doc. No. 171) to enlarge the
programs of the Department of Agriculture
in the following amounts:
Direct appropriations
Agricultural Research Service---- $380,000
Extension Service--------------- 1,286,000
Soil Conservation Service --------
150, 000
Agricultural Marketing Service--_
250, 000
Farmers' Home Administration---
850, 000
Office of General Counsel---------
36,000
Office of Secretary---------------
19,000
Office of Information ------------
30, 000
Loan authorizations
Farmers' Home Administration:
Production and subsistence
loans --------------------
15,000,000
Small - farm development
loans ---------------------
15,000,000
30, 000, 000
The program for which these funds are
requested, as outlined to the committee by
the Under Secretary of Agriculture, proposes
to find solutions to the problems of these
farmers through improving production and
marketing practices, by shifting from full-
time to part-time farming, by encouraging
off-farm employment wherever possible, and
by appealing to local States and communities
to help at the local level. The additional
funds provide for increased research, exten-
sion, and soil-conservation work by the De-
partment and an expansion of the loan pro-
gram of the Farmers' Home Administration.
With some misgivings, the committee Is
approving the full amount requested, since
the serious plight of the farmers throughout
the country is such as to require the en-
couragement of every action which may help,
even if only in a small way. The committee
believes that the Department of Agriculture,
State, and local agencies, and the people
themselves should be given every opportunity
to foster and promote those measures which
the Secretary feels will contribute to solving
the unfortunate plight of these 1,500,000
low-income farmers. According to the De-
partment's own survey, 130,000 additional
low-income farmers were added by cotton-
acreage reductions this year and 58,000 farm-
ers were forced off of farms entirely by such
action. The committee is going along with
the President's proposal in the hope that it
will enable him and the Secretary of Agri-
culture to recognize that reductions in the
level of price support, without proper pro-
vision for meeting increased farm costs, and
reduced acreage made necessary by failure
of the Department to sell in world markets
at competitive prices, are the factors which
are creating the very conditions which they
hope to correct.
At the same time, the majority of the
members of the committee do not consider
the Secretary's proposal as a real farm pro-
gram, nor do they feel that it reaches the
basic causes of the problem. They are of
the opinion that it can in no way substitute
for a farm program which would meet pres-
ent rising costs, decreased volume, and re-
duced prices; and they are certain that it will
not provide sufficiently adequate income to
the farmer, In the immediate future, to en-
able him to stay on the farm.
While the committee recognizes that off-
farm employment has been helpful to rural
families in maintaining a reasonable stand-
and of living in some areas, the majority
of its members have little confidence in a
program designed to encourage them to look
to city employment in preference to con-
sidering agriculture as a worthwhile occupa.
tion and a wholesome way of life. They can
see some real dangers to the American way
of life If the present trend away from the
farm is allowed to continue and actually
encouraged by the Secretary. Further, since
the present problem in many areas of the
country is one of creating additional em-
ployment for people now living in the cities
and towns, they cannot accept this feature
of the administration's proposal as a long-
range solution to agricultural problems.
Mr. Morse, Under Secretary of Agriculture,
speaking for the Department, told the com-
mittee that the increased costs incident to
the President's requested increase in mini-
mum wages for labor would not appreciably
hurt the low-income farmers. Mr. Morse
further stated that reducing price supports
had not and would not appreciably hurt the
farmer. He also attempted to defend the
Department in its refusal to sell in world
markets at truly competitive prices, which
thereby cuts the farmer's acreage, produc-
tion, and Income.
Now, with the small farmer in bad finan-
cial shape, as recognized by the President,
the United States Department of Agricul-
ture is asking the committee to believe that
to lower his price, increase his cost, and cur-
tail his production will not appreciably hurt
him. Perhaps the only thing left for the
Department of Agriculture to recommend is
that the low-income farmer get a job in
town. And that is largely what the Presi-
dent, his Bureau of the Budget, and his De-
partment of Agriculture have recommended
to the committee in support of funds pro-
vided in the accompanying bill.
The farmers of this Nation received 12
percent of the national income in 1946, 11.6
percent in 1948, 9.4 percent in 1951; and in
1954 the farmer's share of the national in-
come dropped to 7.2 percent. This year the
indications are that this percentage will go
down still further, with a drop of $1 billion
in farm income In sight. It is expected that
the national Income will increase another
$20 billion at the same time.
Supporters of flexible supports frequently
contend that a 75 percent of parity support
program will not hurt the farmer, because
he is already hurt under 90-percent support.
It is true that he has been in very bad finan-
cial shape, but in the absence of price sup-
ports his situation would have been much
worse.
The farmer's income is dependent upon
the volume he produces, multiplied by the
price he receives, less his cost. In recent
years the farmer's prices have been reduced,
and his cost has gone up greatly, more than
12 percent in the last few years. The Presi-
dent has requested an increase In the mini-
mum wage for labor and has supported in-
creases in income for other groups. As a
result, farm costs are bound to continue
to go up. With his income dependent upon
price times volume, reducing the price can
only make the farmer's situation worse. A
majority of the committee believes that what
is needed is to at least maintain the price
the farmer has been receiving, and to in-
crease his volume of production by selling
competitively in world markets what he
produces.
In the opinion of a majority of the com-
mittee, what has really hurt the farmer is
that his production has not been sold in
world markets-because the Department of
Agriculture has not offered such commod-
ities for sale at truly competitive prices.
According to the Department's own testi-
mony, almost $4 billion worth of farm com-
modities are In the hands of the Government,
and are not being offered in world trade at
competitive prices. The United States is
9025
the only country which follows such a short-
sighted policy.
By refusing to sell, the CCC has built its
stocks up by billions of dollars, paying huge
amounts of storage. Such storage expense
will soon reach the staggering total of $1
million per day, largely on commodities
which are not offered in world trade at com-
petitive prices.
Then further, such commodities, under the
formula in the law, are counted to reduce the
farmer's acreage and marketing quotas.
Thus, the farmer's trouble and his reduced
income under 90-percent supports have come
about largely because of his constant price-
now a reduced price under the parity formula
of the administration-multiplied by a con-
stantly reduced volume, less ever-increasing
costs.
It is the belief of the majority of the
members of the committee that to solve pres-
ent difficulties Congress and the Secretary
of Agriculture must correct two weaknesses
in present programs. The first is to adopt
a plan which willmaintain reasonable prices
for agricultural commodities. Nearly every
segment of this country's economy is sup-
ported by one means or another, and it ap-
pears entirely reasonable to provide some
comparable protection to the agricultural
producer. If this fact were fully understood
by all the people of the country, there is no
doubt In the minds of the majority of the
committee that there would be little objec-
tion to such a program.
The second solution which must be fully
recognized and vigorously pursued is to make
certain that agricultural commodities ac-
quired by the Commodity Credit Corpora-
tion as a part of a price-support program
are sold on a truly competitive basis as au-
thorized by law. The majority of the com-
mittee would point out that the Commodity
Credit Corporation has full authority in its
basic charter to sell agricultural commod-
ities abroad at competitive prices, which will
move them into world trade channels.
Committee hearings disclose that, while
the Department holds a convenient price
umbrella over world production, American
financial interests have increased their pro-
duction in foreign countries as fast as the
American farmers have been reduced at
home. A recent study by the investigative
staff of this committee shows that in Mexico,
cotton production has increased from a pre-
war average of 324,000 bales to a postwar
5-year average of 577,000 bales and to 1,780,-
000 bales in the crop year 1954-55; at the
same time, cotton exports have increased
from 105,000 to 1,150,000 bales. This study
also shows the following with reference to
cotton production increases in other areas
of the world:
In the Middle Eastern countries of Turkey,
Syria, Iran, and Iraq, cotton production de-
creased from a prewar 5-year average of 459,-
000 bales to a postwar 5-year average of 390,-
000 bales and then increased to 1,260,000
bales in the crop year 1954-55. Cotton ex-
ports for the same periods decreased from
157,000 to 85,000 and then increased to 684,-
000 bales. It is believed that there will be
continued increases in cotton production in
the Middle East.
Cotton production in Nicaragua, El Sal-
vador, and Guatemala has increased steadily
from approximately 50,000 bales 4 years ago
to an estimated 300,000 bales in 1954-56. A
further increase of about 100,000 bales is
expected in 1955-56, and potential annual
production estimates after several more
years Of development range from 700,000
to 900,000 bales.
In Peru, cotton production has increased
25 percent during the past 5 years to 505,000
bales in 1954-55. During the same period
exports, which are a large proportion of
production, Increased 25 percent. However,
it is reported the Peruvian Government holds
cotton and sugar production (the most
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14
profitable crops) under strict control in order
to insure the production of adequate food
crops.
This same situation also exists for other
crops. For example, this same committee
report reveals the following with reference
to wheat:
Sharp increases in wheat acreage and pro-
duction have been recorded in a number of
the European and Middle Eastern countries
which have received substantial foreign aid
grants in recent years.
France, although reducing slightly the
acreage devoted to wheat In 1954 as com-
pared with the 1935-39 average, produced
over a third or 100 million bushels more
wheat in 1954 than In the prewar years.
Turkey has almost doubled her wheat acre-
age since the 1935- 36 to 1939-40 average and
more than doubled her total production in
1953-54. Unfavorable yields in 1954-55 re-
sulted In a sharp drop in wheat production
as compared with a year earlier, yet it re-
mained a third higher than in the prewar
years.
Greece although on a net Import basis has
increased her wheat acreage 20 percent and
production by 50 percent as compared with
prewar years.
Most Latin American countries, as a part
of their programs to Increase home food pro-
duction, have expanded their wheat acreage
and production. The acreage in wheat In
Mexico has Increased 50 percent while pro-
duction has more than doubled since the
period 1935-36 to 1939-40. Although wheat
is a minor crop in Peru. the acreage has in-
creased 50 percent and production has almost
doubled as compared with prewar years.
TOBACCO
World tobacco production Increased from
an annual average of 6.5 billion pounds In the
1935--39 period to 7.8 billion pounds In 1954
or an increase of 20 percent. During this
same period the world acreage devoted to
tobacco production increased from 7.5 mil-
lion acres to 8.6 million acres or an increase
of 15 percent.
United States production of tobacco in-
creased from 1.5 billion pounds in the period
1935-39 to 2.2 billion pounds In 1954, an
Increase of 47 percent, in spite of the fact
that the acreage devoted to tobacco In 1954
was slightly smaller than the 1935 to 1939
acreage.
Canada and southern Rhodesia are among
the more important countries from the
standpoint of tobacco production Increases.
In both of these countries the expansion
has been encouraged by long-term contracts
offered by British tobacco companies.
Increases in acreage and production from
1935-39 to 1954 are as follows:
--- - Pcra?nt I'~'rrr?nt
incrcn r in In,rrav' in
acreage production
f'ana, I a._,.'--'-'-----______ 91 1:4S
iulhern Kliadesia ------------ .2501 3W
Japan has increased her tobacco acreage
from 92.000 acres in 1935-39 to 172,000 acres
in 1954 and from a production of 149 mllllon
ponds in the prewar years of 256 mllllon
pounds in 1954.
Turkey has increased her production of
tobacco sharply from 128 million pounds In
the prewar years to 206 million pounds in
1954 and acreage from 194,000 acres to 323,000
acres during the same period.
Italy also has increased both acreage and
production of tobacco over 50 percent during
the same period.
Brazil. by far the largest tobacco producer
In Latin America. has Increased her tobacco
acreage from 250.000 acres In 1935-39 to 433.-
000 acres in 1954. Tobacco production In
Brazil increased from 203 million pounds a
year In the 1935-39 period to 298 million
pounds In 1954, an Increase of 46 percent.
Colombia almost doubled both tobacco
acreage and production In the same period,
and Mexico more than doubled her produc-
tion with about 50 percent Increase In
acreage.
Tobacco production has declined In India,
Pakistan. and Iran.
Flue-cured tobacco usually accounts for
about 80 percent of all United States exports.
World production of this type of leaf has
shown striking increases. The acreage of
flue-cured tobacco in the major present and
potential competing countries Increased from
384.000 acres to 1,045 million acres, 172 per-
cent. between 1935-39 and 1954 and produc-
tion increased from 370.8 million pounds to
986.1 million pounds, 166 percent, during the
same period.
Tobacco production is expected to increase
further In the sterling area countries where
British Interests are stimulating Increased
production. Further Increases In acre yields
also are expected in most countries, especially
In Latin America,
The committee study also developed the
following with respect to American financial
Interests behind these Increases In produc-
tion abroad:
The survey made to date on this phase of
the directive indicates that the major portion
of private United States capital Investments,
financing and management, has been concen-
trated to a large extent on one of the basic
commodities, cotton, and that this activity
has been substantially limited to Mexico,
Central and South America, generally re-
ferred to as Latin America.
Here the increased agricultural production,
extensive in cotton but also to a lesser degree
in other basic commodities, has been gen-
erated to an Important extent by United
States private interests. Although It is not
now indicated that much actual farming or
production has been undertaken by Ameri-
cans, in many instances the establishment of
markets, cotton gins, elevators, processing
plants and the financing of production has
provided the incentive and Impetus for an
Important part of the Increased output.
In Mexico, Anderson, Clayton & Co. has in-
creased its net capital investment account In
plants and equipment by $8,911,709 to a total
of $12,653,316 during the period July 31, 1947.
to July 31, 1954: and in Brazil by $7,140,303 to
a total of $15,354,158 for the same period.
'rhls company has Increased total net capital
investment In plants and equipment In all
Latin American operations, by approximately
$16,791,214 to a total or $33,073,037 for the
same period. As of March 1955 Anderson,
Clayton's foreign plants consisted of 15 com-
press and warehouse units, 22 oil mills, 112
cotton gins, 10 oil refineries. 5 finished prod-
uct plants. and 5 soap plants. The company
operates through a number of subsidiaries in
Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Peru. and Para-
guay, all of which are mostly wholly owned.
Operations were started In Mexico about 1924
and in Peru. Brazil. Argentina. and Paraguay
during 1933-35. Crop loans In all foreign op-
erations as of July 31, 1954, were $14,955,477.
(Source: SEC records and company reports.)
The Corn Products Co. has plants, and
grain operations at Guadalajara. Mexico, In
Argentina, and in Brazil. It manufactures
and distributes products using corn or milo-
ntai7e as the raw materials. As of December
31, 1954, investment of this company In for-
eign subsidiaries built up over some period of
time Is listed at $14.749.000. During 1954.
foreign aides of corn products by the com-
pany's domestic plants total $11,888.041 or
approximately 5 percent of total sales. Latest
figures for sales of Its foreign subsidiaries
show that In 1953 these amounted to 395.313,-
550. (Source: SEC records and company
reports.)
The W. R. Grace Co. has one of its principal
foreign operations in Peru. Peruvian subsid-
iaries of the Grace Co., Jointly owned with
leading local industrialists, operate 4 inte-
grated cotton mills, the largest In Peru, 2
sugar estates of approximately 10,000 acres
each, and numerous other merchandising,
exporting, and importing activities. These
subsidiaries buy large quantities of cotton,
mostly for their own mills, although some is
exported. The Grace Co. has other cotton
mills in Colombia and Chile. In the latter
country It produces 20 percent of Chile's cot-
ton and rayon blend cloth and, in addition.
some woolen goods. Overall. Grace's Latin
American affiliates produced in 1954, 97,600,-
000 yards of cotton, rayon and woolen fabrics.
W. R. Grace & Co. owns a large percentage of
the stock in the Grace National Bank of
New York City. The foreign branch of this
bank is closely connected with banking insti-
tutions In Latin America.
The Hohenberg Bros. Co. of Memphis is
one of the largest companies in the cotton
business. It finances and gins cotton in
Mexico with its subsidiaries Algodonera Ho-
henberg S. A. de C. V. in Mexico City, and
Empresas Hohenberg of Torreon. It also owns
Hohenberg, S. A. in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and
has a substantial amount of business in Eu-
rope, Africa, and Asia.
POINT 3
The extent to which such United States
financial Interests receive special tax con-
cessions from the United States Government
on income from production in other
countries.
Federal income tax treatment of United
States interests on income from without
the United States corporations
1. Introduction: The Internal Revenue
Code of 1954 provides certain credits or tax
advantages for United States corporations
doing business in United States possessions
or In foreign countries. In some instances
the credits are allowed to avert double taxa-
tion; In others special treatment is permitted
to encourage United States trade and invest-
ment abroad, particularly in this hemisphere.
The following is an outline of Federal in-
come-tax treatment accorded income of do-
mestic corporations from without the United
States. The section references are to the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1954. Public Law 591,
83d Congress. approved August 16, 1954.
2. Foreign Tax Credit (secs. 901-905): A
domestic corporation may elect to take credit
against Its total Income tax for any income,
war profits. or excess-profits taxes paid or ac-
crued during the taxable year to any foreign
country or to any possession of the United
States. The term "Income, war profits, and
excess-profits taxes" Includes taxes paid In
lieu thereof, such as taxes based upon gross
sales or unit of production. The credit is
not allowed against the following United
States taxes: The tax on accumulated earn-
L1gs, the additional tax on war-loss recov-
eries or the personal-holding-company tax.
The amount of credit for foreign taxes is lim-
ited to the proportion of United States tax
applicable to that particular foreign income.
A credit Is also permitted a domestic cor-
poration for the proportionate part of foreign
taxes paid on income by a foreign corpora-
tion which results in dividends to the do-
mestic corporation. At least 10 percent of
the voting stock of the foreign corporation
must be held. A further proportionate credit
is allowed if such foreign corporation owns
50 percent or more of the voting stock of an-
other foreign corporation and receives divi-
dends therefrom, and such dividend becomes
part of the dividend paid to the domestic
corporation.
An example of the latter situation would
be: The A corporation, a domestic corpora-
tion, receives $100,000 in dividends from B
corporation, a foreign corporation in which
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
A corporation holds more than the requisite
10 percent of the voting stock. B corporation
in turn holds all of the stock of C corpora-
tion, another foreign corporation. The ac-
cumulated profits of B corporation amount
to $400,000 (including a $50,000 dividend
from C corporation). The foreign income
taxes paid by B corporation with respect to
such accumulated profits amounts to
$120,000. C corporation has accumulated
profits of $300,000 with respect to which for-
eign taxes of $90,000 have been paid.
Under these circumstances there would be
added to the $120,000 tax with respect to
the accumulated profits of B corporation:
$50,000
X $90,000, or $15,000 representing the
300,000
foreign income tax paid upon that portion
of the accumulated profits of C corporation
used in the payment of $50,000 dividend to
B corporation. The total tax paid or deemed
to have been paid by B corporation with
respect to its $400,000 accumulated profits
is $120,000 plus $15,000, or $135,000.
The amount of tax deemed to have been
paid by the domestic corporation with re-
spect to the $100,000 dividend received from
B corporation would then be:
$100,000
X$135,000, or $33,750, which may be
400,000
claimed as a foreign tax credit.
3. Western Hemisphere Trade Corp. (secs.
921-922) : A Western Hemisphere trade cor-
poration is a domestic corporation all of
whose business (other than incidental pur-
chases) is done in any country or countries
in North, Central, or South America, or in
the West Indies, and which satisfies the fol-
lowing conditions:
(1) if 95 percent or more of the gross in-
come for the 3-year period immediately pre-
ceding the close of the taxable year (or for
the part of such period the corporation was
in existence) was derived from sources with-
out the United States; and
(2) if 90 percent or more of its gross in-
come for such period was derived from active
conduct of a trade or business.
A deduction in computing taxable income
is allowed Western Hemisphere trade corpo-
rations as follows:
(A) First determine the taxable income
of the corporation.
(B) Multiply the amount determined in
(A) by the fraction-
(a) the numerator of which is 14 percent;
and
(b) the denominator of which is that per-
centage which equals the sum of the normal
tax rate and the surtax rate for the taxable
year.
The effect of this computation is to al-
low a deduction which results in a 14-per-
cent reduction in tax rate. It is understood
that Western Hemisphere trade corporations
are being rather widely used for United
States trade and investment in Canada,
Central, and South America.
4. Income From Sources Within Posses-
sions of the United States (sec. 931): Do-
mestic corporations engaged in the active
conduct of a trade or business within a
possession of the United States are exempt
from tax on income from sources outside the
United States, if for the 3-year period end-
ing with the close of the taxable year (or
the applicable part of that period)-
(a) at least 50 percent of gross income is
from that trade or business; and
(b) at least 80 percent of gross income is
from any source within the possession.
The Virgin Islands of the United States are
expressly excluded by statute from "posses-
sions of the United States."
The credit for taxes paid to foreign coun-
tries and possessions, discussed in section
2 above, is not allowed to corporations re-
ceiving the benefit of this section of the Code.
9027
5. China Trade Act Corporations (sees. 941- States taxation only as gains subject to the
943) : Corporations organized under the limitation on taxation of capital gains.
China Trade Act, 1922 (15 U. S. C., ch. 4, Such corporations would fall essentially
sec. 141 et seq.) are allowed a special deduc- into two categories:
tion derived from a proration of taxable (1) Those incorporated in the country in
income from sources within Formosa and which operations are conducted.
Hong Kong, such deduction being limited (2) Those incorporated in countries in
to the amount of the special dividend which which operations are not conducted but
merce to the Secretary of the Treasury.
China Trade Act Corporation benefits are
believed to have an inconsequential effect
on the agricultural situation under study.
6. Dividends received from certain foreign
corporations (sec. 245) : Foreign corporation
dividends (other than from a foreign per-
sonal holding company) received by a do-
mestic corporation are subject to a deduc-
tion if-
(a) the foreign corporation is subject to
United States income tax; and
(b) if it has derived 50 percent or more
Panama, for instance, imposes no income tax
except on business conducted in Panama.
Panama, Bermuda, Bahama, and Liberia cor.
porations have been frequently used,
Such foreign corporations are not under
United States authority and information as
to the extent of their utilization is not now
available. Even though such foreign cor-
poration are subsidiaries of domestic corpo-
rations, United States taxation is avoided
unless dividends are paid to the parent com-
panies.
Individuals
of its gross income from sources within the 9. Introduction: The tax benefits to indi-
United States for an uninterrupted period viduals from residence abroad, or from in-
of not less than 36 months, ending with the come from United States possessions or for-
close of such foreign corporations' taxable eign countries, are important in encouraging
year in which such dividends are paid (or, United States citizens to accept employment
if the corporation has not been in existence or to invest abroad. The following sections
for 36 months at the close of such taxable outline these benefits.
year), for the periods the foreign corpora- 10. Foreign tax credit (sees. 901, 903-5):
tions have been in existence as of the close of The foreign tax credit described under sec-
such taxable year. tion 2 above on corporations is also applica-
The dividends received credit is 85 percent ble to individuals. All features enumerated
but is limited to the percentage which the therein apply except for the credit allowed a
gross income of such foreign corporation domestic corporation for a proportionate
from sources within the United States bears part of taxes paid by a foreign corporation.
to its gross income from all sources. 11. Earned income from sources without
7. Tax treaties (sec. 894) : The code in the United States (sec. 911) : An individual
section 894 provides: "Income of any kind, to citizen of the United States, who has been
the extent required by any treaty obligation a bona fide resident of a foreign country or
of the United States, shall not be included countries for an uninterrupted period which
in gross income and shall be exempt under includes an entire taxable year, is exempt
this subtitle." from tax on amounts received from sources
The development of United States busi-
ness abroad and the increasing business done
in the United States by aliens throughout
the years have created complex tax prob-
lems. To solve these problems equitably for
taxpayers and to protect United States reve-
nues a number of tax treaties have been con-
cluded, or are in negotiation.
Basically, these treaties are designed .to
eliminate international double taxation and
to assist in mutual tax enforcement. An
essential of such treaties is, therefore, the
establishment of bases for determining
sources of income.
Tax treaties have been concluded with the
following countries: Australia, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Union
of South Africa, United Kingdom.
Negotiations are underway with: Austria,
Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Israel, Italy
(awaiting exchange of ratification), Mexico,
Philippines.
An idea is being explored to consider in
future treaty discussions an item of taxes
spared. The principle involved is that when
a foreign country offers the inducement of
without the United States (except amounts
paid by the United States or any agency
thereof) if such amounts constitute earned
income attributable to such period. The
individual is not entitled to any deductions
related to such exempt income, but is al-
lowed personal exemptions.
Exactly the same treatment is accorded
individual citizens who are present in a
foreign country or countries at least 510
full days during any period of 18 consecu-
tive months. Under this provision, if the
18-month period includes the entire taxable
year the amount excluded shall not exceed
$20,000. If the 18-month period does not
include the entire taxable year the amount
excluded from tax is the ratable portion.
"Earned income," under these provisions,
means amounts received as compensation
for personal services actually rendered, but
does not include any payment which repre-
sents a distribution of earnings or profits.
If the taxpayer is engaged in a trade or
business in which both personal services and
capital are material income-producing fac-
tors, a reasonable allowance, not to exceed
30 percent of his share of the net profits,
is considered to be earned income.
12. Income from sources within possessions
waiving taxes for an initial limited period of the United States (sees. 931 and 933) :
of years to encourage new industry to enter The provisions relating to income from
the country, the treaty could provide that within United States possessions described
the taxpayer be allowed a credit for the under section 4 on corporations are also ap-
taxes which would have been paid but for plicable to individual taxpayers.
the tax sparing. The purpose would be to In addition, section 933 of the code con-
encourage the investment of United States tains a special provision for individuals on
capital in enterprises in friendly nations. "Income from sources within Puerto Rico."
8. Foreign corporations not subject to This section provides that in the case of an
United States taxes: Foreign corporations individual who is a bona fide resident of
owned by United States interests and not Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year
subject to United States taxes are naturally income derived from sources within Puerto
not covered by the Internal Revenue Code, Rico (except amounts received for services
but may be an important vehicle for employ- performed as an employee of the United
ment of United States capital abroad. Such States or any agency thereof) shall not be
corporations can be utilized to accumulate included in gross income. No deductions
earnings, with such earnings being ulti- assignable to such excluded income (other
mately liquidated and brought under United than personal exemptions) are allowed.
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3 -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE July 14
Also. if an Individual citizen of the United
States has been a bona fide resident of
Puerto Rico for at least 2 years before the
date on which he changes his residence
therefrom, Income derived from sources
therein (except amounts received for serv-
ices performed as an employee of the United
States or any agency thereof) which is at-
tributable to the Puerto Rican residence Is
excluded. Deductions relating thereto (ex-
cept personal exemptions) are not allowable.
13. Tax treaties (sec. 894): The tax trea-
ties mentioned in section 7 under "Corpora-
tions" also cover individual taxpayers..
14. Partnerships (sees. 701-771 and sec.
1361): Since partnership returns are Infor-
mational only and the distribution to part-
ners is taxable on Individual returns, the
preceding sections dealing with individuals
cover the tax benefits arising from partner-
ship operations in possessions and foreign
countries.
Section 1361 of the code, added In 1954,
provides that partnerships In certain cir-
cumstances may elect to be taxed as domestic
corporations. This provision is not con-
sidered significant to the present study.
POINT 4
The extent to which such financial In-
terests are tied Into the Department of Agri-
culture and national farm organizations,
through representation on advisory com-
Inittees and similar groups.
The Department of Agriculture has fur-
nished the committee staff a listing which
purports to include every advisory commit-
tee of the Department as well as all its con-
sultants. These advisory committee lists
have been reviewed to segregate those which
are germane to the survey and those which
are not, such as Farmer Cooperative Serv-
ice, Rural Electrification Administration,
etc.
The staff Is presently engaged In studying
the composition of relevant committees to
determine the extent of representation of
private United States Interests which are
engaged In agricultural activities in foreign
countries. To date It has been found that
the following officials of companies either
believed or known to be engaged in such
activities are currently serving on the Indi-
cated committees:
Advisory Committee on Foreign Trade and
Technical Assistance: W. C._Schllthuis, Con-
tinental Grain Co.. alternate; Lamar Flem-
ing. Jr., Anderson, Clayton & Co.. alter-
nate.
Cotton Export Adivisory Committee: La-
mar Fleming. Jr., chairman, board of di-
rectors, Anderson, Clayton & Co.
Cotton Price Support Advisory Committee:
A. M. Crawford, Well Bros.
Grain Export Advisory Committee: Andre
Hinschler. Bunge Corp.; Harold E. Sanford,
Continental Grain Co.; W. C. Schilthuls.
Continental Grain Co.
Wheat Advisory Committee: H. E. Sanford,
vice president. Continental Grain Co.
Corn Advisory Committee; William F.
Brady. Corn Products Refining Co.; Robert
C. Woodworth. vice president, Cargill, Inc.
Dairy Export Advisory Committee: George
M. McCoy. Borden Food Products Co.: A. W.
Sigmund. Kraft Foods, Inc.; Leslie J. Lindell,
General Milk Co.
Dairy Industry Task Committee: Arthur
W. Sigmund, Kraft Foods, Inc.; D. M. Dent,
Borden Food Products Co.
CCC Storage Committee: Loren Johnson,
Continental Grain Co.
National Agriculture Advisory Commission:
Jesse W. Tapp, Bank of America.'
This name Is Included as the Mexican
press has reported that the Bank Of Amer-
ica has issued credit of $10 million for fi-
nancing cottongrowers in Mexico. Several
other banks have representatives on com-
mittees but It has not yet been determined
whether they finance foreign production.
In connection with the Cotton Export Ad-
visory Committee listed above it should be
noted that a temporary committee of the
same name was appointed by the Secretary
of Agriculture on February 13, 1953, and was
comprised of the following Individuals:
D. W. Brooks. general manager. Georgia
Cotton Producers Association, Atlanta, Ga.
C. R. Sayre, president. Delta Pine & Land
Co., Scott, Miss.
Everett R. Cook, Cook & Co., Memphis,
Tenn.
Lamar Fleming, Jr., president, Anderson,
Clayton & Co., Houston. Tex.
William A. McGregor, vice president,
Guaranty Trust Co., New York. N. Y.
Charles H. Cannon, president, Cannon
Mills. Kannapolis. N. C.
Walter L. Randolph, president, Alabama
Farm Bureau Federation. Montgomery, Ala.
This is the committee referred to on Feb-
ruary 28. 1955, by Senator EASTLAND, page
49, part I. of hearings before the Subcom-
mittee on Disposal of Agriculture Surpluses
of the Senate Committee on Agriculture.
The committee staff has been Informed that
it held several meetings (luring the calendar
year 1953. submitted a report to the Secre-
tary of Agriculture. and that the Secretary
considered it dissolved.
The present Cotton Export Advisory Com-
mittee was appointed by the Secretary of
Agriculture on May 24, 1955, to serve for the
coming year. and is comprised of the fol-
lowing Individuals:
Walter L. Randolph. vice president, Amer-
ican Farm Bureau. Montgomery, Ala.
Alan G. Patteson. producer, Jonesboro,
Ark.
J. B. Hubbard. president. J. B. Hubbard
& Co., Cotton Exchange Building, Dallas.
Tex.
Allison Pell, president. Pell Cotton Co.,
Charlotte. N. C.
Lamar Fleming, Jr., chairman, board of
directors, Anderson, Clayton & CO., Houston,
Tex.
E. F. C'reekmore, president. Creckmore &
Co., Cotton Exchange Building. New Orleans,
La.
S. Y. West, president, S. Y. West & Co.,
Memphis. Tenn.
D. W. Brooks, general manager. the Cot-
ton Producers Association, Atlanta, Ga.
The committee staff Is continuing its study
to determine the extent of representation
of private United States interests. engaged
in agricultural activities in foreign countries.
POINT 5
The amount of foreign-aid funds which
have been used to encourage increased agri-
cultural production In foreign countries.
As of March 31, 1955, cumulative obliga-
tions of the Foreign Operations Administra-
tion and its predecessor agencies aggregated
approximately $19.1 billion. Around 63
percent or $12.1 billion represented obliga-
tions for assistance activities in 20 selected
countries where agriculture relatively is most
important. (See table I.) In these 20 coun-
tries slightly less than $1 billion has been
obligated for agricultural assistance Includ-
ing health and Industrial assistance activ-
ities having a direct bearing on agricultural
production and processing. In addition, ap-
proximately $710.8 million in local counter-
part funds created by assistance activities
in these 20 countries have been programed
for the furtherance of agricultural produc-
tion and processing.
Because of the outstanding importance of
agriculture and substantial Increases in agri-
cultural production, particularly cotton in
recent years in Iran, India, Pakistan, and
Turkey as compared with the other coun-
tries receiving assistance the activities in
these countries are being analyzed in detail.
Thus far detailed data are available only
for Iran. (See table 2.) As of March 31,
1955, approximately $201.2 million United
States foreign assistance funds have been
obligated for the Iranian program. of which
amount $47.3 million has been incurred for
agricultural assistance, including those
health and industrial activities bearing di-
rectly on agricultural production. The
breakdown on these funds by field of activity
and between projects and technical assist-
ance is as follows:
"iAinount in millionol
ITech-
tticisils
Activity Odd Prnj-
and I Total
cch train-
,c5
Agriculture ................... $17.7 $3. n 62;1.3
llcalth. _ ~ 9.9 25 1'2.1
Industry, transiw,rtatu,n, and
tnmtnunity developntceit___ 11.6 ._..._._.I 11.8
Total ------------------ I 39. 2 8. 1 47.3
TABLE l.-PrnmeIion of agriculture abroad-Funds obligated by Foreign Operations
Adniinislra(ion and prcdccessor agencies, Apr. 3, 1948, through .iIur. 31, 19.1.-,:0
srlerted cotn,(rus
'rccltnicians
rroif'Cts ' and
Comnmdi-
tics '
Approved
withdraw-
al) trot,,
coon trr-
part funds
for pro-
motion of
agrieut-
tun, I
Latin Ameti,:c
n'sq 4F9 1 xt.
$r2
ft. ttwi
t~olontt,ta.._... -- -
- - ------ --- --
,
, iii, .'1x) 1.
11141. 0x14
Nirtrat'ua
. ----
451, 7.51 1,
047, 1814
___
_,r,15,341 2,1151.383
G. 8.49, 40R 111.
119. !M
4:.N, fxlfl
280, 15x1
tt'eatrt n 1Frrtoauy----- ------------
3.51, (a)
l nacd khtg,ioin .... _ ...._.__.__.
242, 001)
1,
337,15x1
NcSr en'l Stiddk East:
. 3,
'fork,.. .... ........... . "
...
030.4737
424,VA 1,
t/rcca ---------------- 1
706. 000
t yrW ..................,.._ ._.._-- ..A. (M7, 472
Ir,n-_--- ..............) 39. 246. f'A
india.................. I 167, 630, 800 ti, 0.18, :117
Footnotes at end of table.
_
I--------------
--------------
Total (or pro-
Inotion fur
agriculture 1
Total aid by-
FOA and
prr, irct?s'n r
agcucies 1
$.5, 291, 495 $10,643,471 I----------- _
2, MIA, 124 3.509.8211 _ .____.-___
1, 774,.W A 3, 774,2A9 I______-_-___
1, 52A, 544 I 2. 413, 211 _ --_-.-__ _ _
5,5tki724 7. ti'.Nl, Atxl _ _-____--
-------------- 16,94*2.451 28,03 15
$1-9,910,434 1911 .3116, 434 3, 204 , 1.53 -W, '$253,11(10 (l0()
30,140, 821 311, 42ti, x21 1, M3:736:24'03 259, (5)0, . NO
11.0, 608. 397 IN I, 999, 387 1, 414, 547, 6.39 100, 44.51, (85)
103. 2611, 820 103, 50x, 820 3, 812, 513, SFXJ 700, 000
493, 911., 272 ; 495. 303, 272 110, 124, 951, 222 11,19, 100. 000
63, 64S. 967
43,177,977
68, 870, 604
45, 368, 888
--------------
47, 334, 122
174,445N 867
309, 019. 922 1 R. CM. 00(1
831', 508, 7110 lH, 5(10, ow
58,140 .---------
_
2)1, 729. 759 .--_----_-
21.1, 562, 193 .------_-._-
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 9029
TABLE 1.-Promotion of agriculture abroad-Funds obligated by
Administration and predecessor agencies, Apr. 3, 1948, through
selected countries-Continued
Approved
withdraw-
Technicians
Commodt-
Total for pro?
f
Total aid by
1'OA and
als from
counter
-
counter-
art funds
Country
Projects I
and
inees
t
ties a
motion
or
agriculture 4
redeeesso r
a
p
for pro.
ra
gencies
motion of
agricul-
ture'
Near and Middle East-Con.
________ _
_
Pakistan
$42, 621, 235
$1,554,772
$5,570,495
$49,782,502
$118, 531, 295
$2,100, 000
____
_
Iraq___________________
612,207
2,250,259
______
2,862,466
6,557,732
T
735, 556
23, 327, 507
112, 600, 386
386, 663, 449
1, 792, 406, 803
85, 500, 000
Africa: Egypt___________
32,022,964
1,478,261
501,225
-33,
30,244,551
-_____--___
Far East:
Burma
6,079,003
450
7,572,359
21,181,588
800,000
____
.Japan---------------- -
Thailand --------------
---- -------
34 , 271, 100
--_-
-
------
377, 654
7,000,000
37,149, 680
10,140,145
61, 329, 453
-----------
5, 400, 000
Total_ ________
40, 350,103
378, 1.04
-
51, 722, 039
82, 651,186
6, 200, 000
Grand total----------
329, 958, 091
36, 640, 855
984,159, 436
12, 067, 381, 449
710,800,000
I Project obligations primarily represent total equipment and supply costs which will he borne by the United
States in conducting specific activities, C. g. locust control, dam construction, etc., under signed project (activity)
agreements with the respective countries.
% Technician and trainee obligations represent salary, per diem, transportation, and other costs incidental to fur-
nishing United States technicians to the respective countries and the training of local nationals in the United States.
a Commodity obligations primarily represent the cost of agricultural products, machinery and supplies, textile-
mill machinery, and food-processing equipment furnished. Local currency counterpart funds are created by the
local sales of these and other commodities in the recipient countries.
4 Includes the dependent overseas territories of the European countries, nonregional, and other program obliga-
tions of FOA and its predecessor agencies.
Counterpart fund withdrawals for the promotion of agriculture are primarily directed toward land reclamation
and irrigation, research and extension, and farm credit.
General technical assistance is being pro-
vided to Iran in the field of agriculture,
health, and industry. Inasmuch as cotton
and wheat are grown throughout the coun-
try, all technical assistance rendered to Iran
is indirectly beneficial to the production of
these two commodities.
As of March 31, 1955, approximately $3.4
million in obligations have been recorded for
projects related specifically to cotton, wheat,
and general agricultural production and the
introduction of new seed strains. The
amount devoted specifically to cotton and
wheat is not available.
Now let us see what the effect is on
American agriculture this year alone:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C., February 3, 1955.
To Extension Directors in Cotton States:
Congressman JAMIE L. WHITTEN, chairman
of the House Subcommittee on Agricultural
Appropriations, has requested that a survey
be made immediately to secure the best pos-
sible answers to the two questions on the
attached sheets, a supply of which we are
sending you.
On Wednesday, February 2, a group of
State representatives from the cotton States
and the Department met and recommended
the following procedure to obtain this infor-
mation.
Will you please proceed immediately along
the following lines:
A. Contact other agency heads in your
State and work out any mechanics necessary
to get the information for each cotton
county.
B. We suggest that the county agent call
together appropriate USDA personnel oper-
ating within the county to discuss the ques-
tions and to answer them to the best of their
ability.
C. Send to the Federal Extension Service,
Washington, D. C., your county replies to
arrive not later than February 16. Due to
time limitations we suggest counties send
report directly to the Federal Extension
Service with copies to you for your infor-
mation.
Sincerely yours,
E. T. BENSON, Secretary.
STATE CONSERVATIONISTS, SCS.
CHAIRMAN OF STATE ASC COMMITTEE.
STATE DIRECTORS, FHA.
Please give your best estimates for your
county on-
1. How many renter families (tenants and
sharecroppers) have been or will be forced
off farms due to 1955 reduction in cotton
allotments? The question is concerned only
with the number of renters (as defined
above) forced off farms due to the 1955
reduction in cotton-acreage allotments and
not for other causes such as mechanization,
drought, etc.
Answer --------------------------------
2. How many small cotton farmers (1. e.,
those with 5 acres or less of cotton allotted
In 1954) will have net income for the farm
reduced by $100 or more due to the 1955
cotton acreage reduction? Do not include
in this estimate the number who may have
income reduced due to not planting full
allotmens. The value of crops produced on
acres diverted from cotton should be con-
sidered in arriving at the net income loss.
Answer --------------------------------
County --------------------
State ----------------------
Date -----------------------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-
ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCE ON SURVEY ON
COTTON ACREAGE REDUCTION, ROOM 218-A,
FEBRUARY 2, 1955
C. A. Vines, State extension service, Ar-
kansas.
Clay Lyle, director, State extension service,
Mississippi.
G. G. Gibson, director, State extension
service, Texas.
C. B. Ratchford, State extension service,
North Carolina.
Shawnee Brown, director, State extension
service, Oklahoma.
James T. Lunsford, State director, Farm-
ers' Home Administration, Alabama.
R. L. VanSant, State director, Farmers'
Home Administration, Georgia.
James W. Cross, Jr., chairman, agricul-
tural soil-conservation committee, Tennes.
see.
Foreign Operations
Mar. 31, 1955-20
. Ben Boatwright, chairman, agricultural
soil-conservation committee, South Caro-
lina.
Cecil Collerette, member, agricultural soil-
conservation committee, Arizona.
Charles A. Sheffield, Federal Extension
Service
E. L. .
Langford, Agricultural Research
Service.
R. B. Bridgeforth, Commodity Stabiliza-
tion Service.
C. M. Ferguson, Federal Extension Service.
M. H. Holliday, Farmers' Home Adminis-
tration.
J. C. Wheeler, Office of Budget and Finance.
Milan D. Smith, Office of the Secretary.
J. A. McConnell, Office of the Secretary.
E. C. Betts, Jr., Office of the Secretary.
of cotton and number of countries re-
porting
Number of
counties
having
1,000 or
more acres
of cotton
Number
of coun-
ties
reporting
Alabama ------------------------
Arizona-------------------------
Arkansas------------ ------------
California-----------------------
Florida--------------------------
Georgia-------------------------
Illinois--------------------------
Kentucky-----------------------
Louisiana -----------------------
Missouri------------------------
Mississippi----------------------
New Mexico--------------------
North Carolina_________________
Oklahoma- - - -- - - - - - ------------
South Caroliua------------------
Tennessee_______________________
Texas---------------------------
V irginia-------------------------
Summary of answers from 887 counties to
the following question:
"How many renter families (tenants and
sharecroppers) have been or will be forced
off farms due to 1955 reduction in cotton
allotments?" The question is concerned
only with the number of renters (as de-
fined above) forced off farms due to the 1955
reduction in cotton-acreage allotments and
not for other causes such as mechanization,
drought, etc."
Renter
families
Alabama---------------------------
7,554
Arizona-----------------------------
127
Arkansas---------------------------
4,426
California--------------------------
0
Florida-----------------------------
279
Georgia----------------------------
8,157
Illinois-----------------------------
40
Kentucky---------------------------
60
Louisiana ---------------------------
3,395
Missouri----------------------------
2,202
Mississippi --------------------------
11,981
New Mexico-------------------------
137
North Carolina----------------------
2,783
Oklahoma--------------------------
1,477
South Carolina-------.--------------
4,147
Tennessee--------------------------
3,075
Texas------------------------------
5,580
Virginia----------------------------
108
Total -------------------------
55,348
Summary of answers from 887 counties to
the following question:
"How many small cotton farmers (i. e.,
those with 5 acres or less of cotton allotted
in 1954) will have net income for the farm
reduced by $100 or more due to the 1955
cotton-acreage reduction? Do not Include
in this estimate the number who may have
Income reduced due to not planting full al-
lotments. The value of crops produced on
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14
acres diverted from cotton should be con-
sidered in arriving at the net Income loss."
Alabama------------- -------------------------- 17.595
Arizona--------------------------- 38
Arkansas-------------------------- 1,496
California------------------------- 0
l'lorida---------------------------- 2,348
ieorgia---------------------------- 14,888
Illinois ---------------------------- 147
Kentucky------------------------- 203
Louisiana------------ ------------- 6.649
Missouri-------------------------- 1.881
Mississippi----------- ------------- 34,414
New Mexico----------------------- 64
North Carolina --------------------- 17,397
Oklahoma------------------------- 378
South Carolina -------------------- 10.400
Tennessee------------------------- 14.944
Texas----------------------------- 6.129
Virginia--------------------------- 1.632
Total------------------------ 130, 803
Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gen-
tleman from Minnesota I Mr. MARSHALL 1.
(Mr. MARSHALL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, not
long ago I was able to spend a few days
in my home district. While there I had
the opportunity of talking with a num-
ber of people concerning the financial
position of farmers.
I found there are two groups of farm-
ers these days. One is the group of
farmers that was fortunate enough to
be able to pay off debts during and after
the war, and before the present farm
recession started. These farmers are
established. While they are not getting
anywhere under present conditions of
income, they are able to keep farming
even with the lower prices and reduced
acreages of the Benson administration.
The other group of farmers Is the less
fortunate group that has been forced to
accumulate debt at the tail end of a pros-
perous period in agriculture. This group
is now caught in the nutcracker of de-
clining prices, low income, and the ur-
gency to maintain earnings high enough
to provide a decent living and meet debt
payments at the same time. This group
is in a tough position and is having a
difficult time. Unfortunately, many of
the members in this group are the
younger farmers, and the GI's who have
returned to the land after serving their
country.
Mr. Chairman, anyone who went
through the difficult period of the twen-
ties which eventually led to the deep de-
pression of the thirties cannot help but
find similarities in the situation in agri-
culture today with that of 30 years ago.
One of the better agricultural letters
published in Washington has a good ar-
ticle on this subject in its issue of July 9.
I am speaking of Wayne Darrow's Wash-
ington Farmletter, and would like to
quote from it:
More credit will be needed for land pur-
chases in the period ahead than Is required
now. USDA studies Indicate. Recent trends
point to this already. The trend will pick up
when the social security program for farmers
gets into full swing.
A higher percent of farm purchases re-
quire credit now than at the close of World
War IT. About 3 out of 5 farms bought need
credit now against 2 out of 5 farms at close
ui the last big war.
The amount loaned per acre has about
doubled-up from around $30 average debt
per acre after the a ar to about 860 an acre
now.
Average size of new mortgages also has
jumped-from approximately $3,500 at close
of the war to around 86.000 now. However,
good land Is not considered too high now.
In fact, It's sought after. Mortgage debt
is not too high yet in relation to total Invest-
ment.
Are we heading for another big debt, farm
foreclosure period like the late 1920's? Of-
ficials don't think so. But there are similari-
ties.
The farm mortgage debt climbed 7 percent
last year. Its now 72 percent above the low
of 1946. Officials are not concerned over
size of the debt. so far. Present total of $8.2
billion, though large, is smaller than the
peak of $10.8 billion in 1923. This year's
debt represents only 8.9 percent of the value
of farm real estate, against 21 percent In
1923.
Mortgage debt is concentrated on fewer
farms now. About 29 percent of all farms
are mortgaged now-the lowest percentage
since 1890.
The reason is: We've just passed through
the most prosperous period for agriculture
In this century-the period of the 1940's.
This Is shown in many ways. Including the
number of years It takes for net farm In-
come, or earnings, to equal capital invest-
ment-capital turnover
This Is a measure of ability to pay off debt.
During the 7 years 1942-413 it took 51.2 to
6i2 years for net income to equal the value
of all physical assets-the most favorable
period In this century.
The ratio has been on the rise since. Now
it takes about 10 years for net Income to
equal total investment This Is roughly
comparable with the last half of the 1920's
and with the late thirties,
Darrow's Farmletter also comments on
the greater concentration of farms in
fewer hands. It says:
Net migration from farms to cities aver-
ages over 1 mlllion yearly. There's been a
net movement away from farms every year
since 1920. except in 1945 and 1946-years
when veterans were returning.
For every 5 people on farms In 1947. there
were only 4 in 1954. Farm population de-
creased 8 percent from 1947 to 1950.-12 per-
cent from 1951 to 1954. Net migration away
from farms iexcess above movement back w
farms i averaged 4.6 percent of the total
farm lxipuiation yearly during 1947-53.
Census reports so far show fewer farms
than in 1950-but no reduction In farm
acreage. The trend is unmistakably toward
fewer but bigger farms. Commercial farm-
ing Is becoming more pronounced.
Mr. Chairman, it is not my intent to
well unduly on the unhappy experi-
ences of the twenties. However, a few
reminders may be in order.
Today's situation makes me think of
the previous time our boys marched off
to save the world. When the war ended
the farm boys came back to their homes
only to find hieh mortgage debts, prices
inflated for the things they had to buy,
but prices down for the things they had
to sell. It was the kind of situation
calculated to place young farmers in an
impossible debt situation. And the ad-
ministration then in power was un-
happily the kind that had no real un-
derstanding of the problems of farmers.
Many of the young farmers of the day
were unable to provide their families
with a decent standard of living. Debts
mounted. Health needs were neglected.
Surpluses accumulated, and while the
stock market boomed, farm prices sank
lower and lower and the whole shaky
structure collapsed into the big depres-
sion of the early thirties.
Mr. Chairman, it is almost frightening
to contemplate the similarities between
the situation in the early twenties and
that of today.
The income position of agriculture is
almost identical. Prices have gone
down, down, and down. Costs have
stayed consistently high. Income is thus
pinched, squeezed, and diluted. While
the rest of the country is enjoying a fair-
ly high degree of prosperity, the farmer
is losing ground.
Veterans who were forced to purchase
their livestock at prices prevailing at the
time of their return, have seen their
livestock inventory reduced in value from
a third to a half.
These farmers eventually may be
faced with debt adjustment, possible
foreclosure and forced departure from
the land.
In our free economy we do not expect
persons to be in business only for their
health, yet many farmers are literally.
This shows up in nearly all major
products, especialy in the livestock prod-
ucts. Farmers have been giving the con-
sumer more than he has ever had, and
for less and less money-so far as the
farmer's income is concerned. Let me
give you a few concrete examples:
In 1948 farmers produced a little more
than 21 billion pounds of the red meats
for consumers, receiving over nine and a
third billion dollars. But last year
farmers produced a little over 25 and a
half billion pounds of the red meats, re-
ceiving only $8.8 billion.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, last
year farmers received 6 percent less
money for 20 percent more production
than just 6 years before. Putting it
in terms of the value of 1948 dollars,
farmers last year received 14 percent
less money for supplying each consumer
with 10 percent more red meat. The
year we are in now is the third straight
year of producing more than 150 pounds
of the red meats for each man, woman,
and child in the United States. And all
the production above 150 pounds a per-
son has, in effect, been given away by
farmers.
Here is another example: In 1954 per
capita consumption of poultry meats was
6 pounds a person higher than in 1948.
Total production was a fourth higher
than in the earlier year. Yet, in dollars
of the same buying power for both years,
farmers received practically the same for
tl.eir poultry in the 2 years. In other
words, the extra 6 pounds of meat pro-
vided each consumer was given free, so
far as farm income was concerned.
Mr. Chairman, we would expect this
kind of thing during a serious depres-
sion, but we do not expect it in a time
which we are told is the most prosperous
in history. What might apply to the
rest of the country does not apply to
those who live on the land.
Actually, the farm-debt situation Is
better now than in the twenties. Those
forced into debt just prior to the pres-
ent farm depression are having a hard
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 9031
time of it. But the prosperity of farmers
in recent years has enabled many of
them to pay off debts. And while the
mortgage debt is growing, it is concen-
trated on fewer farms. It is a situa-
tion that needs careful watching, but it
is not yet critical.
There is one other important differ-
ence between the fifties and the twenties.
Today we have established farm pro-
grams that can be used to protect agri-
culture in this period of obvious in-
equity-if we have the will to use them,
that is.
What is the difficulty?
I am afraid the real trouble lies with
the administration, Mr. Chairman. It is
in the unconcern of the Eisenhower-
Benson direction of agricultural pro-
grams that we have a situation fright-
eningly close to that of the twenties.
It is a statement of simple fact that
the Department of Agriculture, under
Secretary Benson, has not faced up to
its responsibility. Secretary Benson has
engaged in the easy sport of buck pass-
ing. He has tried to fasten blame for
his own indecision and inaction on the
preceding administration.
He has taken liberties with laws placed
on the statute books by this body.
He has shown himself to be more in-
terested in the welfare of processors than
in the welfare of the producers.
He has failed to meet situations
squarely-as witness his still lack of an
adequate program for the dairy indus-
try and his "too little and too late" pro-
posals for wheat.
He has sat around hoping that some-
thing favorable would happen, and not
doing anything to make it happen.
He has sought excuses for inaction
when he should have been seeking
answers on which to base action.
He has used per capita income as a
cover up for the severe decline in na-
tional farm income-as though it were
his policy to increase per capita income
of farmers by cutting down the number
of farmers. Mr. Chairman, this is a
bloody way of bringing about prosperity
in agriculture. It is based on the as-
sumption that to bring prosperity to a
few you must liquidate the others.
I do not believe that such a policy
can be continued, or should be condoned
in the name of our free-enterprise
system.
One of the high purposes of the De-
partment of Agriculture should be to use
its brain, its brawn, and its ample bank
account in helping farm people achieve
an ever-rising standard of living along
with the rest of the economy, and to
give aid in bringing to those in agricul-
ture an equality with all groups.
Having had a good deal of experience
with the Department of Agriculture,
Mr. Chairman, having sat through a
good many hearings with its top offi-
cials; having had some part in the legis-
lation enacted for agriculture by this
body, and having observed the function-
ing of those in the Benson administra-
tion, I am forced to the conclusion that
the Secretary is a failure. He may not
yet realize the extent of his inadequacies.
I am also forced to conclude that the
President has a blind spot which pre-
vents him from knowing any of the real
problems of farmers, let alone under-
standing them, or desiring to understand
them. What else can be concluded from
one who not only condones the inade-
quacies of Secretary Benson, but praises
them?
Mr. Chairman, if anything is to be
done to check the present system of
drift, decline, and eventual disaster; if
we are to lay away the ghost of Hoover-
ism, it must be done by the farmers
themselves and by the Congress. Or,
we will all go bust with Benson.
Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Flor-
ida [Mr. SIKES].
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re.-
marks.)
[Mr. SIKES addressed the Committee.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, when
further investigation is made of the
Wichita Wildlife Refuge and the need
for the perpetuation of the refuge is bal-
anced against the national defense needs
continuing the operation of Fort Sill and
its magnificent artillery school, I am sure
the committee will come to the conclu-
sion there are alternative methods for
continuing long-range artillery instruc-
tion at Fort. Sill.
The Wichita Mountain area is the last
primitive area in Oklahoma. It is like-
wise Oklahoma's greatest scenic and
recreational area. This year close to
1 million people have already used its
invigorating mountains and scenic val-
leys for relaxation, picnicking, fishing-
1,200 fishermen a week-camping, hik-
ing, mountain climbing, and viewing the
big-game herds of buffalo, elk, deer, and
lesser species, such as wild turkey, quail,
squirrels, and other small game. The
most important preservation herd of the
original Texas long-horned steer is
maintained here by the Fish and Wild-
life Service. The area wanted by the
Army is the most important watershed
in the refuge, supplying the water for the
many swimming and fishing lakes and
for the luxuriant stand of prairie short-
grass on which the herds wax fat.
The proposed firing of the atomic can-
non and the 722 millimeter corporal
rocket here will aggravate the existing
fire hazard, which is a serious threat
from July 1 of each year. The above
firing on the refuge area will speedily
burn over the mountain area of 10,700
acres being taken over by the Army.
The Service, on the basis of its past ex-
perience, feels that the fires cannot be
controlled in the mountain and that
they will sweep through both the recre-
ational grounds and the big-game pas-
ture. It should be noted that approxi-
mately half of the refuge's recreational
area will be involved in this transfer.
Many species of plant life and several
species of birds are found in Oklahoma
only on the refuge lands.
The proposal of the Army is totally
unnecessary. The service has suggested
a compromise plan whereby they would
close the lower two tiers of sections across
the south portion of the refuge as a
buffer area when the Army is firing its
big cannons. The public would be kept
out of the area during that period, but
allowed to use this most fascinating por-
tion of the refuge when no firing was
taking place.
During World War II and since, the
Army had under permit from the serv-
ice 35,000 acres from the refuge for
maneuvers. They complied with the
terms of the permit thoroughly, and the
best of cooperation existed between the
Fort Sill authorities and the refuge
manager. Except for some damage to
roads by heavy equipment, the Army ex-
ercised its permit without damage to the
refuge. This permit could be continued
indefinitely and, with the addition of
the buffer area that the service is pre-
pared to close when the guns are fired,
would in the service's opinion meet the
immediate needs of the Army at this
point. This is especially true if the Army
buys the private land as announced.
However, to our knowledge the Army
made no effort to investigate the alter-
nate plan offered by the service.
During the past 15 years the Service
has had to permit Fort Sill to emplace
some of its biggest guns on the refuge so
that they could be fired and the shells
land on Fort Sill's impact areas. This
was necessary all during World War 11.
The Service in the present controversy
has offered to provide Fort Sill authori-
ties with a larger gun emplacement any-
where on this 10,700 acres on which they
can fire the big guns and rockets con-
templated and land the shells on Fort
Sill proper. The Army did not investi-
gate this plan at all. Apparently the
invasion of the Wichita Refuge is part
of a general plan on the part of the Army
to move in on the national wildlife re-
fuge program. It would appear that the
large areas of wildlife land which the
Service has set aside for preserving dis-
appearing big-game herds are particu-
larly attractive to the Army authorities
for their testing and training purposes.
The Air Force has recently informed the
Service that instead of their present
firing permit on the Desert Game Range
in Nevada, they want to take over pri-
mary jurisdiction. This would close the
door on the wildlife interests of the area.
Likewise, the Army has asked for three-
fourths of the Kof a Game Range in
southwestern Arizona, the home of the
remnant Galliard mountain sheep, for
use in testing poisonous gas on a battle-
front scale. It takes little or no imagi-
nation to perceive what will happen to
the resident Galliard sheep, mule deer,
white-winged doves, and pygmy antelope
and many other interesting species if
this comes about.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey Mr. FRELING-
HUYSEN 1.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I should like to call attention to
the serious cut in funds for the White
House Conference on Education being
proposed by the committee. Only $50,-
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE JOY 14
000 has been recommended out of $238,-
COO requested for this purpose.
I should like to point out to the House
that the committee decision on the funds
for the White House Conference was ap-
parently based on a misconstruction of
facts. Let me quote the committee state-
ment:
Salaries and expenses, White House Con-
ference on Education: The committee has
allowed $50,000 of the request for $238,000.
The request included $170.000 to provide
travel funds for 1.700 of the 2.000 delegates
expected to attend the White House Con-
ference on Education. The additional $68.-
000 was for Federal staff costs in connection
with the Conference. The committee was in-
formed that the legislation which authorized
the White House Conference on Education
does not authorize the use of Federal funds
for the travel expenses of delegates to the
conference. Therefore. no funds for travel
expenses of the delegates are included in
the bill.
I have, and I should like to read, the
epinion of counsel that there does exist
adequate authority to spend funds for
the transportation of delegates from the
States. Mr. Parke Banta, General
Counsel for the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, describes the
situation as follows:
Public Law 530 authorizes appropriations
to enable the President to hold in Washing-
ton. D. C., "a conference broadly representa-
tive of educators and other interested citi-
zens from all parts of the Nation, to be called
the White House Conference on Education,
to consider and report to the President on
significant and pressing problems in the field
of education."
Section 2 of the set authorizes grants to
States for the purpose of bringing together
"prior to the White House Conference on
Education, educators and other Interested
citizens to discuss educational problems in
the State and make recommendations for
appropriate action to be taken at local, State,
and Federal levels."
Section 3 rounds out the picture by au-
thorizing "to be appropriated to the Commis-
sioner of Education for the fiscal years end-
ing June 30, 1955. and June 30, 1956. such
sums as Congress determines to be necessary
for the administration of this act, Includ-
ing the expenses of the Office of Education to
making available to the public the findings
and recommendations of the Conference."
There is. of course, no specific reference to
payment or travel costs contained in Public
Law 530. There is, however, specific author-
ity to hold a conference In Washington, D. C.,
to be attended by individuals "from all parts
of the Nation," coupled with a specific au-
thorization for appropriations "necessary for
the administration of this act." As was
pointed out in the testimony before the Sub-
committee of the Committee on Appropria-
tions of the House of Representatives, hear-
ings before subcommittees of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations. -House of Rep-
resentatives. 84th Congress, 1st session.
page 608 et seq., It is essential to the
achievement of the broad representation
contemplated by the act that funds for trans-
portation costs be available. Certainly, the
Congress must have intended that such ex-
penses be paid, since it would not be rea-
sonable to expect those Individuals chosen to
advise the President to attend at their own
expense: Indeed, many, even though willing
to do so, could not afford it.
In view of the forecoing it is our opinion
that Public Law 530. 83d Congress, when read
as a whole and in the context of its general
purpose to bring together in Washington,
D. C., a "broadly representative" group of
individuals "to consider and report to the
President on significant and pressing prob-
lems In the field of education," can and
should be construed as authorizing appropri-
ations to pay the travel costs of persons offi-
cially Invited to attend the conference.
I am sure it is not the intent of this
Congress to torpedo the biggest and most
important program on education in his-
tory.
We in this House, by Public Law 530,
83d Congress, authorized the State and
White House Conferences. We cannot
scuttle the program at this point. Even
if no action is taken here today to
rescue this program, perhaps action can
be taken by the other body.
The 83d Congress required that the
White House Conference be "broadly rep-
resentative of educators and other in-
terested citizens from all parts of the
Nation." Without funds to pay travel
expenses of the participants, the intent
of Congress will not be achieved.
Without such funds, those who reside
in the Washington area may be expected
to attend. So, too. will those who have
the funds and the time. Finally we may
expect representatives of various organi-
zations which are well financed and deep-
ly committed to preconceived points of
view. To dray only from these three
groups. I think we can agree, will mean
that the White House Conference will
not be broadly representative, contrary
to the expressed intent of Congress.
In establishing the State and White
House Conferences on Education, the
Congress set in motion a citizen study of
education in all 53 States and Territories.
Literally tens of thousands of people are
taking part in this program. By deny-
ing the funds with which these States
may send their designated representa-
tives to Washington to take part in the
White House Conference, we would be.
in effect, scuttling the program which
Congress inaugurated by passing this
law.
There are no other funds which can
be used to bring to the White House
Conference the people who would con-
stitute a broad national representation
from all parts of the country. We need
that kind of representation.
The chairman of the White House
Conference on Education committee,
Neil H. McElroy. has stated in a recent
letter to Mrs. Hobby the committee's po-
sition as follows:
The committee does not want to hold a
conference which, because of lack of funds
to pay travel expenses of participants, Is
attended primarily by persons residing near
Washington, by representatives of organi-
zations who may wish to use the conference
as a national sounding board. and others who
for personal reasons alone desire to be part
of the White House Conference. We con-
sider that participation of this kind would
represent failure of the requirement placed
upon us that the Conference be broadly rep-
resentative of educators and other interested
citizens from all parts of the Nation.
The President's committee has reviewed
this matter very carefully and believes unant-
mously that balanced representation is an
essential element of the White House Con-
ference. The administration strongly sup-
ports these recommendations of the Presi-
dent's committee for the White House Con-
ference,
Some might say that expenses of par-
ticipants to the White House Conference
should be paid by the States. Let me
make two points:
First, the White House Conference
is not a State meeting. but a national
meeting which we in this Congress au-
thorized and to which we wanted citi-
zens to come. Second. a poll of 45
States indicates that only 1 State has
both the State funds and authority
within State law to pay the travel costs
of representatives to the White House
Conference. For the first time we have
the opportunity here to find out what the
American public wishes to be done. If
we deny this conference, we have denied
the voices of those whose only interest
is the public interest. This is not a
partisan program. State conferences
have been called by the governors, 27 of
whom are Democrats and 21 Republi-
cans.
Let me give you some examples of
where these funds will go. They are
not to send Federal employees to the
States, they are to bring representative
citizens from the States to Washington.
For example, California would be asked
to send 98 persons chosen in California.
The travel expense is more than $23,000.
New York would have 123 participants
whose travel cost is almost $6,000.
Texas would have 67 representatives;
Ohio, 68; Illinois, 73; Washington State,
20, etc.
Is it reasonable to assume that in or-
der to advise on solutions to the Nation's
school problems that California, Florida,
Montana, and the other States distant
from Washington should be required to
spend more money to give this infor-
mation to the Federal Government than
those States immediately surrounding
the District of Columbia?
The money requested is $170,000. It
is for the payment of travel expense
only. It does not include funds for
hotel rooms, meals, and other expenses
of participants. The participants at
the White House Conference are willing
to pay these expenses, but they should
not be expected to pay also the cost of
travel to and from a meeting which was
authorized by the Congress of the United
States.
What are we to tell our people at
home if we say to them, "we are not
sufficiently interested in your opinion on
school problems that we would vote to
share with you your exppense in taking
part in this national conference?"
Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. DEANE].
(Mr. DEANE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DEANE. Mr. Chairman, as a
member of the Air Force Panel of the
Department of Defense appropriation
bill I am impressed with the total dollars
appropriated by the Department of the
Air Force. I point out that the Army
is recchvng $483,612,000; the Navy $439,-
950.000. a total of $923,562,000. While
the Air Force is receiving under this ap-
propriation bill $955,929,000. Thus you
see Mr. Chairman a heavy responsibility
rests upon the Air Force to consider a
wise use of the dollars herein recom-
mended.
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Mr. Chairman, the Air Force panel is
chairmanned by the distinguished gen-
tleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON] ; other
members include the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. WHITTEN], the gentle-
man from Kansas [Mr. SCRIVNER], and
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
DAVIS]. Your panel was faced with a
serious problem in the amount of time
needed to consider an appropriation bill
of this size.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DEANE. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is
pointing out the very significant fact
that in view of the fact that the budget
estimate came down so late we were not
able to do the thorough job we want to
do. For a number of years we have had
this problem, but I am persuaded to be-
lieve that the Assistant Secretary of De-
fense for installations is correct in assur-
ing us that they will come much earlier
next year.
I would like to say that the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. DEANE] who
is now addressing the committee made a
very substantial contribution to this bill.
He presided most of the time over the
Air Force panel and he did a good job.
I think the House ? would ' want to know
of the conscientious effort he made in
that regard. Other Members working
on the full subcommittee and on other
panels, of course, also made a contribu-
tion, but I did want to refer to the par-
ticular contribution of the gentleman
from North Carolina.
Mr. DEANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman. I feel the House owes a
great debt of gratitude to the gentle-
man from Kansas [Mr. SCRIVNER] who
served as chairman of this committee
in the last Congress. The gentleman
from Mississippi [Mr. WHITTEN] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. DAVIS]
each made a significant contribution.
Each member of the committee holds
certain convictions about the committee
work. We urgently need an enlarged
staff. Our executive secretary, Sam
Crosby, has served with distinction. The
chairman of the Appropriations Com-
mittee, the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. CANNON] has indicated that any
time we feel there is need for additional
staff, if we will make the request, it will
be granted. I trust that next year we
will have the staff that is necessary to
adequately go into the many ramifica-
tions of this military construction
program.
Mr. Chairman, the military construc-
tion program of the Air Force was pre-
sented chiefly by Maj. Gen. L. B. Wash-
bourne, Assistant Chief of Staff for In-
stallations, and Brig. Gen. J. F. Roden-
hauser, Director of Real Property for the
Department of the Air Force.
The overall public-works program of
the Air Force was outlined to the com-
mittee by General Washbourne and the
detailed justification, base by base, was
the duty and responsibility of General
Rodenhauser and specialized witnesses
associated with General Rodenhauser. I
was impressed with the sincerity of all
of. these witnesses. In most all instances
they were conversant with the problems
facing the Air Force panel. There were
a few glaring examples where witnesses
were asked to testify who had only re-
cently been brought into administrative
jobs and who were sadly lacking in the
information needed by the committee.
NEED OF CONTINUED LIAISON
Mr. Chairman, my service on the Air
Force panel reveals. the urgent need of
keeping operational officers in a spot
long enough that they can give Intelli-
gent answers which must be a part of
the record if the program is to have the
proper support by your committee.
This gives me real concern. Several
witnesses appeared before our commit-
tee who had only recently been brought
.from the field and placed in administra-
tive positions to justify a budget that
they knew very little about.
It was not the fault of the officers.
The responsibility must rest upon in-
dividuals in the Penatgon for requiring
an officer to be placed in such a position.
BRIG. GEN. J. F. RODENHAUSER, DIRECTOR OF REAL
PROPERTY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
FORCE
Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly
express my appreciation to General
Rodenhauser, Director of Real Property,
the principal witness before our Air
Force panel on the base-by-base justifi-
cation.
General Rodenhauser has served in
headquarters, Army Service Forces, and
headquarters, United States Air Force,
since June 1944, with appropriate breaks
for service outside the Washington area.
On his current tour beginning in 1951,
he has served as Director of Real Prop-
erty, and in similar capacities, in the
Assistant Chief of Staff, Installations,
Headquarters, United States Air Force.
In this capacity he has been responsible
for the procurement, development, and
issuance of military construction pro-
gram guidance; for the assembly, vali-
dation, and defense of military construc-
tion programs; for the selection and
planning of installations world wide; for
validation of qualitative and quantitative
requirements for installations facilities;
for inventory of real property; for real
estate acquisition and disposal actions;
and for management of real property
utilization.
General Rodenhauser made his initial
presentations of military-construction
programs to the congressional commit-
tees beginning with the fiscal year 1954
military construction program. Since
that time he has presented each subse-
quent program, including the fiscal year
1956 military construction program.
General Rodenhauser has completed
his present tour in the Washington area
and is being assigned for overseas duty,
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-
tion.
I feel I speak for our Air Force panel
in expressing our appreciation for the
faithful and constructive service of Gen-
eral Rodenhauser and wish for him a
successful tour of duty in his new assign-
ment.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DEANE. I yield.
9933
Mr. GROSS. A report is being cir-
culated that there may be in this bill
funds for construction of two hotels in
Germany for service personnel. Does
the gentleman have any knowledge of
any such appropriation?
Mr. DEANE. I would suggest to the
gentleman that so far as the Air Force
is concerned, if he will look at pages 27,
28, 29, 30, and 31, of the committee re-
port he will see the items that are ap-
propriated for the Air Force.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from North Carolina has ex-
pired.
Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 additional minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. DEANE].
THE OVERALL AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION REQUIRE-
MENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1956
Mr. DEANE. As a part of my remarks,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to place in
the record the overall Air Force con-
struction requirements for fiscal year
1956 which were given to the committee
by General Washbourne.
Mr. Chairman, we must keep in mind
that the objective of the base construc-
tion program of the Department of the
Air Force is to support 137-wing force
level.
As I quote below from the statement
by General Washbourne, you will keep
in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the dollar
amounts for the various programs, as
indicated, are not the amounts finally
approved by the Air Force panel. It was
the feeling of the committee that by a
careful analysis of all construction con-
tracts that the amounts indicated by
General Washbourne could be consider-
ably reduced. The committee could be
in error. On the other hand, we felt that
the Department of the Air Force should
attempt to shape the figures as indicated
below to conform to the overall final
appropriated dollars.
Your Air Force panel received the
following information concerning the
number of bases, construction objectives,
program summary, and command distri-
bution:
NUMBER OF BASES
The Air Force will, by the end of 1957,
have a base structure consisting of 346
principal operational, training, logistic, and
research installations which are required to
operate and support the 137-wing force; 186
of these installations are in continental
United States and 160 are in overseas loca-
tions. Excluded from these totals are over
2,000 ancillary installations such as com-
munications sites, navigational aids, radar
stations, and classified locations. This bill
includes construction at 255 of the principal
bases, 152 of which are in continental United
States, and 103 are overseas. In addition, it
provides funds for construction of Reserve
Forces facilities at 18 flying training bases
and at 25 nonflying training centers; the
construction of offbase navigation aids; area
POL systems; aircraft control and warning
system sites; and facilities at classified loca-
tions, all details of which will be provided
during discussion of the appropriation re-
quest.
CONSTRUCTION OBJECTIVES
The construction objective of the Air Force
is to have the facilities for sustained opera-
tions of the 137-wing force in place by end
of fiscal year 1957. This involves, first of
all, the provision of bases to "bed down" the
force in locations at which it can train
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
 9034
Approved For Release 2006/11/09: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120004-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 14
and attain full operational capability and
from which it could launch defensive and
offensive operations. To accomplish this
goal the principal remaining requirements
are:
(a) Operational, staging, and training re-
quirements for the new long-range heavy
bomber, the B-52, being phased Into the SAC
striking forces.
(b) Development and expansion of the
air-defense net, including warning sites in
the United States and Canada and fighter-
interceptor bases.
(c) Family housing.
(d) Aircraft-fuel storage.
(e) Guided missile and pilotless aircraft
facilities.
(f) Research and development projects,
including development of nuclear-powered
aircraft.
(g) Phased development of the base com-
plex in Spain.
(h) Air Force Academy.
(1) Facilities for bases deferred from pre-
vious programs due to lack of base rights.
(j) Reserve forces facilities.
(k) Replacement of deteriorated, obsolete,
and substandard temporary structures with
initial emphasis on medical facilities, dor-
mitories, and dining halls.
(1) Personnel and recreational facilities.
In meeting our objective to provide a per-
manent home for the 137-wing force, we
have been, and are, constantly striving to
improve standards of living and operational
facilities within the limits of prudent ex-
penditures. We plan to construct under this
program facilities of durable, long-life usage
comparable to good, commercial practice.
The projects are priced accordingly. We
believe this to be necessary to achieve mint-
mum cost of maintenance for the extended
period of time It is now anticipated we will
need a 137-wing base structure,
PROGRAM SUMMARY
The Air Force fiscal year 1956 appropria-
tion request is summarized on the first chart.
CHART No. 1-Summary of Air Force fiscal year
1956 military construction appropriation
request
In thousands
Continental United States ------- 8929,113
Outside continental United
States ------------------------ 453.212
Minor construction-------------- 20.000
Planning ----------------------- 32,331
Total program ------------ 1, 434, G56
Less :
Peseta counterpart
funds_____________ 92.000
Unforeseeable delays- 232. 656
234.656
Total appropriation request- 1, 200. 000
As explained earlier, the Air Force Is re-
questing approval of a program totaling ap-
proximately $1.434,000.000. Of this amount
65 percent. or $929.113.000. are for projects
in continental United States. Thirty-two
percent of the total, or $453.212.000, is for
overseas locations. The $20 million for minor
construction provides for the construction of
facilities which fall within the statutory
limitations of section 707, Public Law 458,
83d Congress, and which have not been pro-
vided by specific authorizing legislation.
The $32,331,000 for planning will provide
those funds which will be needed in fiscal
year 1956 for base master planning. inves-
tigational engineering, advanced planning of
projects not yet authorized by law, and for
project planning of authorized projects
which have not been funded. The appro-
priations being requested to finance the
program of $1-4 billion amount to $1.2 bil-
lion, or $234.656,000 less than the program.
This reduction has been made by considera-
tion of the anticipated availability of $2
million of peseta counterpart funds for base
construction in Spain and by allowing for
possible unforeseen delays in the overall
construction program in the amount of
$232,656,000.
COMMAND DISTRIBUTION
The next chart Indicates the distribution
of the program by Air Force commands:
CHART No. 2.-Command distribution of Air
Force, fiscal year 1958 military construc-
tion appropriation program
)T)ollarc in thousands)
Amount ?f
('unrinentnl l'nil,+i Flats
$tratrgir Air ('nnmran4 $LMI, l40 IS.2
Aircraft Control and V ail,iag
Sysiem 122, 19? F 5
Air ih-fem.- Command _-- - ( 113,453 7-9
Air Hewareh and Devel iptm?ut
('mmnwnd 110,730 f. 3
Air .lfatcr:el ('nn,runnd--------- F2. 07f. 5.7
Air Form Mmiernv_ .. .--_...-. 71:.478 b.3
Tnct iral Air ('ornmand.-------- IA. 5{(} 4.1
Air Trainine C'mnntau.. R'2, 721 3.7
('oni lrleiHJi Air ('sinnand (Ce- 1
aer?vel _ 31..Wi 2.2
Milirnry Air Trtnsport Ferv.re.i !r. 537 I. If,
Air l'ruviug Ground ('omm:ind 7,80.3 .5
(',,tinsel-il Air (bn,mand
fft:nhr, .. ---- _-.._--. 5. 1,45 .4
Air 1?niv,?r*!ty -------- 2.5311 .2
iicndipinrtcrs ('oauuand---- .. 520 .1
V:uious_-_------ _------ .__--- 357 .1
'mist, mntln,-ntal t-ni,ed
F t., t,s __-_ 52''.113 r,4.7
Outside mnlinrntal t'nitcd Gates:
t'S A F Enrol? ?.. 2'.52. 962 l!", 5
Airendt (bnirol aol \I-arui?g
N.t.-In 10.1, 1~93 7.4
Strategic Air (bu,tuand ..-..__. 37.(r4t1 2.6
A lnsknn Air ('onunnnd - 1 2S,929 2.0
Norilu-ast Air ( 'ontrn:uel . _1 23.1411 1.6
Military Air 't'ransport Eer v,n'. l 19. X47 1.4
Far E., 1 Air Farr _ ..1 14,1.52 1.0
I 'onm, on nilions and \AV.
AII)9 ----_--_---i .:2f. .i
vatknrs._ ------- i X53 .l
('arrilzvn Air ('