Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
December 29, 2004
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
August 8, 1964
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2.pdf1.56 MB
18082 Approved For F C4a9l~~b / Ab :Pdi1 6 o3 000200160045-2 August' $ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call. the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I: ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. l: understand that the distinguished Sena- tor from Ohio [Mr. Yot Rol has a brief' talk that he would like to make. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without A TIME TO BE PRO JD this is a time for all Americans, and in fact for free people all over the world, to be proud. Today, in the Plain Dealer of Cleveland, Ohio, one of the Nation's great newspapers, an article was pub- lished by Philip W. Porter, an associate editor and a noted writer in my State of Ohio. He wrote about the feeling of pride that Americans have by reason of the firm, resolute, and unyielding action taken by our President following the un- provoked attack on August 2 on the destroyer Maddox, which was repelled. Our destroyer then continued its pa- trol in international waters where this amazing event took place. Then, on the night of August 4 two American destroyers, the Maddox and the C. Turner Joy, were assailed by North Vietnamese PT boats in a premeditated naval attack that lasted a matter of hours. At that time not only was the attack repelled, but also the attackers were either destroyed or dispersed. The President made plain, both in his address to the Nation on Tuesday night and in his talk at Syracuse University last Wednesday, that the United States seeks no enlargement nor escalation of the conflict. However, this Nation is united in its belief that, in President Johnson's words, *'There can be no peace by ag- gression and no immunity from reply." Whenever our Nation has faced inter- national crises, the American people, re- gardless of political party, have united behind firm action by our Presidents. It Is a firmly established tradition that poli- tics stops at the water's edge when our national security is threatened. I am proud to have voted for the resolution supporting our President. Mr. President, Philip Porter's article is entitled "A Time To Be Proud." This thoughtful and concise praise of Presi- dent Johnson's action is the finest I have read anywhere since the crises began earlier this week. I commend this arti- cle to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: (From the Plain Dealer, Aug. 8. 19641 A TIME To Bs PROUD (By Philip W. Porter) Something magnificent comes over Presi- dents of the United States when they face international crises that might lead to war, and they lay it on the line for the Nation to face. It happened to Lyndon Johnson this week over North Vietnam. It happened previously to John F. Ken- nedy over Cuba, to Dwight D. Eisenhower over Quemoy and Matsu, to Harry S. Tru- man over Korea. It's been so long now that many may have forgotten Franklin D. Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor, but those who did hear him will never forget. Roosevelt spoke his historic phrases to the Nation over the radio, for TV didn't exist then, and it was in its Infancy when Truman had to cope with Korea. But the last three Presidents have spoken with grim and meas- ured words over TV, and none who watched could doubt that In each case the man was speaking as the leader of a united nation. with deep conviction and far above politics. One who watches and listens at such a time is bound to feel an emotional tug of pride In his country. It comes from the knowledge that no matter which man oc- cupies that office of crushing responsibility and inescapable loneliness, when the chips are down he rises above petty politics, sec- tionalism, parochialism and personal faults, and becomes the President. Our quality of closing ranks when the national safety or honor are threatened, even when civil strife and political partisanship have been filling the air, is something the governments and the people (they are not always the same) of Europe, Asia and South America seem unable to understand. We are the only big power that takes the golden rule seriously and gives away billions play- ing the Good Samaritan. For years we ap- pear to tolerate, even enjoy being played for a sucker while cv niclsm and self-interest are the guidelines of all other nations. But when the day suddenly comes that we know we have been pushed too far by a conscious aggressor, then look out. Over- night, the President turns from politician to statesman, the Nation closes ranks, and the opposition party speaks the same language as the President. Senator GOLDWATER's prompt and strong statement In support of President Johnson was In the same vein of patriotism that brought Henry L. Sttmson and Frank Knox, Republicans, into FUR's Cabinet: that in- duced Gen. George Marshall to serve Presi- dent Truman, that transformed Arthur Vanderberg from just another Republican Senator to a world statesman. As I listened to Mr. Johnson in grimly, measured tones, tell the audience at Syra- cuse that we had responded to attacks on our naval vessels, I realized all over again that no matter which party elects a Presi- dent, our foreign policy is continuous. We debate It during elections, but we do what we must when aggressors try to push us around. Up to now the Communists have played a slow, cagey game of infiltration, guerrilla warfare and the doublecroes In Laos and Vietnam. They have cost us some lives and billions of dollars, and it seems likely to go on that way indefinitely. But when they openly attacked American naval vessels In international waters, miles off the coast, they were asking for retaliation, and they got it. We can hope they'll learn, and believe what President Johnson said. For one, I felt mighty proud of him for saying it. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPRO- PRIATIONS, 1965 The Senate resumed the consideration': of the bill (H.R. 11389) making appro-,; priations for military construction for' the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for other purposes. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr, STENNIS. Mr. President, this is the appropriation bill for military con struction for the fiscal year 1965. As the.., Senate knows, there must first be a bill that authorizes these projects before there can be appropriations. The thorization bill went through the Armed Services Committee and was handled by a subcommittee that happens to have several members who are also members of the Appropriations Subcommittee which handled the appropriation bill. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL I is the ranking minority member of each of the subcommittees, and I am the chairman of each of the subcommittees. The two of us have fol- lowed these matters all the way through the year, and through two hearings. There were something like 1,200 items in the original authorization bill, and we took proof on each of those items, considered each one of them, and made a recommendation. The requested authorization originally was $1,850,912,000. The authorization bill as it passed the Congress authorized for military construction $1,521 million which is a net reduction of $329 million. I emphasize the fact that in the au- thorization bill and the appropriations bill we did not take out any item that of the military program. We did not take out any item that we considered in any way necessary or essential. How- ever, we took out items that we thought. should be postponed or that we did not think were practical or a necessary part of our military program. In the .authorization bill as passed by the Senate we were about $68 million below the amount allowed by the House but we left an authorization for appro- priations of $1,534 million. I shall review only a few of the larger items that were left out of the authoriza- tion bill, which are of some interest, and to ask some questions about them. Many of these larger figures are classi- fied. The Nike-Hercules items were left out: Certain items for the Navy were left out' because we thought they could wait an- other year. We allowed some of their, and left out others. I have skipped over those that are classified. Most of the large figures are classified. We took out the defense intelligence building in the District, an. Item of $17.- 900,000. It is a matter in which there was some interest. I move on now to a brief statement. I hope the Senator from Massachusetts will interrupt me or will make a statement of his own at any point that he may wish to do so. Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R00T200160045-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 18083 Mr. President, with that explanation of the authorization bill for military con- struction I will now move to an explana- tion of the fiscal year 1965 military con- struction appropriations bill as approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill passed the House with a figure of $1,599 million. We have made a net reduction below the House of $16,045,001). The report of the committee, on page 1. carries a summary of the effect of the committee changes in the bill. There is a table at page 40 of the re- port. It also carries the breakdown of line items by States, beginning at page 26. The appropriation request for family housing is shown in the report beginning at page 20. Similar material is found in the large tables. There is one small item in which there is an increase over the budget estimate. That was an increase of $4,800,000 for the Army National Guard nationwide construction program. For military construction the bill con- tains $965,318,000. For family housing the bill contains $617,651,000. That is a decrease of $32,- 707,000 under the House, and $93,349,000 under the original authorization. In regard to family housing, I believe I should indicate clearly what the corrm- mittee did. The budget request was $71.1 million, for 12,500 family housing units for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. This amount was reduced to 9,886 family housing units in the authorization bill. The House in the appropriations bill provided for 9,590 housing units. Our subcommittee has studied this program for a number of years. In view of rapid changes in the defense program and due to obsolescence, we thought there should be a yearly review. We have adhered to this principle for several years. This year we have pro- vided the necessary funds for 7,500 units. The Department of Defense has the re- sponsibility of selecting the housing units that are to be built with this money, in accordance with a priority list within the services. In other words, the com- mittee did not undertake to select the housing for each service, but approved the list and provided the money with which to build 7,500 units, with the De- partment of Defense making the selec- tions as to how many units each service will actually build. I point out that the cost of the world- wide military housing that we already have is $3,260 million. The number of housing units we have worldwide is 374,398. A large percentage of this housing is in the United States. However, we are satisfied that the building rate, as re- quested by the Department of Defense, is too rapid, in view of changing weap- ons and changing situations, and the possibility of reducing the manpower. We have approved a good, hard, steady program of 7,500 units for several years now, and that is rapidly taking care of most of the places where the need is ur- gent. The program has been completed in many places. The housing program has been cleaned up since a few years ago, when we had the Capehart program. This has no reference to former Senator Capehart, as an individual. It was named for him because he introduced the bill, under which we did not appropriate the money, although eventually we would have to pay for it. Through some bad contract awards, the Capehart program got into trouble, and the Congress terminated the program. Now we have the program all cleaned up. We have a businesslike manage- ment of the funds, and we are now build- ing houses through use of direct appro- priated funds. The $660,605,000 re- quested here seems like a very large fig- ure; however, part of this is the cost to the Government of approximately $850 a year to maintain each of these family housing units. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, who made a very fine contribution over the months. He attended the hea-rings and helped weigh the items in the bill, and gave his careful attention to the con- sideration of the bill, which in some ways is rather complicated. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the Senator. What I did, of course, I did under the guidance of the Senator's chairmanship. The Senator from Mis- sissippi was very conscientious during the long hearings. Did the Senator bring out the fact that the housing at this time consists of 374,398 units, and that the cost of taking care of the operation and mainte- nance and the debt payment on these units-the O. & M. account-is $617 mil- lion this year? These are substantial figures. Mr. STENNIS. They are very large sums, indeed; but we announced that program, even though it seemed high per unit, is being well handled now, and we are on the road to constructing the best family military housing we have ever had. There is one other item I wish to dis- cuss. It is the only item in the bill that is not in the budget. The subcommittee added $4,800,000 to the budget estimate of $6 million, making a total of $10,800,- 000 for armory projects, projects as to which there is a local contribution, either by the State or by the county, and in- cluding for 25 nonarmory projects. We provide small sums nationwide each year, and these additions are nationwide ad- ditions for armories and nonarmories. The committee does not select the items that will qualify for this amount of money, but we have a formula that is applied by the National Guard Bu- reau. It is fair and impartial. The money will provide for a few more armories throughout the Nation and also, I believe, for four National Guard sum- mer training projects, for the benefit of men who have been called into the serv- ice for training. It is a small amount. It will provide summer training for some fine National Guard units. This sum will be used to build small messhalls, shops, supply headquarters, latrines, and items of that kind. I observe the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] in the Chamber. He has an interest in one item. I shall yield shortly to him for a question about it. The bill has received thorough scru- tiny. Each of the services has examined it, as have the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget. As a result of action by the Committee on Armed Services, the authorization legislation reflects substantial reductions. Reduc- tions were also :made in the subcom- mittee of the House Committee on Ap- propriations. The House subcommittees have done an extraordinary fine piece of work in handling these matters over the years. The Senate subcommittee has reviewed the bill carefully, and its work is re- flected in this reduction. I believe the bill is as austere as is de- sirable, if we are to provide adequately for the actual needs of our Armed Forces. Much interest was expressed in the fieldhouse for the Air Force Academy. That item was authorized and is ap- proved in the bill; but the full amount of money is not appropriated this year. However, we have allowed $350,000 to be certain that there will be enough money for the architectural and engineering planning for the entire project, with the idea that we expect to approve the full amount for the project next year. This item was omitted entirely by the House, so the $350,000 will be in conference. Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield? Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from Colorado. Mr. ALLOTT. I express deep appre- ciation to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construc- tion Appropriations. Like other appro- priation bills, this one requires much at- tention, and the distinguished Senator from Mississippi has given careful at- tention to it. I realize that the House omitted the item for the fleldhouse for the Air Force Academy. The record should be made clear that the Air Force .Academy has no adequate place where its cadets can ob- tain the kind of physical training that is needed on a year-round basis. I sincerely appreciate the considera- tion given this item by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and also the distinguished Senator from Massachu- setts, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. I believe and hope that with the money that the commit- tee has allowed for the planning of the fleldhouse, we shall be in a better posi- tion to submit a better, more forward- looking plan than would otherwise have been possible. I am very happy about the action that has been taken. Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator from Colorado. I believe he is correct in his evaluation of the situation. Did the Senator from Illinois wish me to yield to him for a question? Mr. DOUGLAS. I will wait until the Senator has concluded. Mr. STENNIS. I have practically con- eluded my remarks. I had not planned to discuss every item unless questions were asked about them. Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2 ?18084 Approved For ease 2005/02/10 CIA-RDP66BO0403IQ00200160045--2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 8 Mr, SALTOY$STALL. Mr.- President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield? 114r: SNIS Perhaps the Senator from Massachusetts had better make his do ent first. `Mr. SATTONSTALL. My remark re- lates to' the Air Force Academy field- house. 'The fleldhouse had been author- ized, and we feel we are moving ahead as fast as we can in a proper, careful manner, so as to obtain the best field- -house possible, and to have it constructed as economically and efficiently as pos- sible. Therefore, we have included suf- ficient money this year to accomplish that purpose. Mr, STENNIS. The money has been earmarked for that purpose, so that it will not have to compete with other plan- Yling money. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Also, there is other planning money that could be used The amendment which we have prepared reads as follows: None of the funds appropriated in this act may be expended for the purpose of con- strutting new facilities in any other State to replace the facilities of any installation ordered reduced or closed "for economy rea- sons" in any State pursuant to the an- nouncement of the Secretary of Defense dated December 12, 1963, or April 24, 1964. . This language is similar to the lan- guage of the amendment offered to the .authorization bill, accepted by the Sen- ate, but dropped in conference. There was a rather full discussion of the subject on the floor of the Senate in connection with the authorization bill. It is not my purpose to go over the same ground. However, it seems there is much sense in saying that if an electronics warehouse, for example, is in fine condi- tion in the State of New York, it would be false economy to close that facility Mr STENNIS. That is 'a good point. . and build the same type of warehouse ,Should the specific amount provided not in any other State. The only purpose of be enough, there is other planning money the amendment is to preclude such a that can be drawn on. move. Perhaps it should have attached Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will to it some qualifying language, to pro- the Senator yield? vide an opportunity for such action to Mr. STENNIS- , I am happy to yield to be taken in extraordinary circum- the Senator from Illinois. stances and under unusual conditions. Mr. DOUGLAS. I notice on page 29 But it is difficult for me to conceive of the report that the committee recom- of circumstances under which it would 'mends the appropriation of $4,521,000 for be proper for funds to be expended in construction at Fort Sheridan. I should that manner. like to ask if all of this has been caused Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will by the projected transfer of 5th Army the Senator from Mississippi yield? Headquarters from Chicago to Fort Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield. Sheridan. Mr. PASTORE. I quite agree with the Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. Senator from New York. . This problem This transfer has required some new -has concerned and disturbed me over a building. By the way, the Senate re- long period of time, because there are jetted one of these items for $1 million in some facilities in Rhode Island which the authorization bill. We had to yield have been abandoned and have not yet it in conference, but it is left out of the been used for other activities. I realize bill. However, I think we have it ad- justed. Mr. DOUGLAS. In other words, this "economy" move will cost '$4,500,000 extra? Mr, STENNIS. There will be a debit on the debit side of the ledger, to start with, against the alleged economy move. The Senator is correct, `Mr. DOUGLAS. I am. very glad the Senator from Mississippi says "the al- leged economy move."" It is a proposal foisted into this bill by political inter- ests which -will cost $4,500,000 in the name of economy. Blessed is the name of economy. Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the Sen- ator's sentirrlents. We were not saying there would be no economy. But we do not accept all the formulas that are thrown at us all the time. Mr, ' KEATING.. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mr, KEATING, I -am sure the Sena- tor remembers the amendment which my colleague from New York [Mr. JAVrrs] and I offered to the military con- struction authorization bill. Mr. STI NNIS.. Yes. Mr KEATING. That amendment was -adopted by the Senate but was dropped in conference. I should like to make a plea for the incorporation of that amendment in this appropriation bill. ways to do what is best for our country and its security, even when it means that a facility must be removed from one place and started again in another. If there is a strategic reason for it, I do not believe that any Senator is so pro- vincial that he would object to that. But the problem has not been exactly that.. Sometimes a facility is closed for rea- sons of economy and shortly thereafter that same facility springs up in another area. When it becomes necessary to re- open it, they do not wish to go back to -the old location, they wish to go to a new one. But I realize that this is a difficult problem to handle by an amendment be- cause we could never provide for all the contingencies involved. Possibly we should write into the con- ference report what the intention or the concern of Congress is with relation to this problem, and advise the Defense De- partment that if the facilities are re- quired again to take into account the ex- isting facilities, the skills which have been developed, and the money and the investment that would be lost if they were .moved to another area. I believe that the report should so state. I do not believe we could do it by amendment, because we could not cover all the complexities involved. ' - Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield? Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I agree with what the Senator from Rhode Island has said. I believe I could add a comment to the Senator from New York, that if this admonition is put in the form of a report and added to it, if the Secretary of De- fense or the Secretary of any of the serv- ices finds that it is necessary to build a new plant where one has been closed, they should make a report to the appro- priate committees of Congress and give the reasons why it is necessary, after having closed a plant, say, in New York, Rhode Island, or Massachusetts. Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield further? Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mrt. KEATING. I recognize the force of what the distinguished Senators from Rhode Island and Massachusetts have said. I wonder whether it would not be appropriate to take the amendment to conference, with the idea that it should be discussed either in the form of an amendment or included in the report. The language, which may be too tight, would be accepted with a proviso per- mitting some latitude on the part of the Secretary of Defense in the case of unus- ual circumstances, or it would be the basis for inclusion in the conference re- port of language indicating that it is the sense of Congress that such a thing should be done only under most unusual circumstances. A case. should be made for it before it is done. Mr. STENNIS. Yes. I appreciate the Senator's position. Let me point out to him that I am not at all unsympathetic toward his problem, but this is a question of what is sound legislation. It is even down to the point of what is legislation on an appropriation bill. . I believe, as a whole, that there is a very rigid surveillance of these matters, first by the representation in Congress from the State, and next b.? the Depart- ment of Defense, which approaches this problem in an earnest way. Then the committee passes upon these matters when it recommends the appropriation. Nearly always some money changes are required, except with respect to the facil- ity which was totally abandoned in Mis- sissippi, involving a sizable Air Force training installation at Greenville. It was taken out. I mention that to show that I have been as much a victim as anyone else in the canceling out of instal- lations. I do not believe that we can put the Department of Defense in a straitjacket in any way. But we did consider the Senator's amendment at the last confer- ence, as I stated. We took it and said that we would see what language could be worked out. Frankly, there was noth- ing in the language that could be worked out which the House felt it could sup- port. But it was considered. The_Sgnator is eternally vigilant. We are at the point of legislation on an ap- propriation bill, especially since the Sen- ator has had his day in court before, which is why I have to make this point. I would be in favor of language in the Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2 1964 Aped For Rehmpt- a 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R00200160045-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE report, as suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts, which would point out the problem, emphasize it, and under- score it, and ask for a report on these matters to the'Congress. Frankly, I will not permit myself to favor a `report before there is any action at all, because that stirs up everything, and a new start is made. But the Sen- ator from New York is entitled to the utmost consideration in these matters- as any Senator is. Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield fur- ther? Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mr. KEATING. I appreciate the com- ments of the Senator from Mississippi. I emphasize this point that this question involves only a case in which an identical installation is built somewhere else to do the work or perform the function of the abandoned facility. I suppose many Senators have had some installations taken out of their States. That is one thing; but this problem involves a very limited area, in which an installation is taken out, and a similar facility is built somewhere else. It seems to me difficult to justify that sort of action on grounds of economy. I recognize the practical problem in- volved in endeavoring to get through an amendment in the face of united oppo- sition from the distinguished committee, but we feel that many Senators have this problem and would be deeply apprecia- tive, if it could be discussed in conference and If some language could be incorpo- rated in the conference report which would make it clear that it would re- quire unusual circumstances to justify doing the sort of thing which my amend- ment would prevent the Department of Defense from doing. I would be the last one to wish to tie the hands of 'the. Secretary of Defense or our armed services in any way in the proper performance of their functions, but some eyebrows have been raised over certain things which have gone on in the recent past. I believe that it is impor- tant that there be a continuing surveil- lance of this problem by the Appropria- tions Committee, as well as by the Armed Services, Committee which the Senator serves so ably. Therefore, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Mississippi and shall not press the amendment at this time. Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the Sen- ator's remarks. I assure him that we are in sympathy with his problem; but we could hardly carry through the rem- edy proposed. Mr. DAVITS subsequently said: Mr. President, I would like to join my able colleague from New York in requesting that the Conference Committee give very serious consideration to the wording of our, proposal, which was initially incor- porated in amendment No. 1076 which Senator KEATING and I `introduced to H.R. 10300, the military construction au- thorization bill. That amendment's wording was as follows: SEC. 610. No -funds shall be authorized to be expended by this bill for the purpose of constructing new facilities in other States to replace facilities at installations ordered reduced or closed pursuant to the announce- ments of the Secretary of Defense dated De- cember 12, 1963, or April 24, 1964, for "econ- omy reasons." That amendment was intended to'pre- vent the Defense Department from spending funds to construct new facili- ties to replace facilities that were ordered closed pursuant to the announcements of the Secretary of Defense on December 12, 1963 or April 24, 1964. The amend- ment was considered by the Conference Committee on the military construction authorization bill, now enacted as Pub- lic Law 88-390, but was not adopted. Its purpose of insuring true economy with respect to the transfer of functions of installations ordered closed to installa- tions in other States to be built, is, I be- lieve, a most worthy one. I hope very much the conferees on the pending bill will give serious consideration to the in- tent of the proposal which Senator KEAT- ING and I have advanced and will include language in their report to implement it. Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALLI has a point he wishes to make at this time. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the Sen- ator: We in Massachusetts are acutely aware of the problem, the Senator has outlined in the closing of the Watertown Arsenal, which has been an arsenal in the Army for more than 100 years. Certainly, we are very sympathetic. We want to get something in the con- ference report to cover this item. The Senator realizes, I believe, that the con- ference report is for the House alone. The Senate can only get in the confer- ence report what the House Members agree to put in. I assure the Senator that I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS]. We shall try to have the item included in the conference report. Mr. KEATING. I appreciate that statement. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ap- preciate the remarks of the Senator from New York. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. There is only one item concerning Florida. This came up late. It was discussed at some length when -the authorization bill was being ap- proved. It had to do with the Sanford Naval Air Station. I believe the ques- tion arose from the fact that the Navy 'decided to locate its bases of operations for long-range reconnaissance after their original budget request had been made up. Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. Mr. HOLLAND. I ask the the dis- tinguished Senator from Mississippi if the item requested by the Navy to com- plete or to continue its increased facil- ities at that station is represented by the $2,004,000 item, which I notice is in- cluded in the bill. Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. All four items for the Sanford naval in- stallation are included in the bill. They are not included in the House version. But I believe that is due, as the Senator 18085 said, to the lateness of their presenta- tion. We hope to have these Items included in the conference report. Mr. HOLLAND. Is it the. understand- ing of the Senator that the Navy states very frankly that it made a change in its plans after the original budget request on this item, and that it is highly im- -portant In order to have it fulfill its mission in the South Atlantic and Carib- bean area, that its request be granted as quickly as possible, so as to accomodate the long-range reconaissance aircraft? Mr. STENNIS. The Senator has cor- rectly described the situation. We con- sider it to be an important Item. We feel it will appeal to the House Members in conference. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ap- preciate the assistance which the Sena- tor from Mississippi has rendered. The Senator knows that I never take up any military matters with him or with other members of the committee, except upon such a showing as this. My understand- ing has been that the Navy air authorities feel this is an urgent matter which should be taken care of this year. Mr. STENNIS. That is correct. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy in this matter. Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the in- terest of the Senator. I believe this item will survive the conference. I thank the staff members who have been so faithful in their service. I thank Mr. V. M. Rexroad, the clerk to the subcommittee, and Mrs. Gloria Butland, who have rendered faithful and out- standing service. I again thank the Senator from Massa- chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALLI as well as other members of the subcommittee. I yield the floor. We are ready for a vote. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I compliment the chairman on the, conscientiousness of his work. At the outset of my remarks let me pay tribute to the chairman of our sub- committee, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] who once again has done a careful and painstaking job of review- ing the money requests for items in the military construction program. He has followed this bill with care through the authorization process where he and I sit on the Senate Committee on Armed Services when such matters are con- sidered for authorization and again when they come before the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The result has been a carefully developed bill which I heartily support because'it adequately cares for the needs of our military in the field of construction and at the same time it has effected savings which will benefit our overall economy. The major sums involved in this bill are for defense and training establish- ments. In these two areas economies are difficult, for we cannot stint in the train- ing of our men or in the retaliatory pro- tection our missile bases give our Na- tion. As war plans change, our emphasis Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2 18086 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160645-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 8 seems to go in these two directions: Greater emphasis on the qualities of the individual soldier who must be trained in self-reliance under the most adverse conditions, and greater emphasis on the heavy retaliatory forces of the Air Force. Speaking from the Massachusetts point of view, our contribution is in the scien- tific and industrial backup which these activities need. But the Nation needs, these facilities which form the base of our armed services. I should like to speak first on the prob- lem of general decisions which were made effecting this bill and then I should like to direct the attention of the Senate to some of the more important specific items considered in this bill. One of the largest annual requests which is made Is for family housing for the military in this country and around the world. My concern has not been so much over the amount of the annual construction cost but rather with the nu-be r of units which are already in our inventory and on which we pay in this bill over $617 million for operation, maintenance and debt payments. We have in our housing inventory at this time 374,398 units. The budget request this year was for 12,500 units and the House appropriations bill funded 9,877 units at a cost of $177.5 minion. In our consideration of the family housing we decided to treat the matter as we have in the past 2 fiscal years and funded 7,500 houses at a cost of $134.8 million, thereby reducing the cost by $32.7 mil- lion. We treated this as though all of the units were authorized and available to be funded, and we have suggested that the Department determine the priority in building 7,500 homes for which we have recommended funds. Turning now to the problem of bache- lor officers quarters-we have decided to fund approximately one-half of the $22.2 million and again request the Depart- ments to place a priority on where these bachelor officer quarters should be con- structed. We have thus effected a sav- ings of over $9.5 million and there re- mains in this bill as it is presented to the Senate the sum of $12.6 million for the construction of bachelor officers quar- ters. Turning now to some of the more Im- portant individual items which the com- mittee considered in developing this bill, I should first mention the fieldhouse for the Air Force Academy which was denied by the House and on which considerable testimony was heard when the matter was before our committee. The House action was based primarily on the cost of the structure, as well as the planning which had gone into it. The House denied the Item on the basis of the cost which was estimated at $6.9 million. When the matter was presented to the Senate it was on the basis of a cost esti- mate of $6.2 million. I, for one, feel very strongly that the Air Force Acad- emy should be given a fieldhouse-not only because the other service academies have such an athletic structure, but also because it is badly needed for athletic activity which cannot be conducted on the outside in inclement weather. I would be less than frank if I did not state that I have been deeply concerned over the many problems in construction which have been experienced at the Air Force Academy in the past. I need not recount that there have been serious de- fects discovered which could have been eliminated by better design and engineer- ing. For this reason r was very glad to see this building delayed for 1 year. We have voted for the inclusion of $350,000 for planning money so that when the matter is next presented to our commit- tee we will have a better assurance of the cost and the design adequacy for con- structing such an expensive building. I will not dwell at length on the money which has been Included in this bill to permit the move of the 5th Army Headquarters from Chicago to Fort Sheridan, Ili. I discussed this matter when the authorization bill was before the Senate. I feel this is a necessary move and that savings will be achieved by making available the present head- quarters for the use of other Government agencies presently renting space In Chi- cago. We have removed from this bill an elaborate underground communications center and the cost figure has thus been reduced in excess of $1 million by this reduction. Turning now to the matter of gym- nasiums, athletic and recreational facil- ities and commissaries. The committee has attempted to determine the need for these, based on the remoteness of the area In which the base is located, and the fact that such facilities are not avail- able in the surrounding communities. We feel that such matters are required by our servicemen who are called upon to perform duty in remote areas. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to say again that this bill has been care- fully considered and I feel it Is deserving of the support of every Member of the Senate. It allows a measured increase of military facilities and housing which is determined by the pace of our defense needs. I am pleased to support our able chairman in presenting this bill and in recommending its passage. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, con- struction funds for fiscal year 1965 were requested for only one military installa- tion in Utah, Hill Air Force Base. The military construction authorization bill passed by Congress, approved renova- tion and modification of facilities at Hill Air Force Base in the amount of $2,- 108,000. Unfortunately, when H.R. 11369 was considered by the House, a misunder- standing arose In regard to maintenance facilities to be used for repair and over- haul of the F-4-C aircraft. Two mem- bers of the House committee interro- gated Air Force witnesses as to the pos- sibility of F-4-C maintenance being ac- complished by the Navy or at some other Air Force installation without the ne- cessity of expenditure of additional funds. Although the Air Force made a strong presentation, the House Appro- priations Committee eliminated all funds for the F-4-C mission at Hill Air Force Base, leaving only $321,000 in the bill for construction of a new gymnasium at the Utah installation. The decision to place the F-4-C main- tenance mission at Hill Air Force Base wad made only after careful and detailed studies by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and by the Secretary of the Air Force. These studies included review of capability of all other Air Force instal- lations and research into the possibility of having the Navy perform cross- service maintenance on the F--4-C, since this is a jointly used aircraft. These resource utilization studies con- cluded that Hill Air Force Base was superior to any other air materiel area for the F/RF-4C mission. All of the funds requested for the F-4-C mission are for modification and updating of existing facilities to permit Hill Air Force Base to perform work on new super-high thrust engines. Because modern jet aircraft are constantly being Improved, it is necessary from time to time to modify Air Force facilities which perform overhaul and maintenance mis- sions. Hill Air Force Base will utilize approximately $21 million in existing facilities in support of the F-4-C mis- sion. The nearly $2 million requested in the military construction bill will per- mit modification and minor facility addi- tions required for the F/RF-4C main- tenace program. The line items required are: Turbojet engine test cell, $244,000; communications and electronics shop, $590.000; logistical facility depot, $738,- 000; sound suppressor engine runup hangar. $215.000. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that the Senate will concur with the Appro- priations Committee and fully restore the $1,787,000 deleted by the House for modification of facilities at Hill Air Force Base, so that there will not be any delay in performing this assigned mission. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, speak- ing as one who is not on this subcom- mittee, I appreciate the fine work that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. S?rEx- rns], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Su.soxsru.L], and their associates have doneon this committee. All Senators possess the same view that I have, that on these matters under no circumstances should a Senator make a request unless it is based on something that he has been told by the components of the service is of great importance to include. That has been my own method of procedure. We find Senators to be most compe- tent in meeting what they understand to be the real needs for the protection and defense of our country. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. His attitude is always help- ful. I appreciate it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that a comparative statement of appropriations for fiscal year 1964, and the estimates and amounts recommended for the bill for the fiscal year 1965 be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the com- parative statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2 '1964 Approved For COES~ON/,1~~t66B EQR000200160045-2 18087 Comparative statement of appropriations for 1964, and estimates and amounts recommended in the bill for 1965 Increase (+) or decrease (-), Senate bill Amount recom- . compared with- Item Appropriations, Budget esti- Recommended mended by 1984 mates, 1965 in House bill Senate com- mittee Appropriations, Budget esti- house bill 1964 mates, 1965 Military construction, Army -___ ---------------- $200, 648, 000 $408, 000,000 $301, 000, 000 $311, 977, 000 +$111,331,000 -$96, 023,000 +$10, 977, 000 Military construction, Navy ____ _________ ______ Militar construction Air Force _ _ 198, 853, 000 468 275 000 278, 000, 000 406 000 000 247, 000,.000 46 000 000 250, 899, 000 +52,046, 000 -27101, 000 +3,899,000 y , _ __________ _ __ _________ , , , , , , 3 342, 986, 000 -125,289,000 -63, 014, 000 -3,014,000 Military construction, Defense Agencies__________________ 24,000,000 34,000,000 12,656,000 12,656,000 -11,344, 000 -21;344000 ---------------- Military construction, Army Reserve____________________ 4,500,000 6,000,000 - 5,000,000 5,000,000 +500,000 ________________ ---------------- Military construction, Naval Reserve -------------------- 6,000,000 , 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 +1,000,000 ---------------- ------- ________ Military construction, Air Force Reserve_________________ 4,000 000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 +1,000,000 ---------------- _____-__________ Military construction Army National Guard------------- ilit 5,700, 000 6,000,000 6,000,000 10, 800,000 +5,100,000 +4,800,000 +4,800, 000 M ary construction, AirNationalGuard_______________ 16,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 , -2,000,000 ---------------- ________________ Loran station____________-__________._.___..---._.--...- 20,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000 000 -15,500,000 ---------------- ---------------- Total, military construction________________________ 948,474,000 1,168,000,000 948,656,000 965,318,000 +16,844,000 -202,682,000 +16,662,000 FAMILY HOUSING Family housing, Army: Construction________________________________________ 34,681,000 52,728,000 40,446,000 32,216,000 -2,465,000 -20,512,000 -8,230 000 Q ration, maintenance, and debt payment ---------- F il h sin N 183,396,000 173,328,000 173,328,000 173,328,000 -10,068,000 _ , y ou g, avy and arine Corps: am Construction O eration,maintenance, and debt payment i F 68,248,000 93,944,000 96,219,000 97,739,000 72,481,000 97,739,000 59,144,000 97,739,000 -9,104,000 +3,795,000 -37,075,000 . -13,337,000 ly housing, Air Force: am Construction 61,027,000 88,635,000 64 013 500 , , 52 873,000 , -8,154,000 -35,762,000 O eration;maintenance, and debt payment amily housing Defense agencies: 193,514,000 198,859,000 198 859 000 198 859,000 +5,345,000 _ , Construction_________________________________________ 50,000 981,000 , 981,000 , 983,000 , +931,000 _ Operation,maintenance, anddebt payment ---------- r r 2,546,000 2,511 000 2,511 000 2,511 000 -35,000 ---------------- Total, family housing ----------------- ----- 637,406,000 711,000,000 650,358,500 617,651,000 -19,755,000 -93,349,000 -32,707,500 Total- __ ___ _ __ _ _ 1, 585, 880, 000 1, 879, 000, 000 1, 599, 014, 500 1, 582, 969, 000 -2,911,0 0 -296, 031, 000 F -16, 045, 000 Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the total appropriation recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee amounts to $1,582,969,000. This is an amount of $16,045,500 under allowances provided by the House and $296,431,000 under the budget estimate of $1,879 million. For military construction for the Ac- tive Forces of the Department of the Army, the, committee has approved an amount totaling $311,977,000. This is an increase of $10,977,000 over the amount of $301 million approved by the House, and a decrease of $96,023,000 from the budget estimate of $408 million. For military construction for the Ac- tive Forces of the Department of the Navy, the committee has approved an amount totaling $250,899,000. This is an increase of $3,899,000 over the $247 mil- lion allowed by the House and a decrease of $27,101,000 from the budget estimate of $278 million. For military construction for the Ac- tive Forces of the Department of the Air Force, the committee has approved an amount totaling $342,986,000. This is a reduction of $3,014,000 from the $346 million allowed by the House and a de- crease of $63,014,000 from the budget estimate of $406 million. For the Army Reserve, the committee recommends an appropriation of $5 mil- lion, which was the budget estimate figure and the amount allowed by the House. For the Naval Reserve, the committee recommends an appropriation of $7 mil- lion, the budget estimate, and the same amount as was allowed by the House. For the Air Force Reserve, the commit- tee recommends ds an appropriation of $5 million, the budget estimate and the same amount as was allowed by the House. For the 'Army National Guard, the committee recommends an appropria- tion of $10,800,000, which is $4,800,000 No. 154--7 hnore than the House allowance and budget estimate of $6 million. For the Air National Guard, the com- mittee recommends an appropriation of $14 million, the budget estimate, and the same amount as was allowed by ' the House. For the Department of Defense agen- cies, the committee recommends an ap- propriation of $12,656,000. This is $21,_ 344,000 below the budget estimate and is in agreement with the amount allowed by the House. The appropriation break- down is as follows: Defense Atomic Support Agency, $6,- 546,000; National Security Agency, $1,- 711,000; Defense Supply Agency, $1,954,- 000; and other projects, $743,000. This appropriation recognizes a saving of $298,000 from prior years funds for which an adjustment has been made. The committee also recommends for the Department of Defense general support program, including planning, design and minor construction, $2 million. The committee has approved an appropria- tion of $5 million for loran stations. This-is the same as the budget request. For the Department of Defense family housing account, the committee recom- mends an appropriation of $617,651,000. This appropriation consists of the fol- lowing: For Army $205,544,000; for Navy $156,883,000; for Air Force $251,732,000; for Defense agencies, $3,492,000. FAMILY HOUSING Mr. President, at this point I would like to go into more detailed discussion of the Department of Defense family housing. The Department of Defense has a worldwide housing inventory of 374,398 housing uints with an acquisi- tion value of $3,260 million. There are 286,607 units located in the United States and 87,791 units overseas. In maintenance and operation and debt payment alone, these housing units cost the American taxpayer $469,926,000. From 1952 to about 1960, the armed services, under the Wherry Act, the Capehart Act, and Appropriations Act, built approximately 16,000 units of hous- ing per year. I point out these figures to show that in the past, the Congress has been rather generous in providing homes for our service people. In the past 2 years, the Congress has provided 7,500 units a year. For fiscal year 1965, the Department of Defense asked for 12,500 units. The authorizing act pro- vided 9,886 units and the House Appro- priations Committee reduced the hous- ing units further to 9,590. The Senate Appropriations Committee, after due consideration recommended 7,500 new housing units. At this point, - I would like to break down the cost figures. The Department of Defense requested approval of a family housing program for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and De- fense agencies amounting to $711 mil- lion. This amount was reduced by the Congress in the Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1965- Public Law 88-390=to $660,605,000. The House of Representatives, in the appropriation bill H.R. 11369 which this bill accompanies, has further reduced the amount to $650,358,500. The commit- tee has approved the amount of $617,- 651,000. This figure includes, for Army construction, $32,216,000, and for main- tenance, operations, and debt payment, $173,328,000. For the Navy, the com- mittee recommends for construction, $59,144,000, and for operation, mainte- nance, and debt payment, $97,739,000. For the Air Force, the committee rec- ommends for construction, $52,873,000, and for operation, maintenance, and debt payment, $198,8$9,000. For Defense agencies, the committee recommends for construction, $981,000, and for operation and maintenance, $2,511,000. The 7,500 new housing units will cost $134,804,000 broken down as follows: Army 1,621 housing units at a cost of $29,116,000; Navy 3,149 housing units at Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2 18088 Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP66B00403R0002 60045-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 8 a cost of $56,594,000, which includes 100 DEPARTMZNTOFT A>ZUT Also included in the aforenamed sum units for the naval shipyard, Bremerton, Mr. President, to review briefly, the are projects for a clinical research build- Wash.; and for the Air Force 2,730 hous- committee approved an appropriation of Ing at Edgewood Arsenal and Range In- ing units at a cost of $49,094,000. $327,777,000 for military construction strumentation Facilities at. Whitesands Mr. President, I want it clearly under- within the Department of the Army. Missile Range. stood that the committee did not delete This represents an appropriation of The last grouping for the Army con- any specific housing project from the $311,977,000 for the active forces, $5 mil- cerns general support which Includes bill. A total of 9,877 houses are on the lion for the Army Reserve and $10,800,000 training, supply, maintenance, military eligible list, but funds are made available for the Army National Guard. This is services, communications networks, and only to provide for the construction of a reduction of $91,223,000 from the Army Security Agency requirements. I 7,500 units. The committee charges the budget of $419 million. Later in my dis- should add, also, that included in this Department of Defense with the respon- cussion, I will cover the National Guard category are the funds for planning, de- sibility of selecting the housing units and items. sign, minor construction and access the sites on which they will be built on The program before the Congress rep- roads. An item of special interest Is the the basis of priority within each of the resents the Army's most urgent construc- construction at the U.S. Military Acad- services. tion needs and has been coordinated emy, West Point, for which the commit- Mr. President, the Appropriations with Army programs related to materiel tee approved $20,228,000. The bulk of Committee believes that the housing pro- and research and development. Many of this item is for the construction of the gram proposed Is a realistic program and the projects in this bill meet the require- new Washington Hall barracks complex. one which will adequately meet the De- ments generated by the expansion of I might say in passing that this Is the partment of Defense requirements, existing Army missions and the replace- beginning of a $10 million program to VNOBLIOATED BALANCffi ment of existing temporary inadequate renovate the physical plant of the Army One of the large restorations made to facilities. By the way of explanation, Military Academy. Construction at West the bill from the House reduction is that nearly one-fourth of the Army's physical Point is a very expensive proposition, of the unobligated balances. The resto- plant is comprised of temporary World due to the fact that the construction ration for the three services amounted to War II structures. These facilities were costs approximately 100 percent more $15,779,000. This is the largest restora- constructed more than 20 years ago for than comparable construction in the tion made in the entire bill. rapid mobilization for World War it. Washington area. This increase in con- The amounts restored were approved The committee is pleased to note that struction cost is due primarily to the fact by the committee on the basis of the the Army is instituting a replacement that West Point is located practically on testimony presented by each of the serv- program particularly in the field of troop solid rock, labor costs and transportation ices that these cuts would have the effect housing. Fort Hood, Tex. and Fort Dix, costs of preventing construction of approved N.J., have extensive troop housing pro- ARMY NATIONAL GUARD projects. According to testimony, all of grams in this bill. The committee approved $10,800,000 the unobligated balances are required Mr. President, rather than go through for the Army National Guard. This is to construct or complete authorized the bill, item by Item or by the Army's an increase of $4,800,000 over the budget projects previously cleared by this com- organizational structure, i will proceed estimate. This increase will allow the mittee. to outline by function and mission group- National Guard to proceed with a firm The committee was advised by letter ings that are used within the Depart- program of 40 armory and 25 nonarmory dated July 24, 1964, from the Deputy ment ofDefense for all programing. The projects. Secretary of Defense: first category is Continental Air and Mis- DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Another serious reduction made by the site Defense Forces for which an appro- The committee recommends an appro- House is the cut in the estimate not asso- priation of $600,000 was approved. I priation of $257,899,000 for military con- ciated with any adjustments to the line might say that at this point in the struction for the Department of the items, but slump-sum reduction against authorizing bill, this program was re- Navy. This amount is composed of two the total program estimate. We have no basis to forecast, at this time, bids for the duced by $45 million. This was mainly parts-$250,899,000 for the Active Naval items supporting the program which may authorization requested to move the Nike and Marine Corps forces, and $7 million generate a savings in the magnitude of the Hercules batteries to Inland positions. for the Reserve forces. It is $27,101,000 House cut. As in the past, we hope that The second grouping, General Purpose less than the budget estimate of $278 minor savings will be generated, but any such Forces, the committee approved approxi- million and $3,899,000 greater than the savings will be utilized to finance projects mately $60 million. Major Items In- appropriation approved by the House of not previously approved by the Congress, Chided in this appropriation are aviation Representatives. only after our normal practice o ns requesting support facilities, additional training and This year's program of the Navy is a tes. l Thus, the Appropriations these tees. the Congress these maneuver areas for the STRAC divisions continuation of a long-range program committee approvals exercises control over at Fort Riley and Fort Carson. In addi- for the orderly development and modern- the use of savings or surplus funds which tion, troop housing complexes were ap- Ization of Its shore installations. The may be generated throughout the course of proved at Fort Hood, Fort Dix, and Fort primary aim is to improve fleet readi- a fiscal year. Carson, Improvements in our logistical ness. This objective will be achieved by We most strongly recommend these res- facilities have been made in Korea. The providing proper facilities to support torations to the House approved estimates. third category, Airlift and Sea Forces, modern ships, aircraft and weapons, up- The committee recognizes that certain contains a small request of $1,200,000 to dated training programs and adequate projects will be constructed at a cost enable the Army to relocate activities personnel accommodations. less than was anticipated, but these from Fort Mason to Oakland Army Ter- This Navy program consists of six pro- savings will be needed for other projects minal In keeping with the Department of gram groupings. Program I, strategic for which bids are not favorable and to Defense program to increase efficiency retaliatory forces: This includes a total finance true emergency items which arise and reduce costs through consolidation of approximately $8 million for Polaris during the year. Many of these proj- wherever feasible. support facilities. It will provide nec- ects, such as work in Vietnam which The next grouping is research and essary facilities for the continued buildup this committee recently approved, can- development for which the committee of the Navy's Polaris weapon system and not await normal programing cycles recommends an appropriation of ap- will increase the ability of this deterrent without adversely affecting the defense proximately $40 million. The major force to prepare for and, if necessary, effort. portion of this appropriation contains to wage warfare in ocean areas generally Furthermore, facilities destroyed by $30.6 million to provide facilities sup- far removed from our shores. fire, typhoon, and earthquake must also porting the test and evaluation of the Program II, continental air and mis- be funded from savings or project de- Nike X system, upon which a decision slle defense forces: This includes the letions within these military construc- concerning future deployment of the total of $3,484,000 for projects In support tion appropriations. antimissile system will be based. of our oceanographic facilities, missile Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2 1964 S 00160045-2 App oved For ESSI()N~L R CO D66SENATE 18089 defenses and antisubmarine defense support these intercontinental ballistic eral force support services and various effort. missile systems, primarily the Minute- activities and missions not included in Program III, general purpose forces: man, Of this amount, $57.6 million will the primary systems and programs prev- .This includes a total-of $109 million for provide facilities for a single Minute- iously discussed. ships, aircraft, and weapon system sup- man II squadron to be colocated with The $25 million for design will provide port.; These line items support Opera- one of the first five wings. A further those funds needed in fiscal year 1965 tiops of the fleet in- protecting our sea $27 million included here will be used to primarily to complete design of the fis- lines of communicationThis program complete the facilities for the sixth wing cal year 1965 military construction pro- also contains those projects, required for previously mentioned. The program also gram and to initiate design of the fiscal the training. and effective utilization of includes $1.1 million for technical-type year 1966 construction program. the Marine Corps in support of national support facilities at existing support The committee approved a total of objectives. bases, .$13.2 million for minor construction in Program IV, Reserve and Guard Aerospace defense continues to be, a fiscal year 1965. These funds are ap- Forces: This program includes a total of vital requirement for national security. plied only to urgently required projects $7 million for facilities required in sup- Further improvements are needed and not otherwise authorized by law. Each port of, essential Naval Reserve. and Ma- this construction approval includes ap- project so funded is estimated to cost rive Corps Reserve training to provide proximatly $10 million to continue pro- over $25,000 with a maximum limit of a cadre for immediate mobilization in, viding our aerospace defense forces a $200,000. Projects in excess of $25,000 the event of.any national emergency. more survivable, dispersed, and flexible .must be approved by the Secretary of the Program V, research and development: fighter-interceptor capability and ground Air Force and if over $50,000, by the This program includes a total of $25. mil- control environment. Secretary of Defense. Therefore, all Air lion far new and expanded facilities re- Projects directly associated with im- Force minor construction projects squired to Insure technological develop- proved capabilities for fighter-intercep- funded from this appropriation are ap- merit of our fleet units. tor aircraft were approved in the amount proved at the Washington level. The Program VI, general support: This of $3.2 million. These projects consist present atmosphere of rapid change and ,program includes a total of $100 million of improvements to aircraft ready shel- technological advances, and the need to for repair, expansion, or replacement of ters and alert facl.liti.es and the construe- respond to worldwide military contin- many facilities which now provide over- tion of additional maintenance and sup- gencies, makes the availability of this all logistic support to the operating port facilities at the locations of the authority essential. forces, but which are nearing the end of interceptor units. The amount of $6 million is approved their useful life. A total. of $7.8 million was approved to finance the Air Force portion of re- DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE for facility improvements at bases of quirements for construction of off-base The committee has approved a total our control and warning systems. access roads and improvement or relo- of $361,986,000 for military construction: A substantial portion of the Air Force cation of existing public highways where $342,986,000 for the Active Forces, and construction program, over $41 million the need is generated by Air Force op- $19 million for the Reserve Forces. is devoted to facilities for operation and erations. Right-of-way acquisition and These amounts are exclusive of family direct support of the general purpose construction work related to these roads housing. The committee allowance rep- forces. These forces consist primarily is performed for the Air Force by the resents a reduction of $63,014,000 in the of the tactical fighter and tactical recon- Bureau of Public Roads after certifica- budget estimate of $425 million ,and is naissance units, and include our oversea tion by the Secretary of Defense. One- $126,289,000 below the funds appropri- forces. The projects we approved are half of the funds requested will be used ated for the fiscal year 1964. needed to give an operational capability for provision of access to the ballistic The $342,986,000 program for con- to new units of these forces and to new missile sites. The balance will be applied struction of facilities, for the Active types of equipment. to improvement of access to, existing Forces includes projects at 144 of our The committee is pleased that the Air bases. major installations. worldwide. Of these, Force has been able to accommodate Mr. President, this completes the pres- 107 are. in the 50 States, and 37 are out- major portions of the expanding airlift entation of the military construction ap- side.. In addition, the program provides capabilities of transport aircraft with propriation bill for fiscal year 1965. The facilities at a number of other locations existing base facilities. Some additional committee believes this to be an austere and minor sites, including those of the facilities have been added, however, pri- bill; however, we are certain that only A.C, -& W. networks, communications marily to provide adequate servicing and those essential items were approved sites, missile range stations, and sites of maintenance facilities for new types of which will materially contribute to the .classified activities. transports. This construction request combat effectiveness of the U.S. military A major portion of the strategic pro- contains $9 million for support of the forces both home and abroad. 11 gram, or 28 percent of the total, provides airlift forces. Of this total; $6.4 million Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- facilities in direct support of the forces will provide necessary facilities for sent that the committee amendments be of the Strategic Air Cornmand, This MATS and TAC transport aircraft at agreed to en bloc, that the bill as thus amount consists of facilities for the in- eight bases inside the United States, amended be considered as original text tercontinental ballistic missiles, and for We all recognize the need to stay ahead for the purpose of amendment, and that .manned bombers and their supporting in development of military capabilities no points of order be considered waived. tanker aircraft, and the tremendous military and eco- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there As the Senator knows, we have com- nomic advantages to be derived by our objection? The Chair hears none, and pleted the construction of facilities for research and development efforts. The it is so ordered. the Atlas and Titan systems and these level of research required or to be un- The amendments agreed to en bloc are missiles are now in an operational sta- dertaken is, of course, no automatic indi- as follows: tus, The construction of facilities for cator of the extent of associated facility . On page 2, at the beginning of line 4, to the first, four wings of Minuteman is or construction requirements. The strike out "$301,000,000" and insert "$311,- complete. Construction., for the fifth unique and technical requirements of 977,000". wing is approximately 98 percent com- many approved R. & D. programs are On page 2, line 14, after the word "appro- plete and well ahead of , schedule. A such, however, that provision of addi- priation", to strike out "$247,000,000" and contract, for construction of the sixth tional or special facilities is inherent to insert "$250,899,000". Minuteman wing, sited at Grand Forks accomplishment of the research effort. On page 2, at the beginning of line 24, to Air Force Base, N.. Dak., was awarded in To provide such facility support for Air strike out "$346,000,000" and insert "$342,- February of this year. The Grand Forks Force research and development pro- 986,000". wing will be the first of the improved grams, we approved appropriations in the On page 4, at the beginning of line 21, to Minuteman, or Minuteman II, as it has amount of $27 million. strike out "$6,000,000" and insert "$10,800,- ". been designated. Projects totaling approximately $155 000On page , line 17, the word "", Included in the missile package is million are contained in the general sup- strike out 5$650,358,500"rand insert "$617,- $90.2 million for additional facilities to port grouping. This portion covers gen- 651,000". Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2 18090 Approved For CONGRESSIONAL 1RCQRI3DP6$RR00020f11'60045-2 August 8 On page 5, line 22, after the word "con- struction", to strike out "$40,448,000" and Insert "$32,216,000". On page 6, line 2, after the word "con- struction", to strike out "$72,481,000" and insert "$59,144,000". On page 6, line 6, after the word "con- struction", to strike out "$64,013,500" and insert "$52,878,000". The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment of the amendments and the third reading of the bill. The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the questions is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYS], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAuscHEI, the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUsKIE1, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERSI, are absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN- NEDY] are absent because of illness. I further announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Sen- ator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMOND- SON], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. [Mr. DODD 1, the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAVSCHZ], and the Senator from Mis- souri [Mr. LONG] would each vote "yea." Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSENI, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD- WATER), the Senator from Idaho fMr. JORDAN], the Senator from Kansas (Mr. PEARSON), the Senator from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. SCOTT], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. SI MPSON], and the Sena- tor from Texas [Mr. TowzR] are neces- sarily absent. The Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS). the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON ] , and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG] are detained on official business. If present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS], the Senator from Illinois IMr. DIRKSEN1, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITSI, the Sena- tor from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT I. the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. SIMPSON]. the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG] would each vote "yea." The result was nays 0, as follows: YEAS-64 Aiken Hartke Morse Ailott Hayden Mundt Bartlett Hlckenlooper Nelson Beall Hill Neuberger Bennett Holland Pastore Bible Hruska Prouty Boggs Humphrey Proxmire Brewster Inouye Ribicoff -Burdick Jordan. N.C. Robertson Carlson Keating Russell Case Kuchel Salinger Church Magnuson Saltonstall Cooper Mansfield Smith Cotton McCarthy Sparkman Dominick McClellan Stennis Douglas McGee Thurmond Eastland McGovern Walters Yilender McIntyre Williams, N.J. Ervin Mechem Williams, Del. Pong Metcalf Young. Ohio Fulbright Miller Gruening Monroney LONG], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARAI, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE], the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON] are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] is absent be- cause of illness in the family. I further announce that. if present and voting, the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE], the Senator from Mis- souri [Mr. SYMINGTONI, the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERSI, the Sen- ator from West Virginia [Mr. RAN- DOLPH], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL], the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from Michigan Mr. [MCNAMARA1, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Sen- ator from Indiana [Mr. BAYHI, the Sen- ator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Sen- ator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Nevado [Mr. CANNON], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Senator from Connecticut NAYS-O NOT VOTING-36 Anderson Hart Muskie Bayh Jackson Pearson Byrd. Va. Javlts Pell Byrd. W. Va. Johnston Randolph Cannon Jordan. Idaho Scott Clark Kennedy Simpson Curtis Lausche Smathers Dirksen Long, Mo. Symington Dodd Long. La. Talmadge Edmondson McNamara Tower Goldwater Morton Yarborough Gore Moss Young. N. Dak. So the bill (H.R. 11369) was Passed. credit agencies, the committee recom- Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move mends $1,630,579,524-a decrease of $20,- that the vote whereby the bill was passed 329,690 below 1964 appropriations, $81,- be reconsidered. 176,525 over the House bill-as ad- Mr, MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I justed-and $1,644,075 below the amend- move to lay that motion on the table. ed budget estimates. Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2 The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House of Representatives thereon, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate. The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. STENNIS, Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. BYRD Of Virginia. Mr. XUCHEL, Mr. SALTONSTALL, and Mr. HRUSKA conferees on the part of the Senate. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 1965 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unfin- ished business be laid aside temporarily, and that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of Calendar No. 1275, H.R. 11202, the Agriculture Department ap- propriation bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R. 11202) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriationswith amendments. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, we now have under consideration H.R.' 11202, the annual supply bill providing appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies. Ap- propriations in the bill as recommended by the committee are $5,338,672,525, an increase of $56,176,525 over the House bill-as adjusted. It is $344,784,075 be- low the amended budget estimates and $907,624,690 under the 1964 Appropria- tion Act. May I digress to say that printed rec- ords of the hearings are available. Printed reports of the committee are available. I believe all Senators will be able to inform themselves completely about the details of this rather long bill from the papers which are available to each of them. Subsequent to the passage of the bill by the House, amended budget estimates were sent directly to the Senate in Senate Documents 82, 83, and 85, involving in- creases totaling $46,250,000 and decreases totaling $51,547,000 for a net decrease of $5,297,000. All of the decreases had al- ready been made by the House. Title I of the bill covers the general activities of the Department; title II covers the credit agencies; titre III covers corporations; and title IV, the Farm Credit Administration. For titles I and II covering the general activities and