Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 16, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 29, 1971
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2.pdf7.52 MB
June 29, 1971 CO free-roaming horses or burros on private land or lands leased from the Government, if the animals are being protected from' the harassment which this bill is designed to alleviate.' Section 5 recognizes the right of an indi- vidual to prove ownership of a horse or burro on the public lands under the branding and estray laws of the State in which it is found.. Section 6 authorizes the Secretary of In- terior to enter into cooperative agreements with State And local governments and with private landowners, and to issue certain reg- ulations as he deems necessary. Section It calls for the establishment of an advisory board of nongovernmental ex- perts to advise the Secretary of Interior as to carrying out the provisions of the act. Section 8 provides penalties for those who might violate the provisions of the act o:r the regulations issued thereunder. In addi- tion, it would permit the customary disposal of the remains of deceased wild free-roaming horses or burros. Section 9 confers upon certain employees or the Departments of the Interior and Agricul- ture the powers of arrest for the violation of the act. Section 10 authorizes and directs the Secre- tary to undertake those studies of the habits of wild free-roaming horses and burros that may be necessary to carry out the provisions -'.Section 11 authorizes the appropriation of sums necessary to carry out the provisions of th? act. Section 12 specifically limits the power o: the Secretary of the Interior to relocate wild free-roaming horses or burros to areas of the public lands where they do not presently exist. Section 18 provides for periodic reports by the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the administration of the act. The amendment was agreed to. The. bill was ordered to be, engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask: unanimous, con ent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report (No.. 92-242.), explaining the purposes of the measure. There being no objection, the excerpt; was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: P,VRPOSE OF THE BILL It is the view of the members of the In- terior and Insular Affairs Committee that the wild free-roaming horses and burros pres- ently inhabiting the public lands of the United States are living symbols of the his- toric pioneer spirit of the West and as such are considered a national esthetic resource. THE NEED The wild tree-roaming horses and burrors which Would, be placed by S. 1116 under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior ilelong'to no one individual. They belong to all the American people. The spirit which has kept them alive and free against almost in- surmountable odds , typifies the national spirit which led to the growth of our Nation. They are living symbols of the rugged in- dependence and tireless energy of our pio- neer heritage. During the course Of this century, the wild horse population has dwindled to a minus- cule fraction of the estimated 2 million that once 'roamed the Western plains and moun- tains, They have been cruelly captured and slain and their carcasses used In the produc- tion of pet, food and fertilizer. They have been used for target practice and harassed for "sport" and profit. In spite of public out- rage, this bloody traffic continues unabated, and, it is the film belied of the committee that,, this penseless slaughter must be brought t an end. -1 1 Approved For,Releas? 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 ~~ ' Widespread concern for the continued sur- vival of these animals and their protection from continuing depredation by man is evi- dent from the mail received by members of the committee. In addition, testimony by witnesses during the April 20, 1971, hearing before the Public Lands Subcommittee on S. 1116 and related measures served to further emphasize the need for prompt action if the remaining wild free-roaming horses and bur- ros are to be protected from extermination. Estimates of the total number of animals subject to the measure are open to question. However, it should be noted that in the case of the number of horses involved on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Man- agement, estimates were revised downward from 17,000 horses to 9,500. This indicates an alarming trend as well as a surprising lack of information regarding the animals and prompted the committee to include a provi- sion in the bill for necessary studies of the habits of the animals to be undertaken by the Secretary of the Interior. During the course of the hearing, knowl- edgeable witnesses urged that emphasis be shifted from a range or refuge concept for protection and management of the animals to consideration of the WiId free-roaming horses and burrors as a component of the public lands and. an Integral part of the mul- tiple use manageent system. The committee believes that such action would be in the best interest. of multiple use resource manage- ment and would best serve the overall intent of the legislation. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY National attention was focused on the plight of the wild horses and burros of the public lands of the western United States during the 1950's. At that time, widespread objection was raised to the use of motorized vehicles or aircraft in the pursuit of the ani- I mals. The campaign against these activities was culminated on September 8, 1959, when President Dwight D. Eisenhcwer signed into 'law Public Law 86-234 which prohibits the use of aircraft or motorized vehicles to hunt certain wild horses or burros on land belong- ing to the United States. During the latter part of the 1960's, wide- ,spread publicity about the hunting of wild horses and burros served to cnce again focus national attention and led I o increased in- terest in legislation at a Fsderal level for their protection. In the 91st Congress, legis- ' lation was introduced by Senator Frank iMoss which would have designated the i Spanish Barb and Andalusian wild mustangs as endangered species. The bill, S. 2166, was ,referred to the Senate Committee on Com- merce but no further action was taken. The first comprehensive measure to pro- vide for the protection of all wild horses and burros on lands administered by the Bureau I of Land Management was introduced in the ,second session of the 91st Congress by Sen- ator Clifford Hansen. The bill, S. 3358, would have placed all free-roaming horses and burros under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior for purposes of management and protection. The bill was referred to the Senate Inter-or and Insular Affairs Committee but no action was taken. Four measures were introduced in the Sen- ate in the beginning of the 92d Congress which were patterned after the comprehen- sive nature of S..3358. Hearings on the four measures, S. 862 by Senator Gaylord Nelson, ,S. 1090 by Senators Mike Mansfield and Mark ,0. Hatfield, and S. 1119 by Senator Frank Moss, were held on April 20, 1971, before the Public Lands Subcommittee of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Following a staff study and consultation with representa- tives of the Department of tae Interior, the committee considered S. 1116 in executive session on June 16, 1971. Following the adop- tion of a number of committee amendments, the measure was ordered reported to the Senate on June 16, 1971. COMMITTEE AMENDMENT Many of the changes made by the com- mittee are minor or technical in nature. However, several of the amendments signifi- cantly affect the purpose and intent of the recommended legislation and a brief explana- tion of the major changes is believed neces- sary in order that the intent of the commit- tee be clarified. The emphasis on specific ranges as a man- agement tool for the protection of the wild free-roaming horses and burros as contained in the original version of S. 1116 has been eliminated by the committee. During the course of the April 20 hearing, witnesses re- peatedly urged that the wild free-roaming horses and burros be considered a part of the multiple-use system of the public lands and not be placed in setaside areas for their ex- clusive use. Testimony by administration witnesses indicated that the animals are al- ready given consideration when programs are formulated for resource use and allocation and the committee believes that this prac- tice should continue. The principal goal of this legislation is to provide for the protec- tion of the animals from man and not the single use management of areas for the bene- fit of wild free-roaming horses and burros. It is the intent of the committee that the wild free-roaming horses and burros be specifi- cally incorporated as a component of the multiple-use management plans governing the use of the public lands. A basic difficulty in determining the in- tended scope of the legislation is the defini- tion of what constitutes a wild free-roaming horse or burro. Particular concern was ex- pressed by witnesses during the hearing that the original text of S. 1116 did not recognize claims by individuals to ownership of un- branded horses or burros on public lands. Ad- dition of the word "unclaimed" in the defini- tion of a wild free-roaming horse or burro serves to give recognition to the valid claims of individuals. In addition, a new section 5 was added to emphasize the ability of an in- dividual to prove ownership of a horse or burro on the public lands under the brand- ing and estray laws of the State in which it is found. It is certainly not the intent of the committee that the right of an indi- vidual to claim and prove ownership under the respective State branding and estray laws be abrogated, nor that the appropriate State or local body should not exercise their statutory authority and obligation if the question of private ownership of a horse or burro should be raised. The committee wishes to emphasize that the management of the wild free-roaming horses and burros be kept to a minimum both from the aspect of reducing costs of such a program as well as to deter the possibility of "zoolike" developments. An intensive management program of breeding, branding, and physical care would destroy the very concept that this legislation seeks to preserve. A recurrent theme in testimony by witnesses hpfore the committee advocates, in effect, leaving the animals alone to fend for themselves and placing primary emphasis on protecting the animals from continued slaughter and harassment by man. It is the intent of the committee that the protection of these animals from such unlawful death or harassment be paramount in manage- ment activities. The committee recognizes that some con- trol over the numbers of animals may be necessary in order to maintain an ecological balance in an area. Guidelines for reducing the population of wild free-roaming horses or burros in an area are provided in the measure but it should be noted that any reduction should be carefully weighed before being undertaken. The committee does not intend that the provision for a reduction in numbers as contained in the measure be considered a license for indiscriminate slaughter or removal of the wild free-roaming horses or burros. Approved For Releas! 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 49, 1971 Careful consideration by the committee of the penalty provisions contained in the act led to inclusion of civil as well as criminal remedies for violations of the act. It is the belief of the committee that this suggested amendment would provide administrative flexibility thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of the measure as well as relieving the burden which would otherwise be placed upon the Attorney General. It is the expressed intent of the committee to remove the possibility of monetary gain from exploitation of these animals, However, the committee recognizes the difficulties that may be encountered when it is necessary to dispose of the remains of a deceased wild free-roaming horse or burro whether or not it is in the authorized possession of a private party. Because of this, the committee believes that it is essential that the customary meth- ods of disposal of the remains of deceased wild free-roaming horses or burros be per- mitted; as long as the remains are not sold for any consideration directly, or indirectly. For example. this would not preclude an in- dividual who has in his authorized possession the remains of a deceased wild free-roaming horse or burro from permitting the remains to be utilized in a commercial process if that is the customary method of disposal so long as the individual does not receive any con- sideration. To insure that adequate provision is made for the enforcement of the act, the commit- mittee has amended the measure to confer upon certain employees of the Department of Interior and Agriculture the powers of arrest for violation of the act; such em- ployees having been specifically designated by their respective Secretaries to receive such power. It is envisioned by the committee that such designated employees will be fully in- formed of the provisions of this act as well as their respective responsibilities for proper enforcement procedure. Because of the lack of information con- cerning these animals the committee has in- cluded in the measure provision for needed studies of the wild free-roaming horses and burros. It may very well be that studies of the habits of the wild free-roaming horses and burros may reveal the need for addi- tional legislation in order to provide for their protection, management, and control. The need for flexibility is recognized and provision is made for submission to the Con- gress every 2 years by the Secretary of the Interior a report which may include his rec- ommendations for legislative or other actions as he might deem appropriate. ORDER OF BUSINESS The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) desire to be recognized at this time? Mr. CO P. President, I yield back my CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 1972 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Chair now lays before the Senate Calendar No. 232, House Joint Resolution 742, which the clerk will state. The legislative clerk read as follows: A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 742) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1972, and for other purposes. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the joint resolution? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolu- tion, which had been reported from the tional $4 million in related costs, fort an Committee on Appropriations with estimated total savings of over $5 ijlil- amendments on page 4, line 8, after lion in fiscal year 1972 alone. These sav- "Public Law 91-672", Insert a comma lugs would rapidly multiply in future and "except that none of the funds pro- years as the demands are lessened on vided by this or any other Act may be other programs. used to cover costs incurred in connec- Mr. President, in proposing this amel d- tion with the movement of refugees from meat, we had hearings before the i 'or- Cuba to the United States and, after eign Operations Subcommittee of 'the line 2., insert: Committee on-Appropriations. The sub- activities of the Maritime Administration, committee is headed by the Senator from Department of Commerce; Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE). The commit- salaries of supporting personnel, courts of tee has nothing against Cubans. They appeals. district courts, and other judicial have been coming to our shores, now, for services: over 10 years, activities in support of Free Europe, Incor- What we are trying to do is to reduce porated, and Radio Liberty, Incorporated. the number of Cubans who are coaling pursue?t to authority contained in the United States Information and Education in. I am sure that it is not the intention Exchange Act of 1948, as amended (22 U.S.C. of Congress to have as many as 650;000 1437) : Provided, That no other funds made Cubans come to our shores. When this avallabk? under this resolution shall be avail- program was first started, our unemploy- able for these activities;. meet situation was nothing like it is to- Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. what is the parliamentary situation? The PRESIDING 'OFFICER (Mr. STEVENSON). House Joint Resolution 742, Continuing Appropriations, 1972, is the pending business. Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER). Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, the pending joint resolution will serve to con- tinue appropriations after midnight to- June 30 m day. We had normal employment of citi- zens at the time. It is rather easy at such times to abtorb a few more refugees from Cuba, partic- ularly those with trades or who are pro- ficient in certain endeavors. But since 1985. we have been provir$ing free transportation for Cubans. We have or we have had a contract with certain airlines to carry Cubans from Havana at the rate of 3,200 a month. This program, as I have said, has been going on now for over 6 years. I think it is time to halt the program, not because we are against the The he Committee Cubans and not because we do not ndces- on Friday, June ..5, , t to Appropriations consider this is met joint sarily want them to come here, but be- e consider h resolution, which provides funds and au- thority, for the continuation of those pro grams and activities of the Federal Gov- ernment for which appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, _1972, have not been enacted. and voted to report the resolution to the Senate with amend- ments. The committee recommends the inclu- sion of a provision to provide for Interim funding for the support of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty pending the enactment of legislation to provide for the open funding of these organizations. The recommended provision provides for the continuation of these activities at the fiscal year 1971 level pursuant to the authority contained in the U.S. Informa- tion and Education Exchange Act of 1948, as amended 4 22 U.S-C. 1437). It is the hope of the committee that the pending legislation with respect to the open fund- ing of these organizations will be solved in the near future. I understand that a resolution is pend- ing to continue this program openly. It is possible that the legislation will be enacted wtihin the next 3 or 4 weeks. The committee recommends the in- clusion of a provision to terminate the Cuban refugee transportation program. The 1972 budget estimate contemplated Continuation of this program at a cost of $1,050,000 to bring an additional 42,000 refugees into the United States. It is esti- mated that from December 1, 1965 to June 30, 1971, the Government contract airlift from Havana to Miami has fur- nished free transportation to 240,000 Cubans. By curtailing the airlift, not only A-111 there accrue a savings of over $1 million in direct costs, but an addi- cause t ey ought to come through the regular channels. For one thing, we have high rates of unemployment throughout the country at present. In some areas the unemploy- ment rate is 16 percent. In my area of the country, the unemployment rate is in excess of 6 percent. Yet we are taking in more Cubans-at the rate of 3,200 a month. Mr. President. in addition to finding employment for these people, we 1llust provide education for their children: We must also provide food and fiber for them if they are unable to provide it for themselves. As these people come in, they are auto- matically taken care of by the State of Florida or by whatever State they land in. Congress provides the money to the States to pay for their upkeep and for the education of their children. Mr. President. I am not advocating that we cut off the program at the ttres- ent time, because we have a large nux fiber of Cubans who are here now. The pend- ing amendment will not affect thef l at all. What I am trying to do is to curtail or taper off this program to some extent. We have had proposed to us an increase of almost S32 million this year over last year. That is due to ttae fact that we have been carrying these Cubans to our shores free of charge at the rate of about 4$,000 a year. Mr. President, we have on our shores now, as I have just stated, between p00,- 000 and 650,000 Cubans. I think that number is sufficient. Mr. President, the Cuban refugees who are unemployed and need assisthnce receive better help than our own people, Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 CIA-RDP72-0p 337R000500280002-2 June 29, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE because we .provide funds for their up- keep; and under certain rules and regu- lations we are compelled through special appropriations to pay the State authori- ties of the States concerned a sufficient amount to take care of the needs of the refugees, including schooling and things of that kind. Mr. President, I really believe that we have done enough. I am sure that no one will object to permitting Cubans to come to the United States the same as any other immigrants. My fear is that if we continue a program of. this kind from a humanitarian standpoint, we will be asked to take care of many people from Peru. Many people from Argentina are seeking another place in which to live. Many people from Chile also are now seeking other places in which to live. 11 It seems to me that in this case we have done enough. All I am suggesting is that the program be curtailed to the extent of simply denying the right to free transportation from Havana to Miami at the rate indicated. 'Mr. President, I realize that the means advocated may not be popular with some folks. It may be that the place to do this would have been in a regular bill. How- ever, I thought the matter should be dealt with now and this program brought to the attention of the Senate. That is why the measure is before us today. In addition, language, has been in- cluded in the continuing resolution for the continuation of programs of the .Maritime Administration and for salaries of supporting personnel, courts of ap- peals, district courts, and other judicial services. Mr. President, this joint resolution is similar in content and purpose to con- tinuing resolutions which have, of neces- sity,, been enacted in past years so as to provide for the orderly functioning of Government. Specifically, the joint resolution con- tinues authority and funds available un- der certain prescribed conditions, until the enactment into law of the regular annual appropriation bills for fiscal year 1972 or until the expiration of this Joint Resolution, whichever first occurs. This present resolution expires on August 6, 1971, and in the event that all of the ap- propriation bills will not have been en- acted by that date, additional temporary authority will be considered. Mr. President, I hope that by that time Congress will be able to enact all of the appropriation bills. That will be possible only if we can get cooperation from the House of Representatives. As of this date, two of the regular an- nual appropriation bills have passed both bodies-the Office of Education appro- priation bill and the legislative branch appropriation bill for fiscal year 1972. It is my hope that the differences in the House and Senate versions of the bills will be resolved in conference without de- lay, enabling the bills to clear the Con- gress before the beginning of the new fis- cal year. In this connection, yesterday the House and the Senate conferees agreed on the education bill, so that bill un- doubtedly will be brought before the two Houses and the conference report agreed to before midnight tomorrow. Also we will have a conference today on the' legislative appropriation bill. It is my hope that we can complete the work on that bill so that it can be sent to the President before midnight to- With' reference to the Treasury-Postal Service-general Government appropria- tion bill, I was first advised that it would be considered on the House floor on June 22. This was subsequently changed to June 24. Then I understood it would not be considered on the House floor until Monday, June 28. The bill was actually passed by the House last night June 28. At 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon the Sen- ate Committee on Appropriations met, and we'were advised a few minutes after 5 o'clock that the bill had been passed by the House. So yesterday I obtained permission to have the Senate receive- the bill from the House and report it, so the bill that passed the House yester- day was immediately reported by the Senate Committee on, Appropriations and is now on the Calendar. We hope to take up that bill sometime today. So I hope we will have action on that large bill concluded before midnight tomor- row. With'respect to the appropriation bill for the Department of Agriculture-en- vironmental and consumer protection, the bill passed the House of Representa- tives on Wednesday, June 23, and was re- ceived and referred to the Senate Com- mittee on Thursday, June 24. The Sub- comrnittee on Agricultural Appropria- tions is' diligently working on the bill, and we are hopeful that it can be re- ported and passed by the Senate early in July. That is a very complicated bill. Quite a few programs under other appropria- tions were transferred to the agriculture bill. So far as the Senate is concerned, we completed hearings on that bill a few days ado. More than 100 amendments are Involved. That is why we were un- able to consider the bill and report it to the Senate prior to June 30, as was in- tended. In view of the importance of providing authority, under its reorganization, to the new U.S. Postal Service by July 1, the Subcommittee on Treasury, Post Office, and General Government in the Commit- tee on. Appropriations of the Sena';e ex- pedited Its hearings and concluded them the middle of June. However, as I say, we have been waiting for the House to pass the bill, and if the House does so on Monday, June 28, I am very hopeful that the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate will be able to report it to the Senate on Tuesday, June 29. The committee endeavored to get some of the "must" bills through-and I in- clude among them the Treasury-Post Of- flee bill. As we all know, beginning July 1 the Post Office Department will be under dif- ferent management than it has been in the past, and it is necessary, I believe, that that bill be enacted before June 30. The continuing resolution does not touch that phase of our appropriation process. I was told it is necessary that th:.s bill be enacted before June 30, so the commit- tee devoted its time and energy to report- S 10127 ing it to the Senate, which we have done and we will try to pass it before midnight tomorrow. The appropriation bill for the Depart- ment of State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies passed the House of Representatives Thursday, June 24. Hearings in the Senate commit- tee will be completed July 8, and the bill should be reported to the Senate for its attention shortly thereafter. Under the House schedule, the hous- ing and urban development, space, science appropriation bill will pass the House of Representatives June 30. The hearings in the Senate committee will be completed today, and the bill should be reported to the Senate shortly after the Fourth of July recess. I am very hopeful it does pass. If it does we will have completed the hear- ings except for a few witnesses and, as I said, the hearings in the Senate are almost complete. The bill should be ready for action by the Senate soon after we return from the July 4 recess. The Department of the Interior appro- priation bill is scheduled for considera- tion on the House floor on Tuesday, June . 29. The hearings in the Senate have been completed on this bill and every effort will be made to report it to the Senate as soon as possible. The Department of Transportation ap- propriation bill will not be considered on the House floor until Tuesday, July 13.. Hearings in the Senate committee should be completed prior to that date, and I ex- pect no delay in reporting the bill to the Senate. On the remaining six regular annual appropriation bills, there is no schedule of floor action in the House of Repre- sentatives, so far as I have been able to determine. The Senate subcommittee has completed all of the hearings on the Pub- lic Works-Atomic Energy Commission bill except for 1 day of hearings after the bill is received from the House, but we are unable to take any action until we do receive it from the House of Repre- sentatives. The hearings on the District of Colum- bia appropriation bill have been com- pleted for weeks, and we are waiting on the bill from the House of Representa- tives so that we can make decisions on the figures and report it to the Senate. The hearings on the Department of Defense appropriation bill have been completed for some time, and we are awaiting the receipt of the bill from the House of Representatives. The hearings on the military construc- tion, Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, and foreign assistance appropriation bills are well underway in the Senate committee, and I am hopeful that the House will soon pass them so that they can be reported to the Senate for consideration prior to the announced August 6 recess. All of the departments and agencies financed in the bills I have just men- tioned will require authority to obligate funds commencing July 1 in the absence of their fiscal year 1972 appropriations. It is necessary, therefore, that this con- tinuing resolution, be enacted before that date. Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10128 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June ?9, 1971 As I stated earlier, this joint resolution is similar to prior-year continuing reso- lutions, and It provides for the continu- ation of existing projects and activities at the lowest of one of three rates: First. The current, fiscal year 1911, rate; Second. The budget estimate for fiscal year 1972, where no action has been taken by either House; and Third. The more restrictive authority or rate adopted by either of the two Houses, until final enactment. To amplify; In those instances where neither House has passed a particular appropri- ation bill, appropriations are provided for continuing projects and activities conducted during fiscal year 1971 at the current rate, or the rate provided in the budget, estimate for fiscal year 1972, whichever is lower, and under the most restrictive authority. In addition, if there is no budget estimate for a particular program continuing from fiscal year 1971. special provision is made in the resolution for minimum continuance un- til the matter is resolved in the process- ing of the regular annual appropriation bill. If an appropriation bill has passed only one House, or if an item is included In only one version of the bill as passed by both Houses, the project or activity shall be continued at a rate of opera- tions not exceeding the fiscal year 1871 rate or the rate permitted by the one House, whichever is lower. In those instances where an appropri- ation bill has passed both Houses, but is not yet enacted, and the amounts or authority therein differ, the project or activity shall be continued under the lesser of the two amounts and the more restrictive authority. And I assure the Senate that any obligations or expenditures incurred pursuant to the authority granted in this resolution will be charged against the ap- plicable appropriation when the bill In which such funds or authority are con- tained is enacted into law. Mr. President, I am very hopeful that the House will continue its hearings on the remaining bills and that the bills will be enacted by the House and sent here to the Senate. Insofar as I am con- cerned-I think I speak for the Com- mittee on Appropriations of the Senate- we will be ready whenever we receive the bills. I am very hopeful that the author- izing bills will be enacted, particularly for defense and foreign aid. If we can get cooperation from the authorizing committees, It is my hope that, come August 6, we ought to be able to get through with all the appropriation bills. All we need is cooperation from the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate, and I am confident we will get that from the Senate. I wish to say that the chairmen of the Senate Subcommittee on Appropria- tions have been working very diligently. My good friend from North Dakota (Mr. Youxc) and I have attended practically all the subcommittee hearings, whether we were on the subcommittees or not, in order to try to get the hearings through, so that, come August 6, when we will get a little breathing spell, we will be able to have on the President's desk all of the appropriation bills for fiscal year 1972. It is possible to do that, and, with the assistance--continued assistance, I may say-of the members of the Appropria- tions Committee of the Senate and the cooperation of the authorizing commit- tees, and also cooperation of the House side, we should be able to get through all these bills by August 6. Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres- ident. will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLEI,.DER. I yield to the Sen- ator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Press ident, I want to compliment the very dis- tinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER I -on the extremely fine state- ment he has made, but, more than that, I want to compliment him on the splendid leadership that he is showing as chair- man of the Appropriations Committee in Insisting upon hearings by the various subcommittees of the committee on ap- propriation bills in advance of those be- ing enacted by the house of Represent- atives. I think It is the most remark- able display of diligent and expeditious handling of appropriation bills that I have seen during my 13 years in the Senate. I congratulate the chairman of the Ap- propriations Committee. The Senate owes him a debt, and, speaking for the lead- ership. may I say the leadership is in- debted to him and grateful to him for the splendid manner in which he has handled the chairmanship of the Appro- priations Committee. If the other body will get the appro- priation bills over to the Senate, as the distinguished chairman has indicated, and if the administration will promptly submit its authorizing requests and if the authorizing committees will likewise act expeditiously. I am sure that the prophetic statement by the chairman- with respect to the completion of appro- priation bills by August 6-will be real- ized. These are "must" bills. The Congress must pass these appropriation bills if the departments are to function and the peo- ple who are employed in them are to be paid. In past years the legislative log- jams that have kept the House and the Senate in session until December have of- ten been caused by delay in acting on appropriation bills and appropriations conference reports. I believe that, under the great leadership of the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we are not going to see a repetition of those years but that, come August 6, we will have acted on the "must" bills-the ap- propriation bills--and most of them will have been signed into law. Mr. ELLENDER. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I, too, would like to commend the distinguished chairman of the i? appropriations Commit- tee for his excellent leadership and the hard work be has displayed. Day after day he has urged the subcommittees to get through their hearings: and get to their markups. This year, I tjiink, we are ahead of where we have been on the ap- propriations bills for many years- The hearings on most bills have, either been completed or are about to be completed. If we are not involved in lorlg filibusters onauthorizing bills, we could easily get through all the appropriatiox} bills before the recess in August. Mr. ELLENDER. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I repeat, I feel con- fident that, with the least bi of coopera- tion from the House as well as the au- thorizing committees, we wiij have all of these bills on the President's' desk by the 6th of August. Then we could go home happy for a 30-day vacatiotr. I know I would enjoy it very much if five could do just that. I urge the adoption of house Joint Resolution 742. Mr. GURNEY. Mr. Presi4ent, on be- half of the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RI9IcoFF) . my able colleague from Florida( 41r. CHILES) , and myself, we object to the inclusion of the first committee amendment, that is, the language on page 4, ginning on line 8 with the word "elKeept" and through the language on line 11. We ob- ject to the inclusion of that language. And now. Mr. President,' I want to talk a little about the first committee amendment and explain why we think this language should not be' included in the committee amendment.: I do want to say at the very outset that it does not give me the greatest of pleasure to dis- agree with the very able and distin- guished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the senior Senator from Louisiana 'Mr. ELLENDER). Or, for that matter, with the distinguished ranking Republican member of the' Appropria- tions Committee, the Senator from North Dakota ' Mr. YOUNG). However, I do think that here there has been a misunderstanding of the whole concept of the Cuban airlift, the so- called Cuban freedom flight, I would like to first go beck into the history of this matter. This tefugee pro- gram from Cuba has enconipassed four different administrations, going back to the Eisenhower administration begin- ning in 1959. As a matter of fact, in Jan- uary 1959. when Castro first came into power in the Cuban revolution, the ref- ugee program from Cuba began and it has almost never stopped. At first It was a trickle. At first it existed as certain refugees got on commercial airline flights to the United States. mostl$ to Florida. These flights have brought in so many refugees from Cuba that President Eisen- hower set up a Cuban Refu Center as early as 1960 to handle special problems in connection with the Cuban refugee program. When President Kenne succeeded President Eisenhower, he transferred this Cuban refugee program into the Depart- ment of Health, Education, 4nd Welfare, which was then headed, as we know, of course, under the leadership of the now very able Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RrarcoFF) , then Secretary of the Department of Health, Ed cation, and Welfare. Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 June 29, 971 Approved F 01M f1~3O~OS.f JJ/2 CQd -BDP7 .Q.,QA3, ,lR000500280002-2 S 10129 The interesting thing is that back in proceeding under limited time, and I wish was put into effect; and since that time, those years, when the Cuban r efugee pro- to say to the Senator from Florida that as I pointed out,, a while ago, we have gram first ,begai the actual numbers I certainly will yield , him such time as received not 200,000 here, but 240,000. who came into the United States during he in'y require. How much more time What my good friend from Florida the commercial,airfligit program was does t e Senator require? wishes to do is to get 42,000 more, which greatly in excess of the number coming Mr, GURNEY. I would say not long. would be 80,000 more than the estimates into the United States now, As a matter Mr. ELLENDER. I yield the Senator 10 made when this new method was really of fact, there were some 1,600 to 1,800 more minutes. decided upon. Cuban refugees a week who came into Mr, 'GURNEY. I thank the Senator I believe we have done enough of that. the United States during that period of from Louisiana, In .other words, the estimate, when the the refugee flights from Cuban, from This memorandum of agreement was new method was adopted, was that there the very harsh Communist regime estab- entered into between the United. States were about. 200;000 Cubans eligible un- lished by Fidel Castro. and Cuba, which set up the Cuban air- der the new order. But since that time, Then came the. October missile crisis lift as a means of transporting. Cuban as I have said, we have received 240,000, of 1962, when, of course, President Ken- refugees who wanted to get out of Cuba and unless this amendment is agreed to, nedy clamped a quarantine around the to the United States of America. Between there will be 42,000 more to come, which Island of Cuba. He did that on October 3,000 and 4,000 Cuban refugees left will be 82,000 more than the estimate 22, ? and the day after he did so, Fidel monthly on this airlift, to come to the made in 1966. There seems to be no end Castro stopped all commercial airplane United States, and that has been going to it. flights from Cuba to the United States; on ever since December 1, 1965. &pprox- I thank the Senator from Florida, and then, of course, the ability of the imately 240,000 have been airlifted. and I take that out of my own time. 'refugees who wanted to get out of the One other fact of great importance is Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the island and away from the Communist this: After the memorandum of agree- Senator yield? regime slowed to a trickle, because they menu was entered into, the Cuban Gov- Mr. GURNEY, I would comment on had no readily available means to leave ernment established a list, and on this that by simply saying that the 200,000 Cuba, list anyone could enter his name who figure the distinguished chairman of the However,_it did not stop their desire to wanted to leave Cuba. Scores of thou- Appropriations Committee has men- leave Cuba, and, as a matter of fact, they sands of Cubans entered their names tioned is only an estimate, and that it resorted to all kinds, of ways of getting upon. the list, expressing their desire to is not at all surprising that 200,000 people out of the island,.They would take old, leave Cuba on the airlift when their turn wanted to leave Cuba, to get away from leaky boats and , attempt to cross the came. the Communist regime that Castro in- Straits of Florida There were even some Those people were obviously marked stituted. As a matter of fact, I am sur- who used rowboats to get across. Of people at once. Certain steps were taken prised that the figure was not 300,000, course, this precipitated a great deal of by the Castro government immediately. 400,000, or 500,000. publicity worldwide; there were drown- One was the lifting of ration cards; an- I do not see that that particular argu- ings involved, and loss of life, and Fidel other was the loss of jobs on the part of ment cuts any ice. When the President of Castro was getting such a bad image in these Cubans who wanted to leave Cuba. the United States, President Johnson, in- the eyes of.the world, with many people Their property was confiscated, they were stituted this program-and I certainly beginning to suspect that his country was given work of the most menial kind of agree with the action he took and back not the paradise be was claiming it to hard labor, working in the cane fields him up all the way-he extended the be, that he began to think he ought to and other agricultural pursuits. The old, hand of friendship and the opportunity change his program of making it hard the young, the sick were forced to work for freedom to anyone in Cuba who for refugees to leave Cuba. in this fashion in order to obtain enough wanted to come to the United States. And so, on September 16, 1965, he an- sustenance to keep them alive. In other That is the important thing here, not pounced to the world that anybody who words, as soon as they registered on that that there was an estimate somewhat wanted to leave Cuba could do so. He also list-and, as I say, scores of thousands less than those who finally wanted to announced that he would make one port did so-they became noncitizens in Cuba, come, but the fact that we actually made in Cuba open to boats from anywhere, really people without a country as far as a commitment to the people of Cuba that could come in, and pick up refugees the Castro regime was concerned, and who wanted to seek asylum in the United from Cuba who wanted to go. President they were arrested and persecuted. States, and extended the opportunity to Johnson, a few days later, on October Now, there are only about 40-odd all who wanted to come. 3, also took up the matter of the Cuban thousands left on this list of people who Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the refugees, accepting., the challenge, if you want to get out, and those are the people Senator yield? want to put it that way, of Fidel Castro, who will be affected by this amendment Mr. GURNEY. I am happy to yield to azid said all Cubans who wanted to come if it is adopted. the Senator from Connecticut. to the United States could have an asy- Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will Mr. RIBICOFF. In an effort to create lum in our country and be free to come the Senator yield at this point? a safe and orderly flow of refugees, the in as refugees. Mr. GURNEY. I yield. Johnson administration, through the This precipitated a chaotic condition. Mr ELLENDER. I wish to point out to Swiss Embassy in Havana, negotiated a Boats left Florida and other ports in the my friend from Florida that on :March memorandum of understanding with United States and Latin America, all 29, 1966, when this program was changed Cuba. Under this pact, the Government headed for,this port to pick up Cuban to the way it is now being handled, a agreed to provide air transportation for refugees. Many of the boats were unsea- question came up in hearings before the between 3,000 and 4,000 refugees a worthy and sank, and again there was House Subcommittee on Foreign Assist- month to the United States. In order to large loss of life, and something had to ance--page 399-as to the number of reunite families which had been sepa- be done about it. Cubans who would qualify under the new rated, priority was to be given to rela- The something that was done was. the rules and regulations under which we tives of Cubans living on the mainland. entering of a memorandum of agreement are now proceeding. The question was To renege on this commitment now between. the United States and Cuba- asked of Mr. Wynkoop: would provide Castro with a considerable not directly, of course, but through the Mr. CONTI. Do you have an estimate of Swiss Embassy representing the Ameri- the number of Cubans presently in Cuba political, psychological, and propaganda can Government in tuba, but nonetheless in the various priority categories, that you victory. Would we not be accused-and established for the movement, directly to rightly so-of playing politics with the a binding international agreement be- the United States? lives and welfare of innocent victims of tween the United States of America and Mr. THOMAS. The best figure that we have the cold war? Cuba. got is one that the state Department re- Mr. GURNEY. The Senator from Con- Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will ceived from the Swiss authorities. It num- necticut makes an extremely viable the Senator yield for a moment? hers about 200,000. point. As a matter of fact, this is what I Mr. GURNEY. Yes, of course. Mr. President, that was just a few pointed out in the beginning of my argu- .Mr. ELLENDER. I have been informed months after this new method of trans- ment. What we have here is an interna- by the Parliamentarian that we are now porting Cubans to the United :fates tional binding agreement; no question Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10130 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-003378000500280002-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 29, 1971 about It. If we should break It, we would indeed be breaching a legal agreement and breaking our side of the bargin. The Senator does make an extremely viable point. Mr. RIBICOFF. I recall that one of my first tasks as President Kennedy's Secre- tary of Health, Education, and Welfare was to organize and administer a pro- gram to assist the refugees as they tried to enter the mainstream of American life. Even before Ihad a chance to settle down to my new duties, President Kennedy asked me to personally go to Miami, and assist the local and State authorities. The President deeply believed, that we in this country had an obligatiton to the Cuban refugees and should make every possible effort to alleviate their burden. I went to Miami and spent considerable time with the Federal. State, and local authorities who were trying to bring order to a chaotic situation. Florida was the natural place for these refugees to come, because of its proxmitty, its weather, and the large Cuban commu- nity. In order to take some of the pres- sure off the State of Florida and the city of Miami, we established a program to spread these refugees throughout the United States. During the 10 years, the program has been in operation some 200,- 000 refugees have been able to move throughout the United States. What struck me at that time was that the flood of people we were taking in for humanitarian reasons contained some of the most able, dedicated individuals this Nation had ever seen. Although the flow of escapees has in- cluded persons from all walks of life, the men and women have always had a high- er skill level than would be found in a perfect cross section of the Cuban popu- lation. Castro's loss has certainly been America's gain. We received accountants, doctors, den- tists, nurses, businessmen, technicians, mechanics. Practically the entire faculty of the University of Havana Medical School left for America. During the past 10 years, either as a public official or as a private citizen visit- ing Florida, I have noted the contribution the Cubans had made to American life. I am sure the distinguished Senators from Florida are even more aware of the contribution than any of us. Studies made in the Miami-Dade County area have shown that the ref- ugees who arrived virtually penniless have. made dramatic economic advances. The total annual income of families of Spanish origin-nearly 90 percent Cu- ban-rose from $342 million in Septem- ber 1968, to $588 million by October 1970. During the same period, median family income rose 38 percent from $5,300 to $7,200. Nearly 40 percent of these families own their own homes. Very few refugees have had to receive .,,l.lin ?Q~,~+nnnn Rnfltvaec whn do need of those on welfare are 60 years of age or older. it has not been easy for the once pen- niless refugees especially because of the 'anguage barrier, to join American so- iet.y. I recall setting up a program in co- operation with the University of Miami Medical School in which the doctors who came from Cuba could be trained to take the medical examination of the State of Florida on a bilingual basis. I cannot Imagine that for a million dollars. and that Is all it amounts to, the United States would break its diplomatic and moral agreements. The entire world has watched this sit- uation. There was great skepticism as to whether Castro would allow these refu- gees to come to this country, as to whether he would keep his agreement. The thought was that he would just send the poorest and the sickest. But he al- lowed these people to come. As of June 4, 1971, over 230,000 Cubans have been airlifted to freedom. Most of these registered for the program shortly after its inception. Many more, however, are still waiting their turn. They have become nonpersons in their native land. Many of their rights and privileges have been canceled because they expressed a desire to leave. They have been forced to forfeit all their property, possessions, and savings and are allowed to carry out only the clothes on their backs and the most meager of personal possessions. They have been removed from their jobs and forced to do heavy agricultural labor. The only rea.on they are willing to en- dure their government's wrath is the knowledge that someday they will board a plane for the United States. The action taken by the Senate Ap- propriations Committee last Friday de- leting the Cuban airlift funds from House Joint Resolution 712 may mean that these men and women may never be able to leave a country which now considers them nothing more than pariahs. I would hope that the Senate will re- verse the decision of the Appropriations Committee. With due respect to the dis- tinguished Senator from Louisiana, the agreements made by President Kennedy and President Johnson. to the people and the Government of Cuba are too im- portant to forsake now. We should not abandon our centuries-old position as a haven for oppressed people around the globe. Mr. President, we must not forget for one moment that this Nation is respon- sible for there people unlike no refugee group In history. By agreeing with the Cuban Government to take In those who expressed a desire to emigrate, this Na- tion placed thousands of Cubans in an untenable position--one for which the airlift. Is the only solution. For us to turn our backs now would be intolerable. Ter- mination of the airlift would not only _ _ He mentioned the Cuban refugee cen- ter in Miami. I should like to point out that he had a great deal to do with set- ting up that center and the extremely able work it did when he was Secretary of HEW. As a matter of fact. this has become a showplace of freedom. People from all over the world, some in skepticism and some in suspicion about how': the United States was handling this refugee prob- lem. In many instances, press people from abroad have left the United States and-even though they were not all friends-have written favorable articles on how we have been handling the matter. Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. GURNEY. I yield. Mr. RIBICOFF. At the timt,, the refu- gee assistance program was started we had nothing to go on. We had to start from scratch. In 1961 a progrhm of relief loans patterned on the National De- fense Education Act, was sett up for Cu- ban refugees. Under this program, 12,000 college loans have been granthd and only 147 of these loans have been declared de- linquent. I would challenge- any other group in American society wbo have had loans of any kind from Government to equal that record. Wherever I have gone around the country, various people in thO social serv- ice field who have handled siinilar prob- lems speak in the most glowing terms of how the Cubans have been ;able to en- ter the mainstream of American life. This is something this Nation should be proud of. We should contiinie the pro- gram-not terminate it. Mr. GURNEY. There is ho question about that. I would like to atnplify what the Senator has said about the wonder- ful experience we have had. with this immigration. The Senator mentioned the lower amount of delinquencies on student loans. One of the interesting things about the Cuban immegrants is the low unem- ployment rate. Only 2 perthent of the Cubans coming into this country under the refugee program are tuzemployed. This is far below the natlottal average. The median income for afamily in the Miami area is $7,200, which is consid- erably above the national average. That figure is up 36 percent in the past 2 years. The Cubans do work. The husband works. The wife works. The children work. They have made a ' tremendous contribution to American ;society. We have example after example where peo- ple who have come from Cuba with lit- erally nothing but the clothes on their backs, and no cash, have begun at once to work hard and provide for themselves. I know one president of a bank in Miami who came from Cuba that' way. There are many other success stories like that all over the United States. $o they have made a tremendous contribution to American society. PUJJL ti ZWJ1+7431AliG iyl'l'a.7 ava ,......... ., r...--?. _ ___ same manner as other American citizens tion. but would directly penalize those One other point that is etremely in- and are subject to the same eligibility re- men and women who took us at our word teresting: Only 15 percent'are on wel- quirements, but unlike normal welfare and in good faith registered to leave. fare, and those who are on welfare are programs, the Federal Government pays Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I am in the old and the sick. The able-bodied the States 100 percent of the welfare complete agreement with the eloquent Cubans are out working. The rate of costs for refugees. arguments made by the distinguished those on welfare is considerably lower It is interesting to note that 80 percent senior Senator from Connecticut. than the national average, too. Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved Fot Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 June 29, 1971 CQNGR SSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE . S 10131 Mr. RIBICOFh, Will the Senator from which represents about 18.9 percent of the program $583 million. We are now spend- Florida yield for another thought? 414,0Ob who had registered with us as of the ing at the rate of $144 million a year. Mr, GURNEY. I yield. end of March 1971. This amount will increase as the number Mr. RIBICOk". If these people had Mr. President, that is almost double of Cubans who come into this country not been refugees but had always been the present national average. from here on out is increased. in the United States, practically all of Mr. GURNEY. May I answer that Mr. GURNEY. In rebuttal to that them would be co'v'ered. by social security. question? argument, I would say that, of course, we The result would be that almost no Cu- MT.. ELLENDER. I yield 5 minutes to have spent a great deal of money on this bans would be on welfare. Those who are my good friend from Florida to tell us program, the whole encompassment of now on public assistance are those that how many Cubans are eligible . o come it and all the facets of it, but that is .did not have social security of any kind, into the United States, because I am what our commitment is. That is what as .most people over the age of 65 in this quite certain that the good news goes we agreed to. That is exactly what we country have. out to the Cubans in Cuba from those proposed to do when we established the Mr. GURNEY. That is true. While the who are here, and that encourages them program in the first instance. rate of the figures I just gave may have to want to come to the United States. So far as concerns the additional been lower, I think that 17 or 18 percent Mr. GURNEY. In direct answer to the number coming in from Cuba-40,000 to of those coming here from Cuba are on question, let us go back, first, to how the 60,000, or whatever it is-actually the welfare now; but they help themselves, lists were prepared. In the first place, increase in cost which will result from too. Relatives give money. People coming after the Cuban freedom flights were in- that as compared with what we are in and friends coming in do a great deal augurated by the U.S. Govermnent, a list spending now will probably be a rather to help in the private sector by taking was opened up with the Swiss Embassy, small amount, because of the small por- care of people, helping them to get with permission of the Cuban Govern- tion of people who come in who will started, to buy homes, and to get jobs. ment-the Castro government-to regis- actually go on welfare and because of the They do this more than any other immi- ter Cubans to come to the United States expenditure of dollars in that regard. grant class we have had in this country. where.they wanted to live, and scores of Mr. ELLENDER. How about schooling? Mr. RI$ICOFF. I think that the Sen thousands registered to do that. I do not We have got to take care of their school- ator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) know the exact number, but I do know ing, have we not? would find it interesting to note that the that in May of 1966 the Castro govern- Mr. GURNEY. Finally, I would say special ,services programs set up for Cu- merit cut off any further registering. The that the economic figures I have seen ban refugees have been even more s_uc-, reason, why Castro did that was i;hat he have meant a tremendous increase in cessful than the normal American wel- was so embarrassed that so many Cubans the amount of welfare which has come fare system., For example, at the outset wanted to leave Cuba. . from the Cuban community itself, in- of the relief program, approximately As I understand it, there are two lists tegrating business-economics-workwise, 3,700 female heads of families with chil- today. On the first list the Castro govern- not only in Miami, which has half of the dren' were receiving public assistance. ment permitted, which was cut off in program living there-but also from the The day care and training programs for May 1966, somewhere around 40,000 Cubans who have emigrated to the 49 these people were so successful that vir- Cubans wanted to come to the United other States. This has contributed enor- tually none of these 3,700 women are now States. That is all that remains, as I mously to the economy of this country. on welfare. The same success rate cer- understand it. There is no question in my mind that tainly does not apply to the AFDC pro- There is another list that the State the work product of those people will gram. Department' has, a list prepared by U.S. mean more than the pay for themselves 'the PRESIDING, OFFICER . (Mr. citizens for U.S. citizens who had rela- in the end, in terms of what they have ALLEN). , The additional time of the Sen- tives in Cuba. Putinto the economy of this country and ator has expired. That list totaled 65,000. There is prob- what we will get back in taxes. Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the ably some duplication between the State The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time Senator from Louisiana yield me 5 more Department list and the Cuban.-Swiss of the Senator has expired. minutes? Embassy list in Cuba, but no one knows Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield Mr. ' ELLENDER. Mr. President, how what the duplication is. We do know 3 additional minutes to the Senator. much time is left? that the respective figures are 40,000 Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I want The PRESIDING OFFICER. Until 1; 05 and 60,000, with the rate of people com- to make one additional point. It is an p.m., unless other amendments are ing into the United States through the extremely important point. I know that called up.. Cuban airlift being somewhere between some Senators will say, "Well, this costs Mr. ELLENDER, I shall be glad to 3,000 and 4,000 a month. Thus, it is obvi- $1.05 million. Why does not the Cuban yield 5 more minutes to ,my good friend ous that there will be no more thr;n 2 to community carry this burden them- from.Florida; but before I do so, I yield 21/2 years more of the airlift when the selves? They would be able to do this." myself 1 minute in the period of the 5 whole of both lists will have been ex- The point is that if we interfere with minutes to ask the -Senator from Florida. hausted. So we are talking about 21/2 the airlift that is now operating, there is to tell us how many more Cubans have years and $2 to $3 million being involved. every likelihood that Castro will cut it off been registered to come here. That is what it would take. completely. Obviously it will be inter- When the new program was put into . Mr, ELLENDER. The Senator should rupted if this authority expires in a few effect, the record shows 200,000 were take into consideration the fact that it days. eligible, but since that time over 240,000 is not a matter merely of the cost of the If the Cubans within the United States have come in. If this amendrmient is not airlift, but we have to take care of those try to establish an airlift, they will have agreed to, 42,000 more will be com- people when they come in here. The to communicate with Castro themselves ing in on the airlift, I would like to know number we are cutting off here, of [,050,- or through the State Department or some how many there are now in. Cuba who 000, covers only the airlift; but we also other means. I would say that Castro are eligible to come to this country. It are cutting off $4 million, which would would not agree to that. He cut off those seems there is no end to it. That is what be the cost of taking care of the people who were going to come here immediately I am fussing about, Mr. President. It is after they get to this country. in a pronouncement of May 1 of this riot that I am against Cubans, or any- I might add that still later estimates year to the effect that no person, after ing lik the to it a that, but there should be an have indicated that the amount to be may 1971, who indicates for the first Let me say to my good friend from saved in fiscal 1972 alone could run as time that he wants to come to America Florida, Let who may wish to anshigh as $15 million. If we continue this can come to America. Flthat who the welfare hearings wer, this the program, as I pointed out awhile ago, The best thing we could do for Castro following was stated: the proposal is to raise the amount by would be to cut off the airlift and avoid Mr. rig was, What percent of cyban over $32 million over last year, and this further embarrassment to Castro by refugees participating in the program are amount will be increased from year to eliminating the airlift. I would bet that receiving welfare benefits? year as we permit more and more Cubans there would be no more people coming Mr. PALMATIER. At this time, through to comein. ' out of Cuba after tomorrow. I refer to the March 1, our assistance caseload was 78,000 Mr. President, we have spent on this people to whom we made a commitment. Approved For Release 2005/08/22 :.CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10132 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 29, 1971 Believe rue, the nonpersons, as the Sen- abandon the communist inferno. It is a ques- ator from Connecticut (Mr. RtsicoFF) tton of fulfilling what could be considered as described them, would indeed be non- n right of those who, b*.fore the registration was closed, had oomplied with the requisites. persons and noncitizens and subject to Though everything seems to Indicate the i persecution and harassment. I suppose :ouch has been advanced towards the elimi- that they would have little more status nation of the Freedom Flights. it is to be than the status of slaves in Cuba. hoped that in the last stage of the discus- We made a legal international agree- Mons an honorable rectification takes place. ment of a binding nature to go ahead iFrom U.S News &- Wcrld Report, May 31, with this program. In addition, we have 19711 a moral commitment. We cannot leave l%.tcua FROM CUBA--Chsrao'a Loss Is U.S. those persons at the mercy of Castro. CiAW r hope that the U.S. Senate will not In the 12 years since Fidel Castro came to turn its back on the good things that power, nearly 650,000 Cubans have sought have gone on for almost 300 years, from refuge in the United States. the first day that people set foot in this Most have found far more than refuge. country from other areas of the world. They have found homes. Jobs-and opportu- Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 'titles. Thousands of refuges, in only a few sent that there be printed in the RECORD nears, have launched new careers in profes- an article from the newspaper Diario Las alone and business. Americas dated June 2, 1971 an article The story of this big wave of Immigrants r is a success story seldom matched in this from the U.S. News & World Report ;ouutry*s long history of immigration. Few dated May 31, 1971, and an article from rther nationality groups have taken root so Business World dated January 11, 1969. quickly or progressed so rapidly. There being no objection, the articles WARM wraooue were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, Some of this rapid progress can be credited as follows: to the aid given by the US. Government. No TaE FREEDOM FzjossTS AND THE HONOR OF THE other group of immigrants in history has f l In the Washington Capitol arenow taking place events tending to the drastic end of the Freedom Flights between Cuba and the United States of America, which have been coming albs December 1965, In line with the offer made by President J(Ainsrou at that time. As it is known, when in behalf of his gov- ernment and of his country President John- son offered the Cuban people the facilities of the Freedom Flights, and this , was negotiated throng the Swiss Embassy in Ha- vana with the Castro regime, there were thousands of Cubans who, relying on Wash- ington's official word, registered in accord- since with procedures set up to leave Cuba fleeing from the communist terror. All those who registered until the registration period was closed In May 1966, have not yet left Cuba. But, from the very moment in which their names were included In the correspond- ing lists, they began to suffer. In one way or another, the consequences of the communist persecution. This persecution goes from the loss of their Jobs to the withdrawal of the ration booklet to buy food. The Cuban com- munist dictatorship Interpreted that all those persons who registered not only were not communists, but were against the regime. And f& several years those persons have suffered, with the hope of leaving, the measures taken against them by the com- munist tyranny. If the appropriations for the Freedom Plights are eliminated by Congress. as unfor- tunately It seems Isgoing to happen, those thousands of persons who were already of- ficially registered to leave Cuba will remain marked as enemies of the dictatorship, with all that this implies, and without any possf- billty of leaving Cuba. because what it seems would be offered to those Cubans Is exactly the same that is available for other immi- grants. And It Is well known what this means. Those persons who believed in the official promise of the president of the United States will feel deceived and despondent. And this involves the prestige and the dignity of the United States of America, whose given word will not be kept In this case. Lets matte clear that what damages the moral position of the United States of Amer- ica is the fact that individuals who officially registered for the fights when the promise was In fore, will not be able to leave the armour! Therefore, it is not a question of Indefinitely and at any time allowing the registration of Cubans who may want to come. ul we been accorded such a help Much of the Cuban success, however, is generally attributed to the efforts and ability of the Cubans themselves. Talk to the Cuban refugees and you get still another explanation. "What we have found In America Is the land of opportunity-the greatest nation on earth." says Caries Arboleya, who in nine years rose from an almost penniless refugee to be president of a Miami bank. The mass migration of Cubans to the United States is still continuing. Each month about 3,600 stream in on an airlift financed by the U. S. Government. These are people Castro let go with the contemptuous remark that they were the "worms" of his Communist society. In America. however, they are proving, by and large, to be capable. hardworking people who are making major contributions to American life. A CROSS SECTION The Cuban refugees are scattered widely around the country. But about half of them have settled in south Florida. Nowhere else is the Cuban success story so visible as it is in this area. Wherever you turn, the Cuban influence can be seen and felt. The new mechanic at the corner garage may not speak English fluently-but he can fix your car. The Cuban bus boy In the restaurant, the record sug- gests, may soon be running that restaurant. Whole hospitals are now staffed by Cuban doctors. A prime example Is the 300-bed Pan-American Hospital in Miami. In all, about 2,000 Cuban doctors have settled in the Miami area, These refugees, records Indicate, are good credit risks. Those who have borrowed money have. for the most part, paid It back. Cubans on relief are generally too old or too ill to work. The Cuban impart on the U.S. Is felt at many levels. There is a growing and articulate Spanish-language press. Movie houses in WarQbington, D.C., in Newark, in New York and In dozens of other cities show films In Spanish for tight-knit Latin-American com- munities. Across the Jana, restaurants with Cuban food and entertainment are open- ing. Dade County. Florida. which includes Miami, is the hub of Cuban life in the United States. Mayor Stephen P Clark of Miami estimated that 350,000 Cubans now live there. Nobody can be positive about the number-but it Is known that some Cubans. after resettling elsewhere, return to Dade because of the mild climate and the proximity to other Cubans and the homeland. Cubans tend to dislike the cold North American winters. TRADE CENTER Because of the bilingual pool cf talent in the Miami-Dade area, more and more Arner- ican companies have set up their Latin- American trade headquarters there--33 in Coral Gables alone. Among those companies are 'Alcoa, Dow Chemical, Chicago Bridge & Iron, Coca-Cola, Goodyear, Atlas Chemical, Itternattonal Harvester, Johns-Manville and Bemis. Many of these trade headquarters are run by Cubans. Of course, it's not all clear sailing for the refugees, but In the main their story is one of astonishing achievement. President Arboleya of the Fidelity National Bank of Miami explains the success formula of his Cuban compatriots in these words: "They work. The man world;, the wife works, the children who are old enough work." Mr, Arboleya has shown wha: a refugee can do. In 1960, at age 31, he arrived with his wife, an infant son and $ l0 in cash. Banking was his field. but ban}:s were not bidding for the services of refugees. He started as an inventory clerk in. a shoe fac- tory at 545 a week. Eighteen months later he was the office manager. Eventually, he got a bank job. By 1966, be was e*ectttive vice president of Fidelity National. In February of 1969 he became an American citizen-and president of the bank. RE-rADNING Or.D TIES Mr. Arboleya, whose son became an Eagle Scout at 13, likes to tell of the special camps for Cuban Boy Scouts in Miand, where the Cuban flag is flown alongside the American flag- "Our Boy Scouts salute the. Cuban Sag with respect for our homelano," he says. "But," he adds, "they not only salute the American flag-they pledge allegiance to it." Tully Dunlap, president of the Riverside Bank in Mitami, credits Cuban business with lifting his bank out of the doldrums in the mid-'60s. Deposits started to move up in 1965, break- ing a steady downward trend which set in with the flight of American customers to the suburbs In 1961. Mr. Dunlap says, and "Cuban deposits now total over 18 million dollars and we have 18,000 Cuban accowtts." The New York-New Jersey aria is another place where Cubans congregate.' Some 75,000 are estimated to be living In New York and 52,000 in New Jersey. One of 'them is Dr. Carlos Marquez Sterling, who t'as a candi- date for President of Cuba in 1058. Today Dr. Sterling is professor of Spanish literature at C. W. Post College of Long Is- land University at Greenvale, if.Y. He says this : '-Most of the people who have come to the United States from Cuba havo succeeded. Their success has been outstanding in many fields-business, medicine, uniwotrsity teach- ing, accounting, law and tranzgtortation." Oscar Rodriguez was 18 and- his brother, Omar. was 20 when they came to New Jersey as refugees in 1960. Their first; Jobs were as sweepers in a garment factory. Today they run their own garment factory, employing 75 people. A DOCTOR'S STORY Dr. Ramon Rodriguez-Torres; walked away from his own private hospital In Cuba after Castro took over. The doctor, his wife, two small children and his parents arrived vir- tually penniless in Puerto Rico, A year later he was in Brooklyn's Downstate Medical Cen- ter as an instructor in pediatrics. From there, his advancement was swift. Dr. Rodriguez-Torres studied for and passed Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 ~ cfr Releas' 2005/08/22: CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved FdY SIGNAL RECORD -SENATE S 10133 G`RES June 29 1971 several State medical examinations. He Is As the only Spanish-speaking person in There are some 1.1 million Spanish-speak- slow afull professor and director of the cen his suburban neighborhood. Mr. Gonzalez has ing persons in this area. The presence there ter's pediatric cardiology department. He also a standing joke with his next-door neighbor: of perhaps 50,000 newscomers from Cuba started an intensive-care unit for children "I'm better off than you are-I don't have a makes scant Impression, on people in general. at Kings County I3ospital--said to be the Cuban living next door to me!" These Cubans appear to have little inter- first of its kind in the"U.S. THE CHICAGO SCENE est in becoming part of the Mexican-Ameri- "My family and I are very proud and can scene. They have settled instead in a Between 20,000 and 30,000 Cuban refugees happy to'be in this wonderful country where are estimated to be living in the (kucago variety of small pockets throughout the city. we have seen all our work and effort re- area. About 500 of these are doctors and there MASS TRANSPLANTS warded," he says. are approximately 100 Cuban lawyers. Organizations like the International Res- At Milledgeville, Ga., 68 Cubans are among One Cuban in Chicago makes this ap- cue Committee and. the Cuban resettlement the 113 physicians on the staff at Central praisal: "Some have done well, some not so division of the Catholic Welfare Bureau have State Hospital, the big complex for mental well, depending mainly on how they did in helped some 35,000 Cubans go from Miami to patients. Five of the 10 directors are Cubans, Cuba." Los Angeles. It is estimated that an addition- each heading units with 700 to 1,000 patients. Another refugee took a more positive view, al 10,000 to 15,000 went to southern Cali- Central States top heart specialist is a pointing out that a Cuban had to be highly fornia on their own. Cuban, Dr. Sergio C. Alvarez-Mena. Be is motivated to leave his homeland-overcome About 11,000 Cubans in the area are on aofcardiology clinical professor the of mhospitaledicine and a at also the obstacles to getting permission to de- welfare. Los Angeles County officials say the associate edl ge profhe part-and then buckle down to work in a relief bill for Cubans comes to a million dol- MDr. Addison sM. di e . DDuval iec strange land. Motivated people, he explained, lars a month-which is refunded by the U.S. . mental.-health lareof 'nt ergia's generally succeed. And, he said: "We were Government. could't havve e made tdei_th de s "'We that " jhat ust prepared, whether we knew it or not." Observers report a lack of rapport between couldn't hhe improvements In Columbus, Cuban Orlando Alonso, made Cubans and other Spanish-speaking persons we have without the help these people gave us; it was a mutually bene$cial'thing." himself so valuable that he ended up taking there. The Cubans seem to identify more In Atlanta, where most of Georgia's 5,000 over the business when the owner died in with the "Anglos," whereas Mexican-Ameri- Cubans live, assimilation has ' been no prob- 1969. cans tend to cling to their old Mexican cul- lem. Cuban leaders estimate there are 10_0_ of When Mr. Alonso left Cuba in 1962, he ture. their oountrymen in`various busilesses, while went to 'work as a truck driver for Columbus There is another big difference. The mili- about_60 per cent of the adults hold positions Pest Control Company. In a few months, he tant Mexican-American sometimes leans left- es college or university professors, doctors, was chosen to run the business whenever ward politically. Cuban refugees aren't buy- engineers, accountants or business execu- the owner was away. The business load its ing anything that smacks of Communism. It's tives. most profitable year in 1970-under Mr. hard to find a Cuban with a Castro-type A HovsToN caocER " Alonso's management. He and his w:.fe and beard. Typical of the Cubans who have made three children live in a Columbus suburb. Even in Los Angeles, however, there are good as tradesmen-there are thousands of The 18-year-old daughter will soon' marry bright spots for Cubans. A community spirit, them-.1s Hector Cadet, 41, an owns a an American. for a time dormant among them, has begun grocery store in Houston. the store special- Cuban family ties, traditionally close, to develop. A Cuban Chamber of Commerce dies in `Cuban-Toods 'and is a gathering place account in part for the low number of now has 100 members. About 300 Cuban- for the Cuban community. failures among the refugees. owned businesses have been established. A Before fleeing Cuba in 1963, Mr. Cardet A newly arrived refugee often will receive biweekly tabloid newspaper-"La Prensa"- owi3ied .a grocery store in Havana. Like so money by mail from relatives ant. close has a Spanish-language circulation of 15,000, many others, he reached the Th. without friends who preceded him. A contr:.bution predominantly Cuban e, may be $1.50, or it may be $50-whatever the And like every other area, Los Angeles has funds or knowledge df the Fnglish'langua g He found. work as a stockman for a chain of donor can afford. Its successful refugees. The established Cuban will give up some- A GROWING RESTAURANT convenience grocery stores. thin he needs and use e r d t h l " g y s ve ay o e p "At night," Mr. Cardet says, I would load up the' back of my car with Cuban-type a relative get a foothold. For example, one groceries and sell them door to door to head of household returned to, his Miami home one night to find the table and chairs Cuban families in Houston." In two years, he saved enough to open his missing from his kitchen.-His wife had given own grocery store-and later a restaurant them to a relative just moving into the area. which employs Cubans as waiters and cooks. These close ties, a willingness to help one -Mr. Cardet calls the U.S. "the greatest another and a fanatical belief tho': hard country on earth. " But given the chance, work :6s the key to success lie behind the "I'd go back home," he says. Cuban, experience in America. The Cuban population of Ohio has been Few success stories are more dramatic than estimated at 2,300. There are 3,000 Cubans in that of Mr. and Mrs. Jose Torres and their Michigan. Concentrations of these refugees daughter, Norma. The Torres family arrived are found in major cities of both States- in New Orleans in 1967 with nothing but the especially in Detroit and Cleveland, clothes they wore-and the Braille ruler Mr. Occupations are varied, ranging. from the Torres had fashioned from wood, Both he pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic and his wife were blind. Church in Flint, Mich.-Father Eduardo But Jos? Torres was also a skilled cabinet- Lorenzo-to all assembly-line worker for the maker and before long he was hard at work, Ford Motor Company in Ypsilanti-Jose A. learning English and setting up shop with Cabrera. Mr. Cabrera Is also president of the borrowed funds. Cuban association of Michigan. Business is slow at the moment but he David Caveda, a manufacturers' representa- keeps going with sales of doll houses, jewelry Live in Columbus andresident of the Cuban cases, candlesticks and liqueur cups. His refugee group there, says he knows of only daughter'is an outstanding student in the three Cuban families on welfare, aged He adds: all of them nursing school at Louisiana State University. . 'There are no able ;bodied Cubans on wel- RECORD As SCHOLARS fare. We belong to a society where people take care of one another. There is a pattern ,.--the ones established here help the new- "comers." A Cub-&n_ refugee' in Detroit, Reinaldo Gonzalez, is now an executive,Sgr?,all auto- parts supplier. In 1961, he joined the com- pany as an export clerk. Now," 10 years and eight promotions later, he is responsible for manufacturing schedules for Federal-Mogul Corporation in Western Europe and Latin America. Mr. Gonzalez explains his attitude toward America and Cuba: "I feel ... the way I feel about my mother and my wife. I love both, and my love for one does not interfere, with my love for the within a minority, and thus, in effect, i.nvisi- other." ble to the indigenous community. Cubans have been especially responsible in meeting their obligations. Congress recently heard testimony that of. the 12,800 loans granted to Cubans for college education, only 147 were delinquent-7a performance which outstrips the national average. The Cuban experience in the U.S. Is not an unbroken string of economic miracles. Many old persons find they cannot learn Eng- lish, or that ill health keeps them from work- ing. There are problems of assimilat:.on in some areas-and complaints of discrimina- tion. In Los Angeles, the Cuban Is in a particu- larly strange situation-he is a minority Cuba, nine years ago-penniless he says, "like everybody." He sold Bibles and encyclopedias door to- door. He and his brother saved enough to open a little restaurant. It seated 25. Then the brothers bought an adjoining building and enlarged their operation. Today the prospering restaurant seats 110-and employs 13 Spanish-speaking persons. In San Francisco, some of the Cubans complain about discrimination, especially when it comes to getting good jobs and job training. Some have had difficulty in finding any jobs at all. And a discouraged high-school student said: "Florida is the best place for Cubans; there are enough others there to help you, to support your business." Cubans admit-and express gratitude- that U.S. Government programs help them get started in this country. On their arrival in Miami on the U.S.-fl- nanced airlift, they are welcomed by U.S. officials and given temporary housing in "Freedom House" at the airport. There they register with the Cuban Refugee Program of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and also with a volunteer agency of their choice. The volunteer agencies arrange transpor- tation for refugees to homes of relatives, with the cost met by the Federal Govern- ment. Refugees also receive checks from the Florida welfare department-$100 for a fam- ily, $60 for a person, Washington repays Florida for this. As soon as they reach their relocation city, refugees are eligible for public welfare, with Washington again reimbursing the States. All told, from the time the Cuban Refugee Program began in February, 1961, through the end of this fiscal year on June 30, the U.S. Government's obligations for aiding Cu- ban refugees will total 583.8 million dollars. Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S10134 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 29, 1971 A GOOD jNVESTMENT Federal officials regard this as a good in- vestment. Howard H. Palmatier, director of HEW's Cuban Refugee Program put It this way: "We cannot overlook the Cubans' incal- culable contribution to our nation. They have paid. millions of dollars in local, State and federal taxes, Their presence and efforts have created, directly or indirectly, literally thousands of jobs throughout the United States-which generate even more tax reve- nues. And perhaps most important, they are still making this contribution." CUBAN REFUGEES WRITE A U.S. SuCCEBS STORY-IN THE 10 YEARS SINCE CASTRO CAME TO POWER, THE NUMBER OC Ext.xs WHO HAVE MADE rr IN MAJOR COMPANIES OR IN NEW CAREERS HAS STEADILY GROWN, MANT HAVE STARTED SUCCESSFUL NEw ENTERPRISES Miguel Amezaga, 84, who fled his native Cuba shortly after Fidel Castro's takeover, on Jan. 1. 1959. took to the complexities of U.S. corporate life like many executives once took to Havana cigars. Today he is a vice- president for the commercial products di- vision of St. Regis Paper Co. "If there's been any problem at all," says Amezage, "I'd have to say it's been difficult to adjust to the Chi- cago weather and the lack of domestic service," In Cuba, Aih?zaga had a one-third interest In a company that did business exclusively with U.S. companies selling in Cuba, In- cluding St. Regis. When he Caine to this country, he didn't have to search for a job- he was offered one by St, Regis. Amdzaga's experience is typical of that of ether Cuban emigres who have done well in U.S. corporations. Those who have made It typically have been well-educated. Most attended U.S. universities (Ambzaga went to M.I.T.), and hence were fluent in English. They knew U.S. corporations first-band be- cause n?ost major corporations operated In pre-Castro Cuba. Roberto Goizueta, a Coca-Cola vice-presi- dent in charge of the corporate technical di- vision, worked for Coke in Havana long be- fgre arriving in Atlanta, where Coke trans- ferred him after Castro nationalized its facilities in 1961. Felipe Silva, 49. export manager of American Tobacco Co., worked for a subsidiary in Cuba before coming to the U.B. in 1980; six other Cubans with American Tobacco are veterans of its pre- Castro subsidiary. WAVE More than 300,000 Cubans have arrived In the U.S. In the decade since Castro came to power, The majority have been women, chil- dren, and students. But to the first two years of the Immigration wave, those who came were mostly the propertied elite and the pro- fessional and managerial people who were the first to feel the growing Communist as- sertiveness of the Castro regime. "We call ourselves the Cuban Mafia," says Alberto Luzarraga, of the early emigrants. Luzarrraga, 31, is vice-president and zone executive for Mexico and Central America at Chase Manhattan Bank. Most of the Cu- bans who fled knew each other, and many were related, he says. Like any other kind of pioneer, the Cubans who first reached freedom tended to re- gard themselves as special. Henry Fanjul, 51, vier-president and Latin American area man- ager of Marsh & McLennan International, Inc., says: "The ones that came in 1960 were the cream of the crop." Few Cubans can be found in the top cchelons of management, but many are , In important positions with companies doing business with Spanish-speaking countries. "We were skeptical about taking on Cubans at first," says an executive of one U.S. com- pany doing business Internationally. "We had the idea they were playboys. But now when we think of sending someone to Latin Amer- ica, somebody asks, 'Isn't there a Cuban for the job?'.. The result has been an unusually strong concentration of Cubans in international business, particularly in banking and related fields. Says Jose A. Maruri, 43, assistant treasurer of the international division of the Bank of New York: "There are so many Cubans involved in international business that its easy for us to communicate. We have a lot in common." His boss is vice- president Victor B. Zevalios, 54, a Cuban. "When I want to know something about another company," says Luzaraga of Chase.- -[ call on any Cuban in that company. It helps a lot." NEW VENTURE Businessmen who been able to inte- grate effortlessly into corporatons or banks have had it easier than their professional brethen. who frequently have been frustrated by the requirements of medical or bar ex- aminations. "The law was a dead end." says Ernesto de Zatdo, 48, a lawyer In Cuba. But the contacts he made while majoring in economics at Yale made it easier to land a job at PepsiCo Intenwtional, where he is now area vice-president for Southern Europe. Not all Cuban refugees came here. Some 20.000, for example, landed in Puerto Rico. Elsewhere in Latin America, Cuban exiles frequently run U.S. subsidiaries. In Argen- tina. for Instance, Sherwin-Williams, Sea- gram. and New Chemical subsidiaries are run by Cubans. Ralston Purina's top man in Caracas. Venezuela. is former Havana lawyer Fernando Mafia who lost a brother in the ill-fated Bay of Pigs Invasion. NEST EGGS The corporation Is net the only opportunity for Cuban emigres. Quite a few of the refu- gees had sizeable stake; which they managed to salvage from fortunes accumulated or Inherited before the Castro takeover. Manual Fernandez Blanco. 75 had his 510-million slaughter-house and packing business confis- cated. But he used holdings maintained out- side Cuba to start a bakery business in Miami with his son-in-law, Eduardo Sardine. To- day, their Wayjay Bakery-.specializing in Cuban-style crackers sold in Cuban com- munities throughout the U.S.--has annual sales of over $475,000. Some engines have made it without back- up funds. Jorge de Quesada. an architect. left behind his own architectural and con- struction company w'Ien he tied Cuba In 1960. Arriving in the U S. without a dime and unable to speak a wore of English, he got a job with a small San Francisco architectural firm headed by a fellow Cuban. Three years ago, he struck out on his own and since then he has designed over 510-million worth of structures, Including a 52-million office building for Owen s-111 ;nols. Jose Zorrilla. who ran a plastics plant with 40 employees when Castro took over, took a plastics company production job in Los An- geles in 1961 for $165 a week. A year and a halt later, with $700of savings and a $1,300 loan, he made a down payment on a blow mold and was back In business. Today, his Liberty Plastics Co. turns out 5I-million worth of plastic turtles, ducks, and other toys a year. AMBITIOUS If there is a commons thread uniting most Cubans who have embarked on new careers in the U.S., It In their determination and capacity for hard work. A case in point is that of Junta P. Garcia Du-Quesne, assistant manager of Francis I. du Pont's brokerage office In Miami. For over a year after arriving in Miami on Jan, 1, 1959, he held a variety of jobs, from a night clerk in a hotel to bedding salesman, all the while refusing financial assistance available to needy refugees. "I don't think a young man of 25 ought to be on relief," hhe says, Eventually, Garcia signed orn as a trainee with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fender & Smith in New York before going to work: in the com- pany's Miami office. He switched to Francis 1. du Pont in 1962 and began :telling sugar futures to his Cuban friends. The commodi- ties market boomed, and Garcia soon became one of the company's top salesnen. Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator fropi Illinois. Mr. PERCY. Mr. President; I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, for whom I have the deepe$t respect. I know that it is not because'of any lack of compassion that he raise this ques- tion. Mr. President, I feel compelled to join with the Senator from Florida, my own native State, In saying that, fbr the thou- sands of Cubans who reject! Communist rule, the United States is It refuge, a haven, a hope, just as It has, been a ref- uge, haven, and hope for so many mil- lions from all over the world'. Those of us whose forebears came to thii country to embrace freedom cannot now turn our backs on the Cubans who seek our shores. When one considers that-the cost of this program is less than 8 7 per pas- senger, can we say that this] is too high a price to pay for a man's freedom? In a report published in the Washing- ton Post of March 28, 1971' the distin- guished correspondent, Haynes Johnson, wrote that the Cubans have written one of the most notable Ameran success stories. Coming to Miami with "nothing but their abilities, and often without knowledge of English," they, have made their way well in this alien $ulture. It is estimated that 83 percent Qf them are fully self-supporting, and their income level is rising steadily. According to Mr. Johnso4's research, the average income of the C.tban family is about $8,000 a year, while ikl the higher educated and professional groups it ex- ceeds $18000 a year. Half of the Cubans own their own homes, and 22 percent more are in the process of buying one. Thousands are teaching in ptiblic schools and working in hospitals. I am sure that the American people will not turn back the Cubaps who wish to share our freedom. I support the con- tinuation of funding for the Cuban air- lift program, and I call on 'Senators to join in keeping the bridge'' to freedom open. Today. 65,000 Cubans are on the wait- ing list. Their yearning for fieedom must not be denied. Many of thes people can contribute as much as the pine Cubans who have in the past come ~o the State of Illinois and are working in hospitals, in professional areas, in the mental in- stitutions, and in many other areas where we have a shortage of per$nnel. These fine people havecontributed such to our society. Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. Press ent, I yield 10 minutes to the junior Stnato' from Florida. The PRESIDING O CER, The junior Senator from Florida recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, I wonder Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Jung 29, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE 5,10135 it the c ustingulsnea ;jenator irom Loulsl- wnlcn t am not laminar-was male with phasing them out, or establishing some anawould yield fora question before I Castro about '00,000 Cubans were en- date, or determining how many are going proceed. titled io come under the new rules and to come out, is going to hurt the image Mr. ELLENf 7ER, I yield, regulations. of this country. Mr. CHILES I notice that the distin- Mr. CHILES, Mr. President, :( know That is why we should consider this guished chairman of the committee, the that the Senator pointed out that an in a regular bill, so we can see the impact Senator, from Lguisiana, said in his estimate was made at that time. of it. Should there, be ? a cutoff date? presentation thatn perhaps this matter M:r. `ELLENDER. I know that. But we Should the cutoff be by. date and num- could have been considered hl,-the regu- have gone over and above that number ber? That. is how we should determine lar bill, but that it is his feeling that the by over 44,000. Some want to go over and how we should attack this problem. problem did need to be brought to the above 'that by another 42,000. I want to Mr. ELLENDER. I say that can be de- attention of the Senate and should, be quit now if it is possible. cided when the bill is taken up on the He said, therefore, that he thought he would offer his amendment, at, this time, I wonder if the distinguished Senator, having brought this matter to the atten- tion of the Senate very forcefully by virtue of the amendment to the continu- ing resolution, would consider withhold- ing the, amendment and allowing the matter to be considered in a regular bill, At, that time we could get all of the in- formation. and bring it into focus. I think that the distinguished Senator has presented some valid points. He asked, whether there are too many people on welfare who are refugees and if so, why; whether there are some malinger- ers; or whether it, is because of the age of the refugees, the young_ or the old people, who are coming out of Cuba, I think the points he raises- as to how many remain, whether it is an open list that is available for anyone who desires to come, or whether it is limited in num- ber could all be answered through reg- ular hearings. In a letter of June 2, I requested the right to appear before hearings that were held by the Senator from, Wiscon- sin (Mr. PROxMlas). The Senator from Wisconsin told me that I would. be en- titled to appear and that I could present witnesses before his Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. That would-be the wa,y to focus attention on_ this matter and determine whether we, are dealing with an unlimited number or are deal- ing with a question of establishing when the cutoff time could be, Could the distinguished Senator re- spond to that inquiry? Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. President, I would suggest to the distinguished Sen- ator from Florida, as I stated awhile ago, I did not want to take the Senate by surprise, but I felt that I would not inasmuch as we held hearings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Opera- tions, and the matter was fully covered. Mr.,CHILES. Mr. President, I asked for the, privilege of appearing before those hearings. I was told that I was going to get the right to do so. My request was prior to that time. I am sure ,that the Senator from Wisconsin was thinking of the hearings on the regular bill. Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. President, the continuing resolution would affect the program only until August 6. There will, be _aapnle time to provide more funds if the Senate desires to do so upon the introduction of new. evi dence. I am awaiting information from those who propose that we continue the airlift as to how far. we are going to go with this program. As I pointed ' out a while ago, in 1966 when this matter was being seriously considered by both Houses and wl3en the so-called agreement-with be reprinted at this point. but I think by then we would have had There being no objection, the editorial the shock of this decision. I appreciate was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: FROM THE, SENATE: STOP THE Ami,IFT Again, a practical question on whether the Cuban Airlift should continue has come up in Congress. This time Sen, Allen Ililender (D., La,), powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has called for an end to the airlift. Last year, U.S. Rep. William Clay (1)., Mo.) pressed the issue and was narrowly defeated in the House when it came to a vote This is one of those questions t:aat has been cussed and discussed for nearly three years. It remains our view the airlift is con- tradictory of U.S. policy toward Cuba; that it benefits Fidel Castro more than the United States; that it sets up a situation of special federal privilege for Cuban exiles that is de- nied others in this hemisphere who wish to make their homes in the United States and offers an umbrella of help that exceeds that available even to underprivileged U.S. citizens; that the continually rising cost of the program cannot be justified In light of this country's severe economic strains, We think that there should not be a sepa- rate welfare program for Cubans, but one program under which they and all the other needy in this country receive the same con- cern and care. This view is no reflection on the Cubans 'among sus who have distinguished themselves in business and have made contributions to the community In many ways. The fact is simply that the original purpose of the air- lift as an emergency humanitarian gesture has been fulfilled. It has developed Into a permanent relief program for Cuba. This year the Congress is being asked to provide an additional $32 million over what it gave last year-a total of $144 million. As long as the airlift continues, the costs will keep going up. We note that Howard Palmatier, c.irector of the refugee program, told the Senate sub- committee that "a very good resettlement program" is in the national interest. It always has been, Mr. Palmatier, but the rate at which the Cuban population has grown in the Miami area raises doubt:; about whether we have one. Those excellent resettlement percentages so often cited by the program's officials do not seem to match that growth rate. Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, one of the problems we are trying to pipoint here is the shock and the reaction of those, not just in Cuba, but really in Latin America and perhaps in other countries in the world, if we go back on a commitment that we. made that we will get out any- one that signed up. If people did sign up and as a result of signing up and say- ing they want to go to the United States they lose their jobs, their ration cards, and their property, and if they have been in the canefields or working since the time, the shock of our saying that we are gc'lnIg to cut off these flights, without i the chairman's indulgence in allowing me to present this matter because I wanted to know if there was any way that we could have hearings on the reg- ular bill. In January a year ago, when I was first getting my campaign for the Senate underway, I visited Miami International Airport on the West Side. What I saw there has left an impression with me that I have never been able to shake. Streaming off an airplane were hun- dreds of Cuban refugees, men, women, children. They were dressed as one would expect any refugee to dress. They had old clothes for the most part, ill-fitted and nonstylish according to American stand- ards, and carried all of their possessions in a sack. But it was not their clothes that got my attention, it was their hands. Their hands were raw. Many of their hands were still raw as if they had been hustled straight from the canefields to the airplane, and that is exactly what had happened to them. These people, for the past several years, had spent their time at hard labor. When they signed their name on the list of those wanting to come to the United States, their ration cards, their homes, and their jobs were taken away from them. Their entire lives centered around the fact that someday they would climb aboard an American airplane and leave their Cuban prison. It was not an easy decision for them to make, because it meant poverty, in- humane treatment, and the scattering of their families. It was their price for free- dom. Mr. President, we have a commitment to uphold today, a commitment made on October 3, 1965, when President John- son offered asylum for Cuban refugees. He said: I declare this afternoon to the people of Cuba that those who seek refuge here in America will find it. The dedication of Amer- ica to our traditions as an asylum for the oppressed is going to be upheld. I think it is significant that the Presi- dent made this statement on, Liberty is- land, beneath the Statue of Liberty,, the mother of exiles. Reflect back for a moment. When the earliest settlers poured into an Amer- ican wild continent, there was no one to ask them where they came from. And so it has been through all the great test- ing moments of American history. And in Vietnam men are dying, men named McCormick, Swartz, and Fernandez. No one asks where they came from. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10136 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-003378000500280002-2 CONGRESSIONAI. RECORD - SENATE .l tune 2.9, 1971 Mr. ELLENDER. I yield the Senator 5 additional minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator is recognized for 5 additional min- utes. Mr. CHILES. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, earlier this week I re- ceived a telephone call from a 16-year- old girl; a Cuban, who had taken a free- dom flight;~3 years ago. She told me her father was still in Cuba, working in the cane fields. She said she would never see her father again if the airlift was ter- minated. She said we had promised to keep the airlift going and did not under- stand what was happening. What this little girl wanted Is what is before us today. We are talking about our commitment to this girl, and thou- sands of other Cubans who still live under prison conditions. There is an obvious moral obligation on the part of the Con- gress of the United States to fulfill this commitment. There is an impression left that those who flee from Cuba, the majority of them, end up on the welfare roles. This Is not so, In fact, it seems remarkable, when we consider that these refugees arrive here with nothing but their skills and abilities, 83 percent are fully self- supporting and only 17 percent require any kind of Federal assistance. These figures are quoted by Mr. Howard Pal- matter, director of the Cuban refugee program. Mr. Palmatier also said: Cubans know more about the American drel.m than we do. They really believe that this is a country where you can do anything and be anything . . . so they do it. We see this day after day in Miami where many of these people have be- come presidents of banks and hold some of the best jobs in the area. If the action taken by the Senate Ap- propriations Committee is upheld, the Cuban freedom flight program will be terminated less than 3 years before it has completed its mission. We cannot, under any circumstances, allow this to happen. The program means just what It says, Cuban freedom flight. We are not talking about a vacation or bus!- ness flight from one small nation to the United States, we are talking about the freedom of people, freedom we have promised them. When President Johnson offered his asylum for Cuban refugees, he also said while standing at the foot of the Statue of Liberty: Now, under the monument which has wel- comed so many to our shores, the American Nation returns to the finest of its traditions .today, I intend to vote today to uphold this tradition. I urge each Member of this distinguished body to oppose the com- mittee amendment calling for an end to the Cuban freedom flights. Mr. President, it seems to me it could be said that this is the way we reward anticommunism. It could be said we re- ward anticommunism in this way. Where people have signed their names on the list and signified they would give up their rights to property, their rations, for freedom in this country, we would seem to reward all of that by ending these flights. I do not think we 'can do that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed in the RECORD an editorial entitled "The Freedom Flights and the Honor of the U.S.A.," statements by President Johnson on October 3, 1965, on signing of the immigration bill, and on November 6. 1965, following the reaching of an agreement on procedures and means. and a letter addressed to me by Stephen P. Clark, mayor, Metro- politan Dade Counts, Fla. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE FREEDOM FLIUHTS AND THE HONOR OF THE US.A. In the Washington Capitol are now taking place events tending to the drastic end of the Freedom Flights between Cuba and the United States of America. which have been coming since December 1965, In line with the otter made by President Johnson at that time. As It is known. whey: in behalf of his gov- ernment and of his country President John- son offered the Cubar, people the facilities of the Freedom Plights, and this was negoti- ated through the Swiss Embassy in Havana with the Castro regime. there were thou- sands of Cubans who, relying on Washing- ton's official word. rey.Istered in accordance with procedures set up to leave Cuba fleeing from the communist terror. All those who registered until the registration period was closed In May 1966, have not yet left Cuba. But, from the very moment in which their names were included in the corresponding lists, they began to suffer, in one way or an- other, the consequences of the communist persecution. This persecution goes from the loss of their jobs to the withdrawal of the ration booklet to buy rood. The Cuban com- munist dictatorship interpreted that all those persons who registered not only were not communists, but were against the regime. And for several years hose persons have suf- fered, with the hope of leaving, the measures taken against them by the communist tyr- anny. U the appropriations for the Freedom Flights are eliminated by Congress. as un- fortunately it seems Is going to happen, those thousands of persons who were already of- ficially registered to leave Cuba will remain marked as enemies of the dictaorship, with all that this implies, and without any possi- bility of leaving Cuba, because what it seems would be offered 't4 those Cubans is exactly the same that is available for other immi- grants. And it is well known what this means. Those persons who believed In the official promise of the President of the United States will. feel deceived and despondent. And this involves the prestige and the dig- nity of the United States of America whose given word will not be kept in this case. Let's make clear that what damages the moral position of the United States of Amer- ica is the fact that individuals who officially registered for the flights when the promise was in force, will not be able to leave the country. Therefore, it is not a question of in- definitely and at any time allowing the reg- istration of Cubans who may want to aban- don the communist Inferno. It is a question of fulfilling what could be considered as a right of those who. before the registration was closed, had complied with the requisites. Though everything seems to Indicate that much has been advanced towards the elim- ination of the Freedom Flights, it is to be hoped that In the ]sit stage of the discus- sions an honorable reettfication takes place. MOVEMENT or CUBAN REFUGEIS TO THE UNITED STATES (Statement by the President following the reaching of an agreement on procedures and means. November 6, 1965.) lAs read at the Press Secretaf's briefingi "I am pleased with the ui derstanding which has been reached. It is an important forward step in carrying out the declaration I made on October 3 to the Cuban people. I said that those who seek refuge here will find it. That continues to be the policy of the American people." NOTE: The statement was read by the Press Secretary to the President, Bill Moyers, at his news conference at 10:04 aim., e.s.t., on Saturday, November 6, 1965, at Austin, Tex. It was not made public in the form of a White House press release. For the President's declaration of October 3, made at the ceremony for tlpe signing of the immigration bill on Liberty Island, see I Weekly Comp. Pres. Does. 364 attached in following material. MOVEMENT OF CUBAN REYuG51:S TO THE UNITED STATES (Announcement of exchange tt diplomatic notes establishing procedures and means. November 6, 1965.) The President announced today that at 9 a.m., c.s.t., the Swiss Etnbas+' in Havana, representing United States interests In Cuba, and the Cuban Foreign Ministry had ex- changed diplomatic notes establishing pro- cedures and means for the movement of Cuban refugees to the United States. The arrangements for the movement were set out in a memorandum of understanding in- corporated in the notes. SWISS EMBASSY TO CUBAN FORE11;N MINISTRY The full text of the note frtm the Swiss Embassy to the Cuban Foreign Ministry follows: "The Embassy of Switzerland presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Re- latlons and, in its capacity as representative of the interests of the United Stites of Amer- ica in Cuba, has the honor to safer to recent conversations which have taken place be- tween the Embassy and repr .ientatives of the Government of Cuba with respect to the movement to the United States of Cubans who wish to live In the Unite(i States. "The Embassy also has the; honor to set forth below the text, in English and Spanish language versions which shall ~e equally au- thentic, of the memorandum of understand- ing agreed'upon in those conversations: "Memorandum of understanding between the Embassy of Switzerland inHavana, rep- resenting the Interests of the United States of America in the Republic of (iuba and the Foreign Ministry of the Government of Cuba concerning the movement to the United States of Cubans wishing to live in the United States. - "1. The Government of Cuba agrees to permit the departure from Cuba of, and the Government of the United States agrees to permit the entry Into the Unii ed States of, Cubans who wish to leave tuba for the United States, In accordance y.'ith the pro- visions of this memorandum of understand- ing. "2. In recognition of the prime importance of the humanitarian task of retpliting divided families, the two Governments agree that per- sons living In Cuba who are immediate rela- tives of persons now living 41 the United States will be given, as a group first priority in processing and movement. )'he two Gov- ernments agree that the terl}n "immediate relatives' Is defined to meats parents of unmarried children under the age of 21. spouses, unmarried children utjder the age of 21 and brothers and sisters under the age of 21. Approved. For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved Fdr Release 2005/08/22 CIA-RDP72-00337R00050G280002-2 June 29, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 10137 "3. The two 'Gover'nments agree that they relatives living in Cuba of persons living in will include as members of this first priority the United States who do not fall within group other close relatives living in Cuba of the definition of immediate relatives. persons now in the United States who reside "9. The Government of Cuba agrees to in the same household as the immediate present, in due course, to the Embassy of relatives when such inclusion is required by Switzerland in Havana, for transmisr.ion to humanitarian considerations. In order to the Government of the United State,,, a list protect the integrity of the agreed principle (hereiafter `Cuban Master List B') of all of first priority for immediate relatives, the such persons who will be permitted to depart two Governments agree that it will be neces- from Cuba, The Government of Cuba agrees sary to verify the relationship and the actual to consider, in preparing Cuban Master List existence of the humanitarian considera- B, names of persons living in Cuba submitted tions referred to. The two Governments agree by the Government of the United States on that this task of verification will be carried the basis of information supplied by friends out by the Embassy of Switzerland in Havana and relatives living in the United States. and that the judgment of that Embassy will "10. The two Governments agree that Cu- be accepted by the two Governments as final. ban Master List B will form the basis .of the "4, The Government of Cuba agrees to preparation of embarkation lists for each present to the Embassy of Switzerland in flight from Cuba to the United States, in ac- Havana. as soon as p6tsible a list (hereinafter cordance with procedures described below. called `Cuban Master List A') of immediate "11. The Government of Cuba agrees that, realtives living in Cuba of persons now living with respect to persons on either Joint Con- in the United States, and of other persons solidated List A or Cuban Master List B, it living in Cuba described in paragraph 3 will prepare, in consultation with tL.e Em- above, who wish to live in the United States.. bassy of Switzerland in Havana, pros;:?ective The Embassy of Switzerland in Havana will embarkation lists for individual flights from transmit Cuban Master List A to the Govern- Cuba to the United States. Such lists will be ment of the United States. The Government provided the Government of the United of the Uxiited Statesy for its part, will have States at last seven days prior to the date of prepared a list (hereinafter called 'US Master the flight. List A') based on information supplied by "12. The Government of the United States persons now living in the United States who agrees in turn to inform the Government of have immediate relatives living in Cuba and Cuba without delay, through the Embassy who are prepared to receive and are interested of Switzerland in Havana, or persons on the in receiving such relatives. It is understood embarkation lists approved for entry into the that the lists provided for in this paragraph United States, with the understanding that may be prepared in installments and shall final formalities will be completed at the be supplemented from time to time. point of embarkation by, officers of the U.S. "5. Those names Which appear on both Immigration and Naturalization Service and Cuban Master List A and US Master List A Public Health Service. will be incorporated by the Government of "13. The Government of Cuba agrees to the United States in a single list (herein- assein'ole such persons at the airport at after called `Joint Consolidated List A'), Varader6, which will be transmitted by the Embassy "14. The two Governments agree that such of Switzerland in Havana to the Government persons will be subject to a final departure of Cuba. With respect to Joint Consolidated inspection by officials of the Department of List A, there will be a presumption that the Immigration and the Ministry of Public persons on the list will be permitted by the Health of Cuba and to an entrance inspection Government of Cuba to depart Cuba and will by officials of the Immigration and Naturali- be permitted by the Government of the zation Service and the Public Health Service United States to'enter the United States, but of the United States, at the airport in final permission will be granted in the form Varadero. Persons found to be ineligible for of approval by both Governments of em- departure from Cuba by Cuban officials in barkation lists for each flight from Cuba to accordance with the laws and regulations in tlke United States. force ins Cuba or those found by American "6. The cases of persons whose names officials to be ineligible for entrance into appear on Cuban Master List A or on US the United States under laws and regulations Master List A but not on both (and therefore in force' in the United States will not be not on Joint Consolidated List A) will be the permitted to embark, object of further examination by the two "15. The Government of the United States Goeyrnments, utilizing the services of the agrees to provide air transportation to carry Embassy of Switzerland in Havana as re- persons permitted to depart Cuba and to quired, with a view to the inclusion of such enter the United States from Varadero to a persons in addenda to oJint Consolidated List convenient point in the United States. A, or, in any case, in the second priority "16. The Government of the United States group described below in paragraph 8. agrees to provide air transportation with such "7, The two Governments agree that from frequency and capacity as to the Joint Consolidated List A, and its addenda, movement of between 3,000 and 4,000 persons embarkation lists for each flight from Cuba per month. to the United States will be drawn. The two "17. The two Governments agree that the Governments agree that they will make every first movement under the terms of this effort to ensure that the following categories memorandum of understanding will begin of persons appearing on Joint Consolidated not later than December 1, 1965. List A are transported in the order of priority "18. The two Governments agree that any indicated: First, parents and unmarried problems that may arise in the implementa- brothers and sisters under the age of 21 liv- ing in Cuba of children living in the United tion of this memorandum of understanding States under the age of 21; second, un- will be considered jointly by the Embassy of married children under the age of 21 living Switzerland in Havana, representing the in Cuba of parents" living in the United interests of the United States of America in States; and third, spouses living in Cuba of the Republic of Cuba, and the Government persons living in the'United States. Families of Cuba. and other members of the households will be "In the course of the conversations which permitted to travel together in accordance led to the memorandum of understanding set with the principles of paragraph 3 above. forth above, the Government of Cuba stated 118. When both. Governments agree that the its position concerning the departure of tech- persons appearing on'Joint Consolidated List nicians and men from 15 to 26 years of age A and its addenda no longer require full in Cuba who are obliged to perform com- utilization of the transportation provided, pulsory military service. The Government of the movement of other persons living in Cuba Cuba also stated that it would set forth its who wish to live in the United States will position on these matters in a separate note. begin. First consideration will be given to "The Government of the United States stated that it would reply, through the Em- bassy of Switzerland, to the note of the Government of Cuba referred to in the pre- ceding paragraph and would set forth its own. position on these matters as it had been expressed in the course of the discussions. Furthermore, the Government of the United States stated it would transmit to the Gov- ernment of Cuba, through the Embassy of Switzerland, a separate note concerning the position of the Government of the United States on the matter of the inclusion in the movement from Cuba of persons imprisoned in Cuba for offenses of a political nature as that position had been expressed in the course of the discussions. "The Government of Cuba stated that it would reply to the note of the Govern- ment of the United States concerning the in- clusion in the movement to that country of persons imprisoned in Cuba for offenses against the revolution and would set forth its own position on this matter as it had been expressed in the course of the discussions. "The Embassy has the honor to propose that, if the understandings described in the memorandum of understanding set forth above are acceptable to the Ministry of For- eign Relations, this note and the Ministry's reply concurring therein shall constitute an acceptance by the Government of the United States and the Government of Cuba of the terms of the memorandum of understanding, which shall take effect on the date of the reply." (Spanish language version omitted) A concurring note from the Cuban For- eign Ministry to the Swiss Embassy com- pleted the exchange and put the memoran- dum of understanding into effect. In addition to these main notes, there were four other notes exchanged separately at about 9:30 a.m., c.s.t. The first of these, from the Cuban Foreign Ministry to the Swiss Embassy, reads as follows (compli- mentary introduction and close omitted) : CUBAN FOREIGN MINISTRY TO SWISS EMBASSY "The Government of Cuba, in accordance with the statement in the note containing the memorandum of understanding, and in order to prevent errors in interpretation on the part of, or in relation to, certain persons who, by reason of the social function they perform or because of legal obligations from which they cannot be excused, are subject to certain restrictions in regard to their de- parture or who do not have the right to leave the country, considers it useful to confirm in writing, and also to publish, what was stated orally in the conversations with the Swiss Embassy which preceded the said (memorandum of) understanding, in refer- ence to priorities, form and manner of de- parture of Cubans who wish to join their relatives or live in the United States, namely that in the case of technicians or skilled per- sonnel whose departure from the country may cause a serious disturbance in a specific social service or in production, because a re- placement for such person would not imme- diately be available, the Government of Cuba will authorize the departure of such person within the period during which the trips will take place, but will postpone it until the time when such person may be re- placed in the duties which he performs. "Likewise, and in conformity with the statement in the Cuban note containing the memorandum of understanding, and for the same reasons set fo th in the preceding para- graph, the Govern'ment of Cuba considers it desirable to confirm hereby, and at the same time to publish, what it clearly stated during the course of the negotiations; name- ly that no citizen who under the law is in- cluded in the first call-up for compulsory military service, that is, between 17 and 26 years of age, or who will be included in the till-up in the next two years, that is to say, who is at present 15 years of age, has the right Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337Re00500280002-2 S 10138 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 29, 1971 to leave the country and therefore will not be authorized to leave." SWISS ZMBASSY REPLY The Swiss Embassy replied to this note as follows (complimentary introduction and close omitted) : "During the recent discussions which led to the memorandum of understanding of November 6, 1965, the Embassy of Switzer- land made clear that it had been the under- standing and hope of the Government of the United States that the statement by the Prime Minister of Cuba on September 30, 1965, would encompass persons in these cate- gories who wished to leave Cuba to live in the United States. Thus, for example, there teas no suggestion in that broad statement that any technicians who wished to leave Cuba for the United States would be prevented from departing, even temporarily. "The Government of the United States re- grets that at this time the Government of Cuba has not permitted men subject to mili- tary service and certain technicians to be in- cluded under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. The Government of the United States expresses the hope that the Government of Cuba will be willing to re- consider this position expressed In the course of the discussions mentioned above and re- peated in the note of the Ministry. The Gov- ernment of the United States wishes to stress the particular Importance which such recon- sideration would have in permitting the re- union ofmany families. "For its part, the Government of the United States reaffirms Its readiness to grant entry to the United States of the persons who are the subject of this note through procedures consistent with those established in the Memorandum of Understanding of this date." SWISS EMBASSY TO CUBAN FOREIGN MINISTRY The third separate note was from the Swiss Embassy to the Cuban Foreign Ministry (complimentary Introduction and close omitted) : "As the Embassy of Switzerland made clear during the course of the recent conversations which led to the Memorandum of Under- standing on the movement of persons from Cuba to the United States, accepted by both Governments on November 6, 1965, the Gov- ernment of the United States regards with special humanitarian concern the cases of those persons imprisoned in Cuba for offenses of a political nature. It had been the under- standing and hope of the Government of the United States that the statement by the Prime Minister of Cuba on September 30. 2965, would encompass persons in this cate- gory who wished to leave Cuba to live in the United States. "The Government of the United States re- grets that at this time the Government of Cuba has not permitted political prisoners to be Included under the terms of the Memo- randum of Understanding. The Government. of the United States expresses the hope that the Government of Cuba will be willing to reconsider this position. The Government of the United States wishes to stress the par- ticular importance which such reconsidera- tion would have in permitting the reunion of many families. "For its part, the Government of the United States reaffirms its readiness to grant entry to the United States of such political prisoners through procedures consistent with those established in the Memorandum of Understanding of November 8, 1065." CUBAN FOREIGN MINISTRY REPLY The final separate note, a response by the Cuban Foreign Ministry to the note initiated by the Swiss Embassy, read as follows: "The Ministry of Foreign Relations pre- sents its compliments to the Embassy of Switzerland, representing the interests of the United States of America in Cuba, and in acknowledging receipt of its note dated No- vember 6, has the honor to inform it that the Cuban position on the matter is that ex- pressed In Its note of October 12 of the pres- ent year." Nora: The .nnouncement was released at Austin, Tex. SIGNING of TILE IMMIGRATION BILL The President's Remarks at the Ceremony on Liberty Island. With His Offerof Asylum for Cuban Refugees. October 3, 1965 Mr. Vice President. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Am- hRSSador Goldberg, distinguished members of the leadership of the Congress. distinguished Governors and mayors, my fellow country- men : We have called the Congress here this afternoon not only to mark a very historic occasion, but to settle a very old Issue that is in dispute. That issue is. to what congres- sional district does Liberty Island really be- long-Congressman Farbstein or Congress- man Gallagher? It w,II be settled by who- ever of the two can walk first to the top of the Statute of Liberty. This bill that we sign today is not a revolu- tionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly *o either our wealth or our power. Yet it is still one of the most important acts of this Congress and of this administra- tlon. For it does repair a very deep and painful flaw In the fabric of American Justice. It corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation. Speaker McCormack and Congressman Cel- ler almost 40 years ago first pointed that out in their maiden speeches in the Congress. And this measure that we will sign today will really make us truer to ourselves both as a country and as a people. It will strengthen us in a hundred unseen ways. I have come here to thank personally each Member of the Congress who labored so long and so valia>xtly tomake this occasion come true today, and to make this bill a reality. 1 cannot mention all their names for it would take much too icng, but- my gratitude and that of this Nation belongs to the 89th Congress. We are Indebted, too, to the vision of the late beloved President John Fitzgerald Ken- nedy, and to the support given to this meas- ure by the then Attorney General and now Senator, Robert F. Kennedy. In the Anal days of consideration, this bill had no more able champion than the present Attorney General, Nicholas Katzen- bach, who, with New York's Emanuel Celler, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Congressman Feighan of Ohio, said Sen- ator Manadeld and Senator Dirksen consti- tuting the leadership in the Senate, and Sen- ator Javits, helped to guide this bill to passage along with the help of the Members sitting in front of me today. This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to Amer- ica should be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here. This is a simple test, and it is a fair test. Those who can contribute most to this country-to Its growth, to Its strength, to its spirit-will be the first that are admitted to this land. The fairness of this standard is so self-evi- dent that we may well wonder that it has not always been applied. Yet the fact is that for over four decades the Immigration policy of the United States has been twisted and has been distorted by the harsh Injustice of the national origins quota system. Under that ays'.em the ability of new Im- migrants to come to America depended upon the country of their birth. Only three coun- tries were allowed to supply 70 percent of all the immigrants. Families were kept apart because a hus- band or a wife or a child bad been born in the wrong place. Men of needed skirl and talent were de- vied entrance because they came from south- ern or eastern Europe or from one of the developing continents. This system violated the bask principle of American democracy-the principle that val- ues and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American iii the highest sense because it had been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country. Today, with my signature, this system is abolished. We can now believe that it will never again shadow the gate to the American Nation with the twin barriers of prejudice and priv- l iege. Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers. From a hundred different places or more, they have pouted forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide. The land flourished because' it was fed from so many sources-because it was nour- ished by so many cultures aisd traditions and peoples. And from this experience, almost unique in the history of nations, has come Amer- ica's attitude toward the rest of the world. We, because of what we are, reel safer and stronger in a world as varied tia the people who make it up-a world whets no country rules another and all countries'can deal with the basic problems of human; dignity and deal with those problems in heir own way. Now, under the monument vihich has wel- comed so many to our shores, the American Nation returns to the finest of: Its traditions today. The days of unlimited Imtitlgration are past. But those who do come will come because of what they are, and not because of the land from which they sprung. When the earliest settlers poured into a wild continent there was no on, to ask them where they came from. The only question was: Were they sturdy enough to make the journey, were they strong en(ugh to clear the land, were they endurlrtg enough to make a home for freedom, a#nd were they brave enough to the for liberty if it became necessary to do so? And so It has been through: all the great and testing moments of Am*iean history. This year we see in Viet-Nam: men dying- men named Fernandez and Zajac and Zelinko and Mariano and McCormick. Neither the enemy who killed them nor the people whose independence they have fought to save ever asked then where they or their parents came from. Whey were all Americans. It was for free men and for Amer- ica that they gave their all, they gave- their lives and selves. By eliminating that same que:,tion as a test for immigration the Congress proves our- selves worthy of those men dnd worthy of our own traditions as a Nation, ASYLUM FOR CUBAN RE JGEES So it is in that spirit that I declare this afternoon to the people of Cutta that those who seek refuge here in America will find it. The dedication of America to bur traditions as an asylum for the oppressed is going to be upheld. I have directed the Departments of State and Justice and Health, Education, and Wel- fare to immediately make all he necessary arrangements to permit those; in Cuba who seek freedom to make an ordeily entry into the United States of America. Our first concern will be with those Cubans who have been separated from.-,heir children and their parents and their husbands and their wives that are now in this country. Our next concern is with those who are im- prisoned for political reasons. And I will send to the Congress tomorrow a request for supplementary funds of $12,600,000 to carry forth the commitment that I am making today. Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 June 29, 1971 Approved For.Releas~ 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE ~c I am asking the ~Separtment of State to seek through the SwissGovernmen't Immedi- ately the agreement "of 'the Cuban Govern- ment in a request `to the President of the International Red Cross Committee. The re- quest Is for the assistance of the Committee in processing. the movement of refugees from Cuba to Miami. Miami will serve as a port of entry and temporary stopping place for refugees as they settle in other parts of this country. And ,to all the voluntary agencies in the United States, I appeal for their continua- tion and expansion of their magnificent work. Their help Is needed in the reception and settlement of those who choose to leave Cuba. The Piederal Government will work closely with these agencies 'In their tasks of charity and brotherhood. I" want all the, people of this great land of ours to know of the really enormous con- tribution which the compassionate citizens of Florida have made to humanity and to decency. And all States it this Union can join with Florida now in extending the hanti of, helpfulness and humanity to our Cuban brothers. The lesson of our times Is sharp and clear In this movement of people from one land to lnother. Once again, it stamps the mark of failure on a regime when many of its citizens voluntarily choose to leave the land of their birth for a more heiful home in America. The future holds little hope for any govern- ment where the present holds no hope for the people. And so we, Americans will welcome these Cuban people. For the tides of history run strong, and in another day, they can return to their homeland to find it cleansed of terror and free from fear. Over my shoulder here you can see Ellis Island, whose, vacant corridors echo today the joyous sounds of long-ago voices. And today we can all believe that the lamp of this, grand old lady, is brighter today, and the golden door that she guards gleams more brilliantly in the light of an increased liberty for the; people from all the countries of the globe. 'ha?ik you very much. NOT)'' The President spoke at 3:08 p.m. on Liberty Island, New ,York City, N.Y. As en- acted, ;the Immigration bill is Public Law 89-236. Hon: LAWTOre CHILES U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHILES: Before, leaving for Tel Aviv, Israel to dedicate a 'South Florida wing to a hospital in Beersheba, I, as Mayor of Dade County, Florida, would like to go on record as requesting of you the good use of your honorable office by interceding on behalf of keeping the Cuba-Miami airlift open.' cue to the fact that Western Union continues on strike, Ham sending my message to you In airlift is to negate the history and basic prin- ciples of the United States of America. The decision taken by the Senate Appropriations Committee, presided, by Senator Allen J. El- lender of Louisiana, is extremely unfortun- ate and is not in keeping with our country's heritage. Our nation has traditionally maintained its doors open to the suppressed, the perse- cuted and to those who came to seek brighter horizons in our United States.. It is conceiv- able, In these turbulent times, the Cuba- Miami lrllft could?~e the only means by which our nation can demonstrate to the world that America is, still, a refuge to the perbecuted. To stop the freedom flight would be to foresake the principles, of our forefath- ers and to deny that the grandeur of our country is founded upon their quest for li- berty and freedom. The Cubans who arrive through the airlift to our shores come, not because they wish to migrate to the United States, but-because they are persecuted by a barbaric, totalitarian, communist-oriented regime-they come to seek the liberty which was found by so many of our ancestors. As Mayor of Dade County, Florida, where more than 325,000 Cubans reside, I are chief witness to the drama and tragedy of those Cubans who have come to our shores; I am witness 'to the contribution they have made to our country; and I am witness to and affirm that this contribution more than com- pensa':es for the $5 million allocated toward the operation of the freedom flights. I sincerely hope that the liberty and hope symbolized by the Statue of Liberty ::n New York harbor will not be defrauded by the Senate nor the house, in spite of the fact that there are some in' our country who have, indeed, lost sight of what is represented by this statue and instead measure the price of liberty in dollars and cents. I wish, today, to reaffirm the position I have taken in the past and declare myself unequivocally in favor of the Cuba-Miami air-lift and say that never before has a'ml- gration contributed so much to our ulture and economy as the migration of those who are suffering from communistic persecution just 9D miles from our shores. Respectfully submitted. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I wish to speak. in support of continued funding of the Cuban refugee airlift. In doing so, I speak. also in support of the continued adherence by the United States to its international commitments, to its hu- manimrian traditions, and to its strong moral commitment to all of those Cu- bans who have lost everything because, in good faith, they registered to leave Cuba on an airlift that we established to allow them to do just that. Over 235,000 Cubans have come to the United States on the airlift since it be- gan on December 1, 1965. Over 100,000 are still awaiting their turn. Who are these people? What happens to them when they get here? I would recall that the guiding princi- ple of the memorandum of understand- ing between the United States and. Cuba which established the airlift is "the hu- manirarian task of reuniting divided families." As such, the airlift is, in fact, a family reunion scheme. Almost 65 per- cent of those who have come on it, are the wives and children of Cuban ales already in the United States or who are coming to the United States with. their families. Of the remainder, over 26 per- cent ate professional and managerial people, clerical and sales personnel, and skilled workers. It is said that the costs of bringing these people to the United States, and of caring for them when they get here, are too much for the United States to bear. It costs about $17 each to bring them here. Soon: after arrival, eig:at out of 10 become fully self-supporting, They bring valuable and needed skills. They are known as hard workers throt.ghout the United States. The businesses they have established provide employment not only to fellow refugees but to native Americans as well. And most important and relevant, the estimated taxes paid by Cuban refugees in the United States far exceed the cost of this program. It is also said that we are doing Castro a favor' by continuing the airlift.-that we are making all of the people he wants S10139 to get rid of. But he himself, has been complaining that we are getting many of the people he wants to keep. Over the past year and more he has been com- plaining that Cuba's shortage of techni- cally qualified people is holding back its economic progress toward communism. He has complained that a lack of quali- fied teachers has contributed to the prob- lems caused by a poorly staffed educa- tional system. The airlift has brought over 61,000 persons of this kind, in- cluding over 2,000 physicians, and count- less dentists, architects, nurses, and other professional people. I submit that abruptly cutting off the Cuban refugee airlift is not the way to deal with a people who give more to us than they receive from us. It is not the way to "punish" Castro-we would merely be providing him a way out of an embarrassing situation. And, most imr:ortatnly, it is not the way to reward the hopes and dreams of the many thou- sands of people who, literally at our invitation, signed up for the airlift years ago and have been patiently waiting for. their turn on the airplane-waiting while working in the fields, after having been dispossessed of their jobs, homes and belongings because they choose our way of life rather than that offered to them in heir own homeland by Castro and his Communist cohorts. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to indicate my support for continuing the airlift of refugees from Cuba. To do otherwise would be unconscionable, un- less viable alternative arrangements are immediately available to permit the exit of Cubans wishing to leave their home- land to join their family members in this country. The able Senators from Florida have fully outlined the situation, so I will not burden the record with lengthy comment at this time. Let me just, say that I -feel very strongly that our country has a very heavy moral obligation to welcome those Cubans, whose names remain on the active waiting lists for airlift to Miami. To abandon them-when they have waited for so many years in an atmosphere' 'of hostility and harass- ment-would grossly violate a national commitment and the humanitarian traditions of our people. I fully understand and appreciate the rationale of those who would end the air- lift. As chairman of the Judiciary Sub- committee on Refugees, I share their deep concern over the escalating costs of the Cuban refugee program, especially those costs involving welfare. Over the past year the subcommittee has made a definitive inquiry into the program and there appears to be a number of areas where savings could be made. The find- ings of this inquiry are currently under review, and I anticipate that a subcom- mittee report will be issued soon. But this is really an issue separate from what is at stake today. At stake today is a national commitment to welcome ref- ugees-who in good faith added their names to a list some 5 years ago, with the assurance of two Governments that they would be able to join relatives elsewhere. To snatch away this hope would be un- just and inhumane. , Approved For Releas>' 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10140 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 29, 1971 Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, one of our country's oldest and most honored traditions is that of providing shelter to the oppressed. We all recall the storm o' indignation which arose when this tradi- tion was violated last year in the case o0 the. Lithuanian seaman, Simas Kudi~rka. who was tragically refused safe haven on a U,S. Coast Guard ship. I fear that this tradition would suffer if the freedom flights from Cuba are terminated. We have a sacred commitment to the Cubans who have risked their lives and fortunes by stating their intention to come to the United States to reunite with their families. They have lost their Jobs and have been persecuted because of their decision to leave Cuba. They have been waiting to come for more than years, and during this time the indigni- ties they have been forced to endure at the hands of the Cuban Government have been eased only by the promise of their eventual departure to the United States. To deny them this hope and to renege on our pledge would be a tragic abrogation of our ideals and a violation of our given word. It would discourage the hopes of men everywhere who look to the United States as the land of the free. Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the United States, from Its founding, has enjoyed a reputation throughout the world as a place of refuge and asylum for the per- secuted and the dispossessed. I believe it would be a grievous error now to reverse this proud humanitarian policy by abruptly eliminating the transportation program for persons who wish to leave Cuba. I am advised that there are now, in Cuba, from 40,000 to 65,000 persons who have made known their intention to leave their homeland-many of them having done so as long as 5 years ago-- and to emigrate to the United States. In most cases, these people have either given up or been deprived of their pos- sessions and their Jobs. They are in limbo, awaiting clearance and transpor- tation. By ending the transportation pro- gram abruptly and without notice, as the committee amendment proposes, the United States would break faith with these thousands who have looked to our country with hope. Ending the transportation program would be a cruel act-ail act that would, without exaggeration, deprive these peo- ple of their future. If the transportation program is ended, I believe the result might well be a re- newal of the efforts by Cubans to leave their country illegally, by whatever means are possible, including hijacking of aircraft and stealing of vessels, at great danger to themselves, and at the risk of international incidents in and over the Florida straits. I hope very much that the Senate will vote to continue the transportation pro- gram and to uphold this country's en- viablehumapitarian reputation. Thee PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, Mr. Pres- ident, may I ask the distinguished chair- man if he would like to ask unanimous consent at this point that the committee amendments beginning on page 4, line 24, extending through line 8 on page 5 be adopted, inasmuch as there seems to be no opposition to these amendments? Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand it. I do not knovy of any opposition to the resolution except the subject we are now discussing. I further understand that the distin- guished Senator frvin Wisconsin andthe distinguished Senator from Maryland are going to offer an amendment to cut back on defense by about $8 billion dollars. They are about ready to begin their re- marks. That will consume some time. As I understand the agreement, we will not vote on any of these amendments until the end of the 4 hours allotted. Is that correct? Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen- ator is correct. In view of the agreement, the Senate would not be voting on the first committee amendment until im- mediately following the vote' on the amendment which is to be called up by the distinguished Senator from Wis- consin (Mr_PROxMIRE). Owing to the fact, as I understand it, that there is no opposition to the second committee amendment, I wondered if the distinguished chairman would like to ask unanimous consent that that amend- ment be agreed to so that the only thing remaining so far as committee amend- ments are concerned would be the first committee amendment. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment on page 4, ending on page 5, be adopted, since I do not know of any opposition to it. Therefore. the only remaining amend- ments to vote on will be the pending one, that is. the committee amendment we are now discussing, and the amendment to be offered by the distinguished Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I un- derstand the Senator is speaking of the amendment beginning on line 24, page 4; is that correct? Mr. ELLENDER. That is beginning on line 24 page 4, and ending on line 8 on page 5. Mr. GURNEY. I have no objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without objec- tion, the second committee amendment is agreed to by unanimous consent. The amendment agreed, to reads as follows : On page 4. after hue 23 insert: activities of the Maritime Administration, Department of Commerce; salaries of supporting -personnel, courts of appeals. distract courts, and other judicial cervices; activities in support of Free Europe, In- corporated, and Radlc Liberty, Incorporated, pursuant to authority contained in the United States Information and Education axchange Act of 11148. as amended (22 U.S.C. 1437) : Provided. That no other funds made available under this resolution shall be available for these activities. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. I send an amendment to the desk. This is a modification of the amendment that we had printed earlier. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read the modified amend- ment. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. I will explain It. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: On page 4, line 2, before thi? semicolon at the end thereof insert a cotoma and the following: "except that such amounts for all military functions admin#stered by the Department of Defense shallr not exceed a rate equal to $68,000,000,000 &year." Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. Pre~ident, I offer this amendment on behalf bf myself, the Senator from Maryland (Ir. MATHIAS), the Senator from California (Mr. CRANS- TON ), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), the Senator frtm Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), the Senator from Mich- igan (Mr. HART), and the senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLri_3). The amendment proposes that during the life of the continuing: resolution a ceiling be placed on the amount the Pentagon can spend for Department of Defense military functions $t the annual rate of $68 billion. In fiscal year 1972, the budget proposes outlays for the Pentagon cff $75 billion. Congress has since added $1.7 billion in pay raises. Our amednment, therefor, if effective for the full year, would reduce the rate of spending for the Pentagon from a $76.7 billion rate to a $68 billion rate. This is a cut of 11 percent, or $8.7 billion at an annual rate. It represents a smaller cut from fiscal year 1971 spending. This year the Penta- gon spent $73.4 billion. Out amendment would cut $5.4 billion froai the 1971 rate. This is a 7-percent hut. And, of course, it is this rate which: the continu- ing resolution authorizes until August 6. What this amendment does is provide for this reduction until Ati=ust 6-only for the period from July 1'to August 6, which is about 37 days. Actually this would amount to about $435 million dur- ing that period. The effect of the amendmi~nt is simple. It would limit military spending between July 1 and August 6 to an. annual rate of $68 billion. It Is as simply as that. MILITARY SPENDING VI-VIETNAM SPENDING DOWN There are many reasons why this amendment should pass. First and fore- most, why should military spending go up while Vietnam spending pnd the Viet- nam war are being wound dawn? Who stole the peace dividhnd? The incremental costs of the Vietnam war have been cut from $4 billion, at the peak in fiscal year 19M. to $8 bil- lion for fiscal year 1972-or by $16 bil- lion. Personnel in the military services are being reduced from 3.5 million at the peak of the Vietnam buildup, to 2.5 mil- lion at the end of next ye4r. That is a cut of 1 million in military Personnel. At $10,000 per person, this should save $10 billion. That would add up ;to a $26 bil- lion saving. But I am not tElking about that much. Because it is tripe that some of this is overlapping, tha ' is, that the cut in the Vietnam war is led to some extent to our reduction of 3itary spend- ing, but taking that into count, some $20 to $22 billion in gross nilitary cuts have occurred. But where as that sav- Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 June 29, 1971 Approved language. Is he talking about 1 percent or 2 percent? And is he talking about all weapons systems or just up to 40 per- cent of one weapon? It is obviously impossible that an 11- percent cut in proposed spending could bring a 50-percent cut in military and civilian manpower. The fact is that the Secretary's lan- guage in opposition to this amendment is a form: of "rhetorical overkill." It is political blunderbuss. What we want is for the Pentagon to return to the taxpayer some of the $10 billion in personnel cuts already made. They can save money and improve efficiency by reforming procurement. What about reducing the $33 billion in overruns the General Accounting Office reported for some 61 weapons systems? For Release 2005/08/22 CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE ings gone? Even generous estimates for inflation and pay r"aises leave $8 to $10 billion unaccounted for. And next year the Pentagon proposes to spend from $75 to $77 billion, and `is asking for $77 bil- lion in new,'obligational authority-the key to future spending. Thus, in fiscal year 1972 the Pentagon is asking for the same $77 billion it spent in fiscal years'1968, 1969, and 1970-the peak years of the Vietnam war. The purpose of this amendment is to give the hard-pressed American taxpayer a share fn the Vietnam savings which up ufitil now the Pentagon has usurped for itself, and which. it intends to usurp for itself next year as well. THE PRIORITIES AMENDMENT There is a second reason why this amendment should pass. This is the priorities amendment. If we are going to _ have any oppor- tunity to devote our Federal revenues to meeting the very, serious problems of this country, they must come largely from some slowdown in iilitary spending. Former Budget Director Charles Schultz .has told us that existing pro- grams will use up'-every dollar of new revenues. generated by an increase in the gross national product through fiscal year 1974 even if unemployment is re- duced to 4 percent. Unless we are prepared for huge defi- cits, for rigid economic controls over prices and wages, or gigantic tax in- creases, there is no other major way, except by cutting the military -budget, to pay for the needed programs now pro- posed or enacted. Unless we cut the military budget, there. will be no funds to pay for new health programs, to enlarge the fight on pollution, to meet our national hous- ing goals,_ for a Federal, assumption of State and local weiare costs, or to put a floor under family income. ]t is time the Congress and the Senate faced that hard, cruel, objective fact. And, unless we relieve the pressure on the budget and on spending, the deficit will rise, inflation will increase, and our eeonon7y will remain in a conditionwhich has been dubbed", slag-flation-inflation and stagnation at the same time. In this sense, this is the fiscal respon- sibility amendment. TEE I'EitTAGON OBJECTS The Pentagon opposes this amend- ment. That is to be expected. In doing so they have brought up their heavy weapons. In a letter to the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Secretary Laird claims that this small amendment would require "reductions up to 50 percent of our planned military and civilian manpower at the, end of .fis- cal year 1972." Secretary Laird also says it would re- quire action of "uptoa 40 percent cut- abek in on-going weapons systems and 30 percent In operational levels." That is a very artful expression by Secretor laird He is a brilliant .Man and he ows how to use lan- guage and how to persuade Congress and the pub- lie. Note the words " jp, to 50 percent"and 'P, to; 40- percent." That is ambiguous IRRESPONSIBLE CHARGE The Secretary charges that the amend- ment would create "a crisis in national 'secur'ity." That is an irresponsible and outrageous charge. Last year-fiscal year 1971-the Pres- ident initially proposed a military budget of $71 billion-only $3 billion above the $68 billion we are proposing today. But last year we were spending $13 billion in incremental costs in Vietnam. This year--the new fiscal year-we will be spending only $8 billion. That is a cut of $5 billion. How then can our proposal, which is only $3 billion below what the President himself proposed a year ago, create a crisis in national security when Vietnam costs alone have been cut by $5 billion? But there is more proof than that. The National Urban Coalition this year pro- posed a $60 billion military budget. Their estimate was based on detailed studies by former Pentagon experts, including Mr. :Robert Benson, formerly in the comptrollers' office in the Defense De- partmerit, and the former comp-,roller of the Pentagon, Mr. Robert Anthony. This was a constructive, detailed, objec- tive job done by those who have worked in the Pentagon. They proposed a $60 billion budget this year. This could be done without endangering national se- curity, according to. these Pentagon ex- perts. Thus, our modest $68 billion ceil- ing, or a cut about half the size they propose, cannot possibly endanger na- tional security. That is nonsense.- SCARE TACTICS What we find here are scare tactics, not facts. These small cuts, with intelligent planning, could be put into effect with- out disruption. By cutting back the fat, the frills, and the waste, we could in- crease our military strength while re- ducini; Costs. Look at the record. At the end of World. War II, we cut military spending by over $60 billion in 2 years. Some 10 million men and women were discharged from the military. That was a cut some 15 to 20 times bigger than we propose. here. There was no mass unemployment. No, economic catastrophe. Unernploy- ment _in" in" 1947 stood at only 3.4 percent. What, we are really being told is that military, spending is a form of welfare or a gigantic WPA project. Instead of re- orderin our priorities and providing for S 10141 an orderly reconversion from the Viet- nam war, we are told we must continue a wasteful procurement system, which the Deputy Secretary of Defense called a "mess," an Army of a million men where less than one in 10 is a combat soldier, an emergency Reserve force and National Guard of almost 1 million men at an an- nual cost of $2.4 billion, which was not even called up in the Vietnam emergen- cy, and to continue funding many re- dundant overseas bases numbering some 400 major and almost 3,000 minor ones scattered in 30 countries throughout the world 25 years after the end of World War II. That is where the money can be saved. Instead of threatening a blunderbuss, the Pentagon should start a major effi- Our amendment could start the Pen- tagon down the road to military effi- ciency, combat readiness, and reform in procurement. There is another reason why this amendment should go into effect. In the last 4 'fiscal years, Congress has appro- priated almost $8 billion less than the Pentagon has spent. How can they spend more than we appropriate? The answer is that they have a backlog of almost $40 billion in obligated and uxlobligated funds to draw from. When Congress cuts their funds, they dip into this multibillion- dollar kitty to help make up the differ- ence. Here is the size of the kitty. The Pentagon has $27 billion in their procurement backlog-about a year and a half's supply. But they are asking for $19 billion more this year. They have a $3.9 billion backlog in R. & D. funds. That is more than half the $7.88 billion they want in new funds in fiscal year 1972. They have, a $2.7 billion construction backlog-more than double the $1.2 bil- lion spent in fiscal year 1971. They have a $2.8 billion backlog in op- eration and maintenance, $892 million of military personnel funds, and $2.2 bil- lion in "other" balances. Altogether the Pentagon has stashed away in its obligated- and unobligated balances almost $40 billion backlog. That is why, like Old Man River, even when we cut the budget, Pentagon spend- ing just keeps rolling along. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed at this point in the RECORn two tables,,one showing the Fed- eral fund obligated balances and the other an analysis of Federal fund unobli- gated balances. There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: TABLE 1. Federal fund obligated balances [In millions of dollars] Obligated balances end of fiscal year 1972 Department of Defense-Military: Procurement --------------------- $16,992 Research and development-_------- 3,896 Operation and maintenance--_----- 2, 816 Construction --------------------- 1,314 Military personnel----------------- 892 Other ---------------------------- 1,185 Total ---------------------- 27,095 SOURCE: Special Analyses G, Table 0-3, Budget of the United States,, 1972 p. 103. Approved For Releas 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 910142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 29, 1971 TABLE 2. Analysis of Federal fund unobligated -balances 1In millions of dollars] Unobligated balances end of fiscal year 19r Department of Defense-Military: Procurement ------------------------ 0,030 Oonstruction --------------------- 1,421 Researc band development.._ __ 956 Other ---------------------------- 1,042 Total ------- --------------- Total: Obligated and unobli- 12,349 gated Department of Defense balances, end of year 1972--- 39, 444 SOIIRCE: Special Analyses 0, Table G-2, Budget of-the United States, 1972, p. 99. NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT Mr. PROXMIRE. We offer our amend- ment now, on this bill, because now is the time to act. The fiscal year is Just beginning. And the only way Congress has to control military spending is by placing a ceiling-a limitation--on the Pentagon. Some will say, wait for the authoriza- tion bill. Wait for the appropriations bills. We did that last year. And we offered a similar amendment to the authoriza- tion bill, the manager of that bill argued that it came too late in the year for the Pentagon to make plans to cut the budget. He waked eloquent about how it cut In September would not be effective until even more of the fiscal year had passed, making it Impossible for the Pentagon to absorb the cuts in an or- derly way. We offer this amendment now, on this bill, as a specific response to that argu- ment. I hope Senators will not now argue that it comes too early in the year. REASSERT CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL In addition, there is exact relationship between appropriations, on the one hand, and outlays or actual spending, on the other. Outlays are determined by the Pentagon. Unless we place a limit on them, we lose control over military spend- ing. That is the reason why the more than $13 billion Congress has cut from Penta- gon requests in the last 3 years has re- sulted in a drop in outlays of only $3 billion. This is the "Return Control Over Pent- agon Spending to the Congress" amend- ment. - Finally, there are those who, say. I favor specific cuts but I am against im- posing ceilings as a matter of principle. There are two answers to that. First, a large number of those who say this, did not vote for the specific cuts to military weapons systems when they were offered. It was argued that the Pentagon experts were the ones who knew where to cut and that we should leave the cuts to them. If those who in the past made that argument will vote for this amendment, It should carry over- whelmingly. Second, most Senators who have been Members of this body throughout the past 4 years have, in fact, voted at one time or another to impose a ceiling on expenditures of one kind or another. Whe1;1 a Senator says he is against "ceil- ing" amendments, look at the record. In almost every case one can say to him, "But Senator, you voted for the Cotton amendment in 1970 or the Williams amendment in the same year." For all of these reasons, this amend- ment should be agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, Z, suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I ask unanimous consent that the time for the quorum call be charged equally to both- sides. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The time for the quorum can will be taken equally from both sides. The clerk will call the roll. The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it Is so ordered. Mr_ ELLENDER. Mr. President, the original amendment that was to be pro- posed by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and the distinguished Sena- tor from Maryland dealt, as I understood it, with expenditures. I wonder-and I do not see them in the Chamber-whether the amendment as now proposed by them affects expenditures or appropriations. I am assuming that the original intent is still there, which is to impose a limi- tation on Department of Defense expend- itures for military functions. The reason why I am asking that is simply this: We have a backlog of sev- eral billion dollars subject to expendi- ture in the Defense Department. For in- stance, we are building today two large nuclear powered aircraft carriers, for which the money was appropriated sev- eral years ago. We have a lot of other programs going on for which the moneys have been appropriated, and they are subject to existing valid contracts that involved fiscal year 1972 expendi- tures of about $20 billion. Mr. President, my position on reduc- tion of expenditures by the Department of Defense and all other Government agencies, I am sure. is well known to Senators. However, I think the proper way to accomplish this is through the appropriation process, which requires Congress and the Committees on Appro- priations to make a thorough review of the appropriations requested by the var- ious agencies, and to make reductions based on this examination of the re- quirements. The Department of Defense subcom- mittee has held extensive hearings on the requests totaling $73.2 billion that will be considered in the regular De- partment of Defense appropriation bill for fiscal 1972. For the most part we have completed our hearings and are in a position to report the bill shortly after It passes the House. I have in mind certain areas where I believe substantial cuts can be made. However, I cannot support this more or less meat-ax approach for cutting ex- penditures for military functions. Fur- thermore, I do not think we should give to the executive branch the right to allocate such a reduction 'without any guidelines. The appropriations for military func- tions involve about 50 different accounts, and if the pending amendment is adopt- ed a system for the control of expendi- tures for each of these accounts will have to be set up. Of course, this cannot be accomplished by July 1. The total of $75 billion for military functions expenditures involves appro- priations for "military personnel," "Re- serve personnel," "National Guard per- sonnel," "retired pay," "operation and maintenance," "procurement," "research and development" and "military con- struction." Of this total of $75 billion, about $20 billion is required for going li_?ograms un- der contract. A large amount is required for fixed charges for the support of mili- tary and civilian personnels As I recall there is only about $15 billion for ex- penditures for new programs. When you consider that about $60 bil- lion is required for personnel support costs and contracts for going programs It is clear that this meat-ax approach is not a good one. I think it would be a fatal mistake, so far as Olt* security is concerned, for us to adopt the pending amendment. I am very hopeful that the Senate will leave this matter in the hands of the Appropriations Committee. As I have in- dicated, we have held hearings on the subject for weeks; and it strikes me that we would be in a better position, as mem- bers of the Appropriations Committee, to tell where the cuts should' be made in respect to the appropriations for fiscal year 19'72. For fiscal 1971, as I recall the figures, expenditures for military functions ex- ceeded appropriations by $1.0 billion, and this difference came from appropriations previously made. Are we going to cut back on that? Are we going to r.enege? Are we going to stop contracts that have been in effect for a long time on the construc- tion of many ships, aircraft and other weapons that are now being Constructed? Are we going to stop repairing certain ships that we now have under contract? Are we going to stop programs that have have been in effect for 4 or 5 years? If we make a meat-ax approach, as is contemplated under this amendment. I repeat that either some of these on-going programs will have to be terminated, and this would involve substantial sums for contract termination costs., As I said earlier, it is our trope to have the Department of Defense appropriation bill before the Senate soon-I hope before August 6, if the required author- izations are enacted by that time. Mr. President, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee and as chair- man of the Defense Subcommittee, I have had the full cooperation of the entire committee, particularly the dis- tinguished Senator from North Dakota. We sat day after day, listening to many witnesses on the fiscal 197$ appropria- tion requests, and it is my 4incere belief that we are in a better position to say what ought to be done as to the appro- priation bill for 1972 than to simply take an amendment such as t# a one now pending. ' Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved For`Releas~-2005/08122': CIA-RDP72-003378000500280002-2 June 29, 1971 CONGR.E~SSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE S 10143 Before the debate. is over, I would like ations, of, $73.2 billion. A comparable The amount appropriated was $71.4 billion- to find out froW the sponsors of this period, would be required to review fully not $68.7 billion. After adding the $2.0 billion amendment what, is going to become of the impact on national security of an the Congress directed Defense to use from all the, programs, that we now have in $8.7 billion reduction in military fungi- prior year balances, Defense expenditures effect-the procurement and construe- tiorw expenditures. programmed at $73.4 billion are equal to the lv overlooked tion programs. Will this cut apply to In considering the proposed amend- the p prop rope noneentnts s of the e approvede those programs? How will this amend- ment, one has to take into consideration the th pmtiook Second Supplemental Appropriation of rnent affect the moneys necessary for the fact that the estimated fiscal year 1971, our defense-that is, to pay the men and 1972 expenditures for military functions The $10.4 billion claimed expenditures FY women in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, are based on the availability of $17.8 bil- 1968-71 above appropriations is incorrect. and Air Force. It is bound to affect them. lion in new appropriations requested for This amendment has been changed fiscal year 1972 and $37.7 billion provided from its original text, and it now applies in prior fiscal years, as I indicated a mo- for only. 5 weeks. That would involve a meat ago. In other words, the planned large amount of work in the Defense De- expenditure program of $75 billion for partment, where there are about 50 dif- military functions during fiscal year 1972 ferent accounts, and each of these ac- Is based on a total available for expendi- counts would have to be made subject lure of $115.5 billion. to expenditure controls. It would mean, This is the amount of money, a.,; I said in my opinion, the hiring of many more a moment ago, that will be available for clerks to do this work. exependiture during fiscal 1972. It has We do not know where this cut is go- been appropriated and when it will be ing to be made, The amendment is not expended will depend largely on progress specific as to .is to be, made, made on programs previously funded as It will well as fiscal 1972 funding. be, that will be left The source of the appropriations on in the. hands of the executive, and with which the executive it might be pure guess- tune estimate to planned $75 is bis billion expendi- the as, to which of these 50 accounts font:fpctor. The based a total Department of De- must be charged with what, It offers a fence planned The Depaar itlDe- tremendous job which may entail the which includes expenditures of $$ billion, work of a few more thousand, clerks, for military assistance pprogr$1 $1 billion in order to get the figures straight and come from fro the following will from appropriation in order for, the Department of Defense sources: fiscal year 1972 funds, $55.1 bil- to do a job In keeping with what the lion; fiscal year 1971 funds, $13.6 billion; amendment contemplates. fiscal year 1970 and prior year funds, $7.9 The Department of Defense subcom- billion; budget concepts adjustments, mittee has held extensive hearings-run- minus $0.6 billion. ping for 6 ',weeks-on the requests total- Mr, President, these are the types of ing $73.2 billion which will be considered factors that need to be thoroughly re- in the. regular Department of Defense viewed in extensive hearings before we appropriation bill. I, can assure the Mem.- vote on an amendment such as we are bers of the .Senatethat the Committee now considering. on Appropriations will recommend some I did request Secretary Laird to review substantial reductions in these requests, the proposal as it was transmitted to me but these recommendations will not en- by its Sponsors on June 18. Secretary danger national security, as, in my opin- Laird replied by letter dated June 24, ion, will be done now if the amendment and I ask unanimous consent to have is adopted. the letter, printed in the RECORD. The proposed amendment providing There, being no objection, the letter for a ceiling of $68 billion on fiscal year was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, 1972 expenditures for military functions as follows: of the Department of Defense represents THE SEcaETARY of DEFENSE, a reduction of.$6,975,000,000 in the esti- Washington, D.C., June 24, 1971. mated $74,975,000,000 expenditures for Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, these purposes as set out in the Presi- Chairman, Department of Defense Subcom- dent's budget. Furthermore, the House of m;lttee, Committee on Appropriations, Representatives has approved one ver- U.S.senate sion of a military P.ay increase that will portunity MR. t DEAR. y tCHAIRMAN: I appreciate the - o furnish comments on the pro- cost about $1.7 billion during fiscal year posed Proxmire-Mathias amendment vo the 1972, and the Senate has passed a dif- Continuing Resolution, in response to your ferent version of a (Military pay increase request for our views on this very important which would cost about the same matter. anlaU it. For our discussion of this The amendment would limit Defense ex- amel dment, I think, we have to assume penditures for military functions to $68 bil- niilitary' pay increases coming out Of lion. In support of the amendments, the pro- conference, on the .draft extension bill ponents claim that the Department of De-vr JUNt 16, 19/1 that will increase iscal year 1972 gig- fense J81 spending $73.4 billion when only (Dollars in millions] increase, $68 7 bili . on was appropriated and further, penditures for xy functions by $1.7 that expenditures in excess of appropriations billion..Therelore, the proposed amend- is a consistent'practice of the Department. ment represents a reduction of $8,675,- The attached statement outlines the er- 0.00,000 in the adjusted planned expendi- roneous basis upon which the proponents at- tures, tempt to support the amendment and the I regret that we did not have time to very serious impact it would have on our na- hold hearings on the proposed amend- tional defense posture. merit. As Istated, we have spent 6 weeks The supporting data furnished by the pro- ponents contain very significant errors: in hearings on the request for appropri- Appropriations for FY 1971 are miss-;ated. The correct figure is $7.4 billion and this is derived only by using the years selected. If you compare the period FY 1966-72, which more accurately covers the cycle of war spending, Defense expenditures are $7.6 bil- lion less than appropriations. The proponents failed to understand the control your Committee and the Congress exercise over the use of prior year fund balances. Defense has been required by the Congress to apply billions of such balances over the years to fund current programs, thereby re- ducing the appropriations enacted. A review of the record by the proponents would have shown the steady decrease in Defense un- expanded balances since the fiscal year 1967 peak, reflecting the actions of the Congress to reduce these balances. The above factors are serious; but the im- pact of the'amendment on Defense programs would be so extreme as to create a crisis in national security. In summary, the amend- ment would require unacceptable actions involving: Reductions up to 50% of our planned mili- tary and civilian manpower at the end. of fiscal year 1972. Up to a 40% cutback in on-going weapons systems and 30% in operational levels. Reductions would be far in excess of the percentage dollar cut because of necessary phasing, transportation, terminal leave, sev- erance pay, etc. The attached statement pro- vides the detailed computation underlying these required reduction actions. Your Committee has made a detailed re- view of the planned force structure and op- erating levels and is aware that significant progress is being made to increase the cost effectiveness of Defense programs -and to improve management throughout the De- partment. This review has emphasized the fact that in dollars of real buying power, the Defense budget is back to the pre-war level while still financing almost $8.0 billion of war costs. Personnel are 133 thousand below pre-war levels indicating the progress being made in eliminating unnecessary overhead staffing as well as force reductions consistent with the Nixon Doctrine. The Proxmire-Mathias proposal would en- danger the national security posture of the United States and should be defeated. Your support in opposition to the amendment is urgently requested. Sincerely, Enclosure. TABLE 1.-APPROPRIATIONS AND OUTLAYS, MILITARY FUNCTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FIGURES PRESENTED WITH SENATOR PROXMIRE'S LETTER Appropria- tions Outlays Excess of outlays over appropria- tions 1968_-_____--- 1969__________ 1970____------ 1971_-________ 76.4 77.4 1.0 76.1 77.9 1.8 74.3 77.2 2.9 68.7 73.4 4.7 Total Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337?R000500280002-2 10.4 S 10144 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337 000500280002- CC}NGRESSIOl'r Al RECORD -SENATE uric '3, I971 CORRECT FIGURES (Dollars in mitlional Naturally, action by the Senate Ap- is well below the wartime peak, inflation propriations Committee itself cannot has escalated costs tremendously. come until after the House sends their During the last 9 years, the Depart- appropriations ball to the Senate. This men( of Defense has experienced a cu- Excess of- amendment Is so o-it of the ordinary mulative inflation of 49.2 percent. This Outlays Appropri? that it is subject to a point of order under means that each dollar we appropriate ovIr a the rules of the Senate, unless the or spend this next fiscal year will pro- App rope- appropn- over Fiscal year aliens Outlays, alions outtars amendment has been corrected in the duce just about half the deft'nse we ob A-11 a ea,4ago As a a f 1966------- .__. 61,839 1967 71,935 67, 457 __ . 1968-.----...... 76,332 77, 373 1, 0a t -- 1969 76,221 77 877 1, 656 . . ...... -- 1970 --------- 74,386 71 150 2,764 _- .... - 1971 71,449 73.370 1,921 -...... 1972(request)-_.- 77,804 74,975 _ - 2, Kt9 Note: Net excess of appropriations over outlays, fiscal year 1966 72, cumulative (7 years),7.586. The table floes riot incylude figures for military assistance, Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, in this letter, the Secretary points out that there is no direct relationship between the total appropriated for military func- tions and the expenditures for military functions for a given fiscal year. This is true because of the fact that the major portion of the appropriations provided for procurement, R.D.T. & E., and mili- tary construction do not result in ex- penditures during the year in which ap- propriated. However, more importantly, the Secretary goes on to state: the impact of the amendment on De- fense programs would be so extreme as to create a crisis In national security. in sum- mary, the amendment would require unac- ceptable actions involving: Reductions up to 50 percent of our planned military and civilian manpower at the end of fiscal year 1972. Up to 40 percent cutback in on-going weap- ons systems and, 30 percent lit operational levels, rom a o r y meantime, or changed. The Proxmire- tamed Mathias amendment would be more matter of fact, in a general sense, the properly offered to the forthcoming De- cost overruns on such items as the F-14, fense Appropriations bill. and the C-5A that have plag led the De- Mr. President, what we are asked to partment of Defense in recel9tyears can consider today amounts to a reduction of be largely attributed to the unforeseen $7 billion In the fiscal year 1972 planned expenditures for the military functions of the Department of Defense. When the expenditure impact of the $1.7 billion in the military pay raise proposals that have recently been passed by both the House and Senate are considered, we are actually considering a reduction of $8.7 billion in the adjusted total of $76.7 bil- lion in estimated expenditures of the Department of Defense. There are a number of reasons for my opposition to this amendment. The first of these is its effect on the defense posture of our Nation. I am cer- tain that the authors of this measure do not wish to strip us of the means of ade- quately defending ourselves. To a de- gree, at least, this is what it would do. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird in a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Ap- propriations Committee, Sector ELLEN- DER, stated: The Proxmire-Atathlrta proposal would en- danger the national security posture of the United States and should be defeated. Actually, the Defense budget request for fiscal year 1972 will provide approxi- mately the same level of expenditures What I was talking about a while ago. for defense as we had in 1964, prior to As I said, if such an amendment Is the Vietnam war. This results from in- adopted, there Is no telling the effect it flation which has added $25 billion to will have on our national security. the Defense budget since 1964. Without Based on 6 weeks of hearings on the adding a single man or piece of new planned defense programs for fiscal year equipment, the 1964 Defense program 1972 and Secretary Laird's letter, I am would cost about $76 billion in 1972. convinced that the adoption of the pro- For military personnel, for example, posed amendment would have a discs- costs have increased by 85 percent since raises necessitated lt f -p a y u as a res o 1964 ur defense posture t ff This amendment, therefore, would have a far more serious effecton our mili- tary strength than the 10-percent cut in spending which the proposal would im- pose. The Defense Department has stated that such action would require tremendous cuts in both rttilitary and civilian personnel, extensive Contract ter- mination, a greatly reduced operating level for our ships, aircraft and land forces, as well as extensive bptse closures. In today's world I do not believe that we can afford to decimate our military forces, put huge numbers of civilians out of work, and jeopardize our national security. Disregarding all of these Comparisons, the Defense Department today, measured in terms of aircraft, ships, jsnd person- nel is at the lowest strength we have had in 20 years. For this reason alone, I strongly oppose the amendment. But there is another reason why I oppose this amendment, a ` reason that involves the very nature of our work in the Senate. This amendment is not good - par . on o ec trous e Mr. President, I do hope that the by inflation. For civilians in the Defense members have conducted ;-a searching amendment will be rejected. Department, this equals about 56 per- scrutiny into every import4nt aspect of Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the cent. Between 1968 and 1972 alone civil- Defense appropriations. I have attended Senator from Louisiana yield? ian salaries have increased by 37.7 per- every one of these hearings and I can un- Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield cent. equivocally state that never in my ex- 15 minutes to the Senator from North Retired pay costs have tripled since perience has there been a. more pains- Dakota. 1964 because of increases related to the taking review of military requests. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. cost of living and especially the greater Last year substantial reductions were CHILES). The Senator from North Dakota number of personnel now on the retired accomplished. I hope and believe that siz- is recognized for 15 minutes. rolls. During the same period, the cost able reductions will be made in this year's Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to of living has risen by almost 28 percent. requests and without harming our vital oppose the amendment offered by the Since the peak ofthe war in 1968 the defense posture. But this amendment distinguished Senators from Wisconsin Defense Department has made marked would profoundly affect the orderly and and Maryland (Mr. PROXMIRE and Mr. reductions in both manpower and con- studied recommendations of the com- MATWAS). tract spending. Unfortunately, these re- mittee. As the ranking minority member of the ductions have not had the dollar impact We are asked to accept :this proposal Senate Appropriations Committee and that one would normally associate with without hearings and without consid- the Subcommittee on Defense Appropria- rather widespread reductions because in- eration of its effect. tions, I cannot help but resent to some Ration has eaten up the planned savings. Some Members might question why ex- extent the offering of an amendment Since 1968 civilian and military per- penditures presently are eXpected to be that would cut $8.7 billion from fiscal sonnel have been reduced by 1.2 million. above requested appropriations. Let me year 1972 Defense Appropriations when At the same time total personnel costs explain. in the first place? there is little neither of the sponsors even bothered to have sharply increased by over $7 billion. direct relationship between appropria- attend the approximately 2 months of In a like manner total purchases have tions and expenditures for a specific fis- hearings. And when our subcommittee been reduced by almost a third from cal year. Appropriations that are made in which listened carefully to both the pro- the peak war spending of over $45 big- 1 year, particularly in the- areas of pro- ponents and opponents of the Defense lion-36 billion of this cut, too, has been curement and resarch, are translated into Appropriations request, has not even bad eaten up by rising prices. expenditures not only in that year but for a chance to take any action as yet. Thus, although our Defense strength several years thereafter. legislative procedure. Although I am sure that the sponsors of the amendment do not so intend it, the amendment makes a mockery of all the work of the Apropriations Committees and Armed Services Committees on the budget and authorization requests of the Department of Defense. The chairman of the Senate Appro- priations Committee has conducted many weeks of hearings on the Defense De- tment budget for fiscal year 1972. Its Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 June 29, 1971 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 10145 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE For example, an aircraft carrier for which funds are provided in a given year will have an expenditure impact over a period of about 5 years. Unless we were to go back to the contract authorization method of appropriating, which was largely discarded years ago, research and production money must be provided sev- eral years in advance.of its use. This is the normal procedure. To change this so that expenditures and appropriations are roughly comparable at this time would mean a reversal of recent past decisions of the Congress.' There is another reason why expendi- tures, particularly in recent years, have exceeded appropriations. Congress in the last 3 fiscal years has provided four pay raises for the military and civilian per-. sonnel of the Defense Department. This amounts to a 43.9 percent pay increase' for military personnel and a 33.1 percent increase for civilian personnel in the DOD._The total amount of money added to the Defense appropriations bill by these actions for solving increases is $10.5 billion. Subsequent to these pay raise au- thorizations by Congress the appropria- tions committees have had to increase Defense appropriations to pay for them, Two of these pay increases occurred dur- ing the present fiscal year. No doubt, we may have; two or three more next year. Mr. President, these are just two of the many examples that could be given as to why expenditures currently exceed appropriations. History provides us with a warning. At the end of World W;kr II the United States disarmed unilaterally. Let us not repeat this without being fully aware of the possible consequences of'unchecked aggression. For these and many other reasons, Mr. President, I urge that this amendment be defeated. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator from North Dakota yield briefly? Mr. YOUNG. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin. , Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I point out that I think the Senator from North Dakota and, the Senator from Louisiana have made excellent state- metits and very persuasive statements. However, the Senator asks why we offer this amendment to this particular reso- lution. He says that it would be much better if we wait for the military pro- curement bill to come up, possibly in the coming month. Mr. President, I quote from a state- ment by the Senator fr"om Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) she we tried todo this last year. The Senator from Mississippi If we impose a strong reduction now of, say, over $2 billion, it would have to be ab- sorbed' within the Jast 'six months of the This till cannot possibly be passed and Mr. YOUNG. I do not think that there signed by the President in less than a month is a corporation in the United States from now. And that will be three months with a worth of a billion dollars that gone. would be able to effect a 10-percent cut If we put this amendment in the bill in expenditures in a month or 35 days, that is coming before the Senate later, much less a huge department of the we will :have the same problem as we had Government, like the Department of last year. There is no satisfactory vehicle Defense. It involves intricate procedures, into which to put this provision. All this military personnel, and even the war in does is provide that it will be for the life Vietnam. of the continuing resolution, until Au- I yield the floor. gust 6. Then we can take another look The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who at it. So I submit to the distinguished Sen- ator that I understand his point. I think it is a good point. We would have pre- ferred to wait for many reductions, but if we are going to limit spending for fis- cal year 1972, we have to make an ef- fort to do it before fiscal year 1972 begins. Mr. YOUNG. The example the Senator gave is not apropos. The Senator was talking about the statement by the Sen- ator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) with regard to an appropriation after about one-half of the fiscal year had expired. Mr. PROXMIRE. It was in August. Mr. YOUNG. Now, we are considering a continuing resolution which provides an extension to August 6, or for only about a month. Certainly the Senator should give some consideration to the Committee on Appropriations and; let them have a chance to look over the cuts. Undoubtedly Senators should have an opportunity to propose cuts,,but to do this on. a resolution that is only effec- tive until August 6, is bad procedure. Mr. ]PROXMIRE. This is only for the next 35 days and it does give the Com- mittee on Appropriations an opportunity yields tine? Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? ' Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Utah. Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I rise to sup- port the amendment by the Senators from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE) and Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS) which would set an aggregate ceiling of $68 million on funds to be expended for Department of Defense military functions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972. I do so for the following reasons: A reasonable ceiling on defense spend- ing has as its principal purpose an over- all reduction in defense spending to cre- ate a more efficient use of the Nation's material and human resources. Billions of defense dollars are wasted annually through excessive layers of civilian and military staffs, inordinate coordination and duplication, impractical, overlapping and unneeded weapon system, and waste- ful stockpiling of nuclear armaments. Such crippling and unproductive defense spending is a major cause of inflation that consumes the taxpayer's earnings. By curbing overall military expendi- tures, the amendment will force the Pres- ident and Department of Defense to re- structure defense priorities within the to decide what to do at that point. If imposed dollar ceiling and undertake sig- we do not accept it at that time the nificant economy changes of a nature Department of Defense is in a position that will not be offset by increased spend- of moving ahead on the $73.4 billion ing in other areas. The ceiling will impose expenditure during the first part of the moderate cuts which can be absorbed on fiscal year. a timely basis without endangering na- Mr. YOUNG. The Senator weakened tional security. his own case by trying to impose reduc- . Moreover, the amendment gives the tions of this magnitude for only 35 days. Congress power not just to appropriate Mr. PROXMIRE. The reduction would funds but to control spending. The De- be $4315 million for the 35-day period. partment of Defense consistently spends Mr. YOUNG. How does the Senator amounts in excess of congressional ap- expect the Department of Defense to propriations. A ceiling allows Congress to apply the reduction? Would the Senator reduce overall military spending by set- have them cancel some production con- ting a limit, but leaves the specific deter- tracts :' They could reduce personnel but mination of where to restructure to the personnel has already been reduced by President and the Department of De- over 1 million since 1968, and this re- fense with their substantially greater ac- duction is continuing. cess to information. Once Congress's au- Mr. PROXMIRE. There are many thority over all spending is established, ways, as the Senator knows, that they Congress can deal with specific expendi- could apply it. A reduction in personnel tures without fear that these saving pro- would be the big way. That covers a little grams will be offset by increased spend- more than one-half of the expendture. ing in other areas. They could cut personnel more. In addi- In Vietnam, for example, the annual tion, theiy could cut back on bases. Or incremental costs of the war have been calendar year. It is just a fact of life that they could speed up the withdrawal of cut back over $16 billion from the war's we have already cleared July and August. men from Europe and Vietnam. They peak. Military manpower will be down 1 We are operating on a continuing resolution. could make some hard, tough choices in million men by the year's end. These sig- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time procureriient. nificant reductions are not reflected in of the Senator has expired. This is only about a 7-percent reduc- defense spending, however, as the mili- Mr. ELLENDER. NIr. President, I yield tion at the rate at which they would be tary budget is increasing. The new an additional 5 minutes to the Senator allowed to spend under the 'continuing budget's estimated $4 billion savings due from North Dakota. resolution. So it- is not the immen:;e cut to continued winding down of the Viet- Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I con- the Department of Defense officials have nam war will more than be consumed in 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R0b0500280002-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10146 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE Ju4e 29, 1971 Over the years, military programs hate pertain the Department of Defense. They not become less belligergnt as the bal- had first call on our Nation's resources, are not, by this amendment, required, ance of power shifts in ts favor. Overall military cost reductions are des- for example, to eliminate the B-I I agree, moreover, with the seven mem- perately needed if we are to reorient our bomber, while I and some other senators bets of President Nixon:; Blue Ribbon national priorities and provide for do- happened to support, while other Sena- Defense Panel who declared that- mestic programs aimed toward overcoin- tors oppose it, nor are they required to The consequences of begoming a second ing social and economic deprivation, eliminate the AEM which I and some rate power, even If national survival is not waste of our Nation's resources, urban other Senators happen to oppose, while threatened, could be serioust v detrimental to decay, pollution, and many other domes- other Senators support it, U.S. Interests, They are rigli!t in contending tic problems which need improvement to The amendment simply tells the Pen- that the road to peace gas never been make our industrial automated socitics tagon: Sharpen your pencils, think this through unilateral d ent ... fit for human existence. Unless excessive through with all the experience and ex- As I said last year at this time, only a defense spending is constrained, revenues pertise at your command, eliminate du- strong America can insure a safe world- and resources generated from increased plication, waste, and cut away at those if the military strength of the United economic growth will be consumed by programs of the least proven and most States is in jeopardy, so is the global bal- the military with serious consequences W dubious value, and provide us with the ance of military power hat has pre- human development, most secure defense you can at a cut of served peace among the great powers Mr. President, I shall vote for the $68 billion. since World War II. above reasons. Finally, Mr. President, we must keep in In fact, it is because I a ree with these The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who mind that weare not only discussing the principles, asserted by Sesiator JACKSON yields time? needs of our national defense. In a broad- as well as by the Presidentand his Secre- Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield er, more significant sense, we are really tary of Defense, It is because I agree that 3 minutes to the Senator from California. discussiing the critical issue of a deep and world peace will depend iiii coming dec- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sell- fundamental reordering of our national ades on the maintenance of American ator from California is recognized. priorities. We must pass this amendment military power, It is because I agree that Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, once so the process of altering our priorities the American lead in the arms race is again we are debating the significant i::- can begin in a meaningful manner. threatened for the first ti*.e since World sue of military spending and national In the ultimate analysis our national War II, it is because of our new security There is no Senator in this Chamber- security does not depend alone on our problems-not in spite of them-that I weapons and our military might. It de- advocate this amendment to set a ceiling who wishes to jeopardize our national of $68 billion on military outlays for fis- security or the vital interestsof this Na- pends also, to a very, very great degree, cal year 1972. I believe this move is ur- tion. Every Senator knows that we must on our internal strength, solidarity and gently needed as a first step toward a be equipped with a strong and viable na- our ability to provide for all thoroughgoing reapprais and reorien- tional defense posture In our lawless Americans adequate food, clothing and tation of our defense policies-a first vt orld. shelter, and a true equality of opportu- step to halt the current deterioration in The question, however, of spending bit- nity to live a use of one's choosing. It Is the hope and faith that this will Ive our long-range national security. lions of dollars for our military need: Is every American in our way of life that And may I say I am perpbexed by those must be approached in a rational and trill most of all, make our Nation a who believe that advocates of this realistic manner. As Richard Barnet hay secure nation. amendment "fail to recognize what is stated In his fine book "The Economy of going on in the world." Hqw, may I ask, Death": That is truly our real security and that after a decade when the United States The greatest danger of making a religion is what this amendment attempts to spent nearly twice as mt eh money on ort . - _ Y of national security is that it d acourage the provide T urge my colleagues to su pp Mr. PROXMLRE. Mr. President, I yield tems, and perhaps 50 percent more on For over a generation the American to Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS) research and development-all in con- people have been confronted with a con- 10 minutes. stant dollars-how, I ask,; after such a tinual buildup of our massive military Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, the long decade can we seriously subpose that our arsenal. We must question ever more debate on military spending once again problem is inadequate spending? The closely and ever more seriously, the real leaves me somewhat perplexed. As last fact Is that the deterioration in our na- needs of our society and the true needs year, I find I agree with most of the seri- tional security position hats little to do of our national defense. There have been ous arguments made by the opponents with how much money wehave spent- many careful studies by many highly of this amendment to cut the Defense except to the extent that t$e availability qualified Individuals, committees and budget. I agree that the Soviet Union has of relatively unlimited funds has culti- groups concluding that for far more made massive gains in recent years in vated Improvident and undisciplined drastic reduction called for in the pend- the quantity and quality of their weap- military spending policies. ing amendment are in order. ores. I agree that in many respects their These policies might have been toler- For example, the National Urban Coa- posture is now comparable to ours. I able during a period when the Soviet lition, In its exhaustive, detailed counter agree with my distinguished colleague, Union was far behind. But'today, as So- budget, recommends a cut of $24 bil- Senator JACKSON, that- viet strength significantly grows, we can lion-making a strong case for the view Those politicians who downgrade national no longer afford any but the most coldly that with the military budget conserv- security and denigrate national defense are realistic view of "what is going on in the aptly down to $50.4 billion we would have mistaken. Too many of them fan to recog- world" and what new si~rategies and a stronger, more secure Nation than we nize what is really going on in the world- weapons systems are truly responsive to do under the current far higher military and some of them seem to care les% ... changing world conditions. submit that budget with its many wasteful and in- Senator JACKSON said: an attitude of cold realisgi toward our efficient programs. Those who say we must take risks for national security will not sustain the no- Although we do not in this amendment peace by cutting the meat from our -military tion that we have been spending too little purpose the major changes recoln- muscle are not proposing risks for peace, money on the military. mended by the National Urban Coalition they are unwittingly proposing policies that In order to understand what went we should take every safe and sound would heighten the risk of confrontation and wrong it is necessary to a step we Can to eliminate costly military war? ? ? appraise the changing nature of the arms race at a a programs which do not really enhance I agree with Senator JACKSON. National time of accelerating teehndlogicai prog- our national security, security and deterrence must be para- ress. The Proxmire-Mathias amendment mount national priorities. Any politicians Since World War A, tf.e modes of would limit military outlays to approxi- who downgrade these indispensable ob- strategic war have been transformed mately $68 billion. This is clearly ade- jectives-who urge cutting the sinews of roughly every 5 years. 'tubers were quate for our national defense needs. our national strength-indeed reveal a supplanted as the key offe ve force by The effect of this amendment is to twisted view of International realities. several generations of liqui fueled mis- avoid imposing specific cuts on the ex- For it is clear that the Soviet Union will sales, which in turn were; replaced by Approved Fbr Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved For Releas 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 June 29, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE S 10147 solid fueled Minutemen and by mobile technology of predictable obsolescence, of extravagent futuility. He demands Polaris submarines. Strategies depend- for they are ultimately vulnerable to re- more money to multiply and embellish ing upon immediate' response to enemy fineinent in offensive missile accuracy. the obsolescent systems in our arsenal; attack preparations-and thus on often ABM, for all its redoubtable intricacy employing new technology not to pro- unreliable intelligence reports-have and ingenuity, is also of little usefulness duce more cost-effective and useful sys- given way to a policy of waiting out an in the strategic environment of the tems but to redeem old modes of thought attack before retaliating. Now the de- 1970's. It is a .system of the 1960's that and outmoded hardware: New ICBM's, velopment of multiple independently we wisely refrained from deploying in bombers, and carriers-with often futile targeted reentry vehicles-MIRV's-is different forms earlier in this decade de- new -defenses for them-redundant working another transformation of the spite repeated demands from the mili- fighters and tanks, raised to egregious criteria of deterrence. The Poseidon mis- tary. 't'he Pentagon, in effect, now is put- cost with unnecessarily sophisticated ac-, sale-a submarine based MIRV system, ting together two obsolescing teshnolo- cessories. Even though some of these sys- placing '10 independently aimed war- gies in the hope of getting one useful tems may well be supportable for the heads on each launcher-seemed until system. And the result is a vast waste- moment, they are irrelevant to our prob- recently the ultimate in mobile, invul- land of money and personnel lems of technological surprise-except nerable retaliatory power. But the Navy Technologically advanced and concep- again to the extent they divert valuable is now proceeding with development of tually retarded, ABM symbolizes the manpower from work on the frontiers ULM's-an underwater long-range American defense posture. We overreact of development. MIRV system with much longer reach to current or impending threats by pur- It is because the Soviet Union is greatly and greater. accuracy. chasing, elaborating, and multiplying improving its strategic panoply-greatly This pace of change, which has af- any technology which lies at hand. Thus expanding its efforts in R. & D.-that we fected conventional capabilities to an we greatly reduce our flexibility in pre- cannot afford to continue our present only slightly lesser degree, means that paring for future exigencies. pattern. It is because Dr, Foster and Sec- most existing military technology is ob- Apart from the same $28 billion spent retary Laird and Senator JACKSON are solescent, That is, in most cases, more on unnecessary prototypes of missiles generally right about the long-term So- effective alternative or countervailing that were not deployed, billions have Viet threat that they are hopelessly weapons are already required. Under been spent on repeatedly replacing our wrong in their proposals for short-term these conditions, heavy investment in land-'based missiles with new models as deployments. multiplying and embellishing current soon as they were developed-from suc- Let me repeat. Even Secretary Laird systems-or implementing current strat- cessive forms of Atlases and Titans to acknowledges that the threat to our se- egies-or responding to current threats- Minutemen I, II, and III. We have spent , curity is not immediate. It resides in the is' often wasteful, The real arena of many billions trying to maintain our sur- long-term impact of Soviet programs, collipetition has moved ahead to new face naval fleet at near World War II The persistent problem of our defense technologies which dictate changing levels-and protecting it with expensive policy has been over-reaction to current .strategies.. In this arena the side that and sometimes ineffective new defenses- and sometimes spuriously anticipated concentrates its resources on obsolescent despite the increasing vulnerability of all threats. The Soviet Union digs some weapons and strategies may be at a dig- surface systems to Soviet submarines, holes; Marshal Grechko makes a speech; advantage, even if it spends more than missile's, and other offensive weapons. and we are provoked into wasting bil- its opponent on advanced research and Over $15 billion has been spent on air lions. In effect, we have let our adver- development, For scientific genius and defense against the minimal Soviet saries dictate our defenses. And our technical expertise are limited. If a coon- bomber threat, overreaction to immediate threats has try employs its best manpower refining It would be possible, of course, to con- undermined our ability to meet our long- old systems, designed to carry out ob- trive the nightmare catalog of unpromis- term security problems. solete, strategies, it may not be able to ing weapons we have acquired, in our The result has been an erratic course .compete as well on the technological resolve to deploy every novelty we de- of spending that summons whole defense frontiers no matter how much money it velop in response to every possible threat, industries into being-and then dis- spends. Only long run investments di- despite our overall superiority-and solves them, when our initial alarms are ,rected, at scientific achievements 5 and without any ' overall strategic plan or disproven. We make little effort to pro- 6 years from now can redeem a side fall- scale of priorities. Suffice-it to sa.y that mote-conversion of valuable facilities to ing behind in a qualitative arms race, the total exceeds $100 billion. civilian purposes. We demoralize valua- Research on new systems, moreover, Meanwhile, John Foster, the Defense ble manpower. And for all our expensive. is much cheaper than deployment of old Department Director of Research and effort we never seem to have enough. ones. In a qualitative race, therefore, the Engineering, suggests that we may be I believe that we will have to maintain criterion for success is not chiefly money; falling behind in some facets of research high levels of defense spending for years it is our resourcesfplness in. Wing scarce and development, the one arena that to come. If we continue in our current scientific and technical resources in tan- matters most and costs least. ]n Dr. manner, however, there is a real danger dem with changing strategies. Again, Foster'? own words: that at some future day, we will direly spending money in the wrong places will in the next five years breakthroughs in need some form of armament and will actually retard a side's performance if military technology will tend to occur in the not be able to produce it in time. Our it diverts scarce manpower. Such are Soviet Union rather than in the United the spec al constraints of ,;. :.. States. huge ge Military Establishment would then -AY-0 Slailt'. Xul' 11 arms race F . osters statistics, showing a Soviet we are really subjecte d to technological Although for many years the United lead :in; military R. & D. spending, have surprise-or to a truly menacing enemy States was so far ahead technologically been challenged by the Federation of program-we cannot meet the threat by that it could afford to ignore these new American Scientists. And it may be that spending more on last year's novelties, realities, that time has now passed. The we are not in fact vulnerable to the kind or by expanding our maginot lines on Pentagon, however, has yet to recognize of technological surprise he envisages. ABM's. We will have to have a stable and it The proposals for new bombers, car- But there is no doubt that the Russians productive economy; we will require a riers, redundant fighters, new air de- have Massively increased their i:avest- reservoir of scientists and technicians fense, and-other traditional systems ne- ments in R. & D. Combined with their prepared to work effectively; we will need cessitate enormous .commitments of re- heavy programs of scientific and techni- an industrial base ready to produce new sources to strategically obsolescent cal education, this effort portends danger systems; and we will need a society that weapons. The fact that they are embel- for the United States, is ea er t g o support the effort If we- . conlished with the ost, formidably ad- Foster, however, does not propose new tinue on our currently erratice course, we vanced. new technology just, means that investment in American education. Nor will have an increasingly large Defense the waste of resources is compounded does he advocate new Federal programs Establishment superbly prepared for last by diversion of scarce personnel, of basic research to prevent technologi- year's illusory threat, last year's ques- One of the prime examples of this mis- cal surprise. Instead, he urges continua- tionable gap; a society unwilling to take is ABM, used to protect Minutemen, tion of the same mistaken pattern that believe the new alarms; and`an industrial Minutemen in fixed bases are already a has brought us to our present position base in disarray. In making these cuts, Approved For Releas 2005/08/22: CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002- S 10148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE . une ), 1971 therefore, I urge, as I did last year, that trctual, moral, and military strengths ... The distinguished Senator from Wis- the Pentagon take a special effort to Let me elaborate on this great truth ... cousin (Mr. PROXMIRE) whip is now pre- assure that scientific and other technical i, happens that defense is a field in which aiding is the chairman of that subcom- I wave had varied experience over a lltetime, mittee. It will be my purpose. and I am manpower are not permanently lost to and if I have learned anything, it is that our national security programs. Over the ;here is no way In which a country can satin- hopeful his purpose, to go more thor- last few years, our defense procurement .y the craving for absolute security-but :t oughly into detail about this matter, and programs have been cut by a total of easily can bankrupt Itself, morally and eco- to try to fix some definite dat4) and find nearly one-third without close attention r omically, in attempting to reach that il- out the number who can come' in under to the long-term effects. Our future iusory goal through arms alone, The military the present setup. mobilization base has been jeopardized. establishment, not productive oritseif, neces- As I said awhile ago, it striki,s me that It is crucial that current retrench- tardy must feed on the energy, productivity we have gone too far with this Cuban ments-like current expenditures-be nd brainpower of the country, and it it refugee program. It was never contem- designed with our long-term security in takes too much, our tonal strength declines. Plated that we would have a many as mind. Conversion of our defense industry Beyond all the issues raised in this de- 650,000 Cubans enter this coulitry under for peaceful purposes should not be con- bate, this fundamental principle still the program. As I pointed out, when the sidered as a part-time concern. Conver- stands firm. subject was discussed after Castro de- sion is a necessary instrument of intel- Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield cided to permit so many to come in, the ligent defense planning, preserving our myself 5 minutes. estimate made then was around 200,000, mobilization base for a future crisis. We had quite a discussion awhile ago and it seems that that number increases In the future our defense spending on the Cuban refugee problem. Last night from year to year. should be maintained at a relatively I discussed the matter with my counter- I believe that subject matter can better steady and balanced level. We should part from the Rouse side, Representa- be dealt with, and we will get more facts not allow uncertain new appraisals of t the MAHON. He said that the House of and be in a better position to present it Soviet intentions and capabilities to Representatives has had no hearings on to the Senate, when the bill; to which I panic us into erratic splurges of invest- The Cuban refugee problem, and that, if have referred comes before us for con- ment in untested systems. A balanced the Senate insists on its amendment, sideration. approach would prevent literal crash there may be difficulty in having the res- Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, will the programs for new aircraft--and titanic olution enacted before midnight tomor- Senator yield? new efforts in divining and forging-that row night. Mr. GURNEY. I believe this is the way bring public disillusionment and abrupt I know the time is short, Mr. Presi- to get at it, in a full fledged hearing that retrenchment. dent, and personally I do not want to develops all the facts. There is another point which should take any steps that would delay final ac- Mr. ELDER. As I have heretofore be considered as we approach a decision tion on the continuing resolution. I have stated, I had discussed the matter with on this amendment. Last week the joint discussed this matter with my good Mr. Manox, and he made a good point. committee on Internal revenue taxation friend from North Dakota, the ranking Last night before I went to sleep I estimated that the deficit for this year's Republican member of the Appropria- thought about it, and I hinted this morn- budget will reach $23.3 billion. As pro- tions Committee, Mr. YOUNG, and other Ing that I would take that action, because grams are currently planned, the same Senators, and I am prepared now to I do not wish to delay the patsage of this report indicates a deficit next year, ft- withdraw that amendment. continuing resolution. The joint resolu- cal year 1972, of around $23 billion again. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- tion must be passed by midnight This report does not include in its esti- sent that the language on page 4 of the tomorrow night; if we do not do so. mates many major programs in health. Joint resolution, beginning on line 8 with many departments will be without transportation, environmental protee- the comma after the figures "91-672" money, and I do not want the. to happen. tion, education, 'housing, and in other and ending with "United States" on line I am willing to wait 5 or 6 more weeks fields which are of vital concern to many 11, be stricken from the joint resolution. until we can go into more detail and have members of this body. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there more facts, so that we can deal with the The hard fact is that we must make a objection? Without objection, the lan- subject matter more intelligently next decision. If we are serious and respon- guage will be stricken, month. sible about our attempts to alleviate The language of the committee amend- Mr. CHILES. Mr. President. I also com- these desperate needs at home, we may ment referred to reads as follows: ", ex- mend the chairman for taking this have to accept a substantial tax Increase cept that none of the funds provided by action. He has now called the matter or an increasingly larger budget deficit this or any other Act may be used to fully to the attention of the Senate, and with all Its accompanying inflationary cover costs incurred in connection with the hearings should be able to determine consequences. I submit that both these the movement of refugees from Cuba to what number of people we Lave made a alternatives are unacceptable. the United States". commitment to, and whether it is a com- There Is a third choice. We can and Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President. will the initment that we are obligated under or distinguished Senator yield to me. should be bound by, what art the reasons must undertake a band reevaluation evaluand the Mr. E DER Yes, indeed. for these people being on welfare, and our defe national t a posture and policies and Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I wish to we can get all the facts in ttie hearing. I satonal treasure which is expended upon express my appreciation to the chairman certainly commend the ad+tion of the them. For the reasons which r have been for this action. I know I speak for my chairman in withdrawing that amend- discussing, such a step is mandatory to colleague from Florida (Mr. CHILEs), ment at this time. insure our future national security. It is who is not now able to speak for him- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? of our citizens, our cities, and our society. as presiding Officer, but we do indeed Mr >r't.1,FNDER. Have X used my 5 I would like to close by saying that re- appreciate thisaction and the compas- minutes? trenchment of the defense spending Is Sion and understanding of the chairman. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- squarely in the Republican tradition. I am sure that as hearings develop ator's time has expired. Senator Robert A. Taft in his last public later on other bills, we can look into the Mr. ELLENDER. I take 5 more speech appealed for "severe scrutiny of matter and come up with some solution minutes, Mr. President. the defense budget." And President that will be fair and equitable to all of Mr. President, with re:)ect to the Eisenhower, perhaps our most knowl- us. amendment that Is now piending, as I edgeable recent President on national I thank the chairman. pointed out earlier, I do not know wheth- security policy, and a man whose wisdom Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, it is er the amendment applies %o appropria- looms greater as time passes-summed my purpose to get more information on tions or to expenditures. Lat year, Con- up the problem in now famously the matter, and the subject matter will gress appropriated for fischl year 1971 prophetic words, which I would like to be taken up when the Foreign Assist- $71.449 million for military functions, quote again today. For vve should never ance and Related Programs Appropria- and we spent $73,370 millio i plus. forget them: tion Act of 1972 is considered. I am informed by the Defense Depart- No matter how much we spend for arms, (Mr. PROXMIRE assumed the chair ment that of the estimateld $75 billion there is no safety in arms alone. Our security is the total product of our economic. Intel- as Presiding Officer at this point.) for military functions about $40 billion Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 June 29,--1971 Approved ForC8"K2?RE'>c.6xu P7?ffi'TE 000500280002-2 Is required for perspmlel-related costs- this will be ab,t $41.7 billion when we cOrWider the additional military pay in- brease. To support on-going programs that are now in the under contract, that have been authorized by Congress in prior years, would require $20 billion, in round figures; and for new programs that will be authorized and that Congress will make provision for, or some of which we will make provision for, $15 billion will be required, for a total of, $76.7 billion, including the $1.7 billion for the addi- tional military pay increases. If we simply conclude now that we will spend at the rate of only $68 billion, as this amendment provides, I say to the Senate that our security would certainly be in trouble. Therefore, Mr, President, I am hopeful that this amendment will be rejected. Earlier I referred to the $20 billion re- quired for many programs for which no new appropriations are requested. Let me cite a few examples. The Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers: The estimated expenditure for the basic construction for fiscal 1972 is $265 million. We have nothing in the appropriation bill to continue that pro- gram, and yet this amendment would affect that. As-'to the Navy's general purpose as- sault ships=-LHA-the estimated ex- penditure is $172.7 million. New appro- priations requested for fiscal year 1972, none. Yet, under this amendment, part of that would likely be cut off. These are contracts that have been solemnly en- tered into by our Government and pri- vately owned concerns. I do not want to contemplate the effect this will have, be- cause the cutback on that means that probably we will have to enter into new contracts. There is no telling what it will S 10149 craft, estimated expenditures, $20 mil- and that is why we are offering this lion. New appropriations, none. amendment today. All, these contracts are in effect or in Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the force, and the moneys for them have distinguished Senator from Massachu- been appropriated in the past. Yet, under setts. this amendment, those contracts may Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I fully be affected. support the Proxmire-Mathias amend- I hope the Senate rejects this amend- ment to limit Pentagon spending to $68 meat, billion for fiscal year 1972. I urge the Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield Senate to accept the amendment today, myself 1 minute, and then I will yield to as part of the pending "committee the Senator from Massachusetts. resolution," so that the ceiling may take I should like to modify my amend- effect for the entire new fiscal year that meat so that it will read as follows: begins on Thursday. Except that the amounts availab:.e for ex- Today, the Senate has the opportunity penditure for military functions adminis- to translate our action on the SST tered by the Department of Defense shall not earlier this spring into an across-the- exceed a rate equal to $68,000,000,000 a year. board vote on the principle of reordering The reason for that correction is that our national priorities. Like a colossus of I think the Senator from Louisiana the ancient world, the Pentagon budget raises a proper criticism of the ambiguity stands astride all our hopes for real ac- of the amendment. It could apply to ap- tion on the countless domestic issue we propriations or expenditures. This clari- face-issues like inflation and unemploy- fies it. ment, law enforcement and crime con- Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad tae Sen- trol, race and poverty, health and educa- ator has clarified that, because I inter- tion, pollution and transportation, and preted the first amendment as affecting the crisis in our cities. appropriations. So that It will be ex- The President boasts about winding penditures. down the war, about hundreds of thou- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the sands of troop reductions in Vietnam, Senator send the modification to the about a generation of peace, but the desk? Pentagon budget goes on, virtually un- The amendment, as modified, reads as changed-as though, somehow, it has a follows: life of its own, free of real control by On page 4, line 2, before the semicolon at Congress or even by the President. the end thereof insert a comma and the fol- To be sure, there have been modest lowing: "except that the amounts available reductions in military spending in the for expenditure for military functions past two fiscal years, but hardly of a administered by the Department of Defense magnitude that gives us any confidence shall not exceed a rate equal to $68,000,000,- that we actually have the problem under 000 a year." 'control. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Time and again, the pattern is the amendment will be so modified, same. Faithfully each spring, as the mili- M:r. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, i tary budget juggernaut begins to roll in might also point out that the Senator Congress, we get the reports of "terrify- from. Louisiana, of course, is right, that ing" new weapons breakthroughs by the it f i f s pa n ul and difficult for the Defense Soviet Union, followed hard by calls for For the Navy's A-4 attack aircraft, Department to adjust to a reduction of renewed American commitments-and estimated expenditures for 9-1 " ,__ __ _- _. . _ _ 1972, $42 million. No new a -+yvW yea` ' N--c1LL, n spending. ?J.nat is what this ppropriation is will amount to. There are all kinds of being asked for in the appropriation bill ways in which this can be done. The fact we are now considering and that, hope- is that we put ceilings on the civilian fully, will be reported to the Senate next agencies- month. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 of the Senator has expired. minutes of the Senator have expired. Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield myself 1 ad- Mr. EELLENDER. I yield myself 2 addi- ditional minute. I think we can get some tional minutes. For the Army's CH-47 time from the manager of the bill. Chinook transport helicopter, estimated Mr. ELLENDER. How much time does expenditures, $26.2 million. Appropria the Senator want? tions requested for fiscal 1972 are none. Mr. PROXMIRE. An additional i min- That would be affected. utes. For the Army's UH-1H tactical hell- Mr. ELLENDER. I yield 5 minutes to copters, estimated expenditures, $38 mil- the Senator. Iion. New appropriations, none. Yet, it Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield myself :: min- would be affected by this amendment. For the Army's AH-1 Cobra armed ute now. helicopters, estimated expenditures, $31.9 old I might point C out ut that has this coning is o million., New -appropriations requested several in. the , and o most tm- for fiscal year 1972, none. Yet, it would bers times in the past, amost Me- be affected. secs of the Senate have voted for those For the Army's Shillelagh antitank ceilings. Those ceilings are difficult and missile, a Army's expenditures, $an painful. We all know the complaints we million, . es new dppropriaitur are 7.k 4 heard from the civilian agencies. But we quested. know that none of those agencies came For the 6ir Force's UH-1H Iroquois to a halt. People were not deprived of their pay. Contracts were not canceled. tactical helicopters, estimated expendi- There are ways this can be done with tures, $46 million. No new appropriations stretchouts. Choices have to be made. I are requested. think it is about time those tough choices For the Air Force's A-37B attack air- were made by the Defense Department, cent days, the crisis lies as much in credibility as it lies in substance. After each new wave of spring defense alarm subsidies, and the budget is enacted, calm returns, and once again, we see the in- evitable result of the annual process- defense spending programs emerge vir- tually unscathed, while urgently needed domestic programs have had to run the gauntlet of drastic budget cuts. We know the dismal figures, but they bear constant repetition. In 1969, for ex- ample, for every man, woman, and child in the United States, we spent the fol- lowing sums: $410 on national defense; $125 on the war in Vietnam; $19 on the space program; $19 on foreign aid; and only 80 cents on cancer research. Today, however, we can see that things are changing. Priorities have become a major national issue in their own right. Gone are the days of weak and ineffec- tive scrutiny of the annual requests for military spending. Gone is the blank check policy that Congress has given the Pentagon for so long. That is why I favor a ceiling on Penta- gon spending for the next fiscal year. It is the most effective single step we can take at this time if we are to buy the Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10150 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337 000500280002~n~ 9r 1~J71 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE time we need to begin to meet the chal- lenge of the seventies. In the course of the coming debate on the various Individual military appropri- ations bills, we will have the opportunity to examine spending for specific defense programs. Today, however, we have the opportunity to take the important over- all step of setting an outer limit for over- all military spending, and thereby to es- tablish the basic framework within which all the later programs will be examined. The $68 billion figure for the ceiling is essentially the amount appropriated by Congress for the current fiscal year. In light of the substantial force reductions we have already made in Vietnam dur- ing the current year, the ceiling is -a real- istic figure within which the Pentagon can reasonably be expected to operate. If the ceiling must be raised, it is en- tirely appropriate for the administration to come back to Congress later, when the need arises. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield me I additional minute? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield I additional minute to the Senator. Mr. ELI,ENDER. Two minutes. Mr. KENNEDY. Unless we take the steps we must to limit the soaring costs of military spending, and to reflect the real force reductions we made so far, all our dreams for progress on our do- mestic problems will be postponed, and the problems will grow worse. The time has come for Congress to make a com. prehensive commitment in favor of new priorities, and to make clear to the peo- ple of the Nation that we can practice what we preach. We can begin by setting a realistic limit on defense spending. I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for yielding to me, and I yield back the remainder of the time of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, of the 5 minutes the Senator from Louisiana yielded to me, do I have time remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Wisconsin has 3 minutes re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. Presick nt, may i say to the distinguished Senator from Maryland that in the past 2 years we have had five bills proposed to Congress setting ceilings on the amount to be spent by executive agencies. I have here a list of the membership of the Senate, and virtually every Senator has voted for at least one of the ceilings. A number of Senators, Including those Senators most vehement in opposing the pend- ing amendment, have voted for all the ceilings-at least four out of five of them. Further, I point out that this is noth- ing new. It has been done ticfore. The only way we can get at something that is as complex and as technical and that requires such a high degree of knowledge as the defense budget does is to make the general reduction and leave the specific ones to the agency experts. Time and time again, as the Senator recalls, how we debated the aircraft carrier or the B-i bomber or some of the -technical fighter planes. that time anti again we would be told that we did not understand the tremendous complexity of our mod- ern defense establishment, on how im- portant a particular weapons system was, that if we spent a week in study we still would not know as much as the men who have devoted their whole lives to the subject. We should ask the Secretary of De- fense, who is a competent Man-1 have great faith in his judgment and his ability-as he has back of hire the most competent people, people who have de- voted their lives to this subject. The Secretary is in the best position to make a careful, thoughtful, priority judgment on where to make the cuts with the least possible damage. It would be better to do that than to wipe out wholesale two or three weapons systems on which we have. unfortunately, in the Senate little knowledge, or even to wipe out some bases on which we can make a foreign policy judgment, or a defense judgment; but I doubt that would be wee, certainly in the limited period we hate, that that kind of judgment could be made by the maining. Mr: PROXMIRE. Mr. President, may Defense Department the widest latitude. Executive. I say to the Senator from Maryland, This is not an unusual device. It is a Mr. MATHIAS. Let me point out, in first, that I am delighted that he stress- device the Senate has adopted before and response to the Senator from North Da- ed, as he did-the fact that we face a Congress has adopted before; namely, an kota, that there has been a lot of alarm- deficit of $23 billion this year and prob- overall spending limitation. It has work- ing talk about what would;) result from ably more than $23 billion for next year. Pd in the, past successfully. It has work- adoption of the pending amendment. The We all recognize that we must provide ed in terms of the total budget as well Defense Department indicated that if the more money for our cities, for combat- as a department budget. I think we can amendment is agreed to, they' would have ting pollution, for health, and for many apply this kind of limitation success- to cut personnel 50 percept and pro- other programs. Where is the money fully and that we should do it because curement 40 percent. Of course, that is coming from? It is true that we may be if we do not, we will face more red ink. ridiculous. able to pass some kind of tax increase. I might inquire of the Senator from The Secretary of Defense himself has but that is doubtful. If we are going to North Dakota. as the Senator from Wis- estimated that each U.S. soldier costs meet these problems to any extent at all consin inquired of me, where will the the Government $10,000 annually, so we have to hold down military spend- money come from? that if we took the entire $7 billion cut ins;. There is no other answer, as I see it. The PRESIDING OFFICER ' Mr. GAIL- out of military personnel alone, we would The 3 minutes of the Senator still end up with 1,805,006 plus troops, zt 3 r . . i Charles Schultz, former Director of a the Budget testified that for the next t have expired. and that would accomplish the whole nTt,.' 111.1 tima9 thins- Of course. I am nQt suggesting years mere win be no ue unemployment Mr. YOUNG. I yield more time to the even if we reduced unem mplloyment to 4 Senator from Maryland if he wants it. percent and we had a booming economy. Mr. PROXCMIRF Mr. President, will rs ] reve we still would not get the ers - the senator from North Dakota yield me ues. To do more than the limited domestic 5 additional minutes? programs we now have on the books. Mr. MATFHIAS. The Senator Is exactly Mr. YOUNG. I yield 5 minutes to the right. We face a serious problem, as I Senator from Wisconsin. that we do that, but it is Just a measure of what is taking place in responding to the very modest and limited suggestion that is incorporated In the pending amendment. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Presi4ent, will the Senator from Maryland yield? Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 pointed out, of chalking up a $23.3 billion deficit at the end of the current fiscal year. We look forward, at least conserva- tively, to the same deficit next year, so that it would be over $46 billion. We are probably talking in the ball park range of $50 billion. As the Senator from Wisconsin asks, where is the money coming from? It has got to come from the people of the United States either in the form of new taxes or in the more insidious unfair and In- equitable form of robbing them through inflation. That is where it will come from. That is really the. decision being made here today. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Yourrc ) says-and I am very much Interested in his statement, he has a lot of sound wisdom in it-that we are asking the Department of Defense to undertake a 10 percent cut in a 30-day period and that no $500 million or $1 bil- lion corporation in the country could do that. Well. let me say, those companies are responsive to the disciplines of the mar- kets in which they operate. They react quickly. They see the handwriting on the wall. What I am suggesting to the Senate to vote on here today is that companies like that, which see the hand- writing on the wall, corporate boards. and corporate executives, observe these things and they will say either, "Keep going full blast. the signals are up," or "adjust to market conditions." Which button will we push because we have got a customer here that will react to those signals. Mr. YOUNG. I would be very much interested in knowing where the Senator would suggest the cuts be made. Would he make them in personnel? Would he close some bases? Would he close out military contracts in Maryland or North Dakota? Just where would the Senator suggest the cuts be applied? When we on the Defense appropria- tions make cuts, we usually state where they should be made. Mr_ MATHIAS. As the Senator from Wisconsin explained, we have felt that this should be a function of the Defense June 29; 1971 Approved Fa eJg s s ~g 0~$ 2 t ~DP_ --((1 7 000500280002-2 S 10151 UlV CJ Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, what the Senator said has a 'lot of appeal. I wish we could proceed in that way. How- ever, we tried for years. I do not know of one single weapons system that the Cor. gress ever eliminated. In that con- nection, the Defense Department stopped the x-70 and temporarily stopped the Cheyenne and several other programs. But riot Congress. Congress doe:; not do this for many reasons. One reason is that any big project has involved in it con- siderable employment in a number of States. Senators feel that they have to fight against that kind of a cutback and for specific jobs back home. I think that theoretically the Senator from 'Connecticut makes a ve:?y good point'and a very logical point. It would be a good thing if we could sit down and convince our colleagues that a weapons system should be cut back. We have tried to do so, but unfortunately we could not. Mr. WEICKER. Mr. Presiden-;, of all Senators in the Chamber, the Senator from Wisconsin should realize that a change has taken place and that whereas in the past the Senate did not exercise its right on specific items in the President's budget, we have now seen a turn of events. The Senator from Wisconsin knows this very well, having focused the atten- tion of the country and the Senate on a matter and succeeded in defeating a project. In times past we handed the au- thority to the Defense Department and did not contest, any single item. It was only with an item such as the A13M sys- tem that Congress did start to apply it- self and occupy, itself with the matter and did not allow the Defense Depart- ment to beef up the budget in an instance where more money did not necessarily Mr. MATHIAS, I ain glad to, yield to the Senator fxpin, North Dakota, if I have the rightc3doso. Mr. 'I~f UNG. A cut like this has not .122~e1ieveled at the Department of De- fense in 20 years, so far as I know. There has been overall cuts in Government spending, but defense cuts have never been singled out before, and for very good reasons. Many people still consider the national security as having the highest priority. To me, without adequate na- tional security, all other priorities be- come meaningless. Mr. MATHIAS, I would respond to the Senator from North Dakota by saying that I think national security does have the highest priority. But I think we are finding that our national security pri- ority is being betrayed by fiscal policies that are unwise. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. WEICKER, Mr. President- Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, how much time does the distinguished Sen- ator from Connecticut desire? Mr. WEICKER. About 3 minutes.. Mr. ELLENDER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. WEICKER. I regret to find myself in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Wisconsin, and for the very reason enunciated by the Senator from Mary- land, who said that this amendment gives the widest latitude to the Department of Defense to make cuts. That is the whole problem. Some of us feel that the widest lati- tude is given to the Department of De- fense to go ahead and raise its budget. Clearly, in my mind, that is a job that belongs to Congress, both as to the cut- ting of any moneys, and in the way of raising the budget for the Department of Defense. Our job is to consider ,the specific weapons for a system and to see if, in fact, they enhance the security of the United States. The defense budget should be examined both in this body and in the House of Representatives. I am not willing in any manner, shape, or form, to give the wide latitude to the Defense Department. Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WEICKER.I yield. Mr. MATHIAS. ,We are not proposing this'amendment without precedent and experience. The distinguished . former Senator from Delaware, Mr. Williams, proposed a ceiling on procurement that operated in simple fashion with . respect to imposing limitations. Certainly there was no more knowledgeable, } cre'thor- ough, or more conscientious Member of the Senate than he with regard to fiscal policy. He felt it to be a desirable and responsible way to proceed, and the Senate concurred with him. Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I re- peat to the distinguished Senator from Maryland that the job of examining the budget and making cuts is not the job of the.; Defense Department. It is the job of the Senate. We. have ourselves in the bind we are in today because we gave to the Defense Department the. job of get- ting whatever they ' asked for without coming to Congress. If it applies for one situation, it applies for the other. I think the time has come when we should scrutinize the budget line by line. I am not willing to let them decide where the cuts should be made. Mr. President, I yield back the re- mainder of my time. Mr.'McINTYRE. Mr. President, House Joint Resolution 742 provides continuing authority to the Department of Defense to pay, for the support of its operation after June 30, 1971, which marks,;he end of the current fiscal year. My distin- guished colleagues from Wisconsin and Maryland have introduced an amend- ment which would limit expenditures by the Department of Defense during fiscal year 1972 to $68 billion. This amendment would have the effect of reducing defense spending during that year by some $7 billion. There are a great number of arguments which can be made against this proposed $7 billion reduction in spending, which in its very concept must be considered as bordering on the irresponsible, illogical and self-defeating. Not only would it jeopardize an adequate level of defense, it would retreat from congressional re- sponsibility in such matters by leaving it up to the Pentagon to decide where the spending cuts are to be made. In effect, it defeats its own purpose. Instead of reasserting civilian control, it abandoned it. I an concerned about the total. oper- ation of the Department of Defense, but I am even more concerned about 'the re- 1. 1 search and development portion of the total defense program since I have a direct responsibility for that program as chairman of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee for Research and Development of the Armed Services Committee. The proposed amendment would be totally disruptive of the Department of Defense program for fiscal year and would be chaotic in its effect on the research and development program which provides in large measure for the orderly and time-phased devel- opment of major weapons systems that spans a period of years. The proposed amendment would un- dermine all of the long and tedious ef- forts of the Armed Services Committee, which has been engaged in an item-by- Item review of all of the appropriations comprising the military procurement authorization bill. The entire staff and membership of this committee has de- voted literally hundreds of hours in ex- haustive briefings and hearings involving each of the Department of Defense pro- grams for which authorization is request- ed for fiscal 1972. This is the sensible and responsible way to effect savings without jeopardizing national security. I might recite my own experience several years ago when because of the overriding pressures of a lack of time, a lack of ex- perience, and a lack of sufficient num- bers of people to conduct a proper review, a somewhat arbitrary percentage reduc- tion was adopted as the basis for cutting the authorization request for research and development. In good conscience and in retrospect, this approach at best was arbitrary and could not withstand the test of logic. When I consider what effect the proposed amendment would have, I am overcome by the same emotional un- certainties and discomfort which I felt when I recommended a percentage re- duction several years ago. The lesson which I have learned and which I would share with my colleagues is the lesson which I have applied last year and again this year in discharging my responsibilities for review of the re- search and development program. The total defense program, which has been described by the Secretary of Defense as "rock bottom," has been referred to the various committees under established procedure for their review and consider- ation. The committees do not take their responsibilities lightly. They have been given a task and they are pursuing it with their utmost capability and with keen sensitivity to the serious economic situation which confronts this country. The reordering of national priorities can be meaningful only if we maintain an adequate level of defense. In my judg- ment, an adequate level of defense would not be possible if we were to limit spend- ing in such an arbitrary manner. Moreover, a spending cut of such mag- nitude is certain to have some adverse effect on the national economy priority. The economy is in trouble. We all know that. And while I do not believe prosperity must depend on military spending, there is little doubt that a wholesale reduction in military and civil- ian manpower, the closing of bases, the deactivation of our operating forces, the widespread termination of essential con= tracts, and the chain reaction through- out industry which would occur if this Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10152 Approved For Release 2005/08/22: CIA-RDP72=003378000500280002-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE J acne "29, 19 i 1 amendment should pass would deal our reeling economy still another blow. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and permit the Senate to consider the recommendations of the responsible committees and to make its decision on the merits of the evidence in each case. Mir. HART, Mr. President, It is esti- mated that Michigan will receive only enough Federal money in the next fiscal year to fund 25 percent of applications already on hand for public and senior citizen housing projects. Budget restraints may limit Detroit's summer feeding program to 20,000 poor children rather than the 40,000-child program the city was encouraged to develop. Senate-House conferees have complet- ed work on the education appropriation bill, and, at least In part. because of budgetary problems, have agreed to eliminate impact aid for communities affected by Federal housing projects and to cutback the Senate-approved increase for title I of the Elementary and Second- ary Education Act. The budget contains no funds to de- velop many national parks and national forest recreation areas despite the Fed- eral Government's pledge to local com- munities that early development would help offset loss of tax revenues- The past weekend we applauded the opening of youth conservation camps, ignoring the fact that we spend billions to operate camps to train people to kill, but only $1 million to train youths for the battle to save our environment. Detroit has been waiting since 1983 for construction of the Pat McNamara Federal Office Building, a project delayed because of budgetary restraints. In a city with a high unemployment rate. in a city struggling to revitalize itself, the empty. unused lot purchased as the site for this building is both a constant reminder of a commitment not kept and a deterrent to private investment in the future of the city. A Michigan mother recently wrote about the lack of facilities for her men- tally sick son, who, because he is now over 21, is sent to prison rather than to a treatment center. She wrote not to ask for help for her son, but for the mentally ill of the future. She asked, "Doesn't anyone care?" The same question is asked ty residents of Sault Ste. Marie, where Indian and white alike live in houses without water and sewer service. "Doesn't anyone care?" That question is asked not in Michi- gan alone, but In every State and com- munity in our country. That is the question which spells out in human terms the sterile rhetoric whle,, calls for a change in national spending priorities. Today, we can give some meaning to that rhetoric by voting to set a spending limit of $88 billion for military functions If we are to hold down Pentagon spending, It is important that we estab- lish an expenditure rather than an ap- propriations limit. In each of the past 3 years, the Penta- gon, making use of carryover funds, has spent more than Congress appropriated. For example, Congress last year appro- priated $88.7 billion for military func- tions. It Is now estimated Pentagon ex- penditures for that year will run about $73.4 billion. The spending limit proposed in this amendment would limit the Pentagon to outlays totaling about what Congress ap- propriated for the Pentagon last year. An expenditure limit of $68 billion would be about it 9 percent reduction from the $75 billion the Pentagon antici- pates spending this year. It has been argued that such a limit will force base closings and add to the unemployment rate. National defense figures and Pentagon budget requests do not support that posi- tion. Spending on the Vietnam war is down from a high of $24 billion a year to an estimated $8 billion for the next fiscal year. That reduction of $16 billion, along with a cutback of 1 million men in uni- form by the end of the year, means the Pentagon should be able to absorb a $7 billion decrease without endangering the national security. Also, the overkill capacity of our nu- rlear deterrent and the history of arms limitation negotiations indicate thr.t we ran safely and should delay expenditures on deploying the Safeguard ABM and MIRV's. For example. only 400 of 4.200 nuclear warheads are needed to destroy 30 per- cent of the Soviet Union's population and 70 percent of its Industry. Yet we plan to double the number of warheads by putting multiple warheads on our Minuteman and Polaris missiles. And not only should we delay deploy- ment of Safeguard because of its ex- tremely doubtful effectiveness as a defen- sive weapon, but history indicates chances for a meaningful SALT agree- ment would be improved by such a delay. When' President Eisenhower sought a treaty to maintain the Antarctic a nu- clear-free zone, he did not embark on a program to deploy nuclear weapons in the Antarctic. And today we have an agreement not to place nuclear weapons in the Antarc- tic. When President Kennedy sought a treaty banning atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. this Nation did not em- bark on an accelerated program of at- mospheric testing. To the contrary, the President announced that not only would the United States suspend all such testing so long as other nations did not test, but he promised that this Nation would not be the first to resume testing. And today we have an agreement con- trolling atmospheric testing of nuclear devices. When Pre..-ident Johnson sought a treaty to control the proliferation of nu- clear weapons, this Nation did not launch a program to give nuclear arms to other countries. To the contrary. under the leadership of Senator PASTORS, the Senate helped create the atmosphere which resulted in the signing of a nonproliferation agree- ment. During the negotiations. Moscow ex- pressed concern that under one guise or another, the United States might seek to transfer nuclear weapons to West Ger- many. The Pastore resolution cotiended the President's efforts to negotiant - a non- proliferation treaty. The wording oItIia resolution, combined with its' legislative history, and the expressions of the Sena- tor from Rhode Island in the course of the hearings, helped convinde Moscow that we had no intention of transferring nuclear arms to West Germany. Under the reasoning that we should continue to deploy Safeguard, that reso- lution should not have been passed; the proper course would have been to amend the Atomic Energy Act to permit the transfer of nuclear weapons to other countries. But today, because: of our re- straint at the time, we have anonprolif- eration treaty. In brief, there is ample opportunity to cut Pentagon spending without endan- gering the national security and without widespread closing of military; bases nec- essary for the national defense. Let us take this opportunity to back up rhetoric about changing national spending priorities by setting a limit of $68 billion on Pentagon spending. If we do not take this step how at the beginning of the fiscal year,' it will be more difficult to establish such a limit later in the fiscal year. A switch of $7 billion from the Pen- tagon to domestic programs would not solve all or even many of our problems at home, but it will help. And let us not forget that in choosing between Federal spending on` education, health, and housing programs and on Pentagon projects, the latter type of ex- penditure is the more inflatiotzary. Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, ev- eryone who has served in the Armed Forces in recent years is aware of mili- tary waste and extravagance. Eleven million-dollar aircraft are rued to de- stroy $3,000 trucks in Soutb Vietnam. Expensive equipment is sometimes too sophisticated to be used effectively or even maintained in the field. Legions of uniformed chauffeurs, bartenders, and gardeners are maintained at taxpayers' expense. At one Army facility I visited recently I could detect no activity, except on a well manicured 18-hole golf course, But what concerns me most 'is that the Armed Forces are the prisoners of old and wasteful habits and obsolete ideas. The Navy has in recent years built many ships. It wants to build more. But a warship is a platform for weapons-and it has not built the weapons. We now find ourselves with a fleet outfitted with not- one surface-to-surface missile. The Soviet Union does not spendmoney on aircraft carriers. It puts itts resources into relatively inexpensive platforms for advanced weaponry, including nuclear submarines with cruise missiles. Not for lack of money, but because of the Navy's misplaced priorities, our fiept and our merchant marine are vulnerable to at- tack from the sea. The Army still seems to place its confidence in large land armies of conscripts. And yet Vietnam demonstrates, painfully, that wars of in- surgency are not won by la'}ge conven- tional land armies any more than by B-52s or helicopter gunships. If wars must be fought again they will be won by Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 Approved For`ReleasIa 2005/08/22 CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 June 29,' 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S10153 men skilled in the-arts of counter nsur- gency-and byothers in highly mobile Units dependent upon technology for fire- power--riot by huge armies of semi- trained men forced to serve against their will, I`believe that we in?the Congress have cause to wonder' if the military will ever break the chains of habit and inertia if we fail to provide it an incentive. The Proxmire-Mathias amendment of- fers such an incentive-and at no risk to our national security. No Member of this body disputes the need to spend enough to insure a strong national de- fense. But I believe it can be proved that to spend $76 billion instead of $68 billion is to contribute $8 billion to the waste in the military. Its problems will not be solved by that money. They will be solved by new ideas and new leader- .-ship. And _ to spend $8 billion needlessly on the military, instead of on education, health, transportation, or on tax cuts for overburdened taxpayers, is to spend it for national insecurity, instead of for national security. It is entirely possible that this amend- ment, if adopted, could lead to a leaner, tougher military. Let me, Mr. President, discuss but one example of what I mean. I could discuss the tendency to ever more expensive hardware in the military, the cost overruns, and, mismanagement in the Pentagon, the millions for dubious ac- tivities such as military spying and pub- lic relations. Instead, I would concen- trate on the largest portion of the mili- tary budget: personnel costs. According to Secretary Laird's state- ment before the Senate Appropriations Committee, manpower costs amount to 52 percent of the Defense budget. After ,the.- recent congressionally enacted pay increases, each man will cost an average of $9,000 per year to maintain in the armed services. The total number of military person- nel is an important factor in determin- Ing the total military budget. And man- Power levels would be reduced if we had the same level of military manpower per division, ship, and airplane now as we did in 1964. Annual manpower costs would be nearly $3.7 billion less than at present. Public Law 91-441, passed last year, requires Congress to authorize a ceiling on average annual acl;ive duty personnel strength for each component of the Armed Forces. It also provides that no funds may be appropriated for military personnel in any fiscal year un- til this ceiling had been set by Congress. For fiscal 1972, the Defense Depart- ment requested an average annual strength of 2.609 million which is equiv- alent to an end strength-as of June 30, 1972-of 2.505 million. The request was broken down, as required by law, into the following components: MILITARY MANPOWER BY SERVICE, FISCAL YEAR 1972 Average strength End strength Army___-_ ----------------- _ 1,024,000 942 000 Navy ----------------- . 613,000 , 604,000 Marine corps_-______ __ 209,000 206 000 Air Force____________________ 755,000 , 753, 000 Total_______________ 2,601,000 2,505,000 The House Armed Services Committee, after examining the Defense Depart- ment's requests and justifications, ob- served: Inevitably in an organization the size of the Department of Defense, there Is ade- quate room for effecting greater eficiencies in the utilization of military personnel. Therefore, the Committee urges the Depart- ment of Defense and the serv- ices to continue to explore the possibility of substituting the use of civilian manpower whenever practicable, as well as attempting to achieve overall reductions in manpower requirements. Nonetheless, the committee saw fit to set the manpower ceiling at the level re- quested by the Department of Defense. The Senate Armed Services Commit- tee, under the outstanding leadership of Senator STENNls, recommended a re- duction of 56,000 in average strength for fiscal year 1972, the equivalent of a 112,- 000 reduction in end strength. As a re- sult of these recommendations, the level of military personnel would stand! at 2.4 million at the end of fiscal year 1972 and Federal military outlays would be re- duced by $1 billion annually-$5C4 mil- lion during the first year. Ninety percent of the reduction recommended by the committee would occur in Army person- nel. The committee did not specify exactly where the cuts should occur. But it did point to' two factors which persuaded it to reduce the Department's requests: First. An acceleration of the with- drawal rate from Vietnam announced by the President after his original submis- sion of manpower requests, and Second. Excessive command, supply, and logistics personnel in Europe. Senator STENNls has announced his in- tention to hold further hearings this year focusing on the subject of military manpower levels. Without diminishing in the least my respect for the commit- tee efforts, I would suggest that military manpower needs could be satisfied-by an end strength for fiscal year 1972 sub- stantially below the 2.4 million men the committee recommended. This reduction can be made through more effective utilization of military manpower and more efficient personnel management. Additionally, it is possible that other cuts could be made to make our military force levels more consistent with stated na- tional security policy. The most relevant standard to which the Defense Department's 1972 man- power request can be compared is the baseline general purpose military force in existence at the end of fiscal year 1964-before the Vietnam war began. Since 1964, we have added 36 addi- tional nuclear attack submarines, and 4 C-5A squadrons. But we have also elim- inated three Army divisions, five tactical air wings, eight attack and antisubma- rine carriers, 38 escort ships, 64 amphib- ious assault ships and 19 non-C-5A air- lift and sealift squadrons. Strategic-nu- clear-force manpower has decreased as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that a table comparing the struc- ture of our military forces in 1964 with those scheduled by the Defense Depart- ment for the end of fiscal year 1972 be included at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: } End fiscal year 1964 Manpower Forces (thousands) I,,General purpose: Divisions 19/a ------- Armydivision --------------- 16 ________,___ divi i Marin s on e ..~~~s,-------------- 40 Air Force------------------- 22 Navy attack wings- 15 15 Marine Corps_________3 Naval forces: Attack and antisubmarine carriers___________ ___ 24 Escort ships_____ _ 265 Amphibious assault ships __ 139 Nuclear attack subs--------- 19 Airlift and sealift forces: C-5A 0 ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ End fiscal year 1972 End fiscal year 1964 E d fi l n sca year 1972 Manpower Forces (thousands) Manpower Forces (thousands) Forces (thousands) - * 16 Allothrrs ------------------ 32 - ?, s ----------- 1 Troopsfips, cargo ships -----__ 3ii ----------- , tankers ------------------ 100 --- ------------ ------------ Genera purpose forces-__------------- II. Strategic forces: -------- 1,068 ------------ 1,032 1,032 ------------ ------------ ------------ Land-based missiles ------- ---- 654 Sea-based nissiles---- _-------- 336 Strategic bombers ------------ 1,054 _______ - 656 ------------ -------------- 1,277 Strategic forces manpower ---------- 521 ------------ 16 ___________________ Ill. All other mamanpower_________------- ------------- 221 ------------ 1 398 139 --------- 227 -- Total------ ------ ? --------------- , ------------ 2,685 1,344 2 505 75 55 A rmy----------------------- --- , ------- --------- A avy----------------------------- ---- Air Force 668 ------------ 604 ------------ - Marines------------------ 857 ----- 190 _-- ----- 753 206 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S10154 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-SERVE 000500280003- le -71 1 X 71 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, de- epite these reductions In our general pur- pose force structure, military person- nel-although it has fallen by a total of 180,000 men between 1964-72-has not been reduced correspondingly. In Its study of the fiscal year 1972 budget, the Brookings Institution calculates that total Army manpower per active division has increased by 19 percent, total Navy manpower per ship has increased by 28 percent, and total Air Force manpower per aircraft has risen by 16 percent. If the same ratios of total military manpower per division, ship, and air- plane existed today as existed at the end of fiscal year 1964. military manpower needs for fiscal year 1972 would be 408,- 000 less than the Defense Department has requested, Required military outlays for personnel alone. would be $3.7 billion hiss. Those reductions in personnel would be followed by a reduced cost of training and military facilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that a table Listing 1972 manpower needs based on the 1964 ratios of men per force unit be inserted in the RECORD at this point: There being no objection, the table v: ss ordered to be printed in the RECORD, at follows: Total men pe division, ship, aireratl 1964 1972 1972 manpower head on 1961 tales at men per Actual 1972 division, ship, manpe*ae aircraft Difference - - - - - Total------- ------- 59.6 67 Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, these figures make it apparent that there has been a proliferation of support forces since 1964. But where has this prolifera- tion occurred? The concept of military support Is a confusing one. The Department of De- fense divides its military personnel Into four classifications: strategic forces per- sonnel, general purpose forces personnel, other mission forces personnel, and gen- eral support personnel. Total military personnel has decreased by 182.000 since 1964-7 percent. Strategic forces personnel man our nuclear deterence systems. Since 1964, strategic forces personnel has fallen from 221,000 to 139,000-a decrease of 82,000-37 percent. General purpose forces are prepared to engage in combat or provide direct sup- port or services-such as communication, logistics, transportation, construction, and maintenance-to those in combat. The nonnuclear force structure outlined in table I is manned by general purpose forces. Army general purpose forces airy structured into divisions of approxi- mately 16,000 men each. Each division fs backed up by an initial support move- ment capable of providing support for the first 60 days of combat and by a sus- taining support increment required for any combat after 60 days. These incre- ments are equal in size to the division itself. A division slice-the division itself, plus its initial and sustaining support Increments-consists of about 48,000 men. Since 1964, general purpose forces 1,032,000-a total reduction of 036,00 ~ 0- 3 percent. In the same period, Army general pur- pose force personnel has decreased by r0111Y 28 000 even though the number of 70.829 942, 000 753, 000 179, NO 918 604,000 495,280 108.720 78 753,000 632,520 120,480 2,505.000 2,096, 820 408.180 and operation of commissaries o nd other services provided for the drppendent population, rather than support for the combat divisions. The Defense Department has focused on the category called "general support forces' in its efforts to prove that the military has not become overturdencd with support. Its claim that onl'-' 40 per- cent of total military manpower 5s in sup- port obviously refers solely to the cate- gory of general support. It should be clear that the other 60 percent a -e not all combat troops-they are strati-gic per- sonnel, general purpose, and other mis- sion forces, a very small portion of which are actually combat personnel. manpower within the general forces. Despite the signifiean+ crease of purpose cuts in en In the general purpose force has deceased by only 67.00 since 1964. Although total military manpower at the end of fiscal year 1972 will be 7 percent le;s than 8 years ago, general purpose forces will have been reduced by only 3 !-oercent- less than one-half the rate. the Other mission forces personnel en- plained slower reduction in ge>ieral pur- raged in functions such as intelligence pose manpower is reflected in the price and security, research and development. we pay for it. it actually cons more- and support to other nations. Personnel even after adjustments for inration-to for this function has remained relatively pay for our general purpose forces now stable, Increasing by only 9,000-5 per- than it did for the larger force we had in cent. 1964. Using constant 1972 dpilars. the Finally, general support manpower is Brookings Institution has calculated the involved in training, logistics, command, cost at $50.5 billion in 1972 compared to .and base support including upkeep. po- $49.5 billion in 1964. lice, construction, and provision of medi- Why has the number of pe13onnel in- cal services. Army general support man- creased in the general purI>lse forces? structure and should not be confused with division combat service support in- crements. Total general support man- power has decreased by 73,000-6 per- rent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to put in the RECORD at this point a table comparing our 1964 and 1972 military manpower profile. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: year 1964 year 972 9cha 64--7t 1 -37 Sira'.reic -. 0 -3 General p irpose --. - Other mrnS,Of 6 8 ISO 1, k 35 -. General s ippart 1, 208 To 1,1 .... . ... . ..... 2,687 2,505 , on , bat divis m an army co - - - Mr. STEVENSON, Although the four has increased in size by abotiit 1,500 men, categories are conceptually distinct, there but, according to Col. Edwprd King, a is actually some spillover and overlap former Regular Army officer who served among them. General support forces in with the Joint Chiefs of Star, the num- some cases act as Combat support and her of men in a division who are prepared combat service support personnel for to directly engage in combat etas actually general purpose forces, particularly for decreased from around 9,010 to about those general purpose forces based in the 7,500. Combat support and combat serv- United States. Similarly, according to the ice support troops per division have in Defense Department, general purpose creased by 3,000. I find it difficult to be- personnel sometimes perform general lieve that most of this increase is neces- support duties. Particularly for overseas sary to fill reasonable maintdtance needs. Army bases_NATO-and on ships at sea. The category of general': support--as For example, the 2' division sustaining distinct from combat support and combat support increments now deployed in Eu- service support of general purpose rope forces -has functiio is such astrepair, maintenance 1964, nearly the same rate percent since divisions has fallen by three. A decline of three divisions ought to result in a reduction of 144,000 positions and nearly 130,000 men since each division of 16,000 is backed by two support Increments of similar size, manned to an average of 90 percent capacity. Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 We have spent billions of dollars to de- velop and equip our general purpose forces with more sophisticated weaponry designed to increase the productivity of each person involved in combat. As the productivity of each man increases, fewer men should be needed to act omplish a specific combat mission. Having paid ex- tra costs for machines, we haws a right to expect reduced costs in manpower. Yet general purpose manpower peg- force unit has increased since 1964. The number of command, combat support, 4nd combat service support personel have bur- geoned. I am well aware of the fact that more sophisticated weapons requisc increased maintenance. And some of tl}e increased manpower undoubtedly can l7r' attributed I to increased maintenance r19reds. But seriously question whether 41 or even a ificant portion of it can.' Since 1964, n i g s fpr example i June 29-- 1971 Approved f1~?5R~8/ijCF)DFR#,178000500280002-2 S 10155 tary manpower. General support forces increased rapidly' with the Vietnam buildup and then dropped precipitously as Vietnam withdrawals accelerated. Be- tween fiscal year 19'70 and projections for fzacal year 1972, general support person- nel was reduced by 323,000-22 percent. However, all of the reduction has oc- curred in three services; since 1970, Air Force general support personnel has in- creased by 6,000 while Army general sup- port has fallen by 226,000, Navy by 54,000, and Marine Corps by 41,000. .GENERAL SIJPPORT''ERSONNEL Management inefficiencies also con- tribute significantly to excessive man- power levels. Many of these were detailed last year in the Defense Department's own blue ribbon defense panel manage- ment study, known popularly as the Fitzhugh Commission report. First is the question of rotation pol- icy. The short tours of duty for service in Vietnam temporarily increased the fre- quency and number of permanent change in station moves throughout the mili- tary. In fiscal year 1969, at the height of our involvement in Vietnam, 5.1 per- cent of military manpower slots were set aside to offset productive time lost by Percent personnel in transit. As we have with- 9hange 1970 1972 1970-72 drawn troops from Vietnam, the number of slots set aside for rotation because of Army. _-____--_ 590 364 -40.0 service in Vietnam has fallen. It :is esti- Navy------------------ -329 275 -16.4 mated that in 1972, only 175,000 moves Marine --------- ` aoi 409 15 will be Vietnam related. Yet the Defense A De artment is nonetheless setting aside I would also call the attention of my colleagues to the military grade dis- tribution as well as to the excessive num- ber of support personliel. During the Vietnam war, the military has become topheavy with officers and higher rank- ing enlisted men. At the end of fiscal year 1972, there will be 5,000 more officers holding the equivalent rank of lieutenant colonel or above than there were in 1964. Yet there will be 181,000 fewer en- listed men to command. An example is in the grade of colonel/captain. On June 30, 1969, when the active Armed Forces numbered around 3.5 million men, there were 18,277 colonels/captains on duty, compared to a June 30, 1945 total of 14,898 when there were around 12 million men in the Armed Forces. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to place in the RECORD at this time a table comparing miiitary grade distri- bution in fiscal year 1972 compared to fiscal year 1964. There being no objection, the 'table was ordere as follows: 3.8 percent of its total manpower slots- 96,000 men-for this purpose in 1972. Although it is obviously desirable to rotate personnel frequently when they are stationed in combat areas or hard- ship areas-and this requires more fre- quent rotation throughout the force dur- ing a, wartime situation-I am convinced we routinely rotate military personnel much too frequently during :normal times. ;As my colleague, Senator PERCY, pointed out last year in his effort, to re- duce appropriations for permanent change of station moves by 25 rercent, no business would think of moving per- sonnel, around the way the Defense De- partment does. The Fitzhugh Commission made two recommendations on rotation policy that have yet to be implemented. The duration of assignments should be increased, and should be as res;?onsive to the requirements of the job as to the career,plan of the officer. In technical assignments, the officer's replacement should be assigned to the job sufficiently in advance of his prede- cessor''s departure to be ready ';o take over, without loss of momentum when he Percentage of total end strength Fiscal y6e6a4r Fiscal year 72 Officers-------------------------- Senior enlisted (E-6 to E9)__-_____ Middle enlisted (E-4 to E-5) ________ ow enlisted_____________________ fficercandidates______________ 12.6 6 13.8 14.5 18.3 31.6 38.0 40.8 29.6 .4 .5 Mr. STEVENSON. The causes of this inflation,of the military grade distribu- tion are no mystery. During all wars, more, men get promoted than would nor- mally be expected, and there are shorter waiting periods, ` between promotions. Given an incentive, the Defense Depart- ment might take action to 'bring the grade distribution back into balance. Robert S. Benson, former special assist- ant to the Comptroller of- the Defense Department, has estimated- that this top heavy grade distribution will result in $1.3 billion extra in budgetary outlays than if we had the same grade distribu- tion applied to the 1972 manpower levels requested by the Defense Department that we had in 1964. leaves. Poor utilization of military manpower is another example of inefficiency. Many tasks now performed by military per- sonn.el' could be performed more effec- tively and with lower long-term costs by civilian personnel-as experts inside and outside of the Defense Department have been saying for some time. The De- partmbnt of Defense itself has long sup- ported civilianization of military person- nel slots where appropriate-particu- larly in the general support category- and has undertaken programs to accom- plish this goal, efficient performance of tasks because of the lower turnover of personnel and con- sequ.ently, the reduced need for :-etrain- ing inexperienced recruits. In addition, primarily as a result of lower turnover, the number of civilians needed to per- form civilianized tasks would be less than the number of military personnel now performing them. The Defense Depart- ment 'estimated in 1965 that 10 civilian employees could replace 12 military em- ployees-a ratio of 1:1.2; the Gates Com- mission last year posited a ratio of 1:1.1. Although total budgetary costs might increase in the short run in order to meet civilian wage scales, there would be substantially lower long term cost due to the lower turnover and the aggregate reduction in required personnel. In 1965 the Department of Defense identified 373,000 "relatively substituta- ble" positions and undertook an immedi- ate program to convert 74,300 of them. In 1966 it began the second phase of the- program designed to civilianize an addi- tional 40,000 positions. By June 1968, 114,000 military positions had been elimi- nated and 95,000 additional civilians had been hired. However a GAO study of the civilianization program disclosed that 30 percent of the military positions con- verted had been vacant before conver- sion. For this reason, only 70 percent of the positions civilianized actually re- sulted in the release of military person- nel for military duties and an ultimate reduction in military personnel and cost. In addition, for reasons largely beyond the Pentagon's control, many of the posi- tions civilianized later reverted to mili- tary positions. The Revenue and Ex- penditure Control Act of 1968 put severe constraints on civil service personnel available to all Government agencies. Section 201 of that act prohibited any civilian hiring when the total number of employees in the executive branch ex- ceeded the number employed on June 30, 1966. The same section also permftted a Department to fill only 75 percent of the civilian positions vacated through resig- nation, retirement, removal, or death. Nearly 30,000 civilian positions were lost during fiscal year 1968. - Although the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was repealed in July 1969, the Budget Bureau nonetheless con- tinued to prescribe manpower ceilings. However the Office of Management and Budget has recently announced that it will lift manpower ceilings for an experimental 1-year period in fiscal year 1972. This would appear to present an excellent opportunity to recoup past losses in the civilianization program and to move vigorously ahead. Mr: President, I ask unanimous con- sent to place in the RECORD at this point, a table comparing civilian personnel strength between 1964-72. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows : Civilian personnel strength Civilian addi- tions doe to civilianized program Fiscal year- 1964------- ---------- 1,035 1966___________________ 1,126 60 1967-------------------- 1,278 35 1968____________________ 1,287 _____----_--- 1971-------------------- 1,104 - -------------- 1972-------- ------------ 1,082 -------------- of four installations found that 10 per- cent of their personnel were assigned to duties-military occupational special- ists-MOS-for which they had not been Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10156 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337ROOD500280002-2 ! CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 9, 1971 trained' A. rdmilar study conducted in training after they were called up. Cer- lieve at this point we are in a position 1964 disclosed only 4 percent of military tainly it should be possible to can up re- where we can afford to make across the personnel misassipned. Use of personnel serve units and transport them to Eu- board nondiscriminatory defense cut- in assignments for which they are not rope within 60 days of the Initiation of backs. trained results in reduced morale and combat. Eliminating three 8$I units On April 22, of this year Dr. John effectiveness as well as lower productivity would reduce-military manpower by Foster, Jr., testified before the House per main and requires more men to nearly 60,000. An additional 60,000 re- Armed services Committee regarding the accomplish the same duties than would serves would be needed, but the cost per Safeguard system. Dr. Foster pointed out be necessary if the men were Qualified. man of maintaining reserves is much that the number of Soviet ICEM launch- These misuses of manpower resources less than for maintaining active person- ers had risen to 1,440 and was expected I have cited Indicate we do not require nel and many existing reserve units to rise to 1,500 by mid-1971. This, com- the high number of military personnel could be readily converted to these civil- pared with the 1,054 operationlal facilities requested by the Defense Department, an type duties. in the United States at the tinge. He went My vote for the Hatfield amendment to The above option would allow us to on to explain that recent (intelligence end the draft reflected my belief that retain all active combat divisions as- shows that the Soviets have st rted a new our real manpower needs could be met signed to Europe plus the full support- ICBM silo construction program and that entirely through volunteer enlistment. CSI and SSI---components of Europe the silos under construction `are unlike The Senate's acceptance of the Mansfield based divisions, The Europe allocated any previously constructed. We do not amendment to the selective service ex- force structure would Include: know what they are for or how many tension legislation was a principal reason there will be. In addition, Dr. IPoster cited for not opposing final passage of a bill 9 1st sst increased missile production amid stepped containing a 2-year extension of the up production of "Y" class submarines. draft. In Eweve_ ... 4!t 44 2 I cite Dr. Foster to indicate that large- In the long run, the level of our mill- ,~ scale indiscriminate cutbacks *t this time tart' manpower will depend upon the 1 "~ tied states alioc ed are foolish to say the least. I' would like level and distribution of force structures -- Z to look at the proposed amendment in necessary to satisfy our national security two brief aspects: A At pros-at5 SSI units are to the United States, but alto First The concern over DOT) ex i- needs. And there is reason to question aced to ry ov.. . whether our general purpose force levels tares which generated this amendment and allocation are consistent with our Perhaps a similar argument could be does not appear to be justified by the stated national security goals. 'rppited to our remaining division in actual figures involved; In his testimony on the proposed fiscal Korea, should it prove necessary to main- Second, the disruption to our economy year 1972 defense budget. Secretary tats a division there. Certainly the argu- and to the employment situation is cer- Laird reiterates the Defense Depart- ment could apply in Vietnam where most tainly not justifiable. meat's switch from planning for a 2r, of the original eight ISI and 8SI units It is claimed that the Def e Depart- war contingency to a i i~ war contin- remain despite the fact that all but two ment has spent some 4.7 biiWo i in excess genet'. of the combat divisions have been with- of its appropriations for ftsea~ last year. How does this stated policy translate drawn. Defense Department figures indicate that into force allocations? At the end of the In summary, the evidence suggests that spending was $1.9 billion in excess of the fiscal year 1971 we had 132 Army military manpower levels can be reduced original estimate for last year, That divisions and three Marine divisions. sIgncantly-and consequently so can spending was authorized by; Congress. According to Secretary Laird, the De- military expenditures. The burden of The Defense Department wa. given di- fense Department Is planning 13 Mi ae- iroof for justifying the seemingly ex- rect authorization to use Its prior balance tive Army divisions and three active Ma- cessive manpower request lies with the to meet its needs. In addition, the De- rine divisions for the end of fiscal year Defense Department. So far a convincing partment received two suppleri-ental ap- 1972-a reduction of only one-third of justification has not been made, propriations, the last one in 11$ay of this an army division. How will these forces Enactment of the Proxmire-Mathias year. The Department has not. iad a free be allocated? amendment would provide the Defense hand in spending the taxpayers money. Will forces returning from Vietnam impartment with a powerful new inceu- It is true that overall defense needs be assigned to European contingencies? If the to snake the long overdue personnel were lower last year than 14 previous so, what changes In the European thea- changes I have outlined above. Years--1968-69, and that projections for tre would justify these additional force Mr. BENNETT, Mr. president, I have the coming fiscal year are lower than allotments? Will the returning forces be become increasingly concerned with the that; however costs have increased. assigned to Asian contingencies? How attitude that is developing ,here in the Manpower needs are dawn 24 percent, would such a decision square with the Senate regarding our Nation's defense, but payroll costs are up. From fiscal year Nixon doctrine which posits an Asian The feeling generated here Is one of com- 1969 to fiscal year 1972: policy of providing material and logistic otacency and growing lack of interest is First, military basic pay rates In- support, but not combat manpower to the state of America's security. I recog- creased by 36.2 percent; our Asian allies? nice, as we all do, that America faces Second, civilian salary rates; increased I also have questions concerning the urgent domestic problems, but I do not by 29.8 percent: size of U.S.-based forces assigned to a believe that the answer to these problems Third, military retired pay `increased European contingency. If all the divi- is to be found in hasty precipitous troves, by $1.3 billion or 55 percent; sions are necessary, must they immedi- to cut, across the board, large amounts Fourth, the volunteer force, ' new Item ately be accompanied by their full ISI from our defense budget. The long-term In fiscal Year 1972 was included in the and SSI components? According to the effects of such a cutback should be care- budget at $1.4 billion. Defense Department's statement on mill- frilly analyzed, not only in terms of what Nonpayroll costs found increases tary manpower defense requirements, the we stand to lose in a security sense, but through inflation, which was Estimated sax consists of "personnel assigned to in a domestic sense as well. I believe that at 12.3 percent from fiscal yet}r 1969 to nondivislonal units required to support the Proxmire amendment falls short in fiscal year 1972. a combat division and its ISI after 60 its consideration of both of these vital It concern over "unauthori2jt-d" DOD days of combat." Why do we not elimi- aspects. expenditures was the mottvaring force nate the three SSI components associ- We have become aware of a gradually behind this amendment, I doubt that it ated with U.S. based divisions earmarked maid consistently increasing Soviet de- was really warranted. The pro rain pact for Europe and transfer the support ,truetive capability. We cannot afford to of a $7 billion cut would be ca1astroplnic functions of these increments to Army remain complacent or uncaring while the for our defense programs, let Alone the reserve units. The BSI units perform Soviets and the Chinese continue to economic and unemployment Impact of predominantly combat service support make strides and investments in weapons such a cutback. A $7 billion cut would duties which are quite closely related to technology, I am aware of the importance involve: civilian skills held by many reservists, so of the SALT talks and of what we hope First, a cut of about 1.7 million in mili- they would require very little additional to achieve there, however, I do not be- tary and civilian manpower prom the Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 June 29, 1971 Approved`For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10157 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE level budgeted for `June 1972-nearly one-half-this assumes that $3.5 billion of the cud-1s applied in the pay area. Seagltd, terminations affecting about 40 yrcrcent of all outstanding contracts erating and training rates-ships, air- craft, and land forces. These reductions would be the mini- I contend that enactment of the amendment would cause serious eco- nomic dislocation, increased unemploy- ment, and serious damage to our Na- tion's defenses. Senator PROXMIRE and others have ob- served that we must reorder our priori- ties. I submit that today we are changing our priorities. Nondefense spending has increased on the average of $14 billion per year for the last 4 years. We cannot expect to change the face and the at- titudes of America overnight, but we can expect progress, and we see progress. I fail to see where a nonselective across- the-board cutback in our defense expen- ditures could do more than is being done. Indeed, it could succeed in undoing much which has been accomplished and in en- .dangering our security. Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I will vote for the amendment introduced by my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr, PROXMIRE) and the distinguished Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS) to put a ceiling of'$68 billion on defense spending for fiscal year 1972. Such a ceiling would save $8 billion in defense spending. I would like to see these resources applied to the pressing human and social needs of our time, to meet the crisis within that is as deadly to our society as any enemy without. With $8 billion we could-build 2,900 hospitals of 125 beds each, or-construct 500,000 decent low-cost housing units, or-send, 800,000 deserving students through 4 years of public college or uni- versity with full tuition, room and board, Or-build 120,000 new elementary or high school classrooms, or-eradicate hunger in the United States and create 300,000 public service jobs to find useful work for those who have lost their jobs in the current recession. Not only could that $8 billion be effec- tively applied to begin to solve some of the domestic problems which now con- front us, but a reduction in defense ex- penditures in that amount need not mean weaker, less effective U.S. armed services. . y e a o o pene ra I believe the Proxmire-Mathias amend- ICBM's we now have are more than suf- ed ceilin g du bli hi t t n a re c a s , by es men g ficient to penetrate the small Moscow essential defense first spending, is an I imperative important and ABM system that now exists, If an agree- we hal and step. revers e , Iit is s _ en"an that ment is reached at SALT freezing the eve halt a and trend Soviet ABM capability, at about the cur- ever-more ponderous aexpensive mili- tary establishment which seems increas- rent level, we clearly need no more ingly inefficient, self-serving, and re- MIRV's. Even if the SALT talks failed, dundant This amendment would do so, we could buy and deploy MIRV's next Mr,.:President,, I`regard the $68 billion year-still far ahead of the capacity of figure suggested by this amendment to any Soviet ABM expansion to deal with -ril D t I believe that the them. u cost overruns and the questions of some experts about the usefulness and desir- ability of this aircraft. We need not now make a final decision on this weapon sys- tem, but we certainly should defer pro- curement until cost problems are clari- fied and until more advanced models are available for "fly-offs." We could save $370 million by post- poning appropriations for the B-1 bomb- er. The question of whether a "triad" deterrent is essential is currently under serious consideration in the Foreign Re- lations Committee. But even if some kind of a manned bomber is desirable, it is doubtful that B-1 is'the manned bomb- er we need. B-1, in fact, could be one example of a weapon system derived more from past tradition than from cur- rent needs. This is only a partial list of military items which, if examined carefully enough, could result in savings of at least $8 billion, if not more. In a different context, 10 days ago Judge Gurfein of New York declared- The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the val- ue of our free institutions. What concerns me is that, if we per- petuate the past distortion of priorities, we will allow those institutions and the society from which they have sprung to wither from inattention and inadequate resources. If we do, all the guns and missiles we have will not save America. EMERGENCY SCHOOL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, the purpose of the resolution now before the Senate, House Joint Resolution 742., is to extend, at current levels, funding of ongoing programs for which the Con- gress will not have completed appropria- tions by the end of the fiscal year, June 30. I am most disturbed to find that, at the request of the administration, the resolution as passed by the House con- tains an extension of the $75 million "Emergency School Assistance Program." This program, funded under the Eco- nomic Opportunity Act and other exist- ing authorities, was established in the Office of Education appropriation last year. Its purpose was to assist school dis- tricts desegregating under the decision of the Supreme Court in Alexander against Holmes County Board of Educa- tion, and it was to be replaced by a com- prehensive $1.5 billion program to en- courage and assist school integration throughout the Nation. I and many of my colleagues had seri- ous misgivings at the birth of the pro- gram. We doubted that the Office of Edu- cation had engaged in sufficient planning and preparation, and we knew that Con- gress had not been given an opportunity to closely examine the proposed program. I have no wish to belabor the point. It is clear, however, that our worst fears were borne out. Reports by civil rights groups and the General Accounting Of- fice revealed widespread mismanage- e a reason a," a on Congress fulfills only a portion of its re- We could save over half a billion dol- ment. Major violations of civil rights and sponsibility by writing into law this or "tars by deferring procurement of the F-14 program requirements were frequent. other legislation that cuts Defense spend- Navy fighter plane and related weapon Last April the Senate passed a com- ing on a percentage basis or which selects systems. The House has already acted to prehensive school desegregation assist- a particular figure as a spending ceiling. delete ' funds for F-14, due to serious ante measure, as the President had re- I believe it is our responsibility to ex- amine on a rational and analytic basis each of the components which are part of the Defense budget. We must be sure that we are buying the kind of defense that we really need; that our defense posture conforms in a realistic way to our vital responsibilities and the poten- tial threats we might face; and that we are not spending our national resources on weapons which are unnecessarily re- dundant or which are requested because they conform to some obsolescent "tradi- tion rather than to current needs. Mr. President last week the Senate passed by a voice vote an amendment which I and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIXE:3) in- troduced. Among other things it called on the Defense Department to project how it might make a further 10-percent cut in. our military manpower levels be- low fiscal year 1972 levels. I believe that study could show both to the Per.tagon and to the Congress new ways in w:lich a more efficient and austere use and de- ployment of military personnel could re- sult in 'considerable savings in military spending-without damaging our capac- ity to protect our truly vital interests. Should Congress authorize a 10-per- cent reduction in military manpower- we could save $5.4 billion in the coming year ,alone. Beyond possible manpower savings, I believe there are a number of. ways in which we we save on military procure- ment and operations. In coming days I will be speaking on this question in greater detail. But for now let me suggest at least several widely publicized weapon systems on which we could save substan- tial amounts without damaging our ca- pacity to defend ourselves and meet our vital commitments. We could save $1.2 billion next, fiscal year by postponing further ABM deploy- ment. Not only is the Safeguard system itself highly questionable, but the a.dmin- istration has indicated it believes a;a ABM limitation agreement at the SAL':' talks is close. It-would be unwise and poten- tially wasteful to appropriate funds for continued construction of an AB.VI sys- tem which such an agreement might make unnecessary-or even cause to be dismantled. We could save $1.64 billion by post- poning further deployment of MIRV warheads-both for Poseidon subma- rines and Minuteman III land-based ICBM's. MIRV was justified as necessary The stem viet ABM s S t t t Approved For Releas 2005/08/22: CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 S 10158 Approved For Release 2005/08/22 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2 ! CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE Jun4-29, 1971 quested. That carefully designed, nation- wide proposal is currently awaiting ac- tion in the House of Representatives, I fear that any substantial extension of the ESAP program will jeopardize en- actment of that vital legislation. Secretary Richardson states that addi- tional funds to meet the immediate cri- sis needs of school districts desegregat- ing under the recent rule of the Supreme Court in Swann against Charlotte-Meck- lenburg. I am sympathetic with the Sec- retary's argument, but I believe that the $612 million authorized by the continu- ing resolution presently before this body should be more than enough to accom- plish his purpose. I wish to make clear my very profound hope that the limited extension of the ESAP program here authorized will not be subject to the abuses documented last fall, And I would warn the administra. tion not to take the Senate's action as en- dorsement of extension of the ESAP pro- gram beyond August 6. I ask unanimous consent that letters to me from Clarence Mitchell. legislative chairman of the leadership conference on civil rights and Secretary Richardson be printed in the REcoa l), There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the REcoaD, as follows: LzAozRSHIP CONFERENCE on OIvS . RIGHTS, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1971. Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunities, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR Ms. CuAmaaN: In response to your inquiry, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which supported the Emergency School Aid and Quality Integrated Educa- tion Act passed recently by the Senate, rec- ognizes that the continuing resolution ap- proved by the Rouse last week contains funds to continue temporarily the so-called Emergency School Assistance Program (ESSAP). As you know, it was ESAP for which Congress last year appropriated $75 million and In which several civil rights groups and the General Accounting Office have found serious abuses and misuse of the appropri- ated funds. The Leadership Conference had been hope- ful that the ,Senate-passed school aid au- thorization measure or a similar bill would have been enacted,by now so that funds could be appropriated under that new au- thority. In the absence of enactment of such a bill, we have no objection to continu- ing the funding of ESAP on a temporary basis so that funds might be made available to desegregating school systems to meet emergency additional expenses this fall-to assist In the purchase of buses, for example, in districts which must undertake substan- tially more transportation of students in or- der to comply with the standards of Integra- tion set forth in the Supreme Court's recent Swann decision. We wish to make it absolutely clear, how- ever, that while we do not oppose the con- tinuing resolution temporarily refunding ESAP until August 6, we would not support any more to secure Congressional approval of a special appropriation along the lines of the $75 million item of last year, We believe the Congress should Instead be focusing its attention upon the school aid legislation au- thorizing $1.5 billion In assistance to school systems which are desegregating and, or re- ducing racial Isolation. Respectfully, CLARENCE A&ITCHELL, Chairman, Legislative Committee. THE Srcarrssy oir HEALTH, HOUCATION, AND W#Waag, Washington, D.C. Hon. WALTER F. MONDAIz, Chairman, Select Committee on Equal Edit- rational Opportunity, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MAX SENATOR MONDALE: I thought it would be helpful to provide you with some background on the Department's request to continue the emergency school assistance program. As you know, early in this session of Con- gress, the President submitted the proposed Emergency School Aid Act designed to help school districts carry out successful deseg- regation programs. The Administration feels that legislation of this nature Is of the great- est Importance, and we hope that a bill ac- ceptable to both Houses of Congress will be approved in the very near future. Essentially, our current dilemma Is that with the opening of the 1971-72 school year, a number of school districts are faced with additional desegregation requirements, and there is very little likelihood that the Emer- gency School Aid Aci or alm11at legislation will be enacted In time to meet their imme- diate and critical needs. The continuing resolution (H.J. Resolu- tion 742) now before the Senate would continue emergency school assistance fund- ing provided in the fiscal year 1971 Office of Education Appropriations Act. The authority proposed in the continuing resolution becomes very Important given the Supreme Court's decision In Swann v. Char- lotte -3fecklenburp Board of Education and in companion cases handed down on April ao, 1971. The effect of the Swann ruling is to impose additional desegregation require- ments on those school systems which do not now meet the Constitutional standards set forth In that decision. At the moment and until the Emergency School Aid Act or its equivalent becomes law, the only authority to provide emergency Assistance to school districts Is that which Is embodied In the continuing resolution as proposed by the Senate Committee. We should point out that, under the Con- tinuing Resolution, we would be providing such emergency assistance only to school dis- tricts -which must make significant adjust- ments this fail in response to the Supreme Court's Swann deelsion. Revised program regulations to this effect will be Issued short- ly In the event the Congress approves the continuing resolution. Thestatutory provi- sions applicable to the present program will, of course, remain In force. Our purpose under the resolution is to assist comprehensive de- segregation programs. Including activities such its teacher training. burriculurn revi- sion, and support services. As I have Indicated, we anticipate that a considerably smaller number of districts will be eligible to participate in the program dur- ing the period of the continuing resolution. This will facilitate a more thorough review of each application in light of the lessons we have learned In administering the funds dtu- ing the course of the 1970-71 academic year. This interim action under the continuing resolution would, of course, continue only for such time as the continuing resolution re- mains In effect isr until such time as the Emergency School Aid Act or Its equivalent becomes law. Again, let me emphasize that a continua- tion of this limited emergency measure in no way preempts the larger scope and purpose of the school aid legislation now being con- sidered by the House. The President's objective is to encourage all school districts to deal Affirmatively with the problems of minority group Isolation In the schools and the Sands provided by the continuing resolution will not meet this vital crucial legislation. With kindest regards, Sincerely, ELLIOT: RICHARD-SON, Secretary,, MESSAGE FROM TH$ HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Berry, one of its read- ing clerks, announced th t the House had disagreed to the amen ent of the Senate to the bill (H.R, 6531) to amend the Military Selective Setvice Act of 1967; to increase military pay; to author- ize military active duty str4igths for fis- cal year 1972: and for other purposes; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, anti that Mr. HEBERT, Mr. PRICE of fTlinois. Mr. FISHER, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. ARENDS, Mr. O'Konsiu, and Mr. BRAY were appointed managers on the part of the House at the confer- ence. ENROLLED MEASURES SIGNED The message 'also announced that the Speaker had affixed his siglpature to the following enrolled bill and Joint reso- lution: H.R. 5257. An act to extend the school breakfast and special food p*ogranhs; and House Joint Resolution 744. A joint resolution making an appropriation for the fiscal year 1972 for the! Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. The enrolled bill and joint resolution were subsequently signed by the Presi- dent pro tempore. nn - - 'CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 1972 The Senate continued with the con- sideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 742) making continuin$ appropria- tions for the fiscal year of 1972, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from New York is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I had in mind addressing myself to' a different part of this measure which As a continu- ing resolution on many r ratters, but which specifically deals with the emer- gency school assistance program which is also contained in the continuing reso- lution. That involves assistance in the de- segregation of the public sciools of the country. It will be remembei