CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000500280002-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 40
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 16, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 29, 1971
• Content Type: OPEN

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 hr.ve 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 perir..it 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 where.it .is to be, made, made on programs previously funded as
It will well as fiscal 1972 funding.
be,somethl.ng 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 individt.al 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
~.al .... . ... . .....
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