DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1975

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030059-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 21, 2005
• Sequence Number: 59
• Publication Date: June 3, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

Nirmt?? Approved FeroftengsieR/E/VE:attIld_DMORIOR000700030059-2
June 3 , 1974 S 9501
ing clerks, annou ed that the Hous
had passed the bil (H.R. 14449) to pro
vide for the mobS ation of communit
development and sistance services an
to establish a Co unity Action Adrni
istration in the epartment of Healt
Education, and elfa,re to administe
such programs, which it requests the
concurrence of t Senate.
ENROLL
The message
Speaker had a
following enro
6.1762. An
and functions
on Productivity
H.R. 11223.
ment of contr
certain vessels
in unsubsidize
Coast of the U
of Guam; and
H.R. 12925.
authorize app
1974 for mita
Department o
The PRES
quently sign
BILLS SIGNED
so announced that the
ed his signature to the
d bills:
prescribing the objectives
the National Commission
Cl Work Quality;
act to authorize amend-
relating to the exchange of
conversion and operation
service between the West
d States and the Territory
act to amend the Act to
ations for the fiscal year
maritime programs of the
ommerce.
ENT pro tempore subse-
the enrolled bills. _
HOU BILL REFERRED
The bill ( R. 14449) to provide for
the mobiliza, n of community develop-
ment and tame services and to es-
tablish a Co unity Action Administra-
tion in th Department of Health,
Education, d Welfare to administer
such progr s was read twice by its title
and ref erre o the Committee on Labor
and Public elf are.
ORUM CALL
Mr. HAR F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi-
dent, I sugg t the absence of a quorum.
The PRE DING 0101.2CER. The clerk
will call the 11.
The legisl ive clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. TO Mr. President, I ask
unanimous insent that the order for
the quorum all? be rescinded.
The PRE DING OFFICER. Without
objection, it so ordered.
Mr. TOW I ask unanimous consent
that during e consideration of S. 3000,
Mr. Ed Ke ey and Mr. Robert Old, of
the staff of the Committee on Armed
Services, be corded the privilege of the
floor.
The PRE' ?ING OFFICER. Without
objection, it so ordered.
Mr. TOW . Mr. President, I suggest
the absence a quorum.
The PRES ING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the ilL
The secon assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to 11 the roll.
Mr. S S. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous co ent that the order for the
quorum call rescinded.
The PRES ING OFF'ICka. Without
objection, it so ordered.
Mr. S S. I ask that the Chair
recognize the enator from Wisconsin.
The PRESID G OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Wisconsin is recognized.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
P191I5ATION AUTHORIZATION ACT,
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 3000) to au-
thorize appropriations during the fiscal
year 1975 for procurement of aircraft,
missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat
vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons,
and research, development, test and
evaluation for the Armed Forces, and
to prescribe the authorized personnel
strength for each active duty component
and of the Selected Reserve of each Re-
serve component of the Armed Forces
and of civilian personnel of the Depart-
ment of Defense, and to authorize the
military training student loads, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT' NO. 1365
Mr. PROX1VIIRE. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1368 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. PROXMIRE'S amendment (No. 1368)
follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert
a new section as follows:
SEC. . Section 102 of the National Security
Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 403), is
amended as follows:
(1) Subsection (Cl) is amended by insert-
ing "foreign" immediately before "intelli-
gence" the first time the latter term appears
in such subsection.
(2) Clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (d)
are amended by inserting "foreign" immedi-
ately before "intelligence" each time the lat-
ter term appears in such clauses.
(3) Clause (3) of subsection (Cl) is amend-
ed by inserting "foreign" immediately be-
fore "intelligence" the first time the latter
term appears in such clause.
(4) Clause (4) of subsection (d) is amend-
ed by inserting "relating to foreign intelli-
gence activities" immediately after "of com-
mon concern",
(5) Clause (5) of subsection (Cl) is amend-
ed to read as follows:
"(5) to perform such other functions and
duties related to foreign intelligen,ce affect-
ing the national security as may be specifi-
cally directed from time to time by the
Council and reported to the Congress in such
manner and in accordance with such pro-
cedures as the Congress may establish to in-
sure effective legislative oversight with due
recognition of essential security require-
ments."
(6) Add at the end of such -section a new
subsection as follows:
"(g) (1) Nothing in this or any other Act
shall be construed as authorizing the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency to?
"(A) carry out, directly or indirectly, with-
in the United States, either on its own or in
cooperation or conjunction with any other
department, agency, organization, or indi-
vidual any police or police-type operation or
activity, any law enforcement operation or
activity, or any internal security operation or
activity;
"(8) provide assistance of any kind, di-
rectly or indirectly, to any other department
or agency of the Federal Government, to any
department or agency of any State or local
government, or to any officer or employee of
any such department or agency engaged in
police or police-type operations or activities,
law enforcement operations or activities, or
internal security operations or activities
within the United States unless such assist-
ance is provided with the prior, specific writ-
ten approval of the CIA Oversight Sub-
committees of the Committees on Appropria-
tions and the Committees on Armed Serv-
ices of the Senate and the House of Repre-
sentatives; or
"?(C) participate, directly or indirectly, in
any illegal activity within the United States.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the
amendment before us addresses the
question of illegal domestic operations
conducted by- the Central Intelligence
Agency.
Let me make it quite clear that this
amendment will not prohibit the CIA
from any obligation legally authorized
under the 1947 National Security Act or
the 1949 CIA Act. It is not an anti-CIA
amendment.
What it does do is to provide a strong
safeguard against the unauthorized ex-
ploitation of the CIA for illegal purposes
by political, military, or any other vested
interests not consonant with the will of
the U.S. Government or the laws of the
land.
I have great respect for the CIA. They
have provided some of the most re-
putable analysis of foreign events in the
history of the country. Indeed, the CIA
Director appeared before the Joint Eco-
nomic Committee a few weeks ago and
did a superb job analyzing the Russian
and Chinese economies and the kind of
burden which their military efforts have
placed upon the countries.
The CIA is unburdened by the biases
of producing weapon systems. They owe
no allegiances to conflicting and bureau-
cratic goals. They can be and usually are
the single most influential independent
voice when it comes to foreign intelli-
gence in Washington.
And the need for clear, timely intel-
ligence is extraordinarily important as
we all know.
THE DANGER OF EXPLOITATION
With great power and influence comes
the potential of exploitation. I am not
talking about a "Seven Days in May"
operation which is quite unrealistic. But
I do refer to the even more real possibil-
ity of using this enormous apparatus for
unscrupulous or illegal ends here at
homy,
Lo 'ng at the Watergate crisis I am
cont ually struck by the similarity of
the techniques and methods developed
for collecting intelligence overseas and
conducting what has come to be known
as "dirty tricks" and the same techniques
used here at home. In a speech last June
4 I spoke of the possible "spillover ef-
ects" of foreign intelligence methods be-
ing used here at home.
In the intervening 12 months that has
come true with a terrifying impact. The
techniques we developed for use abroad
in "dirty tricks" have been used here at
home in our own political process. The
intelligence agencies have been com-
promised by political forces They have
been used for domestic illegal purposes.
There can be no denying that we are
now living in a world where the unthink-
able, the once impossible has become real.
According to the National Security Act
Of 1947?Public Law 80-253?the CIA
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
9502 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-KOP/58003a700030059-2
S CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 3, 1974
shall have no police, subpena, law en-
forcement powers, or internal security
functions. That is a direct quote. No po-
lice, supbena, low enforcement powers,
or internal security functions.
On the face of it that seems quite clear.
" Stay out of domestic police-type activi-
ties.
POLICE TRAINING
This law notwithstanding, during a
2-year period between 1972 and 1973.
about 50 police officers from a total of
at least a dozen cities and county police
forces have received direct training from
the CIA. U.S. policemen received briefings
and assistance from the CIA.
The CIA instructed these policemen
in clandestine photography, surveillance
of individuals, and detection and identi-
fication of metal and explosive devices.
When confronted with the evidence
the CIA admitted that this had occurred
and justified it under the provisions of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, title 42, United
States Code, section 3701, wherein it is
stated that it was the declared policy of
Congress "to assist State and local gov-
ernments in strengthening law enforce-
ment at every level" and that it was the
purpose of the law to?
Encourage research and development di-
recteci toward the improvement of law en-
forcement and the development of new meth-
ods for the prevention and reduction of
crime and the detection and apprehension of
criminals.
By using this loophole in the law the
CIA engaged in this domestic police-type
activity.
The General Accounting Office found
that the CIA activities did not seem to
be in violation of the law given the pro-
visions of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act and the authority
under the Intergovernmental Coopera-
tion Act of 1968 and if the request were
made by the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration. In the case with the po-
lice training, the CIA did not follow these
stipulations and did not operate under
the LEAA. Therefore, it would seem to
me that the CIA operated improperly in
these cases.
The GAO further stated that aside
from these later laws, they had found no
authority for the CIA to perform such
training.
Mr. President, this is just one exam-
ple of how even a fiat prohibition in con-
gressionally mandated legislation could
be corrupted arid superceded by some
technical loophole in a subsequent law.
This is an extremely dangerous prece-
dent.
If the CIA can justify its training of
police officers how long will it be before
the CIA or some political force finds
other technical interpretations of sub-
sequent law to justify the CIA becoming
even more deeply involved in domestic
operations. Where would it stop? Who
would control it? What extraordinary or
illegal powers could be brought to bear?
It is a constantly disturbing and
alarming thought.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the General Accounting Office
letter to the CIA on this matter be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the GAO
letter was ordered to be printed_ in the
RECORD, as follows:
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OP
THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., May 30,1973.
Hon. JAMES It. SCHLESINGER,
Director, Central Intelligence Agency_
DEAR MR. SCHLES/NGER : The Honorable Ed-
ward I. Koch, of the House of Representa-
tives had referred to, us for a ruling copies
of correspondence with your office nsid cer-
tain material which appeared in the Congres-
sional Record for February 6, 1972, page
H726 and March 5, 1973, pages H1352-1353,
which was prompted by an article in the New
York Times for December 17, 1972, which
stated that fourteen New York policemen
had received training from the Central In-
telligence Agency (CIA) in September.
Because of an informal contact from your
office we suggested that a statement be sent
from your office as to exactly what was done
and the specific statutory authority relied
upon therefor. As a result, we received a let-
ter dated March 16, 1973, from your Deputy
General Counsel which enclosed (1) an ex-
tract of the Congressional Record for March
5, 1973, supra, that contained Congressman
Chet Holifield's discussion and report of the
inquiry into -the matter by the House Com-
mittee on Government Operations at the re-
quest of Congressman Koch, together with
related correspondence and (2) a copy of
Congressman Koch's letter of December 28,
1972, to the CIA and a copy of the rssponse
of January 29, 1973, signed by your Legisla-
tive Counsel. It was stated that it would
appear that all the information needed was
contained in those enclosures. We were also
assured that the CIA does not run a formal
institution for training of police officers in
the manner of the FBI Academy located at
"Fort Belvoir." (The FBI Academy is located
at Quantico, Virginia.)
It is noted that the Congressional Record
for March 5, 1973, page 1353 also includes re-
lated remarks of congressman Luedan N.
Nedzi, Chairman of the Special Subcom-
mittee on Intelligence, House Committee on
Armed Services, as to the activity of that
Subcommittee in the matter, in which he
emphasizes that the basic jurisdiction in CIA
matters remains with the Armed Services
Committee and that the Subcommittee has
been diligent in fulfilling its responsibilities.
He also etated that he shared the view "that
the CIA should refrain from domestic law en-
forcement activities and that some of the
activities described by our oolleague Mr.
KOch, and the agency itself could have been
performed much more appropriately by other -
agencies."
It appears from the material referred to
above that within the last two years less than
fifty police officers from a total of about a
dozen city and county police forces have re-
ceived some kind of CIA briefing.
As to the New York police it appears that
with the assistance of the Ford Foundation
an analysis and evaluation unit was devel-
oped within the Intelligence Division of the
New York City police department. At the
suggestion of a Ford Foundation representa-
tive it sought assistance from the Cnt as to
the best system for analyzing intelligence.
Although the CIA's techniques and. proce-
dures involve only foreign intelligence they
were considered basic and applicable to the
needs of the New York police. A 4-day brief-
ing was arranged at which a ground of New
York City police was briefed on the theory
and technique of analyzing and evaluating
foreign intelligence data, the role of the an-
alyst, and the handling and processing of
foreign intelligence information.
The briefing was given by a CIA training
staff, based upon material used in training
the CIA analysts and without any s' gnifteant
added expense. Specific guidance was not
given as to how the New York City police sys-
tem should be set up but the CIA presented
its basic approach.
CIA assistance to local law enforcement
agencies has been of tvto types. In the first
type of assistance one or two officers received
an hour or two of briefing on demonstration
of techniques. Police officers from six local
or State jurisdictions came to CIA head.
quarters for this type of assistance. In the
second type of assistance, the briefing lasted
for 2 or 3 days. Instruction was given in such
techniques as record handling, clandestine
photography, surveillance of individuals, and
detection and identification of metal and ex-
plosive devices. Nine metropolitan or county'
jurisdictions sent officers for this t3 pe of in-
struction. Assistance given was at no oost to
the recipients and has been accomplished by
making available, insofar as their other du-
ties permit, qualified CIA experts and in-
structors. Cost to the CIA has been minimal.
It is stated that all _briefings have been
conducted in response to the requests of the
various recipients. It is also stated that the
CIA intends to continue to respond to such
requests within its competence and author-
ity to the extent possible without interfering
with its primary mission.
No provision of that part of National se-
curity Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.
403, et seq., which established tlaa Central
Intelligence Agency has been cited as au-
thority for the activities undertaken and our
examination of that law fails to disclose any-
thing which reasonably could be construed
as authorizing such activities. However, in
his letter of January 29. 1973, to Oceagrest-
man Koch, your Legislative Counsel stated
that these activities were entirely consistent
with the provisions of the Onanitus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42
U.S.C. 8701, et seq. He noted that in 42 U.S.C.
3701 it was the declared policy of the Con-
gress "to assist State and local governments
in strengthening law enforcement at every
level" and that it was the purpose of that
law to "encourage research and des elopment
directed toward the improvement of law
enforcement and the development of new
methods for the prevention and rec uction of
crime and the detection and apprehension of
criminals," 42 U.S.C. 3721. He also noted that
in the same law at 42 V.S.C. 8'756 Congress
authorized the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration to use available services,
equipment, personnel, and facilities of the
Department of Justice and of "other civilian
and military agencies and instrumentalities'
of the Federal Government to car-y out its
function. It should also be noted that the
section authorizes such use on a reimburs-
able basis.
There is nothing in Ithe Omnit us Crime
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which LU thorizes
a Federal agency of its own voliticn to pro-
vide services which it Is not otherwise au-
thorized to provide. As previously stated there
is nothing in the legislation establishing the
CIA which would authorize the activities in
question. Neither does It appear that those
services, equipment, personnel, aid facili-
ties utilized were utilized by the Law En-
forcement Assistance Administraticn or even
at its request. As stated by Congressman
Holified in his letter of February 23, 1973, to
you and quoted in the Congressional Record
for March 5, 1973:
Since the Lair Enforcement Asaistanee
Administration is 'the agency primarily con-
cerned With such Matters. Partiellhx19 where
Federal assistance funds are involved., it
would seem that the need for Federal agency
assistance to local law ernforcemen: agencies
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
'Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700030059-2
June 5, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 9503
should be coordinated by that Administra-
tion.
In that same letter of February 23, 1973,
Congressman HoWield invited attention to
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of
1968, Pub. L. 90-577; 82 Stat. 1102, approved
October 16, 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4201, et seq., as
implemented by Budget Circular No. A-97
of August 29, 1969. Among the purposes of
title HI of that act, as stated in section 301
thereof, is to authorize all departments and
agencies of the executive branch of the Fed-
eral Government?which do not otherwise
have such authority?to provide reimburs-
able specialized or technical services to
State and local governments. Section 302 of
the act states that such services shall include
only those which the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget through rules
and regulations determines Federal depart-
ments and agencies have a special compe-
tence to provide. Budget Circular No. A-97
covers specific services which may be pro-
vided under the act and also provides that if
a Federal agency receives a request for spe-
cialized or technical services which are not
specifically covered and which it believes is
consistent with the act and which it has
a special competence to provide, it should
forward such request to the Bureau of the
Budget (now. Office of Management and
Budget) for action. The same procedure is
to be followed if there is doubt as to whether
the service requested is included within the
services specifically covered. Section 304 re-
quires an annual summary report by the
agency head to the respective Committees on
Government Operations of the Senate and
House of Representatives on the scope of the
services provided under title III of the act.
Possibly future requests for briefings from
State or local police agencies could be con-
sidered under the provisions of that act and
the implementing budget circular.
In the letter of January 29, 1973, to Con-
gressman Koch from your Legislative Coun-
sel it is also stated that the activities in ques-
tion were not considered to violate the letter
or spirit of the provisions of the National
Security Act of 1947 which states that "the
Agency shall have no police, subpoena, law
enforcement powers, or internal-security
functions." See 50 U.S.C. 403(d)(8). We do
not regard the activities as set out above as
being in violation of these provisions, but
as previously indicated, we have found no
authority for those activities by your agency,
unless provided on a reimbursable basis in
accordance with the Intergovernmental Co-
operation Act of 1968, or at the request of
the Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis-
tration under the provisions of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,
which was not the case here.
Copies of this letter are being sent to the
Members of Congress referred to above.
Sincerely yours,
ELMER B. STAATS,
Comptroller General of the United States.
WATERGATE INVESTIGATION
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the
training of police is not an isolated ex-
ample of unauthorized or illegal activi-
ties being conducted by the CIA in the
United States.
An investigation by the House and
Senate Armed Services Committees into
the role of the CIA in the Watergate in-
cident has shown a number of misuses
of CIA authority or resources.
The CIA gave Howard Hunt, a for-
mer CIA employee, alias identification
gear, disguises, and other technical
materials for purposes having nothing to
do with the CIA mission.
We all know what purpose these were
put to. Howard Hunt used them to con-
tact an individual who was peddling
material on the Kennedy family and in
the unlawful break into the office of Dr.
Fielding in the search for the psychia-
tric records of Daniel Ellsberg.
They were also used in connection
with the Mrs. Dita Beard and the ITT
affair. They were used during the actual
Watergate break-in attempt.
It was found that the White House
had demanded domestic psychiatric pro-
files on Daniel Ellsberg in 19'71 contrary
to the National Security Act and CIA
practice.
Furthermore, Messrs. Halderman,
Ehrlichman, and Dean attempted to de-
flect the FBI investigation of the Water-
gate break-in by evoking nonexistent
conflicts with the CIA.
I emphasize that these are not my con-
clusions. These are the conclusions of
the House Armed Services Committee
ably led by Congressman LUCIEN NEDZI,
chairman of the Intelligence Subcom-
mittee and Chairman EDWARD HEBERT Of
the full committee.
The committee charged that the CIA
had become "unwitting dupes for pure-
ly domestic White House staff en-
deavors."
This conclusion was reached after 12
weeks of inquiry.
Mr. President I ask unanimous con-
sent that conclusions of the study be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the REC-.
ORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN F. EDWARD
HEBERT
I believe that the American public should
join with me in commending Congressman
Lucien N. Nedzi (D.-Mich.), Chairman of the
Intelligence Subcommittee of the House
Armed Services Committee which conducted
a thorough and indepth investigation of the
CIA in connection with the Watergate-Ells-
berg matters.
Congressman Nedzi, as Chairman, had a
free and open hand during the entire course
of the inquiry and with the assistance of his
Counsel, William H. Hogan, Jr., and the mem-
bers of the subcommitee, has brought forth
what I believe to be a most important docu-
ment.
Congressman Nedzi conducted the investi-
gation in the tradition of the House Armed
Services Committee inquiries, devoid of flam-
boyance and fanfare. Every individual who
had any significant connection with the
problem was before the subcommittee under
oath and the subcommittee began and fin-
ished its inquiry without leaks or disclosures
and without prejudice either for or against
any person who appeared before the subcom-
mittee.
As Chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, I want to publicly commend
Congressman Nedzi and the other members
of the subcommittee, William G. Bray (R.-
Ind.) , Leslie C. Arends (R.411.), Melvin Price
(D.411.), 0. C. Fisher (D.-Tex.) and Bob Wil-
son (R.-Calif.), together with Counsel Wil-
liam Hogan, for their objectivity during the
hearings and the sound conclusions express-
ed in the subcommittee report.
PANEL TABS CIA DUPES FOR WHITE HOUSE
STAFF IN WATERGATE-ELLSBERG REPORT
The CIA had become "unwitting dupes for
purely domestic White House Staff endeav-
ors," in connection with the Watergate and
Ellsberg matters, House Armed Services Sub-
committee charged in an investigative report
issued today.
The Special Subcommittee on Intelligence,
chaired by Representative Lucien N. Nedzi
(D.-Mich.), issued a 23-page report that
capped 12 weeks of inquiry into allegations
concerning CIA involvement in Watergate
and the Ellsburg case.
Among the Subcommittee's major findings:
Alias identification gear, disguises and
other technical materials were provided im-
properly to E. Howard Hunt by the CIA for
purposes not in keeping with the CIA's
mission.
Although the CIA was not aware of those
purposes, it was insufficiently cautious in
providing the material.
The material was used in a disguised inter-
view by Hunt to contact an individual who
was peddling material on the Kennedy
family.
The material was also improperly used in
the unlawful break-in into Dr. Fielding's
office in connection with the Ellsberg psy-
chiatric records; in connection with Mrs.
Dita Beard and the ITT affair; and, finally,
at the abortive break-in at the Watergate
complex.
The White House demands for domestic-
psychiatric profiles on Daniel Ellsberg in 1971
was an abuse of CIA facilities.
Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Dean at-
tempted to deflect the FBI investigation of
the Watergate break-in by envoking non-
existing conflicts with CIA operations.
John Dean made amazingly overt attempts
to involve the CIA in Watergate.
In dealing with the CIA White House aides
avoided former Director Helms and focused
their attention on Generals Cushman and
Walters for compliance with orders.
Haldeman and Ehrlichman were sources of
enormous executive authority in the White
House.
The subcommittee recommended legisla-
tion to:
a. Prohibit the Director of Central In-
telligence from performing actions not in-
cluded in the National Security Act with-
out the expressed authorization of the
President.
b. Tighten the wording of the National
Security Act with regard to the protection
of intelligence sources and methods by the
CIA Director.
c. Prohibit transactions between former
CIA employees in the Agency beyond routine
administrative matters.
"In testimony we developed," Mr. Nedzi
stated, "it became clear that the White House
counsel, Mr. John Dean, made what can be
characterized as almost unbelievable at-
tempts to involve the CIA in Watergate as a
brazen cover for those actually involved.
"There is little doubt that Haldeman and
Ehrlichman were running much of the execu-
tive branch of the government in domestic
matters during the period covered by this re-
port and there is no doubt that the CIA
leadership considered them to be speaking
with finality for the President."
Chairman Nedzi continued, "even though
any danger to Mexican-01A sources was just
not in the cards, White House aides sought
to impede the FBI investigation into the
Mexican money-laundering caper as another
obvious attempt at coverup. For example,
Dean contacted Acting FBI Director L. Pat-
rick Gray several times following Watergate
in overt attempts to stifle the FBI investiga-
tion into the Mexican inoney-laundering op-
eration."
Chairman Nedzi tabbed as "puzzling and
contradictory" the testimony regarding the
July 6, 1972 telephone conversation between
the President and L. Patrick Gray, Acting
Director of the FBI. While the President in
his public statement on May 22, 1973 indi-
cated that he called Gray to congratulate
him on the successful conclusion of the hi-
jacking incident, it would appear from the
record that the Gray call to the President at
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2 ,
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700030059-2
S 9504 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 3, 1974
San Clemente was returned because Oray ex-
pressed concern over apparbat White House
staff attempts to impede the FBI's role in
the Watergate investigation.
Joining Chairman Nedzi ta the unanimous
approval of the report we subcommittee
members P. Edward Hebert CD.-La.), William
O. Bray (R.-Ind.), Leslie C. ?trends Mania,
Melvin Price (D.-Ill.), O. C. Fisher (D.-Tex.)
and Bob Wilson (R.-Ca.).
Chairman Nedzi indicated that his sub-
committee is ctirrently committed to con-
duct hearings at the earliestl)ossible date on
the subcommittees legislatHre proposals and
other suggested changes in theoverall role
and operation of the CIA.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. ?resident what
else has the CIA done domestically? The
CIA disseminates its foreign intelligence
reports to the several agencies ooeutented
with the matters covered in those re-
ports such as the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Armed Serv-
ices, the Customs Service, the Secret
Service, and others on a routine basis.
As I will explain shortly, this type of
routine flow of data will be permitted
under this amenditent.
In addition to this, hotvever, the CIA
provides training to Drug Enforcement
Administration personnel in inter-
agency procedures and litelligence co-
ordination practices in overseas mis-
sions. They also give the Secret Service
training In defensive_ driving and in ex-
plosives and demolition devices related
to terrorist activities. gembers of the
U.S. Intelligence Board are given coun-
teraudio surveillance measure train-
ing by the CIA.
The CIA maintains a number of per-
manent facilities and operations on 'TS.
soil. Of course, the headquarters is lo-
cated in Virginia and necessary support
functions such as recruitinent, training,
and security checks are *stied out.
American citizens are -interviewed on
a voluntary basis for their knowledge of
foreign intelligence which they will
share with their Government.
Operations are condutted to collect
foreign intelligence from foreigners
temporarily resident ift the tinned
States.
Mechanisms, relationships, and facili-
ties are required within the United
States to support foreign intelligence
operations abroad. Some of this entails
dummy corporations and front organi-
zations.
And finally, analysis and research on
foreign intelligence matters by CIA
staff, contractors, consultants, and vari-
ous institutions is condi*ed routinely.
EXPLANATION OF THEINEENDMENT
The amendment r a offering today
would amend the Nati ? ? Security Act
of 1947.
First, wherever the word "intel-
ligence" appears in that act, the word
"foreign" would be placed immediately
in front of it.
This will help clarify that the CIA only
has authority to operate tinder these pro-
visions when it applies to foreign intel-
ligence. It would eliminate any tempta-
tion to broaden or reinterpret these sec-
tions to allow domestic activities not re-
lated to foreign intelligence collection.
It Is Interesting to note that the Di-
rector of Central Intelligence supports
this revision in the law and, in fact, sug-
gested it himself.
I repeat, the Director of Central intel-
ligence supports this revision in the law
and, in fact, he suggested it himself.
Second, the ambiguous and dangerous
clause 5 of subsection (d) of the 1947
act would be modified -o read?
It shall be the duty of the CIA under the
direction of the National Security Council
to perform such other functions and duties
related to foreign intelligence affecting the
natiOnal security as may be specifically di-
rected from time to time by the Council
and reported to the Congress in such man-
ner and in accordance with such procedures
as the Congress may establish to insure ef-
fective legislative oversight with due recog-
nition of essential security requirements.
Clause 5 of subsection (d) is the most
important section in the 1947 act.
Why? Because it gives unlimited lati-
tude to the National Security Council
and the CIA to extend and expand upon
the 1947 act. This is the clause that often
has been caned the origin of the "Secret
Charter" of the CIA. From this clause
flows the National Security Council In-
telligence Directives (NSCID's) that
spell out the functions and missions of
the various intelligence units.
Senators will notice that nowhere in
the 1947 act is the CIA given authority
to operate covertly overseas. Nowhere
in the language is this spelled out. There
Is nothing about "dirty tricks," nothing
about overthrowing governments or sab-
otage. It all flows from the clause 5 of
subsection d.
My amendment does not address these
overseas activities. My bill S. 1935 goes
to the heart of that matter, and I hope
that the committee will hold hearings
soon so that the bill can be considered.
That is not what is before us today.
In the meantime, however, and recog-
nizing the almost insolvable problems in
defining necessary overseas operations in
contrast to the type of operation we
should not be engaged in, such as over-
throwing governments, I have offered
this amendment which deals exclusively
with domestic affairs.
Under my amendment, clause 5 is ex-
panded and tightened. I give credit to
the language of this modification to the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi,
the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee (Mr, Smarm).
Third, an entirely new section is add-
ed to the 1947 act, which explicitly spells
out a prohibition against the CIA be-
coming involved in domestic affairs. This
new subsection says that nothing in the
1947 act or any other act would allow
the CIA to carry out, directly or indi-
rectly, within the United States, whether
on its own or in cooperation with anyone
else, any police-type activity or internal
security functions.
It would also prohibit providing assist-
ance to any organization or person en-
gaged in police-type activities or internal
secttrity functions.
And last, it prohibits the CIA from par-
ticipating directly or indirectly in any
Illegal activity within the United States.
A few words of explanation ate nec-
essary.
First, what about the norma:. com-
munications between the CIA and other
agencies of Government? Would that
be prohibited? The answer is "No.'" The
amendment provides for that by stating
that the only exceptions granted roust be
made in writing by the four oversight
subcommittees of Congress.
I would then urge that these exceptions
be made public by those commi ;tees. I
realize that some will say that tin: is giv-
ing too much authority to these small
committees. But I have great faith that
if these committees alone can authorize
exceptions to the rule, they will invoke
their authority with great restraint and
wariness. After all, if some program
backfires, then these committees will also
stand responsible. At the present time,
no one stands responsible.
It might be asked why must Lie CIA
be prohibted from any illegal activities
within the United States? The answer is
history. Existing law is no restraint to the
CIA. Laws already have been violated in
the Watergate case. Laws have been bent
In the police-training case. And it can
easily be seen that the CIA has great re-
sources for operating covertly here at
home and without our knowledge. There-
fore, the CIA must be told directly that
at no time in the future, and ur der no
conditions, can they break U.S. law,
either by self-direction or at the direction
of any other party, including the Presi-
dent and Congress.
Mr. President, I think this amendment
should be placed in the right perspective.
It is offered in order to protect the CIA
from abuses coming from the rolitical
system. It is intended to isolate and re-
inforce the Agency in its exclusion mis-
sion of colecting foreign intelligenea.
It is a guarantee that the CIA will re-
main aloof front those law enforcement
and internal security ftmctions tint re-
main the prerogative of the F131 and
domestic law enforcement agencies.
There is no more important I eritage
to protect than our system of law. When
the law is corrupted, we must give it
teeth. When it is overlooked or circum-
vented, we must enforce it with author-
ity. Where it is vague, we mus, make
it explicit.
To do less is to risk our heritage. A
vote for this amendment will be a long
step in the right direction.
Mr. President, I had an opportunity to
discuss this amendment with Lie dis-
tinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
STENNIS) , the manager of the bill: and it
is my understanding that he approves of
much of this amendment. In fact, if I
modify the amendment, which I am will-
ing to do, I understand that he is willing
to accept the amendment as modified
So I send a modification to the desk,
and I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment may be modified as indi-
cated.
The PRESIDING 0.teriCER. The Sen-
ator has a right-to modify his amend-
ment. It will be so modified.
The modification will be stated.
The modification was read, as follows:
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
June 3, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
(A) carry out, directly or indirectly,
within the United States, either on its own
or in cooperation or conjunction with any
other department, agency, organization, or
individual any police or police-type opera-
tion or activity, any law enforcement opera-
tion or activity, or any internal security op-
eration or activity: Provided, however, That
nothing in this Act shall be construed to
prohibit the General Intelligence Agency
from (1) protecting its installations, (2)
conducting personnel inestigations of Agency
employees and applicants or employees of
contractors and others requiring access to
sensitive Agency information in carrying out
Agency responsibilities, or (3) providing in-
formation resulting from foreign intelligence
activtes to other approprate departments
and agencies.
(B) participate, directly or indirectly, in
any illegal activity within the United States.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield
the floor.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I have
listened to the Senator from Wisconsin,
and just for the purpose of quick review,
I hold in my hand his amendment No.
1368 to the bill now under consideration,
S. 3000.
As I understand, he has modified his
amendment so that it will continue to
include all that is presently in the orig-
inal printed copy on page 1 and on page
2 and on page 3, through line 6. Then he
adds the words "Provided, however,"
after the word "activity," and strikes
out the remainder of page 3, down
through line 19, and renumbers the last
paragraph (B), instead of (C) , and he
Includes lines 20 and 21.
Have I correctly outlined the modified
amendment?
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator has, in-
deed.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, first I
congratulate the Senator for his interest
in this subject. He and I have discussed
this problem from time to time. It arose
last year, when the activities within the
domestic field came to my attention.
I came to the Senate soon after the
original CIA act was passed, and there
was nothing clearer around here, nor
anything that sounded louder, than the
fact that the CIA act was passed for the
purpose of foreign intelligence. I was
really shocked and disappointed and con-
siderably aroused when I learned of some
of the facts last summer; and even
though I was not on Capitol Hill. I make
some effort to get a bill started that
would cover some of these matters.
We have in this amendment, as the
Senator from Wisconsin has pointed out,
complete coverage of the matter of do-
mestic intelligence being excluded.
Mainly, the Senator has inserted the
word "foreign" before the word "intelli-
gence," which closes a loophole and
makes clear that we are talking about
foreign intelligence only.
I should like to make a further point:
The matter of police training, as I un-
derstand it, came in through the inter-
pretation of a different law, not the
.original CIA Act. This amendment, as
modified now by the Senator from Wis-
consin, prohibits that police activity, and
I think correctly so.
We have had a good deal of discus-
sion of this matter, and I have discussed
it with the Senator from Texas, who was
acting for the minority at that time.
have also discussed it with the Senator
from South Carolina, who is the ranking
minority member of the committee, and
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Nurriv).
I speak for myself, first. I support the
amendment of the Senator from Wiscon-
sin. He has stricken from it language I
could not agree to. I think every Senator
can speak for himself but I do think it
would be a valuable amendment. I think
it would be helpful to the CIA. I have
discussed the matter with Mr. Colby, es-
pecially about closing this loophole and
putting the word "foreign" before intel-
ligence in the amendment, and it is suit-
able to him.
If the amendment is accepted by the
Senate, and I hope it will be, we will make
a conscientious effort to have it carried
through. I think that the committee as
a whole would have supported the
amendment as now modified.
With that thought behind it, I am
glad to agree to the amendment so far
as I personally am concerned. I would
like to hear from the Senator from South
Carolina and also the Senator from
Texas, with whom I have dealt in con-
nection with this matter.
Mr. THUR1VIOND. Mr. President, as I
understand the amendment as now
modified, it is about the same amend-
ment as the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services had
Introduced and which is now before the
Committee on Armed Services. Is that
correct?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct
on these points in focus here and in-
cluded in this amendment. The Senator
is correct.
Mr. THURMOND. Since that is the
case I do not think there is any objec-
tion in committee that I am aware of. /
think the committee as a whole favors
the amendment and if the Senator from
Mississippi wishes to accept it here
rather than to wait until later, it is en-
tirely agreeable with us.
Mr. STENNIS. I am interested in get-
ting results. I believe this is the way to
get results. It Is timely and it is relevant
to the bill, in that our committee is the
committee that handles legislation of
this kind. I think we have taken a step
forward in a field where this legislation
Is needed and we should accept the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROX-
MIRE) , as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was
agreed to.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. lerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legi lye clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. esident, I ask
unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be cinded.
The PRESIDI OFFICER. Without
objection, it is ordered.
AM ?MENT NO. 1370
Mr. PRO IRE. Mr. President, I call
up my a dment No. 1370.
The ESIDING OFFICER. The
amen ent will be stated.
Th mendment was read as follows:
S 9505
At the appropriate place in the bill insert
a new section as follows:
SEC. ?. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, no enlisted flnember of the
Armed Forces of the 1711.1 States may be
assigned to duty or otherw
as an enlisted aide, publ
airman aide, cook special
technician on the person
of the Army, Navy, Mar
or Coast Guard (when o
of the Navy).
detailed to duty
uarters steward,
or food service
taff of any officer
Corps, Air Force,
ting as a service
Mr. PROXMIRE. President, I am
happy to yield to t acting majority
leader.
Mr. ROBERT C. D. I thank the
distinguished Senato for yielding.
Mr. President, I unanimous con-
sent that there be ime limitation on
this amendment of hour, the time to
be equally divided ween Mr. STENNIS
and Mr. PROXMIRE, h a time limitation
on any amendment the amendment of
30 minutes, and in cordance with the
usual form.
Mr. STENNIS. E ally divided.
Mr. ROBERT BYRD. Yes. In ac-
cordance with the ual form.
The PRESIDIN OFFICER. Is there
objection to the u animous consent re-
quest?
Mr. STENNIS. r. President, I have
no objection.
The PRESIDI OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so dered.
Mr. ROBERT . :YRD. Mr, President,
I am getting qu tions and have been
for the last hour om Senators on both
sides as to whet r or not there will be
any rollcall vote his afternoon. May. I
ask the distingui ed Senator if it is his
intention to ask r the yeas and nays?
Mr. PROXMI . Yes, I intend to have
a rollcall vote.
Mr. ROBER C. BYRD. Very well.
Both cloakrooms ay notify Senators ac-
cordingly. I tha the Senator.
Mr. PROXM E. Mr. President, the
amendment I p pose today will correct
a longstanding use in the U.S. Military
Establishment. will bring to an end a
highly questio le practice with over-
tones of racial ejudice and involuntary
servitude.
It will rest traditional American
moral and ethi 1 standards. In short, it
will eliminate ompletely the military
servant progra
What is the ilitary servant program?
It is the s ematic and widespread
practice of p viding enlisted men for
personal and rofessional use by' high
ranking gene s and admirals.
The enliste men are called enlisted
aides. They a attached to another hu-
man being,:a- personal servant. They
are not provi ed to a command, a unit
or a group of leers. They are allotted by
the Secreta of Defense to individual
officers who I e in quarters provided free
by the taxpa. -rs. These are called public
quarters.
There are 75 such men, enlisted men,
serving as vents at the present time.
They are in e service of 450 high-rank-
ing officers.
THEY SERVANTS?
I have c led these men servants. Blit
are they? aybe they are professional
military m providing a necessary mili-
tary functi n?
The best way to judge is by what they
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
Approved
For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
S 9506 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
do. According to an extensive investiga-
tion by the General Amounting Office,
these men prepare food in the officer's
home, e the meals, clean the house,
perform t gardening, provide mainte-
nance, ba d for both official and un-
official part , do the grocery shopping,
run errands, uffeur the officer and
family about, intain uniforms, wash
automobiles, an t as the butler,
Does any of sound familiar? Of
course it does. The are servant duties.
The GAO conclude hat the duties of
enlisted aides "are th normally asso-
ciated with domestic --'ta."
So much for that arg -nt. They are
servants by any definition_ id there can
be no doubt about it.
WHO BTS 51133V
Just who are these privileg officers
Who get the free use of servants 'd for
by the taxpayer? Not surprising they
are the Nation's highest ranking o rs
This year the Secretary of Defen
distributed the 675 servants to 450 g
erals and admirals. All members of Sti
ALLOCATION OF
Joint Chief of Staff have 5 servants each.
Five men personally assigned to thorn to
care for their every need. rive human
beings receiving wages on the average of
between $7,000 and $8,000 a year. This
means that each Member of the Joint
Chiefs has the personal use of about
640,000 worth of manpower for his per-
sonal convenience.
Thirteen other Army generals, 8 ad-
znirals, 1 Marine Corp general, and 14 Air
Force generals all receive 3 servants each,
courtesy of the American taxpayer.
The unfortunate remaining officers of
the 450 have to make do with I or 2 serv-
ants with the exception of Adm. Willi
Mack, Superintendent of the Na
Academy who gets 4 for some reasoz
WHERE ARE THE SERVANTS STATTO
These servants are attached,
permanently to an indi
They go where he goes. They
he serves. They are Part
Of the 675 servants, 1
the Washington, D.C. ar
STED AIDES UNDER DOD ?7
UNITED ST
ost
officer.
ve where
based in
That is where
June 3, 197.4
most of the brass are. that is where
many of the servants
The remainder scattered around
the United State nil throughout the
world.
We have y servants for our
brass in I and, Belgium, Taiwan,
Japan. any, Korea, Brasil, the
Canal Okinawa, Turkey, Thailand,
Guam, and Holland.
We supposed to be exporting the,
best America?our system of deznoc-
our standards of justice, our moral
ership. But what we end up export-
g is a servant caste system. One must,
Wonder what foreign nationals thnk of
the United States when they see that we
provide our military leaders with serv-
ants.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a list of all generals and ad-
mirals receiving servants and their place
of residence be printed in the Racoas.
There being no objection, the list was
ordered to be printed in the RSICOltD, as
follows:
LING TO BE EFFECTIVE JUNE 30, 1974
S ARMY
Grade and name of officer
Position of officer
ed
as of
1974
? Bradley Omar N General ef the Army, Beverly Hills, Calif
0-10 Abrams, Creighton W Chief efStaff, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.__
0-19 Bennett, Donald V Commander in Chief, U.S. Army, Pacific__
0-1.5 Davison, Michael S Commander in Chief, U.S. Army Europe
Army;
0-11. DePuy, William E Cammateling General, U.S. Army Traini d
filectrffie Command, Fort Monroe, V
0-10: Goodpaster, Andrew 1 Suprernt? Allied Commander. Eur
Commander in Chief, U.S.
Comnffind.
0-10: Kerwin, Walter T., Jr Commaaffing General, U.S.
Command, Fort McPherson,
0-10: Miley, Beery A., Jr Commanding General, U.S., my Materiel
Command, Alexandria, V
0-10: Palmer, Bruce, Jr Commenter in Chief, U.
mand,illacDftt Air F
0-19; Reason, William 9 Commenter in Chief, U
Quarry-Heights, Ca
0-10: Stilwell, Richard G Comma:dim Genera
Commander in
Command/Com
0-10: Weyand, Frederick C Vice Chita of S
D.C. -
0-10: lain, Melvin Commanding
Southeast
0-9: Blanchard, George S Comma
3
5
3
3
and
ropean
looses
eadiness Com-
ase, Fla.
authors Command,
one.
h U.S. Army, Korea/
ef, United Nations
der, U.S. Forces KOTNI.
, U.S. Army, Washington,
nerd, Allied Land Forces
urope.
neral, VII Ceres, U.S. Army
0-9: Burdett, Allen M., Jr Comma g General, III Corps and Fort Heed,
cart-.Tex.
0-9: Collins, Arthur S., Jr Denimander in Chief, U.S. Army
0 9: Cowles, Donald H De y id of Staff for Operations. U.S.
Ito Army.
my, Washington, D.C.
0-9: Davidson, Phillip B., Jr ty Assisted Secretary of Defense (Re-
arch and Management), Office of the As-
tont Secretary of Defense (Intelligence),
0-9: Deane, John , Jrhief of search and Development, U.S.
R. Washinle, 0.C.
Army, shington, D.C.
0-9: Desobry, William R.__ Commanding General, V Corps, U.S. Army
Esrope.
0-9: Dolvin, Welborn G. Commanding General, 1X Coops/U.S. Army
Japan.
0-9: Flanagan, Edward Jr.__ Comptroller of the Army, Washington, D.0......-
0-9: Gribble, William r Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Washington.
D.C.
0-9: thatingswroth, es F Commanding General, I Corps (Republic of
Korea/United States) Group, Korea.
0-9: Hollis, Barri U.S. Representative, Permanent Military
Deputies-Group, Central Treaty Organiza-
tion, Turkey.
0-9: To be an need Director of the Army Staff, U.S. Army, Wash-
ington, ElZ.
0-9: Knowle itichard T Deputy Commanding General, 8th U.S. Army,
Korea.
0-9: 1(00. 'a, William A Superintendent, U.S. Mi itary Academy, West
a Point, N.Y.
0-9: at, Fred, Jr Deputy Chief Of Staff for Logistics, U.S. Army,
Washington, D.C.
0-9: ber, Walter P SAFEGUARD Systems Manager. SAFEGUARD
Systems Office, U.S. Army, A dingle*, Va.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
Grade and mime at ?thaw
Position of officer
PI elected
aseheriared/
assigned
rniisted
akin sent
lune 30,1974
0-9: Letz, Waiter E., 1e--------- Deputy Director General, North Atlantic Treaty 2
Organization Integrated Communications
System Management Agency, Belgium.
0-9: Maples, Renee N The Inspector General, U.S. Army, Washing-
ton, D.C.
0-9: McLaughlin, John D ._,.... Commending General, Theater Army Sievert 2
Command, Europe.
-9: Norton, *An_ .. ..w. Chief of Staff, Allied Forces Southern Europe_ 7
9: Penney, floward W. Director, Defense Mapping Agency, Wafting- 2
Pepke, Bonn R ?., Deputy Comnsandine General, U.S. Army
Washing-
tort. D.C.
2
Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Ge.
0 9rtts, William E..............ge Deputy Director, Defense Intellipence Agency, 2
Washington, RC.
0-9: RdJa, Elvy B Commanding General, 6th U.S. Army, Presidio 2
of San Francisca, Calif.
0-9: lfngeoumard W ...,.. Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U.S.
2
Army, Wash/uteri, D.C.
0 9: 1towneyrard L Joint Chiefs of Staff Representative for era- 2
tegic Arms Limitatien Team, Organiffistffin
of the Joint Chiefs if Staff, Washington, S.C.
Director, Plans and Policy, 1-5, Organization
El- 9: To be aa 2
et the Joint Chiefs al Staff, Wasbingtoe, D.C.
0-9: Seitz, Richzed 1 Commanding Genera, XVIII Airborne Corps 2
and Fort Brea Fort Bragg, N.C.
0-9: Seneff, George P., Ji Commanding General, Sth U.S. Army, ron 2
Sam Hoosten, Tex.
0-9: Sutherland, James W Chief of Staff, U.S. European Command. ? 2
0-9: Taber, Robed C.........-'Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Man- 2
ower and Reserve Affairs), Washington,
C.
0-9: Talbott, Orwie C y Commanding General, U.S. Army 2
ning and Doctrine Command, fart
oe, Va.
0-9: Tiller, Richard R The eon General, U.S. Army, Washington. 2
D.
9-9: Vaughan, Woodrow W...z.- Deputy seeing General, U.S. Army 2
ellateri ommand, Alexandria, Va.
0-9: Walker, Glenn EI__________ Gammen General, 1st 11.5. Army, Fort 2
George de, NUL
0-9: Wafters, Venom
0-9: Williams, Robert
0-9: W001410, Wafter
0-8: Aaron, Harold
04: Albright, lack
04: Baer, Robert
0-8; Barfield, Thomas
04: Wee, OW* Se if- --AT=
Deputy Di antral Intelligence ARM,
Washington,
Deputy Comm in Chief, and Chief of
Staff, U.S. Arm-,
Commandant, In 4.1 College of the Armed
Forces, fort Lest McNair, Washinglos,
D.C.
Assistant Chief of Sta hrtelligence, U.S.
Army, Washington, 0
Commanding General. U.S. Communkm
hens Command, fertile
Pzffiect *tanager, XMI Tan em, U.S.
Army Tan k-Aidometive Corn ? Wane.,
Mich.
Commander, 23d North American feriae
Command/Continental Air De
mend Region, Duluth, Minn.
Lffiecter, Inter-American Defense
Fon Lesley J. McNair. Washington, D.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
2
7.
7
5)
July 3O,.197
6
He said the government should allow oil
price increases consistent with actual costs
and that the oil companies "should share
some of the burden caused by the current
situation. The PEA cannot abdicate its re-
sponsibilities at a time when market forces
are out of control."
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
' BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Is there further morning business?
If not, morning business is concluded.
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the
United States were communicated to the
Senate by Mr. Heiting, one of his sec-
retaries.
PRESIDENTIAL APPROVALS
A message from the President of the
United States stated that he had ap-
proved and signed the following acts:
On July 23, 1974:
S. 2830. An act to amend the Public Health
Service Act to provide for greater and more
effective efforts in research and public edu-
cation with regard to diabetes mellitus; and
S. 2893. An act to amend the Public Health
Service Act to improve the national cancer
program and to authorize appropriations for
such program for the next three fiscal years.
On July 25, 1974:
S. '724. An act for the relief of Marcos Robs
Rodriguez;
S. 1803. An act to authorize the waiver of
claims of the United States arising out of
erroneous payments of pay and allowances
to certain officers and employees of the leg-
islati7e branch;
S. 3311. An act to provide for the use of
simplified procedures in the procurement of
property and services by the Government
where the amount involved does not exceed
810,000; and
S. 8679. An act to provide temporary emer-
gency livestock financing through the estab-
lishment of a guaranteed loan program.
On July 26, 1974:
S. 8203. An act to amend the National La-
bor Relations Act to extend its coverage and
protection to employees of nonprofit hospi-
tals, and for other purposes.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES
REFERRED
As in executive session, the Acting
President pro tempore (Mr. ALLEN) laid
before the Senate messages from the
President of the United States submit-
ting sundry nominations which were re-
ferred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are
printed at the end of the Senate pro-
ceedings.)
MILITARY PROCUREMENT APPRO-
PRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION, 1975
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore (Mr. ALLEN). At this time, in ac-
cordance with the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report on H.R. 14592,
the military procurement appropriations
authorization.
The report will be stated by title.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows ?
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
14592) to authorize appropriations during
the fiscal year 1975 for procurement of air-
craft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat
vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons, and
research, development, test and evaluation
for the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the
authorized personnel strength for each ac-
tive duty component and of the Selected
Reserve of each Reserve component of the
Armed Forces and of civilian personnel of the
Department of Defense, and to authorize
the military training student loads, and for
other purposes, having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective
Houses this report, signed by all the
conferees.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Is there objection to the considera-
tion of the conference report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
(The conference report is printed in
the House proceedings of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD of July 24, 1974, at pp.
H6987-H7001.)
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I am
glad to yield to the Senator from
Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
have been requested by several Senators
who would like to have a vote on the
pending business to notify the chairman
and the ranking minority member to
that effect. I am now doing so.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the vote occur on the confer-
ence report at the hour of 12:15 p.m.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Is there objection?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that at the ap-
propriate time it be in order to ask for
the yeas and nays on the conference
report.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, the time for the
vote' on the conference report is to be
at 12:15 p.m. and the Senator will be
accorded permission to ask for the yeas
and nays at the appropriate time.
The Chair recognizes the distin-
guished Senator from Mississippi, the
chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, for the information of
the Senate and for the permanent REC-
ORD I have an evaluation of the confer-
ence report that purports to briefly to
summarize the major matters that were
disposed of, how they are disposed of,
and why they were- disposed of as they
were in the entire bill. I also have cer-
tain supporting data which / shall ask
to have printed in the REcORD at the ap-
propriate time, but not now.
Mr. President, as a part of our effort
to make all of the available facts known
ahead of the actual discussion of the
conference report today, I have already
issued a detailed press release July 23d,
along with a statement of this subject,
which appears in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD of July 25. Moreover the House
Conference report appears in the Cox-
?SESSIONAL RECORD Of July 24,
This bill is one of the more significant
S 13763
legislative items which the Senate an-
nually considers each year and I will
discuss both the; broader aspects as well
as the details and the results of the con-
ference.
I think all Members of Congress, the
departments, the services, and the publ*
are entitled to a full explanation of these
matters.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Mr. President, prior to discussing spe-
cific funding and language items I would
like to make a few general observations
on this entire legislation.
THOROUGHNESS OF THE CONFERENCE
Mr. President, this was a most thor-
ough and hard fought conference in the
best legislative sense. Every issue was
thoroughly discussed with both sides
proceeding in good faith to make the
best possible arguments on behalf of
their respective positions. I would note
that the conference extended over a
period of about 1 month, from June 20
to July 23, during which there were 15
conference sessions on 10 meeting days.
At this point I would like to thank all
of the Senate conferees for the part they
played both in attending all of the many
sessions and in the overall discussion.
Especially, I extend my thanks to the
ranking . minority member, Senator'
THURMOND, for his assistance to me in
this entire bill.
All of the conferees had been on these
committees for several years and were
familiar with the subject matters. We
really combed the bill from beginning to
end, including such amendments as the
House added, as the Senate added, and
as our Senate An-tied Services Commit-
tee added, with the fullest and utmost
discussion and consideration given ,to all
of them?minor, medium, and major
amendments.
There was a lot of new testimony in
a way, given not for the record but by
way of argument. These matters were
fully passed on. I think some of them
were brought up some 7, 8, 9, or 10 dif-
ferent times.
RESULTS OF LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES
Mr. President, many of the Senators
are particularly interested in the various
language provisions which were the sub-
ject of the conference. I will outline the
overall results. In the House version
there were only five language differences
of any consequence which were not in
the Senate version of the bill.
In the Senate version of the bill there
were a total of 28 language provisions
which were not contained in the House
version. Of these 28, 18 were Senate floor
amendments and 10 were provisions
adopted and recommended by the Com-
mittee on Armed Services. The Senate
also passed three minor technical amend-
ments which -are not included in these
numbers.
The resolution of these language dif-
ferences in numerical terms are as fol-
lows.
Of the 28 Senate provisions, 15 were
finally adopted by the conferees although
some were modified. Of this 15, 6 of
the Senate floor language amendments
were accepted either in whole or in MOM-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
S 13764
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
fled forms, as well as the 10 committee
changes in the same manner.
Mr. President, of the 18 Senstte floor
amendments a total of 12 were not
adopted. There were 7 of this 12 that the
House insisted were not germane larder
the House rates; that leaves 6 of the 12
that the House refused to accept strictly
on their merits. do not want to imply
that of all of the seven that were drop-
ped that the House svould have neces-
sarily accepted then". on their merits
even if they had been germane. We just
do not know at this point.
With respect to the five House lim-
guage differences, all of these were
finally adopted in coUference although
some were modified and some related to
amendments passed In the Senate.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield7
Mr. STENNIS. May I take a few more
minutes to finish my overall statement?
Will that be acceptable to the Senator
from Indiana')
Mr. HARTKE. That is The.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President. I would
now like to turn to the germaneness rule
in the House. All of the Members of the
Senate who have been conferees with the
House on other bills have encountered
this rule and are generally familiar with
the problem. This issue. however, relates
not only to the military procurement
legislation but is a matter confronting
Senate legislative process as a whole.
It is accurate to say that the House
has become much more stringent and
consistent with respect to their germane-
ness rule.
As charbrian of the Senate conferees
I was insistent that this issue be clari-
fied in writing to the extent Passible.
MT. FIEBERT was fully cooperative ond
understanding on this matter and he
wrote a, letter which was inserted in the
RECORD last Thursday, appearing on page
S13461 in substance, lie advised in order
for a Senate amendment to be germane
it must be directly related to the fun-
damental purpose of the bill There is no
way prior to consideration of the con-
ference report that a fundamental pai-
liamentary opinion can be obtained as to
whether a particular amendment is
germane; however, in every case, the
House conferees conferred informally
and at length with the House Parliamen-
tarian and received an informal opin-
ion, and this was the process followed
on this legislation.
Mr. Heszee's letter also notes that the
House conferees will continue this pres-
sent policy in the future.
There is another factor, Mr. President.
I would emphasize. In years past the
House conferees have requested the
Rules Committee to grant a rule waiv-
ing points of oider in ardor for certain
Senate-passed amendments to be con-
sidered on the House floor without being
subject to the point or order process.
The House Rules Committee, so I am
advised, has been increasingly reluctant
to grant waivers on points of order and
the House Armed Services Committee
conferees have been Increasingly reluc-
tant to request such waivers. In their
opinion, this frustrates procedures in
the House. It is their present policy that
they will not request a rule waiving
points of order.
I recite this circumstance, Mr- Peed-
clent, for the Senate to fully uederstand
this entire situation on the gennaziesaes4
question. I would note, Mr. President,
that the fundamental purpose of this
bill is to authorize annual appropriations
with respect to military hardware. R. & D.
and civilian and military personnel for
the Department of Defense, together
with military ass' istance for South Viet-
nam.
So far as could be, under the rules of
the House, all amendments from the
Senate floor were fully considered in
conference. I am ready, and other mem-
bers of the committee are ready, to fully
debate any- point with anyone otait is the
author of a Senate amendment Ahich did
not get adopted. We are ready to give the
full facts as to what happened In con-
ference. I think the Senate is entitled to
that. We are prepared to give an account-
ing.
We had these conferences over a period
of 33 or 34 days, 15 conferences in all,
spread over 10 days. That Is, we had scene
morning and afternoon conferences. On
some days, we just met in the forenoon
or in the afternoon.
The matter was given a fine-tooth-
comb treatment. I think it is as good a
conference as I have ever known In the
Senate. I was not chairman of the con-
ference, so I am more free to talk about
it than I otherwise would be.
We had splendid attendance by our
Senate conferees who were prepared on
their subject matters, and, of course, the
House did, too.
Mr. President, we come back now with
this conference report. When yint pass
on it, the Senate is not going to be pass-
ing on any major or new matter or new
position, except one that. I will em-
phasize later. All these matters vsre ad-
justed within the range and within the
field of positions having already been
taken by the Senate and in the neighbor-
hood of what the Senate had passed on.
FUNDING REALTLTS
Mr. President, as the Senate may re-
call, the total authorization for rrdlitary
procurement and R. & D. as Passed by
the Senate was $21.8 billion. The total
amount voted by the House was $22.6 bil-
lion. The conference report recommend"
a total authorization of $22.159 billion
which is $3401 million more than the
Senate bill but is $483.6 million less than
the amount voted by the House. Mote-
over, Mr. President, the final conference
figure was $935 million below the Depart-
ment of Defense budget request.
Into( T-RFITIEVT PORTION OF BIT T,
With respect to the procurement por-
tion of the bill the conference agreement
provides a total of $13258 billion which
is $392 million above the Senate figure
and $383 million below the House. The
final amount approved is $547 million be-
low the $13.8 billion budget request.
Mr. President, for the purpose of the
foregoing computation I have included
the eum of $264 million which is IQ* the
procurement of items for South Viet
-
July
niera. I will now turn to some of the
jew procurement isaues resolved by
conferees.
MAJOR PTICTOURRMSNT ISSUES
AMPRUILDING AND OONVRASPON
Mr. President the Senate had appr
a total shipbuilding and conversion pro-
gram of $2.856 billion, as compared to e
House authorization of $3,539 billion fel
this purpose. The conferees approved
final sum of $3.156 billion for Navy ship-
building and conversion.
With respect to the specific items tee
conferees restored, thee a nuclear attaele
submarine which had been deleted by the
Senate, $167.5 million, making a tote!
number of three; second, the destroyer
tender, $116.7 millhon, dropped by the
Senate, and, third, restored -$16 million of
the total Senate rednetion of $142.9 mil-
lion for the sea-control ship.
The conferees agreed to the Sentite
reduction of the proposed parted frigate
program from seven to three, $250.5 mil -
limo and, the reduction in the soa-teolitrol
ship of $126.9 Minkel
Awes
Mr. STENNIS. The conferees snivel
on the sums of $405.1 million for the fie -
cal year 19'75- AWACS program-ea-it--
borne warning and control system--
which passed the Satiate in the amount
on the sum of $405.1enillion fee the &s-
of $549.8 million, and the House in the
amount of $292.1 million. The final figure
will represent the approval ci Six !de-
planes with long-lead funds for another
six, with a one--a-month delivey sched-
ule whittle will protest the present con-
tract.
I hate a special report on AWACS--
how we settled on that particular plane.
A-le-A-711 ISSUE
Mr. President, the senate in effect re-
ceded to the House position on the A-
10/A-7 matter in vie* of the feet that
the Department of Indense deceared the
A-10 to be the winner in the fie off cam-
Petition. Vie Senate bill had contained
certain alternative language which tied
the availability of funds to the winner at
this competition, whereas the House ver-
sion did not contain this restriction. The
report now approves tante]. of $274.1 mil-
lion for the A-10 for procurement and
R & D., together with$104.9enillion for
24 A-ID's for the Air National Guard.
There was a nye& between the A-10 and
A-7. While we were tn conference, the
ilyoff evaluation-was completed, and the
Air Peirce made a choke in favor of the
A-10, and we approved:that.
INCRSAgERI BTRATECIC AIRLIFT CAPABILITY
The conferees opproned a Senate item
not in the House bill of $31 million for
fiscal year1975 for the, so-called stretch
Program for the C-141 aircraft to in-
crease its cargo capacity.
The conferees also dropped the item of
$25 million, none of which was included
in the Senate version, Which would have
begun a program to modify the sixteen
jumbo jetliners to aceommodate mili-
tary cargo in an emeiteency. This item
represented the Initial-start of a pro-
gram for the civil reserve air nee which
teill cost Oa excess of a billion dollars and
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
July 30, 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 13765
which contained many problems yet un-
solved. The Senate conferees were unani-
mously opposed to that provision and did
not yield on it. So that part of the pro-
gram is not in this bill at all.
The remaining items are discussed
fully in the conference report and also
are covered in a chart which I will in-
sert in the RECORD at the end of my re-
marks.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. President, for research, develop-
ment, test, and evaluation, the conference
agreement authorizes $8.937 billion. The
Senate has voted $8.952 billion, and the
House authorized $9 billion.
As in procurement, some R. & D. pro-
grams were not in dispute in the con-
ference, and these included the strategic
initiatives, sometimes described as
counterforce, which are extensively dis-
cussed during Senate debate on the bill.
B-1
Perhaps the major R. & D. Item in
"disagreement was the Air Force B-1
bomber. The Senate bill reduced a $499
million request for development of the
B-1 by $44 million, to $455 million, lim-
iting the approved program for fiscal
year 1975 to three prototype aircraft to
permit flight testing and technical prog-
ress before further congressional action.
The House approved the full request
which included starting a fourth proto-
type aircraft in fiscal year 1975.
The conferees voted $45f, million, with
language which would defer the fourth
aircraft until after the first has been suc-
cessfully flight-tested. At that time re-
programing within available B-1, funds
'could be requested to begin the fourth
prototype.
SMALL SUBMARINE
Also in dispute was the Navy's request
for $16 million to begin development of
a smaller ballistic missile submarine to
complement the project Trident force.
The Senate bill deleted this authoriza-
tion on grounds that approval this year
would be premature. The House approved
the full authorization.
The conferees deleted the $16 million
In authorizations for development of this
new submarine.
ABM-SITE DEFENSE
Another R. & D. item in disagreement
was the follow-on ABM system, site de-
fense. The Senate had reduced to $110
million the Defense Department's $160
million request and the House voted $150
million for site defense.
The conferees voted $123 million in
authorizations for site defense technol-
ogy.
REMAINING ITEMS
Disposition of other R. & D. items is
reflected in this chart, and I ask unan-
imous consent that it be printed in the
RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
MAJOR MANPOWER ISSUES IN CONFERENCE
Mr. President, I think there are a num-
ber of highly significant manpower issues
in this bill and on the whole I think the
Senate position fared very well. I will
cover each of these separately.
TROOP CONVERSION FOR U.S. NATO FORCES
Mr. President, for the first time since
NATO was funded, the House and Ben-
ate have agreed on the composition of
the NATO troops stationed in Europe.
The substance of the Senate-passed
NATO conversion amendment adopted in
committee was written in conference.
As finally approved, the conference re-
port contains language which requires a
reduction of 18,000 from U.S., noncom-
batant units in Europe within 2 years?
June 30, 1976?and of this number 6,000
must be eliminated by June 30, 1975. This
language is mandatpry. At the same time
there is language which permits but not
requires the Secretary of Defense to in-
crease the number of combat men by this
same number within this same period of
time. The language applies to all services
with the Secretary of Defense having the
discretion to apportion the numbers
within the various military departments.
As the Senate may recall, the version
passed by the Senate applied only to the
Army and required a 2-percent reduc-
tion, about 23,000, over a 2-year period
with one-half of this number to be com-
pleted by June 30, 1975. The House ver-
sion contained no language whatever on
this subject matter. It is fair to say that
the Senate obtained approval of this pro-
vision only after long and strenuous de-
bate with the House conferees who were
Initially thoroughly opposed to this pro-
vision on its merits.
Certainly, this does not weaken the
combat strength. It was not intended to
and does not weaken the combat strength
of U.S. forces in Western Europe.
REDUCTION IN CIVILIAN MANPOWER
AUTHORIZATION
Mr. President, this is the first year that
the Congress has authorized the end
strength for civilians in the Department
of Defense. The Senate had voted a cut
of 44,600, 4 percent, as compared to a
House cut of 15,000 for June 30, 1975.
The conferees recommended a cut of 32,-
327 with the Secretary apportioning this
reduction among the military depart-
ments. This represents a 3-percent cut
from the requested end strength of
1,027,327. This cut represents a mini-
mum savings of $400 million on an an-
nual basis.
Mr. President, of the 32,000 cut, about
one-half of this amount represents addi-
tional jobs which the Department
wanted to add to the payrolls. This fact,
combined with an annual turnover of
215,000 civilian personnel means that
that there should be no layoffs of peo-
ple now employed as a result of this re-
duction.
Mr. President, in our conference dis-
cussions we finally narrowed down to two
items: The active duty services and the
item I have already mentioned, modi-
fications for the civilian reserve fleet?
CRAF?a program that would cost, in
total, an amount estimated at more than
$1 billion. The Senate conferees did not
feel that we could launch into that CRAP
program, especially in view of the lack of
adequate hearings and the unsettled
questions that were involved. We had
been to the end of the road over those
two items.
The House did make a proposal to yield
somewhat on the manpower matter?but
not appreciably?if we would include
the?CRAP?cargo program to which I
have just referred. We had a meeting on
that, the conferees of the Senate, and
talked it over, and we decided that it
would be better to yield on the manpower
matter and stand firm on the civilian re-
serve air fleet, and that is the position
we took. The House conferees agreed to
it, and that is the way the matter was
settled.
I think, too, that this conference re-
port deals in more than one instance
with a policy that the miiltary has been
criticized for, and some of that criti-
cism came from our committee?the pol-
icy of moving headlong, even if the
weapon in question might be in trouble
of some kind. This policy has been
slowed down somewhat by this confer-
ence report.
As I have said, Mr. President, on the
authorization for the active military
strength after long and hard argument,
the Senate reluctantly receded to the
House on the higher figures that body
had approved.
This is an item that the Senate con-
ferees yielded on and, frankly, in a sub-
stantial way. The House conferees had
been adamant and unyielding as to the
manpower levels for the services all the
way through, and that is a question upon
which there are differences of opinion.
Mr. President, I am of the personal
opinion that substantial reductions can
be made especially in the many head-
quarters throughout the world in the
Armed Forces from the 1 million people
associated with the noncombat support.
I, therefore, think that the 49,000 cut
mandated by the Senate was a sound po-
sition. I can assure the Senate, there-
fore, that the Armed Services Committee
continues to examine all aspects of man-
power in order to achieve further econ-
omies.
Mr. President, I cannot emphasize too
strongly the fact that the Reserve and
National Guards are indispensable un-
der the Volunteer Force concept. There
must be a willingness to use these Re-
serves and they must be ready in every
way. I shall not favor another Selective
Service Act until use is made of the Re-
serves and National Guard.
With respect to Air Force active duty
end strength manpower I would expect
that the Secretary of Defense would ex-
amine most seriously the mandate in the
bill regarding the use of Reserve com-
ponents.
This is a statutory mandate which
would apply in lieu of expansion of the
Active Air Force manpower capability for
this purpose.
MILITARY ASSISTANCE FOR SOUTH VIETNAM
During the long years of the Indochina
war this annual authorization bill, un-
der a program called military assistance
service funded?MASF?permitted the
Defense Department to provide assist-
ance from its stocks to allies in Southeast
Asia.
Now this program has narrowed down
to military aid for South Vietnam. This is
the last year it will be in this bill, and this
military aid will be provided under the
regular military assistance program?
MAP?next year, for fiscal 1976.
The Defense Department initially re-
quested $1.6 billion for MASF in the 1975
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
S 13766
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2 ?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE July 30, 1974
present time, which the distinguished
chairman of the committee has discussed
with me many times and expressed his
personal feeling that he has done the
best he could to bring about sane type
of satisfactory solution to this problem.
But, Mr. President, it is both frustrat-
ing and dismaying to learn that the con-
ference committee on the military pro,
curement bill has decided to drop an
amendment overwhelmingly approved by
the Senate which would have previded a
one-time recomputation of military re-
tirement benefits.
I point out that this is not a complete
recomputation in the terminoloey of the
prior utilization of that term, but waS
a one-shot operation and was severely
limited in its budget implications.
Three times the Senate has voted to
approve this amendment, and three times
it has failed to be approved by ;he con-
ference committee. The action of the
conference is a keen disappointment to
me personally and to the nearly 1 million
men and women who deserve recomputa-
tion and who would have benefised from
the passage of my amendment.
Make no mistake about it, military
retirement recomputation is needed. The
need to bring equity in the pay to re-
tiring military personnel is recognized
practically everywhere. An article in the
June 30 edition of the Washington Post
makes that fact clear. It describes the
plight of military retirees in the Wash-
ington, D.C., area. For example, one
former Army sergeant who retied after
20 years' service because of recurring ul-
cers, wants to leave the soldiers' home
here. But he cannot afford to li ve on his
$326.61 a month retirement check. The
wife of another retired Army sergeant,
disabled after serving 31/2 years in a Jap-
anese prisoner of war camp, worries
about the day she will have to live on 55
percent of her husband's $290.73 a month
retirement check. These are just two ex-
amples of literally tens of thotsands of
similar cases throughout the United
States.
Congress cannot afford to ie nore the
needs of its older citizens. We have spent
much time on improving social security
and railroad retirement benefits, on civil
service pensions and on reforming the
private pension system. We must give the
same attention to those who fall under
the military retirement system, for after
all these are all men and women who
have served their country well.
Retired military personnel are expect-
ed to be satisfied by the prom se of the
distinguished chairman of tie House
Armed Services Committee, Mr. litaERT.
that exhaustive hearings will be held on
reform of the entire military retirement
system, including the need for recompu-
tation.
But those who have retired are tiree
of hearings by the House, they c xpect the
House to respond to their needs and not
respond to the need for hearings. These
hearings could be held anyway, ancl
there is no reason Why they should not
be, but in the meantime the one-shot re-
computation could be made a leant:se for
them.
I do believe the retired military aSSO-
ciations have done an excelle it job In
fiscal year. The House voted $1.126 bil-
lion, the same total approved by Con-
gress, for the current year, and the Sen-
ate reduced the total to $900 million.
The conferees agreed On $1 billion, and
the conferees also approved Senate lan-
guage which sets up a separate appro-
priation for these funda. This new ac-
counting procedure, is reflected in the de-
tailed authorizations included in the con-
ference report.
OTHER PROVISIONS
I referred, at the outset, to the number
of Senate amendments tiecented by the
conference. On page S13462 of the REC.
oin of July 25 there is printed a list of
amendments which were not accented
in conference with a short notation as to
why those proposals were dropped.
I will not list all the Senate amend-
ments which were adopted, but here is a
summary of major Senate amendments
which were approved, In whole or in
part;
A redrafted version of a Senate
amendment designed to prohibit re-
search with poison gases and other
chemicals on dogs for weapons research.
Language in the report states that the
provision is not to inhibit research aimed
at preserving human life.
A Senate amendment barring, for
fiscal 1975, tests of Minuteman missiles
from operational silos hi the Northwest
United States.
A new provision, combining amend-
ments separately appro.ed by the House
and Senate, which will require 91 flying
units in the Air National Guard in fiscal
year 1975 and states the policy of Con-
gress that the compott
ases in active
increase of the re-
serve, rather than in eases
duty forces, should be ped to ceease
es
the ratio of strategic airlift crews to air-
lift planes.
A modified Senate amendment requir-
ing statutory authorization for selling or
otherwise disposing of naval vessels,
larger than 2,000 tons or less than 20
Years old, to another Wiwi. Other ves-
sel disposals would require 30 days no-
tice to the Congressional Armed Services
Committees.
A modified Senate amendment de-
signed to assure careful review of cer-
tain exports of goods,' technology, and
industrial techniques to Warsaw Pact
nations and such other nations as the
Secretary of Defense may determine.
The conference provision would require
the Secretary of Defense to make recom-
mendations to the President on licensing
such exports. If the President overrules
a negative recommendation by the Sec-
retary, Congress could deny the export by
passing a concurrent resolution within
60 days. .
A modified Senate amendment re-
quiring the Navy to negotiate with
Puerto Rican authorities for an alternate
site for weapons training now conducted
on the island of Culebra,. The report will
note that, while the bin was in confer-
ence, the Department announced that
weapons training would end by July 1,
1975, on Culebra and by December 31,
1975, on the adjoining keys.
On some money hefts, Mr. President,
we did not try to strike them all out, but
we slowed them down somewhat, Per-
sonally, I hope that time will overcome
certain problems, such as those with
the sea control ship. They -were having
some unsolved problems for which they
needed more time.
I do not know whether we are going to
haste another debate on the beagle hound
amendment. That received -a great deal
of attention on the floor of the Senate
and received even more attention, in
proportion, in the conference. We finally
reached an agreement of some kind
partly covering that situation. Certain-
ly no one was indifferent to the beagles.
We had a good discussion in the con-
ference about the ROTC. We had an
amendment from the floor on that mat-
ter. We were not able to get an agree-
ment in conference about that. We will
haVe a further explanation of those mat-
ters if they come up.
want to add this personal word.
Since this conference ended, I have made
what was to me a very valuable trip. I
went to Fort Jackson, in South Carolina,
which is a typical military installation.
I can say to the Senate that I was well
Impressed with it. There I spent several
hotirs behind closed doors, talking first
with -a total of 100 enlistees who had
been in the service from 1 week to 4 or 5
weeks, young men and young women.
Then I conferred, in like manner, with
20 experienced Army sergeants; then
with 20 junior officers?second lieu-
tenants, first lieutenants, and captains.
I was trying to get the feel of the volun-
teer forces, because the Army and the
other services are making a majo.r effort
to try to get recruits and to get quality
People.
I commend them for their efforts. I
think it is unproven yet just how the
matter is going to work out. I am going
to go back to other places and visit with
some of their men who have been in at
last a year, not only in the Army, but
in the other services as well.
X believe the most enthusiastic group
I met was a group of 20 young WACS
that had just been in a few weeks; they
had very strong motivations.
I mention those things in passing re-
lating to our manpower problem and our
Volunteer Forces problem.
I would be glad now, Mr. President, to
try to answer questions, the Senator
from Indiana has asked one and I ap-
preciate his letting me finish my state-
ment.
I yield the floor and will be glad to
hear from any members of our commit-
tee.
We are having an important meeting
of .our committee this morning that had
already been set before we knew this
bill was coming up, or there would have
been more here today, they all agreed
they would be subject to call.
I yield to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. HARTKE. I thank the Senator,
and I would like to make a brief state-
ment, if I could.
Mr. STENNIS. Well, I do not object.
MILITARY RETIREMENT RECOMPUTATION?THE
NEED IS NOW
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I just
want to discuss the military retirement
recomputation and the need for it at the
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
July 80, .1974
educating Members of Congress on the
need for military recomputation, and I
would like to publicly thank them for
all of their efforts on behalf of my
amendment. I am also grateful to all
those men and women around the coun-
try who supported my efforts to get leg-
islation passed.
It is encouraging to note that Rep-
resentative Bos WILSON of California
has secured 113 cosponsors for a bill
which is identical to the one I offered
before the Senate. This support should
have served as a catalyst to House ac-
ceptance of the need for recomputation.
Mr. President, this is an issue which
will not go away, and I intend to do
everything within my power to see that
military retirement recomputation is
passed into law.
I would like to address myself to the
chairman of the committee and ask this
question: Would the Armed Services
Committee, in view of the repeated ac-
tion by the House of Representatives'
counterpart indicating that this matter
is not germane, be willing to have the
Senate assign the responsibility of deal-
ing with this matter to the Veterans'
Affairs Committee of which I am the
chairman?
'This suggestion was made by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Arizona to me
at the time, he encouraged me to with-
hold the amendment on the floor, as-
suring me at that time that he was very
sympathetic to the approach, that may-
be they could more adequately deal with
the matter.
Senator GOLDWATER is on the floor and
I want to thank him for that suggestion,
but I would like to ask the distinguished
chairman of the committee whether or
not he would be willing to have the Sen-
ate reassign this matter to the Commit-
tee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. STENNIS. Well, if I may answer
your question by giving a little back-
ground here.
This matter of the Hartke amendment
on recomputation was taken up repeat-
edly in the conference and discussed at
great length, even though the House an-
nounced the position in the beginning
that it was nongermane and they would
stand on that fact. However, they were
not indifferent to the problem that goes
with this matter of recomputation.
You mentioned Representative BOB
WILSON and he took a very active part in
the conference on the matter. The Sen-
ator from South Carolina was most ac-
tive in the conference trying to get the
Hartke amendment, or some phase of
the Hartke amendment, adopted. He
made definite concrete proposals to that
end, and he had the computerized figures
there to support his proposal. He is on
the floor and I am going to defer, of
course, to him to answer that part of the
question, but I am pointing out now that
he was quite active, and the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER), who is
also on the floor was also interested and
was active in this matter.
Now, reading from the conference
report, page 50, there is this statement:
The Rouse conferees indicated plans to
consider major legislation revising the mili-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 13767
tary retirement system in the future and
indicated that recomputation proposals
would have an opportunity to be presented
during those hearings.
In other words, this is a promise on
the part of the House to consider major
legislation revising the military retire-
ment system. There is a bill, that I call
an administration bill, that proposes to
revise the system to make some so-called
penalties for early retirement and add
some provisions about qualifications for
retirement.
But that bill does not deal separately
nor primarily with the recomputation
system, as the Senator from Indiana
knows.
Mr. HARTKE. Yes.
Mr. STENNIS. Now let me specifically
answer the question. This recomputation,
even though we have not been able to
handle it here, is a matter so intimately
connected with military retirement?in
fact, that is all it is?where we have un-
questioned jurisdiction?that I do not
think we could waive under the set rules
of the Senate. So I would not make any
kind of promise that was an attempt to
surrender or waive or evade or be dila-
tory with reference to our jurisdiction
and our responsibility.
Mr. HARTKE. Let me say to my distin-
guished friend that I understand what
the Senator is saying. I do believe,
though, that the question of which com-
mittee is to receive the jurisdiction is a
matter for the Senate ultimately to de-
cide. I do not think that at this moment
it would be out of the purview of the
legislative authority of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee to deal with this mat-
ter, and thereby to some extent, at least,
obviate the difficulty of nongermaneness
which the House of Representatives has
consistently applied to military procure-
ment bills.
As the Senator has pointed out, the
fact that the entire retirement system
Is to undergo review for the future, and
the fact that the administration has even
suggested such a proposal, would, in no
way, really deal with the heart of the is-
sue which is involved in this recomputa-
tion.
The distinguished Senator from Texas
Is in the Chamber. I might point out that
he has been a very outspoken leader in
this field. In my judgment, I am not sure,
but I think his bill predates any other
legislation, including that which I have
introduced. In- fact, I think he was the
forerunner in this whole field. His meas-
ure is much more comprehensive and
much more expensive, by the way, than
the one which we adopted on the floor
of the Senate.
I would hope that we could have some
consideration by the committee, either
by action of the committee itself or oth-
erwise, to ask the Senate to refer the
matter to the the Veterans' Affairs Com-
mittee, or, in the alternative, if that
seems impossible, the possibility does ex-
ist?and the former ranking minority
member of the Veterans' Affairs Com-
mittee is on the floor, as well as the pres-
ent ranking minority member of the
Armed Services Committee (Mr. THEM-
ivioNn) ?that I would be willing to take
the matter up with the Veterans' Com-
mittee to see whether or not they would
be willing to submit a resolution from
the committee for the Senate to assign
this matter to the Veterans' Affairs
Committee.
I would prefer that it be done with the
acquiescence and the understanding that
the Armed Services Committee has not
been able, after three overwhelming
votes in the Senate, to persuade the
House of Representatives that it is in the
best interests of good legislative practice
to at least make some accommodation
on this point.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I am
advised that the House rules spell out the
jurisdiction as to this matter clearly in
favor of the House Armed Services Com-
mittee. Our rules are firm on it, too, as
I see the situation. We are in no position
to waive a rule or change a rule or any-
thing like that.
I want to add that I made some propo-
sals at the conference?I have repeated
them here on the Senate floor before?
for setting up some kind of a new system
and then making some adjustment for
this old one?to settle the thing and let
us go on.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield, so I can also respond to
the Senator from Indiana?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, I yield to the Sen-
ator from Texas for that purpose.
Mr. TOWER. Let me say that our
chairman certainly was very positive in
his representation of the Senate view-
point on this issue. There is Ione cer-
tainty about Senator STENNIS, and that
is that regardless of his attitude toward
an amendment that is offered on the
Senate floor, once it becomes the Senate
position, he digs in and fights for it.
I assure my colleagues that the chair-
man did everything he could have done.
I think he has underscored one of the
problems over there, and that is that the
Armed Services Committee of the House
of Representatives does have jurisdiction
of the matter there, and even if it were
referred to the Veterans' Affairs Com-
mittee here, they would have to go to
conference, ultimately, even if they got
it through the Senate, with the same sort
of problems facing them, or perhaps they
could never get to conference because
they would never get anything out of
the House.
I might point out, however, that there
was substantial sentiment on the part
of the House conferees for some sort of
recomputation system. I think perhaps
we are eroding their resistance by the
repeated passage of recomputation leg-
islation here in the Senate. One mem-
ber of that committee who favors our
position was prone to remark that it
seemed to him that the House conferees
had come down with the "germane
measles," which is a terrible pun, but
the fact remains that we did try; and I
wanted the Senator to be assured that
the chairman and the ranking Repub-
heal member were both very active in
pressing the Senate view.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator,
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the conference
report.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
S 13768
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE July 30, 1074
ments were not accepted, or were
changed, it must be realized that OD
balance the Senate conferees were very
successful in heading a large percentage
of the Senate amendments.
Mr. President, as the ranking minority
member, in closing, I would like to Com-
mend all of the Senate conferees for the
outstanding work done during this con-
ference. Especially, I am grateful to the
conferees on my side of the aiele----Sen-
ators TOWER, COLDWATER, and Inomituca
?whose attendance and contributions
during the conference were valuable and
constructive.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I believe
that this bill is a good compromise meas-
ure and a tribute to the leadership of
both Chairman STENNIS and Chairman
Hamra.
In fact, Mr. President, all the con-
ferees labored long and hard over this
bill to achieve a compromise that would
be acceptable to both the House and
Senate. I believe this legislation merits
the approval of the Department of De-
fense; I urge the Senate to promptly
adopt the bill as reported ote; of con-
ference.
In past years, I have warned of a
growing Soviet threat at a time when in
real dollars, defense, spending was dim-
inishing. That spending is now around
6 percent?indeed about 5.9 percent I
believe?of the gross national product
while the defense requests for money
account for approximately 30 percent of
the total budget. This compares to Viet-
nam period figures of 9.7 percent and
44 percent, respectively. In addition.
these figures also compare favorably
with the peacetime budgets of die 1950's
and 1960's.
Yet today the Soviet strategic threat
Is far greater than ever before. They have
over half again as many ICBM's as we
and are allowed about a third again as
many sublaunched ballistic missiles by
the SALT agreement. The Russians have
a new large, presumably intercontinental
range, bomber. In throw weight their
advantage is even more alarming?and
the gap is growing with the development
and testing of four new nucleaa missiles.
When combined with the MIRV's cur-
rently being developed by the Soviets.
this throw weight advantage will pose a
significant danger to the survi /al of our
land-based nuclear deterrent.
Looking at the conventional side of the
defense picture, the situation also
prompts major concern. The Soviets still
face us in Europe with advantages in
armored vehicles and aircraft. While
major portions of our budget were de-
voted to Vietnam, the Soviets were free
to continually modernize and upgrade
their forces, this left the United States
with a growing conventional gap which
we must now try to overcome.
The point is, then, whether we can
really expect to mount a credible defense
against a significantly increased Soviet
threat by spending less money. do not
believe so and have argued that this
country must spend whatever is neces-
sary to provide for the commcn defense
at home and the protection of our con-
siderable interests overseas. I believe this
bill will allow the Defense Department to
meet in large measure its commitments.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise
In support of the conference report on
H.R. 14592, the military procurement
authorization bill for the fiscal year 1975.
The conference committee completed
work on this bill July 33, over 1 Month
after the work began June 20. During
this time the conference held 15 sessions.
Mr. President, this has- been the longest
and most thorough ceenterence on the
military procurement bill in my mernory.
The Senate bill contained 29 language
amendments as a result of floor action
while the House bill contained only a few
such amendments. Of this number, the
conference accepted 18 of the Senate
amendments in some farm, rejected four
altogether, and held that seven were
nongermane.
Mr. President, this bill in its final form
authorizes expenditures of approxi-
mately $22.2 billion. This amount is
$340.1 million greater than that approved
by the Senate, but $483.6 million less
than that approved by the House. Thus
the Senate was more successful than the
House in holding the money items in line
during this conference.
Mr. President, the distinguished chair-
man of the committee (Mr. Seamus) , led
the Senate conference in his usual ex-
emplary manner during this long and
many-faceted conference. He has al-
ready provided for the Senate an item-
by-item explanation of the conference
results. However, I would like to corn-
ment on a few of the Issues resolved by
the conferees.
MANPOWER ITEMS
In yielding to the 'louse manpower
position, the Senate conferees took under
consideration recent statements by the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of State. Both of these Cabinet members
indicated congressional reductions' in
military manpower would be unwise at
this time because of -various interna-
tional implications.
Also, Mr. President, it was my own
feeling that at some point in time we
must bring stability to our active duty
military forces. The Senate practice of
forcing reductions on the military each
year is very destabilizing to management
of these large manpower resources. I am
hopeful our committee will study the
manpower situation very carefully next
year through a special subcommittee so
that this important area of national de-
fense might be better understood by all
of us.
RECOMPITENIION
Mr. President, the :Senate once again
fought for the recomputation amend-
ment attached to the bill during the floor
debate. Chairman STENNIS and all of the
Senate conferees stood firm for the Sen-
ate position.
Unfortunately, the House took the
position recomputation was nongermane.
However, after long discussion the House
conferees did agree to reconsider this is-
sue during hearings to be conducted this
year on military retirement legislation.
Mr. President, I personally presented
to the conference a number of charts and
data on recomputation which, in my
opinion, placed the issue in a more un-
derstandable light. This resulted in the
conference understanding for the first
time that the cost of recomputation,
when viewed on an annual basis, would
be only a small percent of military re-
tirement expenses in the remaining years
of this century. This problem will not go
away, and cries out for a just and equita-
ble solution.
EXPORTING TECHNOLOGY
Mr. President, I was very pleased that
the conference was able to reach an
agreement on the Senate amendment
tightening controls on the export of tech-
nology to Communist nations.
The Soviet union has long desired to
acquire the sophistication which is an
integral part of our technology in corn-
miters and other advanced systems. It
would be a grave mistake for us to allow
export of these items in view of the fact
that computers, for %%ample, are an in-
tegral part of advanced missile systems.
The amendment offered by Senator
HENRY JACKSON, of which I was a cospon-
sor, was altered in the conference. How-
ever, it remains a significant step for-
ward in halting the export of defense re-
lated technology to the Soviet Union or
other Communist countries.
RESERVE FORCES
Mr. President, from the outset of con-
sideration of this bill I have taken strong
objections to the fact that the Defense
Department proposed a 48,001) force
structure reduction in the Army Guard
and Army Reserve without justification
to the Congress.
While there may be units in the Re-
serve components which could be elim-
inated, or converted, in my view the
Congress is making a grave mistake by
not participating to a greater degree in
any revised program.
While the conference approved the
higher strength figures for the Reserve
components adopted ley the House, the
48,000 force structure reduction may be
made despite these higher authorized
force levels. I hope the Defense Depart-
ment will exercise good judgement in
carrying out their proposals in this area.
AID TO sovrH VIETNAM
Mr. President, the conference agreed
to a limitation of $1 billion on author-
ization for appropriation for support of
South Vietnam forces.
This figure was a fair compromise be-
tween the two bodies and it is ray hope
the Appropriations Committees will not
farther reduce these funds. We have
made too great a sacrifice in South Viet-
nam to allow this country to go without
adequate military support to meet the
cOntinued high level of Communist mili-
tary attacks.
? In the bill the Senate provided, and
the House accepted, better accounting
procedures for management of this vital
Military aid.
Mr. President, before concluding 1
would like to point out that the Senate
conference did an excellent job of win-
ning acceptance for many of the amend-
ments to this bill. It is difficult in a con-
ference to obtain consent for a large
number of amendments when the House
generally has only a few such amend-
ments. While some Senators will obvi-
ously be disappointed that their amend-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
July 30,? 1974
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - - SENATE S 13769
Of particular satisfaction to me is the
fact that the bill supports the defense
request for military manpower. I am as
concerned as anyone about the size of
headquarters and the inefficient use of
our servicemen. But the answer to the
problem of combat ratios is not to cut
troop strengths, but rather to assist the
services in converting nonessential man-
power into combat manpower. This coun-
try needs every fighting man it can get
if we expect to meet the conventional
threat in Europe with a non-nuclear re-
sponse, and I believe in the case of Eu-
rope we cannot save it by destroying it
with tactical nuclear weapons. We should
be concerned about manpower not only
for this reason but also because it is so
expensive. About 55 percent of the de-
fense budget is devoted to manpower
costs. This compares with about a third
?of the Soviet budget. With people costing
this much, we must squeeze every ounce
of fighting efficiency out of an organiza-
tion. This means headquarters consoli-
dations and unit reorganizations.
I believe the services are taking signif-
icant steps in this direction?in Europe,
in the Far East, and here at home. For
example, I would like to commend the
Army for its recent headquarters staff
reorganization which is most timely and
appropriate in this period of rising man-
power costs. A significant part of this
reorganization was the consolidation of
all ABM programs under one manager.
This is most desirable since it permits
an overview of the three program line
items?safeguard, site defense, and ad-
vanced ballistic missile defense under
the single ballistic missile defense mis-
sion. Our distinguished conferees recog-
nized the inherent management efficien-
cies allowed by this consolidation and
therefore authorized a total BMID line in
their report.
!The intent of this action is to allow
the BMD program manager the necessary
flexibility to utilize the sum of his avail-
able resources to achieve his program
objectives. This is a sound and commend-
able approach to the efficient handling
of the Army's BMD mission funding.
With further reorganizations of this sort
the services should be able to bring com-
bat ratios and rising manpower costs
under control at the same time they in-
crease this Nation's combat power.
In 2 short years, America will celebrate
Its 200th anniversary-200 years of free-
dom. Thousands of lives and countless
treasure have been sacrificed to maintain
that freedom.
I hope that we will not forget the les-
son of those years, and that is to avoid
war be prepared for war.
Mr. GOLDWATER addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
urge that this body support this confer-
ence report. It has been well worked out
and I think that substantially every-
thing that the Senate asked for has been
retained, which in itself is somewhat of
a victory when we consider the strength
of the House Committee on Armed
Services.
I particularly want to pay tribute to
the chairman of the committee, the Sen-
ator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) , for
his work, and I want to pay my respects
to the staff of the Senate committee and
the House committee. They rendered in-
valuable assistance to us during the con-
ference. These are the gentlemen who
worked out the language changes, who
worked out the compromises, and really,
although the chairman did yeoman work,
I think the staff of both committees
should receive their just due at this time.
Mr. President, I want to touch briefly
on four aspects of this conference report
and bill. The first will be manpower.
I know there were several attempts
made in this body by amendments to
cut the manpower strength of _the armed
services overseas. At that time the
amendments were adopted by the Sen-
ate. However, at that time we were not
confronted with the problems of the
Middle East nor with the problems in
the Warsaw Pact nations, nor with the
problems in NATO.
Since passage by the Senate of these
amendments, which would have de-
creased manpower, our Secretary of
State and Secretary of Defense have
been in deep negotiations with our po-
tential enemy, the Soviet Union, have
been in deep negotiations with the
trouble spot of the world, the Middle
East, and I think it was the unanimous
opinion of the Senate conference group
that this was no time to be cutting man-
power.
Our manpower strength is more or less
judged by horseback decision and judg-
ment. .Although we have not made mis-
takes so far, I think all of us would agree
that reducing manpower to any degree at
this time would be an indication to our
potential enemies around the world that
we were being influenced by sophists,
that we were being influenced by a de-
sire to isolate the United States. I am
very glad, Mr. President, that we gave
in to the House on this.
In giving in to the House on this mat-
ter, we also achieved a remarkable step
forward in the elimination of the Civil-
ian Reserve Air Fleet expenditure. We
have not paid much attention to this ex-
penditure over the years. I remember
when It first started, back in the 1950's,
when we found that it was necessary to
have a reserve air fleet in the civilian air-
lines of our country. That might have
been true at that time, it might even be
true today. We were not equipped with
enough information to make that judg-
ment.
In fact, the Air Force itself did not
ask for these moneys. The request came
after the Air Force testified, and it came
from the Department of Defense. We did,
however, direct the Air Force to affirm
overall strategic airlift requirements
and capabilities, including the contribu-
tion of craft, to determine how best to
effect such improvements.
This expenditure, although small in
this year's bill, would eventually have
resulted in an expenditure of well over
$1 billion. This money in this bill would
have been used to widen a C-47 and a
DC-10 for use by existing airlines.
The bill would also have covered funds
that we would have had to pay the air-
lines for the time that they were shut
down and for the maintenance and so
forth required to effect these changes.
The feeling of the Senate was that if
any agreement was reached with these
airlines on the civilian reserve air fleet,
any future negotiations should contain
a payback to the 'U.S. Treasury on a
long-term basis at proper interest rates.
We feel that until the Air Force can
substantiate the need for the civilian re-
serve air fleet, we should not spend any
more of the taxpayers' money on this
item.
Now, it may be that next year, or even
in the interim, as the Air Force works
on its report we may become convinced
that the improvement of the craft fleet,
regardless of cost, might be necessary. I
do not believe it will be. I look forward,
however, to the judgments that are
reached by the Air Force.
Another subject, Mr. President, which
has been talked about this morning, is
recomputation. As I remarked on the
floor of the Senate when this amend-
ment was offered by the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. Hamm), I did not think it
was fair to the veterans and retired peo-
ple of this country to be promised some-
thing that we knew could never pass a
conference meeting. We know this be-
cause the rule of the House is that this
is a nongermane subject, and I see no
way in the world that this is going to be
broken down, even though Representa-
tive Wilson of San Diego has over 130
signatures to a bill that would create
recomputation.
I honestly think the only fair and hon-
est way to go about this would be to in-
troduce a bill or bills directed at recom-
putation in the Senate and in the House
and have the Committee on Armed
Services of each body consider these
approaches.
I might say to my colleagues that we
are talking about a tremendously expen-
sive item when we talk about recomputa-
tion. I do not think the one-shot re-
computation is fair, either, because we
know that it will not be one-shot. Today,
when a man who retired after 1958 lives
through a 3-percent increase in the cost
of living, he gets a 4-percent increase
in his retirement. Every time this hap-
pens it is going to cause the retiree who
retired before 1958 to come to the Con-
gress and ask for another so-called shot.
I think the fairest way?not the easiest
but the best way?would be to have this
handled in the regular legislative manner
by hearings before the committee of the
Senate and the committee of the House.
It would be my hope that the chairman
of our Committee on Armed Services
would so direct that any bills introduced
on recomputation, regardless of their
composition, be heard by our commit-
tee. Whether anything is done about
them or not is beside the point.
The point is that, in my opinion, we
are never going to help these people who
retired before 1958, by continually intro-
ducing the Hartke amendment in Senate
after Senate, knowing full well that it
can never be passed. I think this is un-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700030059-2
S 13770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ---- SENATE
fair to the retired person and I think
it is unfair to those otiis who are forced
to voteepregente or formed to vote against
it because of the fact thet we do feel
that it is unfair.
In fact, it is a little hit on the dishon-
est side, because we know it is not going
any place and it is very safe to vote for
it when it is not going to become part of
law.
In dosing, Mr. President, I think that
we are continually ceofronted by the
problem of procurement. It is a subject
that we have not given Sufficient study to
in either the House or the Senate. I
think the subject of priecurement is one
that should demand the full attention of
both committees of the House and the
Senate, and even othereommIttees such
as the Committee on Appropriations and
the John Economic Coemittee, because
I am convinced, through many, Mang
years of experience in is field, that we
can save billions of dollars in procure-
ment. no doing this, we have to go a little
past what we have all learned in the last
few days and set up ite the Pentagen a
loint team composed of procurement
people el all the serviette to tackle this
problem
I read their report vdth great inter-
est and wrote a comment to them. I
thought it was fine, bet they did not
include tire manufacturer. I think the
manufacturer has to be brought into
all of these discussions ige procurement.
If we de this, if we go-about studying
procurentent, the mistakes that we make,
the success that other gountries have
had, actually copying the methods that
we threw out long ago, I theta we tan
begin to save the taaltaereSs of this coun-
try a lot at money.
I. think also in this witiebe field of pro-
curement, it is encouraging to, know that
the subcommittees and -the full mai-
atittees of the Armed Services of the
House and the Senate are now turning
their attention to weapons that we feel
are better or lust as good. at greatly re-
duced prices.
I shall give one earample. We are new
watching the development of the light-
weight fighter, the P-16 and the P-11,
both of these will sell for ender $3 mil-
lion. In many respects they will perfoein
up to the F-15 and P-14, and in some
respects will outperform them. We might
argue tiantone Pe-Le or one 1'-14 Is better
than one le-16 and one Pe47. I will not
segue with that. But they are not better
than three or four, which is what we are
looking at when we look atweseposis sys-
tem which cost under $3 million, and we
are talking about building the inventory
up with weaponssysteras that cost $10 to
$15 million apiece.
Mr. President, those are my few re-
marks on the whole subject of the pro-
curement sethorization bileand its con-
ference report. I ageen want to salute my
chairman kir the vvonderft* job that he
did and again thank the members of the
staff for their very, very valuable assist-
ance.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. Pretident, fine
statements bare been madeby the Sone
ator from South Carolina sled the Sen-
ator from. Texas, followed ley the Sen-
ator from Arizona. All are Very knowl-
edgeable members of our eommittee and
of the Senate and all were very helpful
in this conference. want to thank them
for their assistance in the conference
and in the preparation of this bill It has
been substantial. It is always censtruc-
tive. I think the Senate owes them, and
other members of our committee, too,
deep seereciation for their work on this
matter.
Mr. President, that prompts me to
make an observation for whatevet it may
be worth. I want to appeal to the mem-
bership of the Senate. Newt year when
this procurement bill is being considered,
if they are going to offer amendments, I
suggest that they make some determina-
tion in advance as to whether or not
their amendments are germane That
can be done by checking out the amend-
ment with the staff of the House com-
mittee, and, in doing so, the staff of the
Senate committee will be glad to help.
When we go into conference with a
handful of amendments, especially
amendments from the floor, without
hearings to back them um we are hin-
dered not only as to those amendments
but aato the entire bee Thep are a road-
block, ta a degree, for the Senate con-
ferees in considering mane items that
are in disagreement and major policy
questions that are in disagreement
within the bill.
do not say that by way ot correlaint.
It is just commonsense. This bill has
groWn to where it is an enormous bin.
It is just commonsense. This NM has
essarily involved. I mean policy ques-
tions beyond procurement, and mutters
of that type. It involves a great deal of
foreign policy.
I bace always tried to be ranter cir-
cumspect about the jurisdicttion of com-
mittees, but after serving awhile as
chairman of the Armed Services Com-
mittee, I found out there was not any
way to avoid this procurement bill spill-
ing over onto the Foreign Rekteions
Committee, and, in turn, Foreign Rela-
tions Committee bills spill ewer on us
and affect the military policies.
We are in international policy. This
legislation is certainly a mar part of
our tratiores position. I tun not sa,eheg
that that is incorrect. I think we have
gone ton far in some instances but l am
not advocating that the policy be
abandoned.
The bill is wrapped up with enough
problems already. Members like for their
amendments to be considered, an-i
think that Is commendable. Then if the
amendments are adopted, the Members
naturally want them brought back in the
conference report to become the len of
the lend. I think that Is commendable.
But at the same time, if we juitt explore
these matters a little more in the begin-
ning, and find out what rocks there are
en the road ahead, a Member can help
his own position as weal as help these
who are handling the bile
I cell that to the attention of the
membership. I will take the liberty of
doing so again. /t is something 'have not
dem before. Maybe that watt leaning
over backward a little too much to keep
from appearing to interfere with the
rights of Members to offer amendments_
July
There is another fact worth emphasis -
Mg. The fined conference fine ef that i
in this bile $23.159 billion, is $935 rale
lion below the budget request. white-
represents a cut of 4.2 percent. Thee
the result of this !natter hating bete
considered by the House committee ani
by the Senate committee.
Extensive hearings have been held ex -
tensive debates in both the House ant
Senate, and then the 33-day period when
the conference was going on between the
two bodies. Anything that emerge!, heel
a bill with the scrutiny that this one
had, any point that comes through,
bound to have some worth, some value.
and some soundness in it or it would not
have survived this terrific kgislateee
process.
Mr. President; if anyone else thin is to
say anything, I will certainly ix elect to
yield the Boor.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President-- --
The PRESTDMG OreeCER. 'I he Sen-
ator from Texas.
Mr. TOWER. I was impressed '3y what
the Senator said about the difteulty of
drawing a sharp dichotomy between for-
eign relations and armed services. It is,
of course, historic that the military
serves as an instrument of diplomacy
and, therefore, the two are inseparable.
It is difficult to resolve jurisdetional
questions from time to time.
I think it is without question the the
Foreign Relations Committee gets into
our business from time to time, and we
must, of necessity, get into theirs. [think
one thing that is foremost in the minds
of every member of the Armed Services
Committee is that the primary fenction
of the military is to serve as an :risen.-
ment of diplomacy. Therefore, we are
very careful to consider what impact we
might have on foreign policy when we
make decisions in the Armed Services
Committee.
In addition to commending my dis-
tinguished friend from Mississippi far
his great stetesmansbirt in the handling
of armed services matters, I would be re-
miss if I did not also note that the dis-
tinguished ranking minority member, the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Tetra-
MOND has always approached he lob
with a zeal and a patriotism that I these'
is exemplary, and with a. concern for the
judgment of professional military teen
that I think is necessary.
We have in this country the principle
of chrilan control of the military. There
has never been a military junta in con-
trol of the Government of the United
States, and I foresee that there never
will be There has never been Mord nate
military influence in this country. But
there comes a time when we mus: re-
sort to the judgment of profess, onal
military men became they are in the
best position to determine which vitae--
ens are best to fight with, and I rem
time to time we must yield to that judg-
ment.
I know of no Member of the Se- ate
who has a finer appreciation of the high
quality of professional military mer we
have and for their judgment than sen-
ator THURMOND. In a sense, he Is 13er-
tailqy a great eset to any deliberation
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
July 30, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
either in our committee or in confer-
ence, and I commend him for it.
Mr. President, I am delighted to see
that apparently there is no dedicated op-
position to the adoption of this con-
ference report. I am sure that there may
be some votes in opposition to adoption
of the report. But I think the fact that
the Senate recognizes its responsibilities
is the reason why there does not appear
to be any considerable organized opposi-
tion to the adoption of the conference
report. I think we have probably done
one of the best jobs this year, in form-
ulating and passing and ultimately
bringing out of conference the military
procurement authorization bill, that we
have done in many years.
I believe that what we are doing is
necessary to maintain the kind of mili-
tary posture that will enable the United
States to assert a position of world lead-
ership and, through negotiation and
peaceful contacts, to establish a climate
of security and peace in this world which
will afford all peoples who desire self-de-
termination a climate in which they may
have some reasonable hope of realizing
that aspiration.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER. I yield to the Senator
from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
wish to take this opportunity to express
my appreciation to the able and distin-
guished Senator from Texas for his kind
words.
It has been my pleasure to work with
the Senator from Texas on the Armed
Services Committee for a number of
years, and there is no more valuable
member than he. He is well versed in
military matters, he is a distinguished
patriot, and he makes a fine contribution
to our country on that committee.
Mr. TOWER. I thank the distinguished
Senator from South Carolina for his
kind remarks.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ex-
pressed my thanks to the Senator from
South Carolina while he was called away
from the Chamber a few minutes ago,
but I repeat my thanks now and join in
the sentiments of the Senator from
Texas.
I want to add this point: No senior
minority member of a major committee
could be more responsive nor more co-
operative, wholeheartedly, so, than the
Senator from South Carolina. He is al-
ways willing to work on a problem. He
is alwr,ys willing to consider logic and
reason. He shows a most wholesome at-
titude and spirit of cooperation.
There are many problems of a serious
nature that pass unnoticed, more or less,
that have to be attended to under our
committee system by the two so-called
ranking members of the majority and
the minority. He and I consult all mem-
bers and make little or no distinction be-
tween whether it is a minority member
or a majority member we are consulting.
We look for someone with judgment and
knowledge of the problem.
No one could display a finer attitude
and greater efforts than the Senator from _
South Carolina, and I appreciate deeply
his work in this respect. I am delighted
to thank him publicly, and I will send
his charming wife a copy of these re-
marks.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
wish to express my gratitude to the able
and distinguished Senator from Missis-
sippi for his kind remarks.
Incidentally, the Senator from Missis-
sippi and I attended ROTC camp to-
gether after our junior year in college.
Mr. STENNIS. That is right.
Mr. THURMOND. So we have been in
this fight for the Military Establishment
for a long time. I have never known a
more able or dedicated public servant
with respect to trying to protect our
country and keep it protected against its
enemies than the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi. It has been a pleasure
to work with him.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
very much.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, one of the
provisions which was dropped in the con-
ference, with the explanation that it was
at the adamant resistance of the House
conferees, was a provision adopted in the
Senate by a divided vote. The amend-
ment, of which I was the author, pre-
vailed by a vote of 48 to 43. It would have
made it impossible to blacklist colleges
which had dropped ROTC from receiv-
ing, for education, officers who might
choose to study there.
This provision, as I say, was resisted by
the committee and voted by the Senate,
notwithstanding that resistance, which it
seems to me is a very significant point as
indicating the fact that the Senate had a
right to expect that the conferees would
strongly contend for it.
I should like to read into the RECORD
the managers' statement as to the ex-
planation for dropping this provision:
A floor amendment to the Senate amend-
ment would have precluded the Department
of Defense from denying financial assistance
to any person pursuing an educational pro-
gram solely on the grounds that such per-
son is enrolled in a college that terminated
ROTC.
The House conferees were adamant that
this provision be deleted from the bill.
If the universities and colleges wish to
divorce themselves from the training pro-
gram offered by ROTC, the House conferees
believe the Department of Defense should be
allowed to withhold financial assistance to
persons at those institutions. The choice of
whether such colleges or universities desire
to reinstate the ROTC is totally up to the
institution.
Obviously, the Senate did not believe
that any such blacklisting was justified,
and voted accordingly.
The basis by which this is done is a
provision in a report on a bill by the
House Armed Services Committee and
other statements, in preceding years,
which indicates the disfavor of the House
conferees to allow officers to go to univer-
sities or colleges which have dropped
ROTC. Among these, of course, are some
of the most eminent colleges and uni-
versities. in the United States. One never
knows that the list is exactly up to date
at a particular minute; but when this
amendment was argued on the floor, it
S13771 -
Included such distinguished universities
as Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, and Col-
gate, Columbia, Hobart, Pratt, and SUNY
in Buffalo. My own university, NYU, was
also on the list but is expected to be rein-
stated as it is likely to resume ROTC?
I am sure for no reason connected with
the blacklist.
Mr. President, it is well known that
the chairman of the House Armed Serv-
ices Committee is very, very strong on
this matter. That has been widely
admitted. I understand that. I happen to
know the chairman very well and to
like him very much. I understand per-
fectly that his feelings are strong. But I
do not see how that can be substituted
for congressional action.
Therefore, even though this amend-
ment was turned down by the conferees,
and our conferees were very careful to
lay it at the door of the House conferees,
it is to be noted that the statement here
as to what is believed is related to the
House conferees. The House conferees
believed that the Department of Defense
should be allowed to withhold financial
assistance to persons at those institu-
tions.
Mr. President, one could really make a
very strong case that our conferees
should not have agreed to delete this
amendment at the behest of one House.
But then there is yet an overriding re-
sponsibility of the Department of De-
fense, itself; because the Department of
Defense has written a directive, under
date of April 17, 19'74, which went into
the RECORD when this matter was de-
bated, in which they say as follows, and
I again ask unanimous consent that it
go into the RECORD so that the official
paper may be reported.
There being no objection, the memo-
randum was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
ASSISTANT SECRETASY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., April 17, 1974.
Memorandum: Por Assistant Secretaries of
the Military Departments (Manpower
and Reserve Affairs).
Subject: Educational Policy Pertaining to
Schools Which Have Withdrawn from
ROTC.
References: (a) OASD(M&RA) Memo dated
June 5, 1979, Subj: Educational Policy
Pertaining to Schools Which Withdrew
from ROTC. (b) OASD(M&RA) Memo
dated August 7, 1973. Subj: Educational
Policy Pertaining to Schools Which Have
Withdrawn from ROTC.
The following statement supersedes the
policy set forth in the referenced memo-
randa:
"Department of Defense policy concern-
ing attendance at schools which unilaterally
withdraw from ROTC will be to reduce our
educational commitments to them by re-
fraining from their use except in justifiable
instances and upon the concurrence of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Edu-
cation) on a case-by-case basis. We will con-
tinue to send personnel to these schools on a
fully-funded basis only if the institution
offers a course which is in the best interest
of national security, the Military Service,
and the individual. Should one of these
schools reapply for an ROTC unit, the policy
will no longer be applicable to that institu-
tion. Additionally, the policy does not ap-
ply to health and medical professional edu-
cation."
A list of the schools which have unilater-
ally withdrawn from ROTC and have not re-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700030059-2
S 13772
applied for a unit are shown in the attach-
ment.
Wawaia Ba.
Mr. JAVITS. This istemarandune says:
We will cenatinue to sent perscamei to
these schools?
That is the schools which are other-
wise blacklisted?
Oa a fully funded basis only if the, insti-
tution offers a course which is in the best
interest of national security, the military
service, and the individual.
Now the report of the managers leaves
us with really no knowledge of what will
or will not be the future peaky to be Pur-
sued by the Department cit Defense ex-
cept an that we know is that the Depart-
ment may or may not comply with this
m.emorandum, which is vary flexible in
its nature, and I assume cdinkl be applied
to practically any college or university.
Also, we know that certain exceptions
have been made on a particular case
bads and it is believed?I Wily state that
as a belief?with the oaneurrence of the
chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee.
Now, Mr. President, I must say with
all respect that this is a. pretty messy wan
to operate an array or to operate a Con-
gress. Here we have a. policy which is
based upon a. statement and a report on
a bill emanating from_ the Armed Serve
ices Committee of the House. Now we
have an amendment made by the Senate
showing the Senate does not agree with
that policy, and we have t* House say-
ing through its conferees that it wishes
to. stand hi -whatever it said in the orig-
inal report- on a bill which resulted in
this policy, which leaveausteozenletein ten
in the air as to what. Policy the Depart-
ment of Defense is on.
It seems to me that it should be very
clear that the hands ot the Department
of Defense are corapletely Untied if the
Senate an the House_disagree. There-
fore, I will address anquenion to the
chairman of the committee, Senator
STENNIS, for whom we al hive such high
regard, as to whether ft Is now legitimate
to say that at the very least in this mat-
ter the House and the Senate do dis-
agree and that there is nothing that has
been, done by the conferees to com-
promise the Senate's view, except that
the House would not concur?
I yield to the Senator.
Mr. PELL. I congratulate the Senator
on the stand he has taken here, as a
cosponsor of his amendment when *was
presented in the Senate, I am very dis-
appointed it did not prevail in the con-
ference. I think the attitude of the House
conferees and also the Defense Deport-
ment in this regard is a petty one, em-
phasizing revenge becanse the educa-
tional institutions, in the heat of the
conflict over Vietnam decided they did
not want to continue ROTC programs.
Personally, I did not agree with that
ciecision, by these colleges and univer-
sities but that is not important. The fact
Is that they made the decision and do
not believe the termination of ROTC is a.
sufficient reason to deny training in those
institutions to officers of the Armed
Services. I think the blacklisting policy
is a very petty one, that Is not based on
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July p, 4'4
the best traditions of our country. NA on
simple revenge.
I would hope very much In the ad-
ministiatiun of this program the De-
partment of Defense would act more
realietically and allow members of the
Armed Services to attend the ban
schools, with the best comma, regardless
of the past history of ROTC tudts.
Mr. JAVITS. I am very grateful to
Senator Peel. for his statement, and he
did join me in the amendment, watch
was a successful amendment, I am vere
grateful trehim for that.
Mr. Pelee. I would add, I have an in-
stitution in my own State, Brown 'Uni-
versity.
Mr. JAvrrs. Exactly.
Mr. PILL. That university is affected
by this bkteklist.
Mr. JAvrrs. Adversely affected.
Mr. PELL. The Senator is correct.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the mem-
bers of the Armed Services Committee
will know this much better than I, but
I understand this matter has been a
considerable source of disaffect:km among
youner officers of the armed services
temer'ves who wish to study at wine of
these fine institutions, but are prevented
from doing so by the policy a the De-
partment.
Now, I need not protest my affection
for Senator Santee's. He knows I ask
these questions only for the hope of the
seeming deadlock that has occurred and
trying to see some way out.
It will be noted, the statement of the
House conferees says that the Depart-
ment of Defense should be allowed to
withhold financial assistance to persons
at these institutions.
My first question, therefore, to the
Senator would be, Does he believe that
the use of this word shows that the De-
partment of Defense has discretion in
the matter?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour
of 12:15 has arrived.
Mr. MANSFIELD. / ask unanimous
consent for 5 additional minutes and
then the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER,. Without
objection, it is so ordered
Mr. STENNIS. Would the Senator
briefly restate his question?
Mr. JAVITS. Of course.
All I was trying to get Vas because the
House conferees managers used the word
'allowed,' "the Department of Defense
should be allowed to withhold fmanc al
assistance." does the Senator construe
that, as I do, to mean the Department
of Defense has discretion in the matter?
Mr. STENNIS. Well, this is a, difficult
matter, and it is a sensitive subject. I
personally believe that the man that is
going to the' college or university ought
to be in on making the choice.
Now, I think he is entitled to some con-
sideration there, but the law does not
mandate that point. I dad not vote for
the Senator's amendment because I knew
it would be a. troublesome matter. I per-
sonally think that the universities that
closed down the ROTC units could WEll
make a move themselves, conciliatory to
the Department of Defense.
I think that is a reasonable position,
but we tried to get the Senator's amend-
merit adopted. I MI not know until the
Senator pointed out here that a majority,
of the conferees voted against the
amendment. I did not know it and I
doubt that any of them knew it. We tried
hard to get the Senator's amendment
adopted and it just was not agreed to,
Now; !do rot know any law that keeps
the Department of-Delesse from making
a choice as to this matter, but in their
discretion they do not have to do it, as I
see it.
Of course, there is objection to 1:. and
they are being discreet about it TAat Li
about the best I can tell.
Mr. JAVITS. That is, they can move
either way.
Mr. STENNIS. I do net knew of any
mandate either way. I think, therefore, it
is possible for them to move either way.
but they use their discretion, naturally.
Mr. JAvrrs. steaater STENNIS, one
other question.
Is there anything the Senate conferee&
did which would compromise the Senate
digging in on this position for the future
in line with this amendment?
Mr. STENNIS. I frank b? cannot recall
any compromise position we took. I can-
not think of any now except what I hays
said.
Maybe the universities could make a
move, conciliation of some kind, and ask
for a conference, that might lead to
something.
You cannot make men agree in con-
ference. The Senator from New York is
one of the most effective conferees I
have ever known on these-bills, the more
controversial the better he is, but he
knows he cannot Make men agree, not
in the conference.
Mr. JAvrrs. Well, I thank my oal-
league very much. I think he clarified
the situation.
All I say is that I pledge myself to
continue indefatigably with this until
some justice its done in the matter, and
the Senator has indicated deafly how
he feels intellectually and I understand
the practical situation.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Seriaton
The Senate had a fine debate on this
bill. The issues were thoroughly dis-
cussed.
As I have said, I believe the conferees
have brought back a good agreement on
Items in distitte. In sum, 'T believe this
bill will authorize the hardware and
manpower needed by the military serv-
ices in the fiscal year now underway.
I believe the Senate should now ap-
prove this corderence report on the au-
thorization bil so that the Appropria-
tions Committees can complete their
work.
I ask that the conference report be
approved.
I also request unanimous consent to
have printed at this point eertain charts
and summaries.
There being no objection, the stm-
maries and tables were ordered to be
printed in the Remit, as follows:
nmENDivoncr $unarmAirir: Cotarcasases-
14592
Senate arneridnients not in souse bill: "23.
Number retained in fun or modified: 1,5t
'This does not include 3 minor tech/tem
chances.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
- Approved For Release 2006/02/07 CIA-RDP75B0M0R000700030059-2
July 30, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE S 13773
Number not retained: 13. Nunn, NATO tactical nuclear weapons,
House amendments not in Senate bill: 5 Modified. As passed, amendment froze tac-
major, 4 minor. tical nuclear warhead in Europe except in
Number retained in full or modified: 5 event of hostilities. As modified, freeze is
major, 2 minor, only until June 30, 1975, 39.
Number not retained: 2 minor. Nunn, NATO standardization, Modified.
(Senate-passed amendments-10: 9 re- As passed SecDef must study standardize -
tained, 1 not retained.) tion of weapons in NATO and bring the as.-
(Senate Committee amendments-18: 6 sessment to the attention of NATO, As mod-
retained, 12 not retained.) ifled, the assessment must be reported to
Congress first, 39.
SENATE AlVIENDMENTS RETAINED IN Nunn, Airlift crews, Modified. As passed,
CONFERENCE amendment stated Congressional policy
I. Senate-Passed amendments in conten.- that increases in strategic airlift crew re-
tion in conference: tios should be achlevtd by Reserves rather
Sponsor, amendment, form as agreed by than actives. Required plan to effect in-
conferees, and conference report page no.: crease, including test of "hybrid" concept in
Humphrey, Dogs in research, Modified. As C-5 or 0-141 aircraft. As modified, such in-
gassed, amendment prohibits testing gases creases should be achieved ''to the maximum
and chemicals on dogs. As modified, dogs may extent possible by Reserves and test of by-
not be used in research for the purposeof brid concept is deleted. Incorporated House
developing biological or chemical weapons to requirement for 91 flying units in the Air
destroy life but may be used for research to National Guard in FY 75, 40.
improve and save lives, 45. Taft, DOD use least costly form of man-
- Humphrey, Culebra, Modified. As passed, power, Essentially same as passed in Commit-
amendment prohibited funds for target prac- tee. 42.
tice on Culebra after Dec. 31, 1975. As modi- Committee, Langauge on aid to S. Vietnam,
fled, target practice on Culebra or the nearby Same as passed in Committee, 43.
keys is prohibited during any time that Byrd, Transfer of naval vessels, Same as
negotiations for an alternate site are halted passed in Committee, 44.
by the U.S. Puipose is to spur negotiations, Committee, AWACS-Buy 12, system must
which are already required by law. Letter be cost-effective, Language same as passed
has been received from Secretary Clements by Committee, although the dollar amount
reiterating intention to relocate target prac- was decreased, 17.
tice by Dec. 31, 1975, but only after perraa- Committee, Training loads consistent with
nent site is agreed upon. House conferees manpower strengths, Same as passed by Com-
were very concerned that adequate practice mittee, 43.
facilities be available to the Navy and did not
want to dictate a cut-off date by law, 46.
Nunn, High School graduates, Same as
passed by Senate, 47.
Mansfield, Minuteman testing, Same as
passed by Senate, 48.
Hughes, Authorize Army to give master's
degrees, Same as passed by Senate, 49.
Jackson, SecDef review technology exports.
Modified. As passed, SecDef reviews proposed
technology exports to "controlled countries"
and makes recommendations to the President,
If the President overrules the SecDef, he must
report to the Congress, which can overrule
in either House by majority vote. As modified,
purview of SecDef is limited to goods and
technology developed directly or indirectly as
part of DOD research and development. Con-
gress can overrule President by concurrent
resolution, 50.
II. Committee amendments in contention
in conference:
Sponsor, amendment form as agreed by
conferees, and conference report page no:
Nunn, NATO support forces, Modified. As
passed, amendment required 20% (23,000)
reduction in Army support in Europe over
2 years, with SecDef permitted to increase
combat strength in a like amount. As modi-
fied. An 18,000 person reduction in support
in Europe is mandated over 2-years coin-
ing from all services, because House con-
ferees thought the support reductions would
be excessive if taken only in the Army. Only
6,000 must be moved the first year. SecDef
is authorized to increase combat strength by
like amount, 38.
SENATE AMENDMENTS NOT RETAINED IN
CONFERENCE-H.R. 14592
Senator, amendment, reason Senate re-
ceded, and conference report page No.:
Javits, ROTC, House conferees were ada-
mant that DoD should be allowed to with-
hold financial assistance from universities
which unilaterally withdrew from ROTC, 43.
Proxmire, CIA-restrict domestic activities,
Non-germane. House agreed to introduce and
immediately consider comparable legislation.
H.R. 15845 was introduced by Mr. Nedzi on
July 16 and hearings began July 22, 44.
Proxmire, Enlisted aides, The House in-
sisted that the congressional action last year
of reducing the number of aides from 1722
to 675 had not been given an opportunity to
work and that no further reductions should
be made now. The Secretary of Defense is di-
rected by the conference to study the situ-
ation and one or both Armed Services Com-
mittees will hold hearings, 44.
Biden, Prohibit all DoD economic pump-
priming, Non-germane, 45.
Hughes, Coritinuation pay to medical corps
officers in initial residency training, Non-
germane; however the House recognizing the
merits of the amendment agreed to intro-
duce and promptly consider legislation on
the subject, 46.
Bayh, Use all forms of media in recruiting
advertising, House conferees insisted that
the amendment was unnecessary because
nothing in the law now specifically pro-
hibits the use of advertising by any one spe-
H.R. 14592
FISCAL YEAR 1975 AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE ACTI0f4
TITLE I-PROCUREMENT
Its millions of dollarsi
chic media. House also believes amendment
would require equal distribution of adver-
tising funds without regard to cost-effec.
tiveness, 47.
Kennedy, Stockpiling for Allies, House in-
sisted the matter was complex and could
hinder defense planning. No hearings have
been held on the provision, 48.
Metzenbaum,, Formal advertising required
on. contracts for medical supplies, Non-ger
mane; however the House also argued that
this would be a procedural change involving
delays and complication in procurement o e
medicines and medical supplies, 48.
Fong, Study to find island other than Na-
hoolawe for target practice, House insisted
Kahoolawe essential for target practice and
noted 1972 DoD study to that effect.
Metzenbaum, Require reports on competi-
tive bidding. Non-germane; however the
House also maintained that the reporting
requirement would not benefit Congress and
that Congress can obtain adequate informa.
tion now.
McGovern, Congressional awards for POWs.
Non-germane; however the House recognized
the merits of the amendment and will con-
sider separate legislation. The legislation has
been introduced in. both the House and Sen-
ate (S. 3192) introduced by Senators Stennis
and Thurniond in. Senate).
Hartke, Recomputation, Non-germane, al-
though the House conferees indicated plans
to consider major legislation to revise the
entire military retirement system. Recom-
putation. proposals could be presented then.,
Committee, A-7/A-10 Flyoff,. Language no
longer necessary because the A-10 was de-
clared the winner by DoD.
HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 14592-ACTION,
TAKEN IN CONFERENCE
I. Major
A-7D aircraft for Air National Guard, re-
tained conference rept. page No. 16.
Line item authorization for naval vessels,
retained, conference rept. page No. 22.
91 flying Air National Guard units re-
quired, retained, merged with Nunn amend-
ment, conference rept. page No. 40.
Sec. Def. authorized to exceed civilian
strength by 1%, modified to %, conference
rept. page No. 42.
Nuclear navy, modified to define major
combat vessels more narrowly and allow
President to advise if requests for nuclear
powered vessels are not in the national in-
terest, conference rept. page No. 51.
II. Minor
Patrol frigate money to be used only if
fire control system satisfactorily tested, not
?retained in bill, but language in report, con-
ference rept. page No. 21.
Specific authorization for naval gunnery,
retained, conference rept. page No. 29.
Flexibility in form of civilian employment,
essentially retained, merged with Tail
amendment, conference rept. page No. 42.
Language on aid to South Vietnam, no t
retained, conference rept. page No. 43.
Fiscal year 1975 request House Senate
Change from House Conference
Army aircraft:
1. Ali-1Q Attack Helicopter
2. Modification of Aircraft
(a) Parachute product improvement
Programs not in dispute
Recommended total
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
21
271 5
21
27. 5
6
15,0
-15
-12. 5
6
15.0
165, 0
160. 5
LA. 3
-2. 2
158. 3
(2.2)
(2.2)
(-2.2)
(0)
147.0
147.0
147.0
335. 0
320. 3
-14.7
320. 3
Footnotes at end of table.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
S 13774
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
H.R. 14592-Continued
FISCAL YEAR 1975 AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCF ACTION
TITLE 1 -PROCUREMENT-Contrnued
tin millions of dollars'
July 30, 1924
Fiscal year 1975 request
House '
Quantity Amount
24 57_ 3-24
34 138 2
60 639 3
.1'0 24.9
18 7.0
335.0
(4.9)
374 2
( 8)
1,388.2 -
Senate
Change front House -
Quantity Arne1rhi
Confer
Quantity
0
34
56i.,
14
18
24
30
6

___
enar
nineuni
0
(57
r. 3
1 5
7 0
(0)
(0)
5; 3 4
(0)

2 13132 2
1110.1"
159 2
328 7
4? 42 0
159:
0
0
14,0
0
0
i 64.3
(0)
(0)
v45 5
(0)
112 44
vto a
40)
(0)
?''.4 2 . a
(0)
117.2)
(4. a)
9.9
(9)
-.2 7
4 0)
,9.5
10)
'19L3
3 936 3
104.6
IS. 0
1i3.9
415 5--
03 2
15.4
18 2
631 5
30 I
9
n
I `,70 2
_
9
'
_
11. -
51,2.5
116. 0
II).?
21.9
(4)
(0)
313.3
3 156_ 4 _
27.6
4 5
0
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
Navy aircraft:
3. A-4M Light Attack Skyhawk__ .3
4. A-7E Medium Attack Corsair 11. _
5. F-14A Fighter Tomcat
6. AH-11 Attack Helicopter
7. T-34C Trainer Aircraft....
8. Modification of Aircraft._
(a) T-34C Modification _ _3-
(b) OV-10 night gunship modification
9. Spares and repair parts__ _
(a) A-4M init. spares
Programs not in dispute. ... -
Recommended total
Air Farce aircraft:
10. A-7D Tactical Attack Corsair-
11. A-10/A -7D Close Support Attack Aircraft__ _
12. 0-3A AWACS
13. E-3A Adv. Proc., Current Year__
14. F-111F Adv. Proc., Current Year_
15. MASF-A- 37B Light Attack Aircraft
16. MASF-F--5F International Fighter ._ _
17. MASF--C-130H Tactical Transport
18. MASF-UH--1H Utility Helicopter
19. MASF-CH- 47C Cargo Helicopter
20. Modification of Aircraft
(a) MASF
(b) Civil Reserve Air Fleet_
(c) C-141 Stretch
21. Other Production Charges
(a) MASF
(b) ALQ-119 ECM pods _
22. Common Ground Equipment
(a) MASF
(b) Civil Reserve Air Fleet
23. Aircraft spares and repair parte. ___
(a) MASF
(b) Civil Reserve Air Fleet_
(c) C-5/C-141
(d) A-7D -initial spares
24. Component improvement
(a) MASF
25. War consumables__
(a) MAsF ______ ___ .__
26. Industrial facilities
(a) MASF
Programs not in dispute
Recommended total
Army missiles:
27. MASF---Tow Antitank Missile _
28. MASF-Other spares and repair parts
Programs not in dispute.
Recommended total
Navy missiles:
29. Phoenix.......
30. Bulldog
31. Harpoon
Programs not in dispute
Recommended total
Air For missiles:
32. Maverick_
33. Modifications
34. Minuteman: Base Launch_
35. Missile spares: Minuteman Base Lau ch
Programs not in dispute
Recommended total _ _
Marine Corps missiles:
Programs not in dispute '
Recommended total
Navy shipbuilding and conversion: .
37. SSN Submarine (Nuclear attack)
38. SCS Sea Control Ship
39. PF Patrol Frigate
40. AD Destroyer Tender
41. Outfitting Material, all other
(a) Various ships_
(IQ MASF
Programs not in dispute
Recommended total
Army tracked combat vehicles:
42. M578 Recovery vehicle
(a) MASF
43. M30A1 Turret Trainer (11460A1)
44. MASF-M125A1 Carrier: 81 mm Mortar
24
34
50
20
57.3
138.2
639.3
24.9
338.5
374.2
140.3
494.4
21.0
-
15.5
85.4
35 3
25.0
18.9
766.4
_(10.2) .
(132.9)
(50.0)
126.7
120.2
781.5
(57.6)
(15.0)
(8.1)
13.4
(3.5)
35.0
31.8
(2.3)
34
50
14
130.7
617.3
19.5
-
333.6
(3.5).,..(1-3.5)
371 4
1388.2
-4
-18
-57.1
-7.5
-22.0
-5.4
-7.0
-1.4
(-4.9
.8 ,
(-.4)
-101.4
24
24
6
29
28
4
77
8
2,964.1
100,1
140.3
247.2
10.5
15.5
85.4 .
35 3
25 0
18 9
608.5
(10.2)
(25.0).
126.7
(1.2)
(22.6)
120.2 .
a _
786.3 -.700.8
a75: 0))
(Li)
(4,8)
03.4
(3.5)
35.0
(2. 3)
31.8
(2.3)...
991 3
30
12
2,862.7
159.2
494.4
21.0
15.0
3.- .3
15.0
604.3 _
(31.0)
102.9 ..
110.3
29.5
991.3 ------------------------
-.24
4
6
-28
--77
-8
.
.
26
12
'
-29
28
4
77
8
-100.1
18.9
247.2
10.5.
15.0 __
---15.5
- ? -85.4 .
-20.3
-25.0
-18.9 3
-4.2
(-10.2)
(-26.0.
(+31.0).
-23.8 _
(-1.2)
(- 22.6)_
-9.9
(-2.81_
(-7.1)._
-85.5
(-57.6
(-t5.0),40)
(-8.1) .
(- 4.
- - 1 5 __
(- 3. 4
-2.3
(-2.3)..
-2.1 _.
(-2.3)
24,000
3391 4
la 1
19.4
343.9
-140
_
-2.5
24,000
340
150
107.1
18.4
23: 860
104.6
18.0,,..
313.9 __
94.7
78.2
340
156
439.4
94 7
78 2
447.7
436.5_
(-1,1100
-50
-2.9 .
--1.5
4-23.1
-7.7
-113.9
-30.3
-13.6 _
340
1,000
100
93.2
23.1
70.5
447.7
340
500
150
6.000
88.0
49.0
13.6
... 2.0
6.000
620.6
634.5 _
-
88 0
49.0.40
13.6
2,0
1,458.2
6,000
57 7 .
9II;
1,458.2
6,000
6 319
30.8
6 954
1,611 8
30.3
45. 2
1,556.8
28 9
45 2
-635
-54.0 3
-
6 319
-1.9
502.5
142.9
436.5
116.7
27.2
7
76.0
502.5
142.9
436.5
116.7
27.2
(3,9)
(1.4).
2 313.3
74.1
-1
-1
-4
-1
-1.9 _
3
1
7
1
335.0
186 0
21.9
2313.3
-161.5
-142.9
-250.5
-116.7
(.39)
(-1.4)
3
-----------------3539.1
..
180 27,9
(2)(-2)
34 t. it)
13 .8
2 856.2
-2
-13
-482.9
180
(2)
34
13
27.9
(.3)
6.0
.8
178
34,.
27.6
4,5
. -(-.3)"(0)
-1.5
178
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
July 30 404 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 13775
Fiscal year 1975 request
House
Senate
Change from House
' Conference
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
45. M113A1 Armored Personnel Carrier
(a) Other
(b) MASF
46. Support equipment and facilities-items less than
$508,090__
(a) MASF
47. Support equipment and facilities-spares and repair
parts
(a) MASF
Programs not in dispute
Recommended total
Marine Corps tracked combat vehicles
Navy torpedoes
Army other weapons:
48. Vulcan Air Defense System
49. M202A1 launcher, incendiary rocket
(a) Allied War Reserve
(b) MASE
50. 1160 machine gun, 7.62 mm
(a) Allied War Reserve
(b) MASF
51. MASF-M16A1 Rifle, 5.56 tom
52. Support Equipment and Facilities-Items less than
$500,000
(a) MASF
53. Support Equipment and Facilities--Spares and
Repair Parts
(a) MASF
Programs untie dispute
Recommended total
Navy other weapons:
54. Weapons under $500,000
(a) MASF
Programs not in dispute
194
9.4
1.6
(.5)
11.6
(.8)
496
(302)
(194)
?
24. 0
(14.6)
(9.4)
1.6
(.5)
11.6
(.8)
249.3
1.1
10.9
249. 3
-496
(-302)
(-194)
-24.0
(-14.6)
(-9. 4)
-.5
(-.5)
--.6
(-.8)
159
(151)
7. 3
(7.3)
(0)
1.1
(0)
10.0
(0)
249. 3
321.2
293. 3
-27.9
300. 6
80.1
74.2
74.2
74.2
187.7
187.7
187.7
187. 7
3.049
6, 000
9,114
2.6
(.1)
5.0
(4.9)
(.1)
1.3
2.4
(.2)
8.7
(1.0)
.
3,049
6,000
9,114
2.3
2.6
k111)
(4. 9)
)
i.13
2.4
(. 2)
8. 7
(1.0)
33.4
2,003
1, 237
1.7
1. 0
(1.0)
2.2
7.7
33.4
-1,046
-4, 763
?
-9 , 114
-2.3
(-. 8)
(-.1)
-4.0
(-3.9)
(-.1)
-1.3
(-.2)
-3.0
(-1.0)
2,003
5, 906
(5, 906)
2.3
1.7
6)
r
4. 9
(4. 9)
(0)
tl
2.2
(0)
7.7
(0)
314
55.7
46.0
-9.7
52.2
.3
(.1)
.3
(.1)
25.3
.2
25.3
-. 1
(-.1)
.2
(0)
25.3
, Recommended total
Marine Corps other weapons
Grand total-Title I Procurement
25.6
25.5
25 5
..
.5
.5
5
. 5
13, 805. 1
13, 641.3
12, 654.6
-986.7
12, 994. 2
Note: MASF program: House-Senate difference on items requiring authorization are identified on separate sheet
House authorized mAsr as part of Title I-Procurement.
Senate authorized MASF as Section 701 -Funding Authority for Support of South Vietnam-
ese Military Forces.
FISCAL YEAR 1975 AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE ACTION
TITLE VII-SECTION 701
SUPPORT OF SOUTH VIETNAMESE MILITARY FORCES
(In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year 1975 request House
Senate
Conference
Quantity
Amount Quantity
Amount Quantity
Amount
Quantity
Amount
Air Force aircraft:
1.A-37B
15.. 5 29
15.5-29
15.5
A-37 mit. spares
2
. 2
.2
2. 0-130 aircraft
4
2' 0. 3 4
20.3
4
20.3
C-130 init. spares
1.7
L 7
.,J
1. 7
Army missiles: -
3. TOW launchers
51
2.0 51
2.0
?
51
2.9
Navy shipbuilding:
4. Outfitting and post delivery (PG)
1.4
1.4
1.4
Army trunked combat vehicles:
5. M-113 personnel carrier
9. 4 194
9.4
194
9. 4
194
13
6. 11-125 mortar carrier
.8 13
.8
13
. 8
Army other weapons:
7. M60 machine gun
94
.1 94
.1
94
. 1
8. M202A1 rocket launcher
84
. 1 84
.1
84
. 1
Programs not in dispute
212.3
212. 3
212. 3
Recommended totaL
287.4
263.9
212.3
263.9
TITLE II
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE ACTION
(In thousands of dollars]
?
House
Senate
Fiscal year
Change from
Program element
1975 request
Change Authorization
House Authorization
Conference
ARMY
Aerial Scout
6,0110
6, 000
-5, 360
640
1,915
Heavy lift helicopter
57, 725
57,725
-21,200
36,525
36,525
Utility tactical transport aircraft system (UTTAS)
54, 060
-5,000
49, 060
+5, 000
54, 060
54, 000
Cobra TOW
+4, 500
4, 500
4,500
4,500
Stinger
33, 730
33, 730
-1, 500
32, 230
32, 230
Chaparral/Vulcan
7,229
7, 229
-5, 800
1,429
3,02.1
Site defense
160,000
-10, 000
150,000
-40,000
110,000
123,000
Pershing II
11,200
11,200
-11,200
5,000
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
S 13776
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2 -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ---- SENATE thd,211 30, 1971
TITLE II--Continued
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION SUMMARY Of LONFERENCE ACTlON--Coistinred
tin thousands of dollar's)
Program element
House
Senate
Con re
30, 550
91, 410
6, 300
111,210
82, 090
4, 100
4, 167
05,000
5,750
3, 000
;n, 711
in co
2 221
5,98f
it 000
20, 520
1,0,794
i 064. 33,
, _
1, 8733, 397
-7, 973
Fiscal year
1975 rector-1 Change
Authorization
Change from
House
Authorization
ARMY-Continued
Advanced forward area air defense system
Advanced ballistic missile defense -
Cannon launched guided projectile__
Surface-to-air missile development ("1,10-0).
Kwajalein Missile Range
Bushmaster
Armored reconnaissance Scout vehicle
XM-1 tank 0
Weapons and ammunition
Lethal chemical munitions .,
Mechanized infantry combat ve9icle
Triservice tactical communications pregram
Clothing equipment, and packaging titchnolOgy
Food technology
Surveillance target acquisition, and right systems (STAND)
Classified program
Safeguard
Programs not in dispute --
Total, Army program
Reimbursements from foreign military-sales
Total, Army budget authority._
NAVY
Tactical air reconnaissance
Classified progi am
VCX (carrier on board delivery program)
VEX fighter prototype
Surface launched weaponry
Sanguine
Surface missile guidance (adv.)
Trident missile system
Fleet ballistic missile system
Sidewinder
Air launched air-to-air missile (Agile)
SLCM
Aegis
Clone in weapon system (Phalanx)
Surface missile guidance
Advanced ship development
Radar surveillance equipment (eng.)
Surface effect ships
Improved SSBN
Classified program
Classified program
U.S.S. Hip Pocket
Programs not in disupte
Total, Navy program
Reimbursements from foreign military. ales
Total, Navy budget authority
AIR FORCE.
A 10 aircraft - ...
F-4 avionics
Aircraft equipment development
Electronically Agile radar
Gas turbine technology
Advanced tanker/cargo aircraft
11-1 .0.-
Air combat fighter 0.00
Advanced ballistic reentry system
Advanced air-to-air weapons technology
Air-launched cruise missile
Minuteman
SLBM radar warning system
NAVSTAR global positioning system
Conventional weapons
Improved aircraft gun system
Drone/RPV systems development18,
Improved tactical bombing
F-41F-105 protective systems
Joint tactical communications
Minimum essential emergency communications network
Advanced command and control capabilities
Cones over-The-horizon radar system
Improved capability for operational tent and evaluation
Precision emitter location strike system
Programs not in dispute
Total, Air Force budget authority_
DEFENSE AGENCIES
DARPA:
Military sciences
Strategic technology
Management systems technology
Undistributed reduction
E1CA:
WWMCCS-JTSA -
Defense communications system
Undistributed reduction
DMA:
Mapping, charting and geodesy development
Undistributed reduction
44, 668 -29,669 15, 000
91, 410 -26, 410 65, 000
14 556 -4 256 6, 300
111,215 -01215 100,040
414, 554 -4, 554 80, 000
-- 7,030 -2, 930 4, 100
8, 062 -3 762 4, 300
54,190 -3,790 65,000
7,306 -1.600 5, 706
04, 894 -1, 894 3, 000
9,011 +1 700 10, 711
37, 273 --2, 273 35, 000
4 220 4-1, 500 3, 720
5,93); +500 6,486
15, 398 -2, 398 14 000
-20, 529 - 4, 029 16,500
:80,794 60,794
10084, 336-------------1.064,336-
+29, 668
+26, 410
+6, 256
+11,215
+4, 554
+30
-138
+100
+1,000
-6
-1, 700
+2,273
-1, 500
-500
+2, 398
+4,029
..
44,588
91, 410
14 556
1110215
84, 554
4, 130
4, 162
65,290
7,306
2,994
9, ort
37,273
2, 220
5,986
15 398
20, 529
60,794
1, 064, 336
1,905,970 -107,579
1,878,397
+4,819
7, 973
1,883,215
- -7,973
1, 90,5, 976 -107. 579
-? 0, 300
5, 700
4, 961
34,000 -34.008
13, 142
133: 205
648, 767
-9, 669
46, 656292 +5.000
. ________ . _ 4419', 9?7?71 -19, 987
47, 012 :172; 051?1
32, 100 -20 000
-7,200
19. 042
321180,', 209002420
-3, 000
57, 981
7, 319
24,690
2 , 154- 3; 41328? -3, 12924,
1, 878, 397
45.5 9736?11
13, 142
13,205
3, 000
64.8, 767
37, 000
5, 522
42,471
50. 000
12, 100
25. 072
16, 042
10, 940
S1267: 03?00801
096
---------------+3,129
2, 154, 438 _
-3, 154
-
1, 875, 243
I 510. 42s
h4,1.1108?-41131,'::, M6699152'
41:1?-,-, 06;2

15, 000
25, 222
rift' 0?01
21:: 057816
0. ON
995
2, 1510 418
3,153,
-27,
3 1257396
81, 400
17,600
4, 994
4,000
1.4, 729
8,000
454,973
22,000
174,000
11, 50.0
1/3,1300
_ .0.
)3, 900
,0, KO
2,190
17, ea
11,828
5,4119
14, 700
6 500
0, 090
i 0, 300
10, 500
22,109
'305 431
730?0?
-4,481
+34,000
-4,060
-2,800
-125; 010?
+9, 669
-5, 000
0 13 937
-4,500
1-17, 012
+29-080
+7,200
-400
---11263,,, 02? ?O? ?00
-4, 0110
-1,9(111

500
34,000
191: 01425
46, 669
633731,, 97? 6:71
19, 987322
3?27', ?10012
3125., 022442
457,, 78134?
3, 319
22. 196
3,129
2 154,438
3, 264, 503 -111,497
3, 153, 006
3 153 006
'"
+25,736
-27,700
-1, 964
?
-14 500
-1,000
-1, 000
-4,01(0
-1,800
-15,500
-44.000
+5,000
+26,900
-11,000
-19, 000
+6, 000
+4 500
4-4,900
+10
-11 000
-4500
-1400
-3,1030
-2, 000
+5,1100
?2,000
?3,100
+3,000
3, 178, 742
-27,700
_
3 264, 503 -111, 497
3 151, 042
81, 405
12,600
3 994
4,000
12,989
4.500
454,973
36,000
131,843
64,000
12 000
8,0013 _
- 25,4013
24, 900
2,200
7,000
8,328
4,006)
- 12,7410
5 500
6,500
12,30(1
11,900
25,009
2, 305, 438
93, 905
1:3,500
4, 994
8,000
44, 789
20, 000
494,973
36,000 -3,000
115,943 -15,000
3, 100 +3,100
50.000 -5000
142, 900
8(300 -8,000
28,400 -2500
24, 900 -4,9410
9, 6g0 -7500
0110
11,11211
- 5,400
05,70(1
7, 500
- 1,500 '
12, 300 -2,000
21,900 -3,104)
25,100 -3,00(3
2,306,438
93, 905
13,600
4, 994
8,000
14, 789
20, 000
498,973
31, 000
104, 943
75,000
141, 900
-22,900
20, 000
2, 190
18, 000
11,828
5,400
15, 700
7, 500
1,500
10, 300
8,800 -
22, 100
2,305, 438
3, 518, 860 -59, 100
3, 459, 760
-70,290
3, 389, 470
3,389 517
431 00 -2 800
78,000 -6, 000
2, 743
-8,000
-4,550
13, 605
0- -
4,651
-----------2.000
31 300
69,000
2, 743
-8,000
4,550
13 605
-5 000
5 651
-2,000
-1-4 800
+3,7011
-2, 743
+8,000
-1,000
-3,500
+5 000
-10000
+2,000
41, 100
72,709
3,550
10;105
4, 651
37300
09, 000
--3,009
3,550
10, 105
.0 651
- 1,1700
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
ay 30, 197'4 Approvedp-we,pgfilay0A/Roiii7RWRit380R000700030059-2 ?S 13777
'i VIN kir-c ,
Program element
House
Senate
Conference
Fiscal year
1975 request
Change
Authorization
Change from
House
Authorization
81,778
11,778
-500
11,278
11,278
Defense documentation center
Undistributed reduction
-500
-500
+500
MA (classified)
-1,300
+300
)NA (classified)
-3, 000
+1, 000
\ISA (classified)
-10,800
+5, BOO
Technical support to OSKICS
18, 800
-3,800
15, 000
+3,800
18,800
17,800
Programs not in dispute
122, 373
122, 373
122,373
122,373
Total, Defense agencies budget authority
528, 700
-43, 200
485, 500
+24, 157
509, 657
491, 057
Director of Test and Evaluation
27, 000
-2, GOO
25, GOO
+2,000
27, 000
25, 000
Total, R.D.T. & E. program
9, 325, 039
-323,376
9, 001, 663
-13, 578
8,988, 085
8, 936, 977
Reimbursements from foreign military sales
-35,673
-35,673
-35,673
Total, R.D.T. & E. budget authority
9, 325, 039
-323,370
9, 001, 663
-49,251
8, 952, 412
8, 901, 304
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I
rise today to express my disappointment
that two amendments to HR. 14592,
which would have moved us closer to
competitive bidding in military procure-
ment were deleted from the conference
committee report.
I am disturbed, not because I proposed
the amendments, but rather because this
is another example of Congress lacking
the backbone to stand up for what it
says it believes.
Many of my colleagues in this distin-
guished body have spoken out in favor
of economy in government, especially in
this time of rampant inflation. But when
It comes time to apply this principle to
military procurement, far too many of
my fellow Members of Congress walk
away from the problem.
Certainly this is the case With these
two amendments.
My first amendment, adopted on June
7, by a vote of 38-23, would have taken
a concrete step toward increasing compe-
tition in one clearly defined area of de-
fense procurement that is presently ex-
empt from important provisions of the
Armed Services Porcurement Act-the
purchase of medicine and medical sup-
plies for the military services. I did not
see then, nor do I see today, any reason
whatever for all medical purchases to be
exempt from formal advertising, when-
ever the Department of Defense so de-
termines.
The percentage of medicine and medi-
cal supplies purchased through any type
of competitive bidding has continually
and dramatically declined over the last
5 years. At present, the Pentagon em-
ploys formal advertising for less than 5
percent of all medicine, and less than 6
percent of all medical supplies pur-
chased. Other governmental bodies on
State and local levels manage to use open
bidding procedures for virtually all of
their medical purchases. I see no reason
why the Pentagon cannot adhere to such
practices.
I further believe that-both the Con-
gress and the people of the United States
are entitled to full justification in any
Instance when the Defense Department
feels compelled to spend more than $1
million without resorting to formal ad-
vertising. This requirement, along with
a second calling for a thorough GAO
study of recent procurement procedures
by the Defense Department provided the
thrust of my second amendment to H.R.
14592, one adopted by a voice vote in
the Senate on June 10.
The justification for this amendment,
It seems to me is overwhelming. In 1965,
formally advertised contracts consti-
tuted 17.5 percent of the value of all
defense contracts let that year. In 1973,
the last year for which information is
available, formally advertised contracts
declined to only 10.8 percent of the value
of all defense contracts awarded.
Yet, a recent study by the Joint Eco-
nomic Committee determined that the
change from sole source to competitive
bidding in the purchase of 17 sophisti-
cated weapons and communications sys-
tems by the Pentagon over the past
decade resulted in an average price re-
duction of 51.9 percent. In no case did
competitive bidding raise the cost of a
Pentagon purchase.
Despite the obvious dollar-savings ad-
vantages of both my amendments, the
conferees deleted both as nongermane.
I am astonished at this conclusion. How
could anything be more germane to mili-
tary procurement than requirements
that seek to increase the use of competi-
tive bidding?
Nor do I accept the logic that time-
consuming hearings before the Senate
Armed Services Committee are necessary
for us to correct what is an easily identi-
fiable wrong.
I believe that both of my amendments
would have prodded the Defense Depart-
ment to adopt a lean, tough attitude
toward its huge shopping list.
At a time when we are paring human
needs programs by the millions, we had
the opportunity to trim the fat from the
$90 billion military budget. We have
missed that opportunity, for now. I have
great respect for the chairman of our
Armed Services Committee and I ap-
preciate his efforts to retain these
amendments in the conference, but I do
feel a deep sense of regret that these
small attempts to achieve economies in
Pentagon spending were rejected.
I hope that both amendments will be
considered in the 94th Congress. If we
are to do anything to restrain total Fed-
eral spending, we must begin with the
military budget, which represents about
70 percent of all controllable spending
by the Federal Government.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, when the
Senate in June considered the military
procurement authorization bill (H.R.
14592), I voted against final passage of
the bill because I believed the legisla-
tion provided excessive and nonessential
authority for increased defense spend-
ing.
Today, I have voted against approval
of the conference report on this legisla-
tion for the same reason. Indeed, the
bill as it emerged from conference pro-
vides authority for more Defense De-
partment spending than did the bill as it
was passed by the Senate. The Senate
bill authorized $21.8 billion, and the con-
ference report boosts that total by an
additional $340 million and this includes
only direct procurement authorizations.
In voting against the conference re-
port, however, I emphasize that a ma-
jor portion of the funds authorized by
the bill are for programs and projects
essential to an effective national defense.
For example, specifically, the Senate bill
and the conference report include $1,-
166,800,000 for the Trident submarine
program, representing about 5 percent
of the total funds in the bill. The Tri-
dent I believe is the capital ship of the
future for our Navy, and is essential
for a secure nuclear deterrent in the
coming decades.
But considering the severe economic
problems confronting our country, in-
ch:ding a declining gross national prod-
uct and spiraling inflation, I believe we
have a particular responsibility to bring
general Defense Department spending
under control and to eliminate nones-
sential spending.
When we considered the bill in the
Senate, I supported amendments to re-
duce substantially our military assist-
ance funds to South Vietnam, and to
cut back substantially the number of
American servicemen stationed overseas.
Unfortunately, those amendments,
which would have saved hundreds of
millions of dollars, were defeated.
The bill as reported by the confer-
ence committee is even more extravagant.
It increases military assistance to South
Vietnam by $100 million over the Sen-
ate bill to a total of $1 billion. Where
the Senate had required a modest re-
duction of 46,213 in military manpower,
the conference report imposes no mean-
ingful reduction. Where the Senate bill
had at least a modest provision requir-
ing a reduction of 23,000 in noncombat
support troops in Europe, that too was
watered down to 18,000 in the confer-
ence report. In addition, the conference
report restores nearly $400 million for
further work on the B-1 bomber, a highly
expensive new weapon system for which
there is no clear-cut security justifica-
tion.
If we are to keep Government spend-
ing under control, we must bring defense
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
S 13778 Approved For Releasg..240_6/02/07 ,? CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE July 30, L924
spending under control, and we mustbe-
gin to make hard distinctions between
essential expenditures and nonessential
wasteful expenditures. It is because I be-
lieve this bill fails to do so that I have
voted both against the bill when it was
considered by the Senate against ap-
proval of this even more expensive con-
ference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr.
HATHAWAY) . Under the previous order,
the vote will now occur oh the question
of agreeing to the conference report on
H.R. 14592. On this question, the yeas
and nays have been ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Formic/1r) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY) is ab-
sent on official business.
I further announce that. If Present
and voting, the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Hirmenary) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I annomice that the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Coon), and
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Form),
are necessarily absent.
/ further announce that,11 present and
voting, the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Forza) would vote "yea."
The result was announced?yeas 88,
nays 8, as follows:
[No. 333 Leg.]
YEAS-88
Aiken
Allen
Baker
Bartlett
Bayh
Beall
Be/Talon
Bennett
Bentsen
Bible
Brock
Brooke
Buckley
13urdick
Byrd, Inouye
Harry F., Jr. Jackson
Byrd, Robert C. Javits
Cannon Johnston
Case Kennedy
Chiles Long
Church
Cotton
Cranston
Curtis
Dole
DOWeellid.
Dominick
Eagleton
Eastland
Ervin
Fannin Moss
Goldwater Muskie
Gravel Nelson
Griffin Nunn
Gurney packwoOd
Hansen Pastore
Hart Pearson
Hartke Percy
Haskell Proxmire
Hathaway Randolph
Helms Sibicoff
Hollings Roth
Musks Schweiker
Huddleston Scott, Hugh
Scott,
William L.
llg)arkroan
Stafford
Stennis
Stevens
Magnuson Stevenson
Mathias Symington
McClellan Taft
McClure Talmadge
McGee Thurmond
McGovern Tower
McIntyre Tunney
Metcalf Weicker
Mondale Williams
Montoya Young
NAYS-13
AbOurezk Hatfield Metzenbaure
Bide= Hughes Fell
Clark Mane;flel d
NOT VOTING '1
Cook Polbright Kum p h rep
Fong
So the conference report was agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the con-
ference report was agreed to.
Mr. ThurtMOND. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, with this
conference report, the Senate of course
concludes its final work on the procure-
ment bill for this year.
Like all complicated legislation, it
would not have been possible to consider
and complete the intensive work on these
complicated subjects without the excel-
lent assistance of the armed services
staff, whose knowledge and experience
are always valuable.
The Senate knows we have a relatively
small staff of about 12 to 15 professional
persOns to handle our entire legiSative
load.
I wish to commend our entire staff
which is headed by T. Edward Braswell,
Jr., chief counsel and staff director. I
want each staff member to be aware of
the contribution he has made.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
tmarnmous consent that the Senate go
into executive session to consider the
nomination of Rear Adm. Edwin K.13ny-
der, who Is leaving the country this eve-
ning for a foreign assignment. The nom-
inatien was reported earlier today.
The PRESIDING OrlorCER. The nom-
ination will be stated.
U.S. NAVY
The legislative clerk read the nomi-
nation of Rear Adm. Edwin K. Snyder,
U.S. Navy, for commands and other du-
ties of great importance and responsibil-
ity commensurate with the grade of vice
admiral within the contemplation of title
10, United States Code, section 5231, for
appointment to the grade of vice ad-
miral 'while so serving.
Mr. STENNIS was recognized.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall
just take 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, Admiral
Snyder has been outstanding an our leg-
islative liaison officer for a couple of
years. Be is being promoted now and is
leaving tonight for Taiwan, where he
has an important assignment. I thank
It would be well, since there is a unani-
mous report, if we could confirm this
nomination today. I ask that the nomi-
nation be confirmed.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, I yield.
The PRESIDING Drool:att. The Sen-
ator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Ad-
miral Snyder is one of the ablest naval
officers with whom I have come in con-
tact. He has rendered a very fine service
here as Chief of Navy Liaison. I think
that most of the Senators know him. I
would hope that he could be confirmed
right away so that he can proceed with
his new: duties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the President be
notified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it Is so ordered.
LEGISLAriVe. SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate re-
turn to the consideration of legislative
business.
There being no objection, the Senate
resumed the consideration of legislative
business.
UNITED NATIONS WORLD FOOD
CONFERENCE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair, on behalf of the Vice President,
appoints the following Senators to at-
tend the United Nations Work!, Food
Conference, to be held in Rome Italy,
November 5-16, 1974: the Senator from
Ohio (Mr. lifirrzenesum). the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Paulson) the Sena-
tor from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD), and the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
limns) .
ORDEat OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIEW. Mr. President, what
is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OrterCER. Under the
previous order, the unfinished business,
S. 797, will be laid before the Senate.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask unanimous
consent that it continue to be laid aside
temporarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it Is so ordered.
EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1974
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
- ask unanimous consent that the Senate
turn to the consideration of S. 3'792, a
bill to amend and extend the Export
Administration Act of 1969; that it be
laid before the Senate and made the
pending business; that it remaixi. the
pending business until the hour of 3
o'clock, at which time, debate on the
cloture motion will get underway. At
4:15, the vote on cloture will occur. If
the vote on cloture fails, then I ask, on
the same status as of now, that the Sen-
ate then return to S. 3792, the iport
Administration Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The bill will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as 10113w5
A bill (S. 3792) to amend and extend the
Export, Mbaintatratla9 Act of 1969.
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. BATH. Will the Senator from
Illinois yield for 1 minute for a unini-
mous-consent request?
Mr. STE'VENSON. I yield.
Mr. BAYS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Howard
Paster and Ms. Barbara Dixon of my
staff be accorded the privilege of the
Senate floor during this debate. I have
two an:tem/meats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, ft Is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
irt,* 29, 1974 Approved Foe8sImEMINIM0larek5riztgEIRWMOR000700010059-2 H 7221
McClory
McKay
cSpadden
dden
no.
raziti
M in, N.C.
M his, Ga.
Ma e
Ma oil
Mel or
Metc to
Mezvi sky
Moorh d,
Calif.
Murphy, 11.
Murphy, Y.
Owens
Peyser
Pickle
Powell, Ohio
Rallsback
Rangel
Ranch
Reid
Robison, N.Y.
Rodino
Rooney, N.Y.
Rose
Roy
Ruppe
Sandman
Sarbanes
Schneebell
Sebelius
Seiberling
Shriver
Sisk
Smith, N.Y.
Stark
Steed
Steele
Stuckey
Symms
Talcott
Teague
Thornton
Towell, Nev.
Treen
Udall
Vander Jagt
Waldie
Whitten
Wiggins
Wilson, Bob
Wilson,
Charles IL,
Calif.
Young, Alaska
Young, Ill.
The SP KER. On this rollcall 303
Members h e recorded their presence
by electroni ? evice, a quorum.
By unani us consent, further pro-
ceedings unde the call were dispensed
with.
PROVIDING AD
HEARINGS
JUDICIARY C
PEACHMENT
TIONAL COPIES OF
FINAL REPORT OF
MITTEE ON IM-
UIRY
Mr. BRADEMAS. r. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Comm ee on House Ad-
mihistration, I submit rivileged report
(Rept. No. 93-1228) o the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 66) to provide
additional copies of he ngs and the
final report of the Judie! Committee
on the impeachment inqui and ask for
immediate consideration o e concur-
rent resolution.
The Clerk read the concurr ii t resolu-
tion, as follows:
H. CON. RES. 566
Resolved by the House of Repres
(the Senate concurring), That there
printed for use of the Committee
Judiciary five thousand additional co
all parts of its hearings concerning th
peachment inquiry, pursuant to H. Res.
SEC. 2. There shall be printed for the
of the House Committee on the Judiciary
thousand additional copies of its final r
to the House.
Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, ouse
Concurrent Resolution 566 wo d pro-
vide the Committee on the Judi with
additional copies of several do ents of
the committee relating to t impeach-
ment inquiry.
First, the resolution wuld authorize
the printing of 5,000 additional copies
of the hearings concerhing the impeach-
ment inquiry. These qpcuments will in-
clude the transcriptV of eight recorded
Presidential conversgions; a comparison
of certain portions SA the White House
and Judiciary Co ittee versions of the
tapes; evidentiar materials submitted
to the committee, eluding material sub-
mitted by the Pr -.ident's counsel, Mr. St.
Clair; and tr ripts of oral testimony
before the co ittee.
The resolut n would also authorize the
printing of ,000 additional copies of
the commit e's final report to the
House on t impeachment inquiry.
Mr. Sp r, the purpose of this reso-
lution 1 to provide the Committee on
the J ciary with sufficient copies of
thes ocuments to fill requests to the
committee from Members of Congress
and from the public.
tatives
all be
the
s of
m-
The committee was authorized by the
House of Representatives to conduct a
full and complete investigation to deter-
mine whether sufficient grounds exist for
the House to exercise its constitutioral
power to impeach the President of the
United States and to report to the House
such resolutions, articles of impeach-
ment, or other recommendations, as it
deems proper.
For the last several months, the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary has considered
volumes of evidentiary material, and
during the last few weeks, it has re-
ceived oral testimony from a number of
witnesses.
The committee believed that it was in
the public interest to release all this i
formation and evidentiary materi
Mr. Speaker, by -law the Commit in
the Judiciary is limited to a little r a
thousand copies of each of the ? ocu-
ments. However, the comm has
found that this supply is to inade-
quate to meet the great de for these
documents. This resolutio iuld simply
provide the committee h additional
copies of these import documents to
meet this demand, I urge my col-
leagues to support e Senate amend-
ment to this resol n.
Mr. GROSS. Peaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. BRAD AS. I yield to the gen-
tleman fro owa.
Mr. GR . Mr. Speaker, this propo
sal, unli the one that was. defeate
under t uspension of the rules, reduce
in th rst instance the number from
10,11 ;? 5,000 copies and in the second
ins ce reduces the number from 50,000
to ,000 copies.
r. BRADEMAS. The gentleman is
rrect except that in the first instance,
he number is reduced from 20,000 to
5,000 copies.
Mr. GROSS. Would the gentleman
state how the reduced number of copies
will be distributed?
Mr. BRADEMAS. Copies would be
made available, I will say to the gentle-
an from Iowa, to the Committee on the
diciary for distribution in response to
uests, as I said earlier, on the part of
bers of Congress and of the public.
Member of the House should by
ave received one set of the several
s that have already been printed
e standing authority of the coin-
the House to print 1,000 copies
uments. There is no stipula-
esolution providing that each
he House receive a certain
umes.
Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
ther?
S. Of course, I yield
tleman from Iowa.
Speaker, have these
Ea
no
vol
unde
mittee
of such
tion in th
Member o
number of
Mr. GRO
tleman yield
Mr. BRAD
further to the
Mr. GROSS.
copies been printe
Mr. BRADEMA o, they have not
been-printed.
Mr. GROSS. The p vious request for
printing 10,000 copie the first in-
stance and 50,000 in the cond instance
would have resulted in a arge of some
$1 million?
Mr. BRADEMAS. If the gentleman will
allow me to make one correction in what
he said, the previous resolut'
have provided not for 10
20,000 copies.
Mr. GROSS. And wo
In a bill close to $1 m
Mr. BRADEMA
correct.
Mr. GROSS
the commit
substantial
will cut
the nee
Mr
ma
? would
but for
ave resulted
e gentleman is
Speaker, I commend
or having reduced very
e number. It certainly
cost and I believe it will fit
therefore have no objection.
ADEMAS. I thank the gentle-
om Iowa.
e concurrent resolution was agreed
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
able.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may hate 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks on the
concurrent resolution just agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
(Mr. BRADEMAS asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
Lis remarks.)
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 14592,
AUTHORIZING MILITARY PRO-
CUREMENT APPROPRIATIONS,
1975
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R.
14592) to authorize appropriations dur-
ing the fiscal year 1975 for procurement
of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels,
tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and
other weapons, and research, develop-
ment, test and evaluation for the Armed
Forces, and to prescribe the authorized
personnel strength for each active duty
component and of the Selected Reserve
of each Reserve component of the Armed
Forces and of civilian personnel of the
Department of Defense, and to authorize
the military training student loads and
for other purposes, and ask unanimous
consent that the statement Of the man-
agers be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of July 24,
1974.)
Mr. HEBERT (during the reading).
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the
conference report (H. Rept. 93-1212)
has been printed and available to the
Members and also printed in the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD Of Wednesday,
July 24, 1974, I ask unanimous consent
that further reading of the statement be
dispensed with.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
H 7222 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE -July 29,
(Mr. HtBERT asked and was given
Permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
HtBERT. Mr. toeaker, your
House conferees on H.R. 14592 are
pleased to report that they have reached
an agreement with the other body in re-
spect to the differences: between the
House and Senate actions on this legis-
lation.
This bill will provide the fiscal year
1975 authorization to the armed serv-
ices for appropriations for the procure-
ment of weapons systems and related
research, development, test, and evalua-
tion. It will also, among other things,
prescribe the authorized personnel
strengths of both the Active and Reserve
components of our Armed Forces, and
the civilian personnel strength of the
Department of Defense.
The President's fiscal year 1975 budget
contains a total authorization request of
$23.1 billion for these purposes. This re-
quest was reduced by the House to $22.6
billion, while the Senate authorized $21.8
billion.
As a result of the conference to resolve
the differences between the House and
Senate actions on this administration
request, the new total reflected in the
conference report is $22.195 billion.
Thus, the conference report is $340.1
million more than the measure voted by
the Senate, and it is approximately $448
million less than the $22.6 billion previ-
ously approved by the House.
For purposes of the printed REC 03D, I
will incorporate at this point in my state-
ment a comparative summary by major
weapons categories, actions previously
taken by the two bodies on this bill to-
gether with the final conference action:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FISCAL YEAR 1975 AUTHORIZATION BILL, SUMMARY BY MAJOR WEAPON CATEGORY
On thousands of dollars]
Request House
Senate Authorized
Aircraft:
Army
- 339, 500 335, 000 320,300 320, 300
Navy and Marine Corps 2, 960, 600 2964, 100 2,862, 700 2, 866,200
Air Force 3,496, 600 3,391, 400 3, 286, 300 3, 286, 300
Subtotal 6,796, 700 6,690, 500 6, 469, 300 6,472, 800
Missiles:
Army__ 459, 200 439, 400 436, 500
Navy 4 620,600 620,600 634,500
Marine Corps - 76, 000 76, 000 74,100
Air Force - 1, 610, 800 1,610, 800 1, 556, 800
436,500
634,500
74,100
1,579,200
Subtotal 2, 766, 600 2, 746, 800 2, 701, 900 2, 724, 300
Naval vessels: Navy 3, 562, 600 3,539, 100 2, 056, 200 3, 156, 400
Tracked combat vehicles:
Army 331, 900 321, 200 293, 300
Marine Corps 80, 100 74, 200 74, 200
300, 600
74,200
Subtotal 412, 000 $95, 400 367, 500
Torpedoes: Navy 187, 700 387,700 187, 700
374,800
187,700
Other weapons:
Army 53 400 55, 700
25, 600 25, 600
Navy......
46, 000 52, 200
25, 500 25, 500
Request House Senate Authorized
Marine Corps 500 500 500 500
Subtotal 79, 500 81,800 72,000 78, 200
Total procurement--- ? 11,805, 100 13, 641, 300 12, 654, 600 12,994, 200
Research, development, test, and evalua-
tion:
1, 985, 976 1, 878, 397 1, 883, 216 1, 878, 397
Navy 3, 264, 503 3, 153, 006 3, 178, 742 3, 153, 006
Air Force 3, 518, 860 3, 459, 760 3, 389, 470 3, 389, 517
Defense agencies --:=-..: 528, 700 485, 500 509, 657 491, 057
Test and evaluation,_- =-: --------27,000 25, 000 27, 000 25, 000
Gross total R.O.T. & E_ - - 9,325, 039 9, 001, 663 3,988, 085 8,936, 977
Reimbursements from foreign mili-
tary sales - - -35, 673 -35, 673
Net total R.D.T. & E. - 9,325, 039 9, 001, 663 8, 952, 412 8, 901, 304
Total procuremert and RAT. & 6. 23, 130, 139 24 642, 963 21, 607, 012 21 895, 504
Procurement assistance to South Vietnam
(title VII) (287, 360) (263, 860) 212, 300 263, 860
Grand total rrocurement and
R.D.T. &E_._._._.-. 23, 130, 139 22, 642, 963 21, 819, 312 22, 159, 364
The conference action required 15 sep-
arate meetings during the period June
20 through July 23, 1974.
Lest some Members of this body mini-
mize the problems confronted by your
conferees, let me briefly review the mag-
nitude of the differences.
The procurement portion of the bill
contained 54 major differences involving
weapons systems.
The research, development, test, and
evaluation portion of the bill contained
89 significant program differences.
Further complicating this problem
were 49 substantive language differences.
Each of these language differences cre-
ated a separate set of problems involv-
ing, for example, items such as: Active
duty manpower strengths; civilian per-
sonnel strengths; reserve Strengths; re-
search on animals; missile flight testing
from operational bases in the United
States; disposal of naval vessels; restric-
tions on CIA activities; utilization of the
Island of Culebra for tatget practice;
restrictions on the export ee technology;
and recomputation of military retired
Pay.
All of these, and many- more, taxed
the patience and the capabilities of your
House Conferees. Seven of the language
differences were rejected by the House
conferees on the basis of the House rule
regarding germaneness. However, this
was only accomplished after consider-
able discussion because of the under-
standable reluctance of the Senate con-
ferees to acknowledge or accept the leg-
islative restrictions imposed by the
House rules.
Certain of the differences, such as that
relating to the exporting of our technol-
ogy to foreign countries were only re-
solved by substantial language changes
that brought the provision within the
House rules.
My purpose in mentioning all of these
facets of the conference problems is to
enable the Members to better understand
the reason why the conference meetings
were so protracted.
Details of the conference action have
been printed in the CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD, dated Wednesday, June 24, 1974. I
trust that all the Members have had an
opportunity to review the detailed state-
ment of managers in explanation of the
action taken by the conferees. However,
In view of the special interest that many
Members have in specific actions taken
by the conferees, I will now briefly refer
to a few of them and attempt to explain
further the basis for the action taken.
MASS'
The Defense Department had re-
quested $1.6 billion in support of the
MASF program for fiscal year 1975. The
House authorized $1.126 billion for this
purpose, while the Senate recommended
a total of $900 million. The conferees
resolved this difference by agreeing upon
a program limitation of $1 billion for
military assistance to South Vietnam
during fiscal year 1975
Both bodies had agreed that this pro-
gram should be subject to separate ac-
counting for obligations incurred under
the program. However, the Senate, in
addition, recommended separate appro-
priations for this account. Your :Elouse
conferees accepted this Senate action
as being consistent with the objectives
of the House and therefore agreed to
the Senate language. In taking this ac-
tion, the House conferees therefore
agreed to transfer $263.9 million from
title I, of the procurement title, to a new
title in the bill establishing a new pro-
gram for military assistance to South
Vietnam which is not service funded.. In
essence, therefore, the military s.ssist-
ance program for South Vietnam will be
handled essentially as a MAP .program
rather than a MASF program.
RESEARCH ON DOW
The Senate amendment contained a
provision prohibiting the use of funds
authorized by this act for the purpose
of carrying out research, testing, and/or
evaluation of poisonous gases, radioactive
materials, poisonous chemicals, biologi-
cal or chemical warfare agents upon
dogs. No similar provision appeared in
the House bill.
The conferees examined the merits of
the provision most carefully. We ascer-
tained that adoption of this provision
without modification would completely
prohibit the conduct of all research in-
volving the use of dogs even though the
purpose was for the health and safety
of civilian and military defense person-
nel, or for the benefit of' dogs and other
animals.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP758003_80R000700030059-2
duly 29, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 7223
The conferees learned that in certain
Instances dogs have been indispensable
species in research efforts which have
contributed significantly to the health
of human beings. For example, univer-
sity experts related their experiments
with a chemical that is found as a con-
taminant in the preparation of white
flour for bread. When the bread contain-
ing this chemical was fed to dogs, even
with very low levels of the chemical, it
caused seizures. The importance of this
finding was that a similar occurrence of
convulsions might be expected in chil-
dren. Of particular significance was the
fact that when this bread containing this
contaminant was fed to other species of
animal life, no adverse effects were
observed.
In view of these circumstances, the
conferees agreed to modify the language
of the Senate amendment to embrace
the prohibition adopted by the Senate in
respect to prohibiting the utilization of
dogs in research for the purpose of de-
veloping biological or chemical weapons
but provided a provision which continues
to permit research on dogs for other pur-
poses to improve and save lives.
EXPORT OF TECHNOLOGY
One of the more complex and difficult
problems confronting the conferees re-
sulted from a Senate amendment which
would have provided the Secretary of
Defense with very broad authority relat-
ing to the granting of export licenses on
the sale of goods or technology to foreign
countries. There was, of course, no simi-
lar provision in the House bill.
The language of the Senate amend-
ment as written, was clearly in violation
of the House rule regarding germane-
ness and our conferees so informed the
representatives of the Senate. However,
the conferees on the part of the Senate
insisted on inclusion of some language re-
lating to this problem and agreed to
modify it in a manner which would be
consistent with the House rule of ger-
maneness.
After considerable discussion, the con-
ferees agreed to restrict the application
of this provision to goods, technology,
and industrial techniques which have
been developed in whole or in part as a
direct or indirect result of research and
development or procurement programs
of the Department of Defense. In taking
this action, the conferees were unani-
mous in their expression of concern over
the fact that our country has, in the
past, apparently unwittingly committed
itself to the sale of items which undoubt-
edly will enhance the military capabili-
ties of our potential enemies.
Let me emphasize that the language
adopted by the conferees is not designed,
in any way, to modify or amend the pro-
visions of the Export Administration Act.
Rather, they are designed to simply in-
sure that the voice of the Secretary of
Defense will be given appropriate atten-
tion during the decisionmaking processes
in the executive branch when the subject
of export licenses is being considered.
At a time when the cost of military
hardware is becoming astronomical it
makes no sense whatsoever to further
compound the defense problem by pro-
viding our potential enemies with the
fruits of sophisticated American tech-
nology. Technology that will inevitably
be used by these countries to our dis-
advantage. Action of this kind only serves
to require further defense expenditures
on our part to meet the increased threat
posed by our potential enemies.
It was therefore necessary that our
House conferees join with our Senate col-
leagues in attempting to fashion lan-
guage in this bill which would serve to
dampen the requirement for new and
higher defense expenditures.
I believe the language adopted by the
conferees will accomplish its objectives
without conflicting with the House rules.
The conferees are unanimous in their
view that this provision should cause rep-
resentatives of the executive branch to
exercise greater care and caution when
making a decision involving the transfer
of U.S. technology to Iron Curtain coun-
tries.
RECOMPVTATION OF MILITARY RETIRED PAY
As in previous years, the Senate bill
contained a floor amendment not con-
sidered in committee which would have
provided recomputation of military re-
tired pay on the basis of the January 1,
1972, pay scales. The House bill contained
no similar provision.
Prior to going to conference with the
Senate, I ascertained that the language
relating to the recomputation of military
retired pay was nongermane to the House
bill and therefore in conflict with the
rules of the House. Under these circum-
stances therefore, the House conferees
refused to accept the Senate provision.
The House conferees, however, advised
our Senate colleagues that the Commit-
tee on Armed Services plans to consider
major legislative revisions to the military
retirement system in the near future.
Therefore, the committee will be amen-
able during those hearings to hear any
recommendations involving recomputa-
tion of military retired pay that may be
advanced by representatives of organiza-
tions who request the opportunity to be
heard by the Committee.
CONCLUSION
Your House conferees did not achieve
all of their objectives in this conference;
we were forced to give up House positions
in respect to a substantial number of
items in order to achieve a reasonable
compromise with the other body.
The conference report does however,
in my. judgment, represent a sound and
reasonable compromise of approximately
200 differences between the House and
Senate versions of H.R. 14592.
I therefore urge its support by every
member of this body.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. HEBERT. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. This figure of $22.195 bil-
lion, I believe that is what the gentleman
is talking about.
Mr. HEBERT. Yes.
Mr. GROSS. And included in the re-
port, does that include the replacement
for the weapons that went to Israel last
year?
Mr. HEBERT. It has nothing to do
with Israel.
Mr. GROSS. Does it provide the funds
for replacement of weapons?
Mr. HEBERT. Most of the funds for
the replacement were contained in the
fiscal year 1974 supplemental; however,
there is a continuing replacement re-
quirement and therefore funds provid-
ing for the replacement of certain
weaponry given to Israel are included in
this bill.
Mr. GROSS. Well, that was passed late
last year or early this year and is taken
care of in this authorization bill?
In terms of replacement?
Mr. HEBERT. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HEBERT. I yield to the gentleman
from Minnesota.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, on page
11 of the conference report, in section
709, subparagraph (b), the Secretary of
Defense is given authority over the ex-
port of goods, technology and techniques
which will significantly increase the pres-
ent or potential military capability of
such country.
In paragraph (c) , he is given the power
to recommend to the President that the
export be disapproved if it significantly
increases the present or potential ma-
terial capability of that controlled coun-
try.
Since this was not in the House bill
and did appear only on the floor of the
Senate, and has been modified slightly in
conference, I would ask the chairman
if he can tell me what is meant by the
word "significantly." I am interested in
knowing whether the shipments of ma-
terials which are generally available in
the world market, and particularly avail-
able from our trading competitors in Eu-
rope and Japan, might be included under
that definition of significantly enhanc-
ing the military.
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I will refer
that question to the gentleman from
Illinois, the chairman of the Subcommit-
tee on Research and Development.
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, if
the gentleman will yield, I will say that
actually this amendment does not do
much more than state the authority in
the law already, except that this pin-
points the problem we are now having
and empasizes the intent of the confer-
ence that we be exceptionally careful in
exporting materials and technology that
can enhance the military position of the
countries that we had in mind when we
redrafted this amendment.
There are goods such as computers
and related technology that obviously
would contribute to the military capabil-
ity of these countries. This is what we
are concerned with.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman, but if the chairman will
yield further, we do have a process that
works now under the Export Administra-
tion Act. The chairman of the subcom-
mittee indicates that this process will not
be much different, and certainly I would
feel more comfortable if I thought the
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
H 7224
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE July 29, 1974
criteria were to be much the same as
exists now, under which the Defense De-
partment does have a regular and con-
sistent chance to object to the issuing of
export licenses.
I was led to believe in some informal
discussions that the managers felt that
this would be an unusual power and
probably would not be used very much. I
would not want some of our exporters to
have the feeling that there might be sec-
ond guessing on a regular basis by the
Defense Department. That is why I am
interested in knowing what is the sig-
nificant potential.
Does a machine which can be used to
manufacture a military weapon, but can
also be used for other purposes and
which in fact is available on the world
market does that come under that def-
inition? I would think not, and I would
like the chairman's assurance that it
does not.
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the
effort here is to make certain that the
Secretary of Defense is listened to when
he does make an objection. We have ba-
sically had the policy in existence for a
long time, but we have too much evidence
in the past that the Secretary of Defense
was not listened to when he did raise
objection based on national security.
We have quite a list of items in which
this has occurred. The effort behind this
particular amendment is to reemphasize
the importance of listening to those who
are particularly involved in security, na-
tional security.
Mr. FRENZEL. If the chairman will
yield further, would the gentleman then
say that the Secretary of Defense will use
the same standards that he has used in
the past, and this was simply to get his
input heard in stronger fashion?
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Yes, I would say
that would be the case.
(Mr. BRAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sup-
port of the conference action on H.R.
14592 and recommend adoption of the
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Louisiana, has given the Members a
thorough summary of the action taken
by your conferees. This statement of the
chairman, together with the conference
report, should answer any questions that
may be in the minds of any of the Mem-
bers. However, I would like to briefly
elaborate on the action taken by the
conferees in respect to the so-called
Jackson amendment regarding the ex-
port of U.S. technology to Iron Curtain
countries.
At the outset, let me emphasize that
I strongly support the administration's
efforts to increase our foreign trade so
as to overcome any deficit that we may
now have in our balance of payments,
but I oppose with great vigor any blind
commitment to this policy which will
cause us to transfer to our potential
enemies the goods and technology which
American labor and management has de-
veloped and which will result in enhanc-
ing the military capability of our poten-
tial enemies.
As indicated by the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, it is the
height of folly to spend billions on new
weaponry and then in the same breath
transfer to our potential enemies so-
phisticated devices and technology which
ultimately will neutralize this weaponry.
OUr primary advantage over the Sov-
iets is the advance level of technology,
both scientific and industrial, which we
have over that totalitarian state. That
Is the difference, in my judgment, be-
tween freedom and slavery.
We are in a horserace with the Soviet
Union and at the present time our tech-
nology has given us a lap on our oppon-
ents--yet, there are some myopic bu-
reauerats in the executive branch who
would literally give away the industrial
techniques and secrets that not only per-
mits us to maintain our military secu-
rity but also contributes immeasureably
to our industrial might.
The American laboring man is the
envy of the world. He has achieved eco-
nomic advantages that are but "an im-
possible dream" for his counterparts in
Soviet bloc countries. Much of this eco-
nomic advantage of the American work-
ingman over his foreign contemporary
Is due to our industrial know-how and
industrial techniques. Thus, to export
the advantage of this industrial tech-
nique to Soviet bloc countries borders
on absolute madness. It will ultimately
pit American free labor against the slave
labor of totalitarian countries, such as
the Soviet Union.
We are all aware of ongoing negotia-
tions to transfer the aviation industry's
production know-how on wide-bodied
aircraft to a Soviet bloc nation.
One of the largest aircraft manufac-
turers in America is planning to build a
large factory in a Soviet bloc nation,
not only to build wide-bodied aircraft
but to teach the labor and technicians
in that country how to operate such a
factory. While such a factory may make
a short-term profit for the company,
such action will injure our American
military defensive strength and also
cause the export of tens of thousands of
American jobs in the aircraft industry
to foreign countries, an industry in which
today our country is preeminent.
We are all aware of the ongoing effort
of the Soviet Union to acquire our latest
computer technology. Unless prompt and
proper action is taken, we will lose our
superiority in this most important field.
These are some of the considerations
which prompted your conferees to em-
brace the Jackson amendment, albeit in
a drastically reduced farm to guard
against this kind of "death wish" that
seems to be the order of the day in soroe
offices of the executive branch. The
Jackson amendment was nongermane to
this legislation but as we have rewritten
the amendment, it is now germane.
Action is needed immediately on this
restraint on the transfer of American
know-how to the Communist bloc. A
country that does not protect its national
security, and the well-being of its citi-
zens will not prosper.
I trust that my colleagues will unan-
imously adopt this conference report.
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
as a participant in the conference, I rise
in support of the conference report of
the Armed Services Committee on the
Department of Defense Approp titian
Authorization Act, 1975. I am particu-
larly proud that we were successful in
working out with the other body the final
language of Title VIII--Nuclear Pow-
ered Navy. This title will make it: "the
policy of the United States of America
to modernize the strike forces of the US,
Navy by the construction of nuclear
powered major combatant vessels and
to provide for an adequate industrial
base for the research, clevelopmer t, de-
sign, construction, operation, and main-
tenance for such vessels."
I, as chairman of the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy, wcaild like to corn-
ment on some early history of the nu-
clear navy and the leadership the Con-
gress provided in the eonstructim of
nuclear-powered warships. Title VIII
enunciates and confirms the policy of
the Joint Committee.
This is a policy that the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy has advecated
for more than a decade. Those of us on
the Joint Committee, as well as many
members of the House and Senate ..e rrned
Services and Appropriations Corunit-
tees, who have studied this issue for
many years, have been astonished 1y the
lack of foresight exhibited by the ex-
ecutive branch in failing to recognize
the necessity of providing our riajor
warships with nuclear propulsion.
I am proud that in enacting thi: leg-
islation it is the Congress which will
demonstrate foresight, courage, and wis-
dom by taking this initiative to
strengthen the defense of our Nation.
I am sure that naval historians wit cite
this action as a classic example of Con-
gress exercising its power under a ticle
I, section 8, of the Constitution "to pro-
vide and maintain a Navy."
Title VIII will provide by law that all
future major combatant vessels built for
the strike forces of the U.S. Navy shell be
nuclear powered. The act clearly defines
this to mean all future combatant sub-
marines, aircraft carriers, and carrier
escorts such as cruisers, frigates, and de-
stroyers. Title VIII stipulates that hence-
forth all requests for authorization or ap-
propriation of funds for construction of
major combatants for the strike forces
shall be for nuclear powered ships "un-
less and until the President of the Urited
States has fully advised the Congress that
construction of nuclear powered ve,5sels
for such purposes is not in the national
Interest." It says:
Such reports of the President to the Con-
gress shall include for consideration by Con-
gress an alternate program of nuclear pow-
ered ships with appropriate design, cost, and
schedule information.
The enactment of title VIII means that
the Defense Department and the Navy
must now stop wasting the taxpayers
funds on further studies Of diesel sub-
marines, non-nuclear aircraft carriers,
and non-nuclear carrier escorts.
The need for nuclear propulsion in
major combatant vessels for our naval
strike forces has been studied to deeth,
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
29, 1974 Approved For Release 2O006m2/07 ? CatpP7RMOR000700030059-2
CONGRESSINAL RECOR
despite the clearly demonstrated ad-
vantages of nuclear warships. The con-
tinued record of Defense Department
delay in approving nuclear warships
demonstrates the urgent need for this
matter to be resolved by the legislative
process, so that further progress is not
impeded by each newly appointed civilian
or military bureaucrat who is in a posi-
tion to stop progress in the executive
bureaucracy.
Ever since the beginning of the naval
nuclear propulsion program the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy has seen
to it that we get our information first
hand. We have visited the laboratories
where the development work is being
done. We visited the land prototype site
where the original testing for the Nauti-
lus was being done. As soon as she was
completed we held hearings on the Nau-
tilus submerged and at sea. We later held
hearings aboard the Skipjack, the first
of the higher speed, single-screw nuclear
submarines. In 1960, prior to the first
successful launching of a Polaris missile
from a submerged nuclear submarine, we
held a 2-day meeting of the Joint Com-
mittee at sea aboard the U.S.S. George
Washington, the first Polaris submarine.
When the first nuclear carrier Enter-
prise was finished we flew to Guanta-
namo and held hearings aboard the ship
during her shakedown trials off Cuba
in early 1962. Many of you will remember
the fight that erupted the following year
when Secretary of Defense McNamara
decided against providing nuclear pro-
pulsion for the aircraft carrier John F.
Kennedy. The Joint Committee held ex-
tensive hearings in the fall of 1963 on
"Nuclear Propulsion for Naval Surface
Vessels." We published a committee
analysis which pointed out in detail the
errors in the Department of Defense
analysis. The Joint Committee 1963 re-
port specifically recommended "that the
United States adopt the policy of utiliz-
ing nuclear propulsion in all future ma-
jor surface warships." Regretfully the
Kennedy throughout its life will be de-
pendent on a train of tankers, but those
of us who carried on the fight did finally
succeed in having Secretary McNamara
authorize the Nimitz class of nuclear air-
craft carriers.
Throughout the early 1960's the Joint
Committee and the House and Senate
Armed Services and Appropriations
Committees engaged in extensive corre-
spondence with the Department of De-
fense over the issue of nuclear propul-
sion for surface warships. For anyone in-
terested, much of that correspondence is
Published on pages 245 through 318 of
the Joint Committee hearing print en-
titled "Naval Nuclear Propulsion Pro-
gram 1967-68."
In the late 1960's Congress, based on
recommendations of the House Armed
Services Committee, succeeded in getting
a nuclear frigate building program es-
tablished, but we had to resort to man-
datory language in the law to do so.
The Defense Department plan was to
stop authorizing any nuclear submarines
by 1970. Some senior analysts in the
Pentagon even recommended sinking 10
of our Polaris submarines as a cost sav-
ing measure. Several committees of Con-
gress held special hearings in 1968 on
the nuclear submarine program. As a re-
sult of this, Congress not only demanded
that we continue building nuclear attack
submarines but that we proceed with
submarines of higher speed and greater
quietness.
Three years ago the Department of
Defense suddenly terminated plans to
build more nuclear frigates and the nu-
clear carrier Carl Vinson CVN-70. They
did this even though a special subcom-
mittee of the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees had issued an 800-
page hearing record and a report which
concluded we should go ahead with the
CVN-70.
Senator JACKSON immediately called
for hearings of the Military Applications
Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy. We reviewed the whole
subject of nuclear propulsion for naval
warships, submarine, and surface. In ad-
dition to the testimony of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of
Naval Operations, and Admiral Rickover,
we obtained the written comments of the
Deputy Secretary of Defense. The record
of this investigation is included in the
Joint Committee print titled "Hearing
and Subsequent Inquiry of the Subcom-
mittee on Military Applications on Nu-
clear Propulsion for Naval Warships,
May 5, 1971-September 30, 1972." That
print on pages 123-277 includes a
"Chronological Summary of the History'
of Nuclear Propulsion for Surface Ships"
in which Admiral Rickover cites in detail
all of the lengthy studies that have been
made of this subject over the past quar-
ter century. Also on pages 278 to 333 of
this print are published 26 items of of-
ficial correspondence concerning nuclear
carriers and nuclear frigates.
The perturbations in the world sup-
plies of petroleum gave us a special con-
cern relative to the supply of fuel for our
warships. By letter dated January 5,
1974, I expressed these concerns to the
Department of Defense. I would like to
include this exchange in the RECORD fol-
lowing my remarks.
More recently the Joint Committee re-
port dated April 3, 1974, on the fiscal year
1975 Atomic Energy Commission appro-
priation authorization stated:
The recent interruptions in the avail-
ability of foreign petroleum fuel supplies
have highlighted the vulnerability of our
petroleum supply lines. It is obvious that
in time of war it may well be impossible to
provide petroleum to our naval striking
forces in areas of highest threat. This in-
creased vulnerability again accents the im-
portance of providing nuclear propulsion for
our first-line warships. The committee, ac-
cordingly, reiterates its longstanding recom-
mendation that all new surface submarine
first-line striking forces be provided with
nuclear propulsion.
The need for nuclear propulsion for
major combatant vessels for our first-
line naval strike forces is completely
documen:ed. In _.ddition to the annual
thorough review of the naval nuclear
propulsion program there have been
many special congressional hearings and
reports issued on valious aspects of naval
nuclear propulsion. I will include a list
of some of these reports in the RECORD
following my statement.
II 7225
This bill also authorizes construction
of our eighth nuclear frigate, the DLGN
41, and contains additional long lead
funding for our ninth nuclear frigate,
the DLNG 42, It has been only through
the strong resolve of Congress that these
nuclear frigates have , been authorized
, to be built for the Navy?after they were
canceled by the Department of Defense
3 years ago.
Based on my past experience with the
naval nuclear propulsion issue I would
not be surprised to learn that attempts
will again be made in the Department
of Defense to cancel or delay their con-
struction. It should be clearly under-
stood that it is the definite intent of Con-
gress that these ships be built now as
follow ships of the Virginia DLGN 38
class, using existing shipbuilding con-
tract options.
In this connection this bill also con-
tains research and development funds
for a new weapons system, a develop-
ment called Aegise, which is intended to
be an improvement over existing ship-
board antiair warfare weaponry, but
which is years from being ready to be
committed to ship construction. Al-
though Aegis should be considered for
installation in nuclear frigates after it
has been successfully developed, the
DLGN 41 and DLGN 42 must not be de-
layed to wait for it.
All too often the desire for improved
weapons which are off in the future has
been used as an excuse for not building
ships. If a war should erupt we will have
to fight it with the ships we have, not the
ones we hope to have many years in the
future. To follow such a course could be
fatal. With the investment we have in
the four nuclear carriers in commission
and under construction it would be dead
wrong to defer building the DLGN 41 and
DLGN 42 which are vitally' needed to
escort these nuclear carriers for literal-
ly years to wait for this new weapons
system. I hope this point is clear to all.
Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague
from California, CHET HOLIFIELD, who
also has been chairman of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy, and I are
the only two remaining charter members
of the Joint Committee. The experience
and knowledge I have gained through a
quarter century on that committee has,
I believe, given me a special insight into
all aspects of the naval nuclear propul-
sion program. Based on everything I have
learned from studying this issue in detail
for over 25 years. I can state categorically
that the need for nuclear propulsion in
naval strike force ships has been prov-
en, needs no further study before a de-
cision is made, and is of the most vital
need for our country and our Navy.
It gives me great personal pleasure to
be able to cast my vote for this truly his-
toric legislation. I am sure that I speak
for CHET HOLIFIELD, whose final days in
this chamber will be brightened by the
result which culminates the long fight
many of us have carried on for so long,
and marks the turning point for a new
Navy which will be second to none.
The hearings and reports on the naval
nuclear propulsion program published by
committees of the Congress includes:
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
H 7226
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE July 29, 19/4
LIST OF HEARINGS AND REPORTS
Hearings of the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy Subcommittee on Research and De-
velopment chaired by Congressman Melvin
Price and the Subcommittee on Military Ap-
plications chaired by Senator Henry M. Jack-
son on "Naval Reactor Program and Ship-
pingport Project" dated Mach 7 and April
12, 1957.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy "Re-
view of Naval Reactor Proper= and Admiral
Rickover Award" dated April 11, 1959, chaired
by Senator Clinton P. Anderson held aboard
the USS Skipjack at sea while the nuclear
submarine was establishing new records for
speed and depth of operation.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy review
of "Naval Reactor Program and Polaris Mis-
sile Systems" chaired by Senator Clinton P.
Anderson held at sea on board the first Po-
laris submarine, the USS George Washington,
on April 9, 1960.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy "ToUr
of the USS Enterprise mad lelport on Joint
AEC-Naval Reactor Program dated March
31, 1962, chaired by Congressman Chet Hall-
field held at sea aboard the 1JSS Enterprise
while operating at sea off Guantanamo Naval
Base, Cuba.
Joint Committee on Atomie Energy, June
26, 27, July 23, 1963 and July 1,1964, hearings
on "Loss of the USS Thresher" chaired by
Senator John 0. Pastore.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy hear-
ing on "Nuclear Propulsion fier Naval Sur-
face Vessels** dated October 30, 31 and No-
vember 13, 1963, chaired by Senator John 0.
Pastore. This was followed by a special De-
cember 1963 report of the Jointeommittee on
Atomic Energy which recommended:
1. That the decision to install conven-
tional propulsion in the new aircraft carrier,
CVA-67 should be set aside and plans made
to install nuclear propulsion in this ship;
and
2. That the United States adopt the policy
of utilizing nuclear propulsion in all future
mayor surface warships; and
3. That a vigorous research and develop-
ment program for surface warship nuclear
propulsion be continued.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Janu-
ary 26, 1966, hearing on "Naval Nuclear Pro-
pulsion Program 1966" chaired by Congress-
man Chet Holifield.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, March
16, 1967 and February 8, 1968, hearings on
"Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program 1967-68"
chaired by Senator John 0. Pastore.
Senate Armed Services Preparedness and
Investigating Subcommittee chaired by Sen-
ator John Stennis, hearings on "U.S. Subma-
rine Program" dated March 1$, 15, 19, 27,
1968. This was followed by a special report of
the Subcommittee on the "United States
Submarine Program" dated September 23,
1968, which recommended that the nuclear
attack submarine construction program be
continued beyond fiscal year Ivo, that the
development of the high speed submarine
and the electric drive submarine proceed,
and that work begin promptly on the devel-
opment of a submarine of advanced design.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy hear-
ings on "Nuclear Submarines of Advanced
Design Parts I and II" dated June 21 and
July 25, 1968, chaired by Congressman Chet
Holifield.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, April
23, 1969 hearing on -Naval Nuclear Propul-
sion Program 1969" chaired by Congressman
Chet Holifield,
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, March
19 and 20, 1970, hearings on "Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program 1970" chaired by Con-
gressman Chet Holineld.
Joint Senate-House Armed Services Sub-
committee hearings on "CVAN-70 Aircraft
Carrier" dated April 7, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 16,
1970, co-chaired by Senator John Stennis
and Congressman Charles Bennett. This set
of hearings was followed by a special report
of the Joint Subcommittee dated April 22,
1970, which stated:
"The Subcommittee, in consideraticn of
the full range of carrier capability including
modernity and the exceptional advantages of
nuclear power is of the opinion that the long
lead funds for the Cl/AN-70 should be
approved."
House Armed Services Antisubmarine War-
fare Subcommittee, October 9, 1970, report
on "Trip to the Knolls Atomic Power Labora-
tory, September 28, 1970" chaired by Con-
gressman Samuel S. Stratton.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, March
10, 1971, hearing on "Natal Nuclear Propul-
sion Program 1971" chaired by Senator John
0. Pastore.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy ilub-
committee on Military Applications herring
and subsequent inquiry on "Nuclear Propul-
sion for Naval Warships" dated May 5, 1971-
September 30, 1972, alternately chaired. by
Senator Jackson and Congressman Holifteld.
This inquiry addressed the need for the Los
Angeles Class high speed SSN's, taceical
cruise missile submarine& the Trident sub-
marine program, nuclear aircraft carriers
and nuclear frigates.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Feb-
ruary 8, 1972 and March 28, 1973, hearings on
"Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program 1972-
197a" chaired by Congressman Melvin PRICE.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Feb-
ruary 25, 1974, hearing on "Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program-1974", chaired by Con-
gressman Melvin Price (in the process of
being published).
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
Washington, D.C., January 5. 1974.
Hon. Mimes R. SCHLESINGER,
Secretary of Defense,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Jtut: The increasirg severity of our
energy problem should, in my view, call for
an accelerated effort in the application of
nuclear power for the propulsion of naval
warships. I fully appreciate your personal
efforts DI making addition& of some nuclear
propelled ships to our Navy although I believe
recent events call for a sharply increased ef-
fort in this vital area of national defense.
Accordingly, I suggest that a review of the
planned shipbuilding program be made with
the objective of Increasing the 'number of
nuclear powered warships. We are indeed for-
tunate that we have the proven technical
base to immediately proceed with additional
applications of nuclear propulsion. It cer-
tainly would be most unfortunate if we
didn't take advantage of our position espe-
cially since nuclear power provides such pea-
tive solutions to our growing and irreverel-
ble global petroleum problem.
I want to emphasize that I am not sug-
gesting the initiation of additional studies.
From the Committee's detailed involvement
In the review of the various studies I can
assure you we need no additional effort In
this area. Such comprehensive reviews as the
Committee's 1963 and 1971-72 hearings and
report on nuclear propulsion clearly illu-
strate the military value and justification
of this application of nuclear energy. The
growing petroleum problem has just in-
creased the importance of the factors justi-
fying nuclear power especially in the area cf
foreign access to petroleum supplies. Of
course, although secondary to the primary
factor of military effectiveness, the increas-
ing costs of petroleum fuels also increase the
economic justification of nuclear power.
You can be assured of Congressional sup-
port in immediately moving ahead with
more naval nuclear propulsion projects. Ai
you know the Congress, through its various
Committees of responsibility in the lefense
area, has led in bringing about nuclear
propulsion for our navy.
Sincerely yours,
MELVIN PRICE,
Charman,
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Washington, March 11, 1974.
Hon. Mewl's Prace,
Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, U.S. House of Repreteniatines,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Me. CUAIRMAN : This is in response to
your letter oferanuary 5, 1974, in +ebb% you
suggested that a review- of the Navy's
planned shipbuilding_ program be made with
the objective of increasing the number of
nuclear powered warships.
By mid-1974 our le7 nuclear powered com-
batants will constitute over one-third of the
active warship fleet. These nuclear powered
warships include 41 strategic ballistic missile.
submarines, el attach submarines, ore air.
craft carrier arid four fleet air defense guided
missile ships-the Navy's first line shies. Ad-
ditional nuclear powered combatants an.
thorized by Congress are, or soon will be,
under construction; the first TRIDENT
SSBNs, four 687 Class SSNs, and twenty -three
688 Class SSNs, three nuclear powered air-
craft carriers and four guided missile frigates.
In addition to the nuclear powered ships in
service, under construction, or authorised by
Congress, the FY 75 Midget request includes,
funding of two TRIDENT submarines, three
high-speed attack submarines, and one
guided missile frigate. Delivery of the five
nuclear powered frigates (DLONs) under
construction, together with- the cruiser and
the two frigates now in the fleet, will give
us eight nuclear powered Surface combat-
ants which will be adequate to form two all
nuclear powered carrier task forces, when
none of the ships are in overhaul.
As you know' in FY 72 the Department of
Defense continned the DLCIN construstion
program by awarding a contract to the Sew-
port News Shipbuilding and Drydock Com-
pany for the construct-ion of DLGN 38 Class
Frigates. At that time it was decided to con-
struct three units of this new class while
retaining a contract option for two addi-
tional units. Recently Congress added' tc. our
Fiscal Year 74 *budget request $79 million for
advanced procurement of long-lead items for
the two additional nor-leer ships, DLGas 41
and 42. We have included DLGN-41 in the
FY 75 budget and are _protecting the option
for procuring the second in per 76. When the
full scope of our current nuclear ship pro-
gram is considered, we find that the ship-
builders Involved have a very large backlog
ahead of them.
There are several important factors in-
fluencing the selection of unclear or i on-
nuclear propulsion systems for a warship,
Three of the most signincant items are the
relative procurement and operating costs,
individual ship capability requirements, and
overall Navy force level and modernizai ion
needs.
To date, the use of nuclear power has been
limited to melee ships of 8,000 tons or more.
These relatively large ships (frigates and
cruisers), with highly capable anti-air and
anti-submarine systems, are at the high end
of the high-loW mix of surface combatant
ship types. The high-low mix concept
of balancing Overall fleet capability be-
tween larger nurnbers of capable low-cost
ships and fewer numbers of highly capable
but expensive first-line ships is essential for
maintaining our overall combat capabilit es.
In spite of the many attractive features of
nuclear ships, both their acquisition costs
and manning costs tend to be higher than
for conventional ships having the sa:ne
weapons systems. As you are aware over
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
Approved Fe6Mg.%?.(9M2/fatglitkpl2PAri:R?Wp8OR000700030059-2 II 7227
vfitly#' 29, 1974
the past several years there have been ex-
tended discussions of the degree to which
indirect costs tend to offset these differences.
The major increase in the cost of fuel oil
since October 1973 has tended to add some
weight to this concept. On the other hand,
the introduction of signicantly more efficient
conventional propulsion systems will result
in lower acquisition and operating costs
for such ships due to reduced manning re-
quirements and reduced engineering plant
size. As an additional consideration, the
peace time flexibility of deployments for
nuclear ships is constrained by the appre-
hensive attitude of many countries towards
port visits by nuclear ships. In my view,
these apprehensions are largely unfounded
but progress in dispelling this barrier to nu-
clear ship visits has been slow.
Requirements for overall naval combat ef-
fectiveness depend in large part on the ex-
pected threat. In some ocean areas where our
Navy 1s planned to operate, the threat is ex-
pected to be relatively low intensity and
to consist of principally submarine-launched
torpedoes and cruise missiles with only small
numbers of ship- and aircraft-launched
cruise missiles. Requirements for individual
ship effectivness are less demanding in such
areas than would be required in higher
threat environments, where additional
threats from aircraf would be expected. I
am sure that you recognize that. In addition
to the need for first-line ships capable of
operations in high threat areas, there are
many important missions that can be effec-
tively carried out by less complex and less
expensive ships.
In this decade, we must phase out virtu-
ally all of the remaining World War II sur-
face combatants because their deteriorating
material condition and declining combat
Value is making them increasingly inefficient.
If we are to procure the large number of
ships needed to maintain even current force
level, the bulk of the new ships must be
from the "low" side of the "high-low" spec-
trum. The numerical requirements alone for
surface escorts needed to protect military
and commercial shipping in open ocean and
lower threat areas of the world lead us to
the use of less complex ships under present
budgetary constraints.
Your personal efforts and the support of
the Congress in attaining our present pos-
ture in nuclear propulsion in the Navy are
very much appreciated. I solicit your con-
tinued support of our shipbuilding program
and assure you that nuclear propulsion will
be actively considered for all future Navy
major surface warship building programs.
Sincerely,
aillsmS R. SCHLESINGER.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, I am
troubled by the conference report on
H.R. 14592 for two principal reasons.
First, since various administration and
Federal Reserve spokesmen have called
for reduction in spending of from $5 bil-
lion to $20 billion from proposed budget
levels, I am not sure of the proper
amount, but I do know that substantial
reductions are required unless this bill's
$22-plus billion is sharply reduced by the
Appropriations Committee, substantial
reductions in overall spending are not
Possible.
There are areas ripe for reductions,
especially personnel. We have too many
troops in Europe, and overseas generally.
The feature which leads me to vote
against this bill, however, is section '709
on pages 10 and 11 of the conference re-
port. The section gives the Secretary of
Defense extraordinary power, perhaps
unconstitutionally greater than that of
the President since he can overrule the
President, to stop exports to any country
in the world if he feels it will increase
significantly the military potential of the
country.
The section invades the jurisdiction of
the Export Administration Act which,
according to testimony from the Depart-
ments of Defense, State, Commerce,
Treasury, and the CIEP, works effectively
as is.
It was not in the House version. It
appeared as a floor amendment in the
Senate, and was accepted by the confer-
ence managers.
According to floor statements by the
managers, the criteria on which an ex-
port might be stopped, will be the same
as at present, but the raw power given
here to the Secretary, particularly over
the head of the President, is unwar-
ranted.
Therefore, not only is the spending
level of the bill inflationary, but also it
contains a potential to reduce further
our already negative trade balances. I
must vote against it.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the conference report on H.R.
14592. I particularly want to bring to the
attention of the House the fact that title
VIII providing for a nuclear powered
Navy is intact in the bill with only minor
clearifying modifications. This title re-
quire? that all future major combatant
vessels be nuclear powered unless the
President fully advises the Congress that
It is not in the national interest to have
them such. The major combatant ves-
sels are all submarines, both attack and
missile, all aircraft carriers and the ships
that are designed to run with them,
cruisers, frigates, and destroyers?also
all ships designed for independent mis-
sions from the categories liSted above?
that is, submarines, aircraft carriers,
cruisers, frigates, and destroyers where
essential unlimited high speed endur-
ance will be of significant military value.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has had to fight
hard and long to get the nuclear navy.
As recently as 2 years ago we had to
mandate the construction of nuclear
frigates No. 41 and 42 unless the Presi-
dent fully advised that their construc-
tion was not in the national interest.
The President has not so advised us and
the contract for their construction has
been let.
Despite the wording of title VIII, we
hear rumblings that a group within the
Department of Defense is saying they
should not be built.
This is the same group of systems
analysts who opposed the nuclear-pow-
ered Navy from the start. Now they are
saying that frigates should not be con-
structed until the Aegis missile system
is ready to go on them.
Mr. Speaker, we now have four nu-
clear-powered aircraft carriers in being
or under construction. Those 4 require
at least 16 escorts. For escorts we have
the Bainbridge, the Truxton, and the
California. We also have the South Caro-
lina, the Virginia, and the Texas under
construction and the DLON-40. That
means there will only be '7 nuclear-
powered frigates instead of the 16 need-
ed if the DLON-41 and 42 are not built.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the Congress must
insist that the nuclear frigates and the
nuclear Navy continue to be constructed
as the Congress has ordered.
Mrs. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am voting
for the conference report on the mili-
tary procurement authorization, but only
after bitter disappointment that the con-
ferees rejected the amendment that
would have permitted a recomputation of
military retirement pay as a percentage
of active duty pay.
Many of us worked diligently to secure
the passage of the amendment to award
fair treatment to thousands of older vet-
erans, who served long and honorable
careers with the promise of security.
We have an obligation to compensate
them in accordance with the terms under
which they served our Nation. As you
know, changes in the 'method of com-
puting retirement pay were made in 1958
and 1963, and thousands of older vet-
erans got shortchanged in the shuffle.
?They are receiving far less than serv-
icemen of comparable rank who are re-
tiring today, and this inequitable situa-
tion is a gross breach of faith. I can
assure you, Mr. Speaker, that our fight
for equitable treatment of our older re-
tirees from military service has not
ended.
I have been assured that major legis-
lation revising the military retirement
system will be considered in the near fu-
ture, and I pledge that we will renew our
struggle for recomputation.
Mr, HEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the conference re-
port.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
conference report.
The question was taken, and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
sent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were?yeas 305, nays 38,
not voting 91, as follows:
Abdnor
Adams
Addabbo
Anderson,
Calif.
Anderson,
Andrews, N.C.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Annunzio
Archer
Arends
Armstrong
Ashbrook
Ashley
Aspin
Befalls
Baker
Barrett
Bauman
Beard
Bell
Bennett
Bergland
Bevill
Biaggi
Biester
[Roll No. 4121
YEAS-305
Blackburn Chappell
Boggs Clausen,
Bolling Don H.
Brademas Clawson, Del
Bray Cleveland
Breaux Cochran
Breckinridge Cohen
Brinkley Collier
Brooks Collins, Ill.
Broomfield Collins, Tex.
Brotzman Conable
Brown, Calif. Conlan
Brown, Mich. Conte
Brown, Ohio Corman
Broyhill, N.C. Coughlin.
Broyhill, Va. Crane
Buchanan Cronin
Burke, Fla. Daniel, Dan
Burke, Mass. Daniel, Robert
Burleson, Tex, W., Jr.
Burlison, Mo. Daniels,
Butler Dominick V.
Byron Danielson
Camp Davis, Wis.
Carney, Ohio Delaney
Casey, Tex. Denholm
Chamberlain Dennis
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
II 7228
Dent
Dervvinski
Devine
Dickinson
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
Downing
Dulski
Duncan
du Pont
Edwards, Ala.
Eflberg
Erlenborn
Fisch
Eshleman
Fascell
Fish
Fisher
Flood
Flowers
Flynt
Foley
Fountain
Frelinghuysen
Froehlich
Fulton
Fuqua
Gaydos
Giaimo
Gibbons
Gilman
Ginn
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gross
Grover
Gude
Guyer
Haley
Hamilton
Hanley
Hanrahan
Harsha
Approved For Rele,a00_6/02/07 ? CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2
WINCIRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE July 29, 19,'4
Litton Rodin?
Long, La. Roe
Long, Met, Rogers s
Lott Roncallo,
Lujan Roncallm
Luken - Rooney, Pa.
lafcClory RostenkOwskt
McCloskey Roush
McCollister Rousselot
McCormack s Runnels
McDade Ruth
McEwen _ St Germain
McFall , Sandman
McKinney Sarasin
Macdonald - Sarbanes
Madigan Satterfield
Mahon _Scherle
Mallory _Shipley
Mann ...Shoup
Nfaraziti Shuster
Martin, Nebr. Sikes
Mathias, Calif. Skubitz
Mathis, Ga.
Matsunaga
Mayne
Meeds
Mezvinsky
Michel
Milford
Miller
Mills
mlnish
Mink
Smith, Iowa
?Smith, N.Y.
Snyder
,Spence
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Stanton,
James V.
Steiger, Ar12.
Minshall, Ohio Steiger, Wis.
Mitchell, N.Y. 4stephens
Mizell laratton
Moakley Stubblefield
Monahan Sullivan
Montgomery Symington
Moorhead, Taylor, me.
Calif. Taylor. N.C.
Moorhead, Pa. Thomson, Wis.
Morgan Thone
Mosher Thornton
Moss Tiernan
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vender Veen
Veysey
angorito
Waggonner
Walsh
Wampler
Ware
Whalen
White
Whitehurst
Widnall
Williams
Charles, Tex.
Winn
Wolff
Wright
Wyatt
Wsdier
Wylie
Wyman
Yates
Yatron
Ynung, Fla.
YOung, Ill.
Young, S.C.
Young, Tex.
Zablocki
Zion
Zwach
Hays Murphy, Ill.
Habert Murtha
Heckler, Masa Myers
Heinz Ratchet
Henderson Nelsen
Hicks Nichols
Hillis O'Brien
Hinshaw O'Hara
Hogan O'Neill
Holt Owens
Horton Parris
Howard Passman
Huber Patrnan
Hudnut Patten
Hungate Pepper
Hunt Perkins
Hutchinson Pettis
IchOrd Pike
Jarman Poage
Jones, Ala. Podell
Jones, N.C. Powell, Ohio
Jones, Okla. Preyer
Jordan Price, /11.
Karth Price, Tex.
Kazen Quie
Kemp Quillen
Ketchum Railsback
King Randall
Kluczynski Regula
Kyros Rhodes
Lagomarsino Rinaldo
Landgrebe Roberts
Latta Robinson, Va.
NAYS-38
Abzug Hechler, W. Va. Rosenthal
Bingham Helstoski Roybal
Burton, John Holtzman Ryan
Burton, Philip Kastenmeier senroeder
Conyers Koch Sedberling
Dellums Mitchell, Md. Stokes
Drinan Nedzi Studds
Edwards, Calif. Nix Tbsompson, N.J.
Ford Obey Traxler
Forsythe
Fraser
Frenzel
Green, Pa
Alexander
Badillo
Blatnik
Boland
Bowen
Brasco
Burgener
Burke, Calif.
Carey, N.Y.
Rangel
Rees
Reuss
Riegle
NOT VOTING-91
Davis. S.C.
de la Garza
Dellenback
Dorn
Eckhardt
Evans, Cole.
Evliss, Tenn.
Findley
Frey
Vanik
Waldie
Young, Ga,
Carter
Cederberg
Chisholm
Clancy
Clark
Clay
Cotter
Culver
Davis, G.
Gettys Leggett Sbriver
Grasso Lehman Sisk
Gray Lent Stark
Green, Oreg. McKay Steed
Griffiths Mcspadden Steele
Gubser Madden Steelman
Gunter Martin, N.O. Stuckey
Hammer- Masson. Symms
schmidt Melcher Talcott
Hanna , Metcalfe Teague
Hansen, Idaho Murphy, NY. Towell, Nev.
Hansen, Wash. Peyser Treen
Harrington Pickle Udall
Hastings Pritchard Vander Jagt
Hawkins Rarick Whitten
Holifield Reid Wiggins
Hosnier Robison, N Y. 'Wilson, Bob
Johnson, Calif. Rooney, N.Y. Wilson,
Johnson, Colo. Rose Charles H.,
Johnson, Pa. Roy Calif.
Jones, Tenn. Ruppe Young, Alaska
Kuykendall Schneebeli
Landrum Sebelius
So the conference report was agreed
to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Rarick for, with Mr. Badillo against.
Mr. Murphy of New York for, with Mr.
Hanna against.
Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California for.
with Mrs. Chisholm against.
Mr. Teague for, with Mr. Clay against.
Mr. Carey of New York for, with Mr. Stark
against.
Mrs. Burke of California for, with Mr. Met-
calfe against.
Mr. Melcher for, with Mr. Eckhardt
Igairtst.
Mr. Hawkins for, with Mr. Harrington
against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Blatnik.
Mr. Gunter with Mr. Reid.
Mr. Fiolifield with Mr. Culver.
Mr. Rose with Mr. Gettys.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mrs. Grasso.
Mr. Bream) with Mr. Gray.
Mr. Cotter with Mrs. Green of Oregon.-
Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mrs. Hansen of
Washington.
Mr. Boland with Mr. Cederberg.
Mr. Leggett with Mr. Treen.
Mr. Nfadden with Mr. Steele.
Mr. Davis of South Carolina with Mr.
Findley.
Mr. Biswen With Mr. Steelman.
Mr. Sisk with Mr. Clancy.
Mr. Udall with Mr. Homer.
Mr. Whitten with Mr. Sebelius.
Mr. Nfazzoli with Mr. Dellenback.
Mr. Pickle with Mr. Ruppe.
Mr. Randall with Mr. Hammerschinidt.
Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Prey.
Mr. Clark with Mr. Lent.
Mr. Jones of Tennessee with Mr. Kuyken-
Mr. McKay with Mr. Gubser.
Mr. Evins of Tennessee with Mr. Schnee-
bell.
Mr. Carter with Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Evans of Colorado with Mr. Shrivels
Mr. Dorn with Mr. Robison of New York.
Mrs. Griffiths with Mr. Sysiuns.
Mr. Johnson of California with Mr. Martin
of North Carolina.
Mr. Lehman with Mr. Talcott.
Mr. .1Ohnson of Pennsylvania with Ms.
Towel! of Nevada.
Mr. McSpadden with Mr. Vander Jagt,
Mr. Roy with Mr. Bob Wizen.
Mr. Steed with Mr. Wiggins.
Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Young of Alaska.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their- remarks on the
conference report just agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Loui-
siana.
There was no objection.
HOME RULE ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, by direc-
tion 1 the Committee on the District of
Col bia, I call up the bill (H.R. 15791)
to a nd section 204(g) of the D strict
of C'in Self-Government and Gov-
ernm 1 Reorgani7ation Act, and for
other poles, and ask unanimoul con-
sent th the bill be considered in the
House the Committee of the Whole.
The k _read the title of the bill.
The AKER. Is there objection to
the requ the gentleman from Min-
nesota?
There w no objection.
The Cler ead the bill, as follows:
Be it enac by the Senate and House of
Representati 0,1 the United Statcs of
America in U. 'ress assembled, That section
204(g) of t District of Columbia Self
Government Governmental Reorsa ni za -
tion Act (Pub aw 93-198; 87 Stat. 7"4 i is
amended by ting the second sentence
I hereof.
With the fol ing committee amend-
ment in the re of a substitute:
Strike out all a r the enacting clause and
insert:
That the Distr of Columbia Self-Gov-
ernment and go ntal _Reorganization
Act (84 Stat. 774) amended as follows:
(1) The seconds-tence of subsectior g
of section 204 of t Act is repealed.
section 401 of that
redesignati lig rani-
(4); and (131 -
r paragraph (2) the
(2) Subsection (
Act is amended by
graph (3) as parag
serting immediately
following:
"0) To fill a vac y in the Office of
Chairman, the Board ections shall sold
a special election in t Iistrict on the first
Tuesday occurring mthan one hundred
and fourteen days afte he date on which
such vacancy occurs, ess the Board of
Elections determines t uch vacancy could
be more practicably fl U' n a special elec-
tion held on the same d as the next gen-
eral election to be held In e District occur-
ring within sixty days e date on which
a special election would- o raise have teen
held under the provisions this paragraph.
The person elected Chair to fill a va-
cancy in the Office of Ch n shall take
office on the day in which t Board of E. ec-
tions certifies kis election, d shall serve
as Chairman only for the inder of the
term during which such v icy occurred.
When the Office of Chairm becomes va-
cant, the Council shall se one of he
elected at-large members of Council to
serve as Chairmen and one to ve as Ohs ir-
man pro tempore until the ction ?I a
new Chairman."
(3) The first sentence of on 441 of
that Act is amended to read as OWS : "The
fiscal year of the District shit beginning
on October 1, 1916, commence the fisst
day of October of each year and I end on
the thirtieth day of September the etc-
ceeding calendar year."
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700030059-2