Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 21, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 3, 1974
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP75B00380R000700030059-2.pdf5.28 MB
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 be rescinded.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 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