MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1975

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050003-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 57
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 3, 2005
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: December 12, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Releas_e _
oll 11690 cONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
The result of the vote was announced and must meet our needs for energy, The Chair recognizes the gentleman
as above recorded.
evnd in ways that minimize damage to the from New York (Mr. PIKE).
A motion to reconsider the votes by environment.
(Mr. PIKE asked and was given Per-
which action was taken on the several The conservation of energy provides mission to revise and extend his re-
motions was laid on the table,
an essential common ground between marks.)
' our need for energy and our desire to Mr. PIKE. Mr. Speaker, on August 9,
protect the environment By eliminating 1974, the House of Representatives
waste in the use of energy, and by in- passed H.R. 16136, which is the fiscal
creasing the efficiency of the energy we year 1975 military construction author-
use, we can move toward both goaLs ization for the Department of Defense
simultaneously. Our experience this year and Reserve components.
has shown that there are major oppor- On September 11, 1974, the Senate
tunities to conserve energy. And we are considered the legislation, amended it
coming to understand that actions by striking out all language after the
which temper our growing use of energy enacting clause, and wrote a new bill.
contribute to self-sufficiency as well as H.R. 16136, as passed by the House
actions. which increase our domestic of Representatives, provided new con-
supply. struction authorization to the military
We must also recognize that, even with departments and the Department of De-
e strong conservation program, we will fense for fiscal year 1975 in the total
still have to mine more coal, drill for amount of $2,935,801,000,
more oil and gas, and build more power- The bill, as passed by the Senate, pro-
plants and refineries. Each of these vided new construction authorization in
. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE COUNCIL measures will have an impact on the en- the total amount of $3,027,925,060.
ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY? vironment. Yet this can be minimized, As a result of the conference between
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT and the last five years have shown that the House and the Senate on the differ-
OF THE UNITED STATES we have the capacity and the willingness ences in H.R. 16136, the confereto
es a,greed
,
ION
2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000760050003-1
December 12, 1974
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. WHITTEN. 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, and
that I may revise and extend my own re-
marks and insert certain extraneous
material on the conference report just
agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
sissippi?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER laid before the House
e roilowing message from the Pres-
ident of the United States; which was
read and, together with the accompany-
ing papers, referred to the Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries:
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit to the Con-
gress the Fifth Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
When future historians look back on
the pursuit of environmental quality in
our era, they will recognize it as a posi-
tive turning point.
As I stated in an Earth Day speech in
1970, "the day is gone when concern for
the land, the air and the water was sole
proVince of the conservationist, the
wilderness enthusiast, the bird watcher,
-and the environmental scientist."
Instead, today, millions of our citi-
zens share a new vision of the future in
which natural systems can be protected,
pollution can be controlled, a
natural heritage will be preserv
crusade to improve the quality
human environment has begun
sade which has already led to
complishment over the past fly
Another valuable lesson was
during the energy Crisis last
when, in trying circumstances, it
clear that we cannot achieve
environmental and all our ene
economic goals at the same ti
f our
cru-
t ac-
years.
arned
Inter
ecame
1 our
y and
e. Had
our commitment to the environnient not
been ingrained, we might have reacted
to this situation by discarding our en-
vironmental goals. Had our commitment
to the environment not been mature, we
might not have recognized the need for
balance to accommodate other social
and economic goals as well. By rejecting
the extremes--by accepting the need for
balance--we held fast to the accomplish-
ments of the past and looked with new
perspective towards the imperatives of
the future. This, in my judgment, is the
course we must continue to follow.
The need to move toward greater self-
sufficiency in energy is one of the major
challenges of the decade ahead. We can
do so. Science and technology, in
which America excels, provides one
means of limiting environmental dam-
age; careful analysis and planning, with
broad public participation, offers an-
other.
Let us also be guided by our increased
recognition of the interdependence of all
nations of our globe and the fundamen-
tal relationship between population, re-
sources, economic development world
stability, and the environment.
No longer is concern for the environ-
ment the dream of a few. Instead, it is
reflected in cilmtless actions by many
citizens, by industry, and by government
at all levels every day. The environmen-
tal movement has matured, and the
nation and its environment have bene-
fitted in the process. Looking to the fu-
ture, we can expect further accomplish-
ment in enhancing our environment and,
along with it, further improvement in
our quality of life.
GERALD R.. FORD.
RITE House, December 12, 1974,.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AU-
THORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1975
Mr. PIKE, Mr. Speaker, I move to sus-
Pend the rules and agree to the confer-
ence report on the bill (H.R. 16136) to
authorize certain construction at mili-
tary installations, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the confer-
ence report.
The SPEAK. Is a second de-
manded?
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, a
second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Decem-
ber 10, 1974.)
to a new adjusted authorization for mili-
tary construction for fiscal year 1975 in
the amount of $2,994,878,000. The
amount authorized for appropriation,
however, is only $2,984,378,000. The dif-
ference results from the fact that two
projects authorized, totaling $10.5 mil-
lion, do not require appropriations.
The amount of new authority approved
is $294,002,000 below the amount re-
quested by the Department of Defense.
The total authority granted is approxi-
mately $59 million above that granted by
the House and approximately $33 million
below the Senate figure.
There were over 150 differences in the
House and the Senate versions. How-
ever, we were able to arrive at an agree-
ment on each one of these differences. I
will not go into a lot of detail because the
joint statement of the managers explains
the actions of the conferees.
The most difficult problem encountered
in the conference with the Senate was
the Department of Defense proposal for
an expansion of facilities on the island
of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The
original Department request, under the
Navy portion of the bill, was for $29 mil-
lion to upgrade the present facilities on
the island of Diego Garcia. Among the
projects envisioned was the extension of
the runway by approximately 2,000 feet,
additional POL storage capacity, and the
dredging of the harbor so that larger
ships could anchor there. The House ap-
proved ?the Department's request with-
out change. However, the Senate reduced
the amount requested and authorized
$14,802,000. Further, the Senate inserted
language which would require the Presi-
dent to certify to the Congress that the
need for the expansion of facilities had
been evaluated by him, and that such
projects were essential to the security of
the United States, and this certification
must be approved by a joint resolution of
the House and the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen- The House conferees argued that the
tleman from New York (Mr. PIKE) will Senate language, in effect, would allow
be recognized for 20 minutes, and the a legislative veto by inaction and offered
gentleman from New York (Mr. Kam) compromise language which would per-
will be recognized for 20 minutes, mit either the House or the Senate to
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
-.ApproVZ-d For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
December ix, 1974 CMCNRESVONAL RECOR D ? HOUSE
The vote was 8ken by .elez.tronic de-
vice, and there were?yeas ,
90,
mit voting 62, as follows:
Mr. ROUSSEL011% Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTEN. I yield to the, gentle-
man from California. [Roll No. 6761
Mr. RCVUSSELOT. Mr. key, I ap-
preciate the gentleman yie
Mr. Speaker, as I underst
resulted as a compromise with
ate, and also to provide for ju
view, which is a highly important
in which to decide this issue in vie
this indecision that now relates to t
matter; is that correct?
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the gentleman from California, let
me sa.y that insofar as my recollection is
ng. to me. Gettys Pettis
this has AArder?sron, Ill. Qinri Pe yser
Pinkie
Pcage
Pc well, Ohio
Pr eyer
Price, Ill.
Price, Tex.
Pi itchard
Quie
Quillen
Hanrahan Rallsback
R amdall
d Hankie R &rick
proved by all members of the conference Henri HHeeckinz Roberts
ler, Mass. RRhegouldeas
concerned this was unanimously ap- Bei .? Hastings
i,:gdi
and, not only that, but while the tang-
Be lieade rE?11 Robinson, Va.
uage provides for judicial review, as I want Hicks Robison, N.Y.
said, the lawsuits or judicial review are Blackburn Hinshaw Roe
now going on. It was the cletertnination Blatnik Hogan
Holifield Roncallo, Wyo.
BoggRose
of all of the conferees that while these Boiansa olt Rostenkowski
lawsuits are pending that this agency Bolling ?
ton housselot
should not be financed to stifle the de- Bowen er Roy
Bray HU
luutir
velopment and growth of our country, Breaux Hu t
Ryan
while the courts are deciding the issue. Brinkley Hung Hunt
Again while we touched on only one Brooks it Germain
?Sandman
part of the legislative provision, having Broomfieldoan Ejlutchin
Earasin
touched one part of it in the House, then Brown, Mich. Johnson, r, Satterfield
I respectfully suggest all parts of the Brown, Ohio Johnson, pa, Elcherle
Schneebell
legislative provision would cote before Broyhill. 1,,Tio. Jones, tts.
ebelius
hibit or permanently prevent EPA, but Burgeannaern a.
the conference. As I say, we do not pro- Buchanan JJoornnta, Tenn. oup
Burke, Fla. __Kasen ver
until the courts decide on this issue, we Bik
,3
Burke. Mass. isral) Sisk
recommend that financing not be made
available to EPA, but that the matter Burleson, Tex, Ketchum
Burlison, MO. King 13kUbi
be left to the cities and States. Butler Kluczynski Slack
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the iarronney, Onto Lagomarsino Smith,
Landgrebe Snyder
gentleman will yield further, May I just Carter Latta Spence
Leggett Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Steed
Steiger, Ariz.
Steiger, Wis.
Stephens
Stubblefield
Stuckey
Studds
Sullivan
Symington
Symms
Talcqtt
Taylor, Mo.
Taylor, N.C.
Teague
House provision, and is not germane Daniels, Mallary Thone
Thomson. Wis.
Danielson Thornton
thereto. The Chair, therefore, sustains Dominick V. Mann
the point of order. Davis, S.C. Martin, Nebr. Towell, Nev.
MOTION OFFERED BY MB. WICITEN Davis, Wis. Martin, N,C, Traxler
Matsunaga Treen
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, I offer dpeellaanGoyarZa Mayne
Mauston Van Deerlin
Ullman
Metcalfe Vander Veen
Veysey
Dellenback Melcher
Mezvinsky Vigorito
Milford Waggonner
Walsh
Michel
Miller Wampler
Mizell WiArnariete
Mink
Mollohan Whitehurst
Whitten
e Sen- Andrews, N.C. Oonzalez
re_ Andrews, Goodling
N. Dak. Gross
ace Annunzio Oubser
, Of Archer Gunter
Mends Guyer
Armstrong HHalameyiner.
Ashbrook
I rale itst Hanley
schmidt
man
say that these regulations insofar as the Casey, '
contracts for airports, highways, shop-
Chamberlain Lehman
ping centers and sporting arenas are not Clausen, Long, La.
even effective until next year, the park- Don H. Long, ma.
Ing which the House acted on was coy- gaewsoann. Del Lott
ered, so that they are not germane. Cohen McClory
The SPEAKER. The Chair is ready to Collins, 111, McCollister
Collins, Tex. McCormack
rule. Conlan McEwen
There is only one issue involved here Cotter McFall
McKay
Corman
and that is whether the amendment in- Crane McKinney
eluded in the motion of the gentleman Culver Macdonald
from Mississippi is germane. It obviously Daniel, Dan Madden
is far more comprehensive than the Daniel, Robert r. riaaglogir
a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Warn= moves that the -House insist
on its disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate. Devine
Dickinson
The SPEAKER. The question is on Donohue
the motion offered by the gentleman Dorn
from Mississippi (Mr. WHITTEN) . Downing Moorhead,
Dulski Calif. Widnall
The question was taken. Dunn Mosher Wiggins
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on that I du Pont Murphy, in. Williams Mr. Kuykendall with Mr. Hillis.
Edwards, Ala. Murphy, N.Y. Wilson, Bob Mr. Mathias of California with
demand the yeas and nays. Erlenborn Murtha Wilson, fiths.
The yeas and nays were not ordered. Esch Myers Charles, Ten.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker I object to rvans,coio. N In
that tecehe r Mr. Mathis of Georgia with Mr. J
F inespnn. Nelsen
the vote on the ground at a quorum is Nichols
O'Brien
O'Neill
Owens
Passman
Patraan
Patten
Pepper
Perkins
Denholm
Dennis
Dent
Derwinski
bung
Anderson,
Calif.
Aspin
Badillo
Biester
Bingham
Brademas
Breckinridge Holtman Seiberling
Brown, Calif. Karth Smith, N.Y.
Burke, Calif. Kastermeier Stark
Burton, John Koch Steele
Burton, Phillip Kyros Steelman
Chisholm McCloskey Stokes
Clay McDade Stratton
Conte Maraziti Thompson, NJ.
Tiernan
Udall
Vanik
Waidie
Whalen
Wilson,
Charles H.,
Calif.
Wolff
Wydier
Yates
Yatron
Young, Ga.
H 116895a
? NAYS-90
Gaydos Riegle
Gibbons Rinaldo
Gilman Rodin?
Greek Pa. Rogers
Gude Romney, Pa.
Hamilton RoaNithal
Harrington RoUth
Hawkins Roybal
Hechler, W. Va. Sarbanes
Helstoski Schroeder
Conyers
Coughlin
Cronin
Dingell
Drinan Morgan
Eckhardt Moss
Edwards. Calif. Nedzi
Eilberg
Fish
Ford
Forsythe
Fraser
Frenzel
Meeds
Minish
Mitchell, Md.
Mitchell, N.Y.
Alexander
Ashley
Baker
1317LSCO
Camp
Carey, N.Y.
Cederberg
Clancy
Clark
Cleveland
Collier
Comible
Davis, Ga.
Dellums
Diggs
Eshleman
Fisher Kuykendall James V.
Flowers Landrum Vander Jagt
Frelinghuysen Litton Wyman
Frey Luken Young, Alasks.
Giaimo 1VIcSpadden, Zion
So the motion was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following
rs:
Hays with Mr. Baker.
Hebert with Mr. Cederberg.
oorhead of Pennsylvania with Mr
Nix
Obey
Pike
Rangel
Rees
Reuss
NOT VOTING-85
Mathias, Calif.
Mathis, Ga.
Mills
Minshall, Ohio
Moakley
Montgomery
Metorhead, Pa.
O'Hara
Penis
Podell
Goldwater
Grasso
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Griffiths
Grover
Hanna
Hansen, Idaho
Hansen, Wash.
Hays
Hebert Reid
Hillis Roncallo, N.Y.
Howard Rooney. N.Y.
Ichord Runnels
Johnson, Colo. Shipley
Jones N.C. Stanton,
Mr.
Grove
Mr.
Mr. Al
Mr. Dell
Mr. Flow
Mr. Giaim
Mr. Diggs
Mr. Howard
Mr. 'chord wi
Mr. Moakley w
Mr. Montgorne
Washington.
Mr. O'Hara with M
Mr. Carey of New Y
Mr. Boone)' of New
Mr. Jones of North
Collier.
Mr. Landrum with Mrs.
Mr. Litton with Mr. Miele
Mr. Runnels with Mr. Hans
Mr. Ashley with Mr. Conabl
Mr. Mills with Mrs. Green of
ey with Mr. Clark.
der with Mr. Camp.
with Mr. Gray.
with Mr. Davis of Georgia.
with Mr. Frey.
Mr. McSpaddeffl.
th Mr. Goldwater.
Mr. Clancy.
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
with Mrs. Hansen
Cleveland.
with_Mr. Eshleman.
rk with Mr. Hatiria.
arolina with Mr.
of
ae50.
of Idaho.
gon.
not present and make the point of order Findley
that a quorum is not present. Flood
Flynt
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum Foley
Is not present. Fountain
The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- Fr
uCgablniell
sent Members. Fuqua
Winn
Wright
Wyatt
Wylie
Young, Fla.
Young, Ill.
Young, S.C.
Young, Tex.
Zablocki
Zwach
of Colorado.
Mr. Minshall of Ohio with Mr. Luken.
Mr. Reid with Mr. Parris.
Mr. Roncallo of New York with Mr. Vander
Jagt.
Mr. James V. Stanton with Mr. Young of
Alaska.
Mr. Wyman with Mr. Zion.
. Gri:f-
nson
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
'Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
De*mber 12, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
vetp the proposed construction by pass-
int a resolution of disapproval within 60
days of continuous session of Congress
after the President's certification.
After many hours of discussion and
many meetings of the conferees, the
Senate reluctantly receded to the com-
promise language, but insisted that
additional language be added to the con-
ference rport which provides in sub-
stance that parliamentary tactics aimed
at delaying action on the Senate floor
regarding a Resolution of Disapproval
will be precluded.
Therefore, after giving a little here
and taking a little there, our conferees
have done the best they could and be-
lieve they have brought to the House a
good bill that will provide asiequately for
the construction needs of the military
during this fiscal year. Further, I want
to assure the House that all amendments
adopted in conference are germane to the
bill.
I want to thank the gentleman from
New York (Mr. KING) for his dedication
and assistance during our hearings, and
more especially, in the conference. Also,
I want this House to know that all mem-
bers of our conference committee worked
long and hard to bring this conference
report before you and I urge its adoption.
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I want to
say that this is perhaps one of the most
difficult subcommittees that we have
because it entails hours of work and of
hearings, and if it had not been for my
colleague from New York, the chairman
of the subcommittee, and his work, and
the other Members of the committee and
Mr. Shumate's efforts, we would not have
reached the bill that we have to every-
one's satisfaction.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the distin-
guished chairman of the Military Con-
struction Subcommittee, has explained
the details of our conference with the
Senate and, therefore, I will not go into
the matters already discussed by him and
fully explained in the joint statement of
the managers.
This bill is not exactly as I would have
had it, but then what bill of this magni-
tude ever is after it has gone through
intensive hearings of both the House
and the Senate and then the differences
are resolved in conference? I recognize
that many Members might have desired
certain line items which were omitted or
conversely, some line items which are in-
cluded, they might have desired that
they be omitted. But, on balance, we
are very satisfied with the conference
report.
I want to congratulate my colleagues
In the conference committee for their
dedication arid efforts to bring this con-
ference report to the House. Also, I espe-
cially want to point out to the Members
of the House the excellent leadership
provided by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Pna).
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
the conference report.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the conference re-
port.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Phu), that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the con-
ference report on the bill H.R. 16136.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof) the
rules were suspended and the confer-
ence report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to re-
vise and extend their remarks on the
conference report just agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT OF 1974
Mr. 'ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R.
17597) to provide a program of emer-
gency unemployment compensation.
The Clerk read as follows:
HR. 17597
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 101. This Act may be cited as the
"Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Act of 1974".
FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS
SEC. 102. (a) Any State, the State unem-
ployment compensation lam of which is ap-
proved by the Secretary of Labor (herein-
after in this Act referred to as the "Secre-
tary") under section 3304 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 which desires to do so,
may enter into and participate in an agree-
ment with the Secretary under this Act, if
such State law contains (as of the date such
agreement is entered into) a requirement
that extended compensation be payable
thereunder as provided by the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 1970. Any State which is a party to an
agreement under this Act may, upon pro-
viding thirty days' written notice to the
Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) Any such agreement shall provide that
the State agency of the State will make pay-
ments of emergency compensation?
(1) to individuals who?
(A) (1) have exhausted all rights to regular
compensation under the State law;
(ii) have exhausted all rights to extended
compensation, or are not entitled thereto,
because of the ending of their eligibility
period for extended compensation, in such
State;
(B) have no rights to compentation (in-
cluding both regular compensation and ex-
tended compensation) with respect to a week
under such law or any other State unem-
ployment compensation law or to compen-
sation under any other Federal law; and
(C) are not receiving compensation with
respect to such week under the unemploy-
ment compensation law of the Virginia Is-
lands or Canada,
(2) for any week of unemployment which
begins in?
(A) an emergency benefit period (as de-
fined in subsection (c) (5)); and
H 11691
(B) the individual's period of eligibility
(as defined in section 106(b)),
(c) (1) For purposes of subsection (b) (1)
(A), an individual shall be deemed to have
exhausted his rights to regular compensation
under a State law when?
(A) no payments of regular compensation
can be made under such law because such
Individual has received all regular compen-
sation available to him based on employment
or wages during his base period; or
(B) his rights to such compensation have
been terminated by reason of the expiration
of the benefit year with respect to which
such rights existed.
(2) For purposes of subsection (b) (1) (B),
an Individual shall be deemed to have ex-
hausted his rights to extended compensation
under a State law when no payments of ex-
tended 'compensation under a State law can
be made under such law because such in-
dividual has received all the extended com-
pensation available to him from his extended
compensation account (as established under
State law in accordance with section 202(b)
(1) of the Federal-State Extended Unem-
ployment Compensation Act of 1970).
(3) (A) (I) For purposes of subsection (b)
(2) (A), in the case of any State, an emer-
gency benefit period?
(I) shall begin with the third week after
a week for which there is a State "emer-
gency on" indicator; and
(II) shall end with the third week after
the first week for which there is a State
"emergency off" indicator.
(it) In the case of any State, no emergency
benefit period shall last for a period of less
than 28 consecutive weeks.
(iii) When a determination has been made
that an emergency benefit period Is begin-
ning or ending with respect to any State, the
Secretary shall cause notice of such deter-
mination to be published in the Federal
Register.
.(B) (i) For purposes of subparagraph (A),
there is a State "emergency on" indicator
for a week if there is a State or National "on"
indicator for such week (as determined under
subsections (d) and (e) of section 203 of the
Federal-State Extended Unemployed Com-
pensation Act of 1970).
(ii) For purposes of subparagraph (A),
there is a State "emergency off" indicator
for a week if there is both a State and a Na-
tional "off" indicator for such week (as deter-
mined under subsections (d) and (e) of the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Com-
pensation Act of 1970).
(d) For purposes of any agreement under
this Act?
(1) the amount of the emergency com-
pensation which shall be payable to any in-
dividual for any week of total unemploy-
ment shall be equal to the amount of the
regular compensation (including dependents'
allowances) payable to him during his bene-
fit year under the State law;" and
(2) the terms and conditions of the State
law which apply to claims for regular com-
pensation and to the payment thereof shall
(except where inconsistent with the pro-
visions of this Act or regulations of the Sec-
retary promulgated to carry out this Act)
apply to claims for emergency compensation
and the payment thereof.
(e) (1) Any agreement under this Act with
a State shall provide that the State will
establish, for each eligible individual who
files an application for emergency compen-
sation, an emergency compensation account.
(2) The amount established in such ac-
count for any individual shall be equal to the
lesser of?
(A) 50 per centum of the total ambunt of
regular compensation (including depend-
ents' allowances) payable to him with re-
spect to the benefit year (as determined
under the State law) on the basis of which
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300-38:5R000700050003-1 ?"%--
H 11692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE December iti
.174
he most recently received regular compen-
sation: or
(B) thirteen times his average weekly
benefit amount (as determinfki for purposes
of section 202(b) (1) (C) of the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 1970) for his benefit year.
(1) (1) No emergency compensation shall
be payable to any individual under an agree-
ment entered into under this Act for any
week beginning before whichever of the fol-
lowing is the latest:
(A) the first week which begins after De-
cember 31, 1974,
(B) the week following the week In which
such agreement is entered into, or
(C) the first week which begins after the
date of the enactment of this-Act.
(2) No emergency compeneation shall be
payable to any individual under an agree-
ment entered into under this Act for any
week ending after?
(A) December 81, 1976, or
(B) March 31, 1977, in the case of an in-
dividual who (for a week enchng before Jan-
uary 1, 1977) had a week With respect to
which emergency compensation was payable
under such agreement.
PAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING hARICEMIENVI3 FOR
THE PAYMENT OF EMERGENCY -COMPENSATION
SEC. 103. (a) There shall be paid to each
State which has entered into an agreement
under this Act an amount equal to 100 per
centum of the emergency compensation
paid to individuals by the State pursuant to
such agreement.
(b) No payment shall be made to any State
under this section in respect of compensa-
tion for which the State is entitled to reim-
bursement under the provisions of any Fed-
eral law other than this Act.
(c) Sums payable to any State by reason of
such State's having an agree/dent under this
Act shall be payable, either in advance or
oy way of reimbursement (as may be deter-
mined by the Secretary), in such amounts
as the Secretary estimates the State will be
entitled to receive under this Act for each
calendar month, reduced or increased, as the
case may be, by any amount by which the
Secretary finds that his estintates for any
prior calendar month were greater or leas
than the amounts which would have been
paid to the State. Such estimates may be
made on the basis of such statistical, sam-
pling, or other method as may be agreed
upon by the Secretary and the State agen-
cy of the State involved.
FINANCING PROVISIONS
SEC. 104. (a) (1) Funds in the extended
unemployment compensation account (as
established by section 905 of the Social Se-
curity Act) of the Unemployment Trust Fund
shall be used for the making of payments to
States having agreements entered into under
this Act.
(2) The Secretary shall from time to time
certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for
payment to each State the sums payable to
such State under this Act. The Secretary of
the Treasury prior to audit or settlement by
the General Accounting Office, shall make
payments to the State in accordance with
stich certification, by transfers from the ex-
tended unemployment compensation account
(as established by section 905 of the Social
Security Act) to the account of such State
In the Unemployment Trust Fund.
(b) There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated, without fiscal year limitation,
to the extended unemployment compensa-
tion account, as repayable advances (Withont
Interest), such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of this Act. Amounts
appropriated as repayable advances and paid
to the States under section 108 shall be re-
paid, without interest, as provided in section
905(d) of the Social Security Act.
DWINITIONS
SEC. 105. For purposes of this Act?
(1) the terms "compensation", "reVlar
compensation", "extended compensation".
"base period", "benefit year", "State", "State
agency", "State law", and "week" shall have
the meanings assigned to them under sec-
tion 206 of the Federal-13'Wte Extended Un-
employment Compensation Act of 1970;
(2) the term "period of eligibility" means,
in the case of any indiivcival, the weeks in
his benefit year which begin in an extended
benefit period or an emergency benefit period
and, if his benefit year ends within such ex-
tended benefit period, any weeks thereafter
which begin in such extended benefit period
or in such emergency benefit period; and
(3) the term "extended benefit period"
shall have the meaning assigned to such
term under section 203 of the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 1970.
Por purposes of any State law which refers
to an extension under Federal law of the
duration of benefits under the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 1970, this Act shall be treated as amenda-
tory of such Act.
EXTENSION or wsrvica OF IRO-PERCENT RE-
QUIREMENT FOR PURPOSES OF EXTENDED COM-
PENSATION PROGRAM
SEC. 106. The last sentence of section 203
(e) (2) of the Federal-State Extended Unem-
ployment Compensation Act of 1970, as
amended, is amended by striking out "April
30, 1975" and inserting in lieu thereof "De-
cember 31, 1976".
ressroassr REDUCTION IN NATIONAL TRICWAR
SEC. 107. Section 208(4) of the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensa-
tion Act of 1970 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new sentence:
"Effective with respect to compensation for
weeks of unemployment beginning Wore
December 31, 1976, and beginning after De-
cember 31, 1974 (or, if later, the date estab-
lished pursuant to State law), the State may
by law provide that the determination of
whether there has been a national 'on or
'off' indicator beginning or ending any ex-
tended benefit period shall be made under
this subsection as if the phrase '4.5 per cen-
tum', contained in paragraphs (I) and (2),
read '4 per centum'.'
PROVISION FOR FINANCING TEMPORARY REZUC-
TION /N NATIONAL TRIGGER
SEC. 108. Section 204(a) of the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensa-
tion Act of 1970 is amended by adding-et the
end thereof the following new paragraph:
"(3) In the case of compensation which
is sharable extended compensation or shar-
able regular compensation by reason of the
provision contained in the last sentence of
section 208(d), the first paragraph of this
subsection shall be applied as if the words
'one-half of' read '100 per centum of'."
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mc-
FALL) , Is a second demanded?
Mr. SCHNEEBELI. Mr. Speaker, I
demand a second.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without
objection, a second will be considered, as
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-
tleman from Oregon (Mr. ULLMAN) Will
be recognized for 20 minutes, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
SCHNEEBELD Will be recognized for 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. tfuseuv)
Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I.
myself
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is quitaTobvicits at this
point that this Congresa must act on
temporary unemployment compensation
to take the edge off the burden of in-
creased unemployment add to relieve the
suffering that is resulting from long-
standing unemployment in certain areas.
The Committee on Education and La-
bor and the Ccrmmittee on Ways and
Means have, after consultation, worked
out an understanding whereby our com-
mittee will move in the areas of uric-
diction of the Committee on Ways and
Means, and Insofar as roncovered em-
ployment is not presently covered.
mittee will take care of that problem
in its bill.
However, this agreement in no way
indicates that the Committee on 'Ways
and Means is relinquishing jurisdiction
over the subject matter at extending ap-
plication of the unemployment compen-
sation program to persons whose em-
ployment is not presently covered.
Mr. DOMINICK V. DANIELS. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ULLMAN I am happy to yield to
my friend, the chairman of the Select
Subcommittee on Labor.
Mr. DOMINICK V. DANIELS. Mr.
Speaker, as chairman of the Select Sub-
committee on Labor, I with to concur in
the statement the gentleman just made
to the House. It is the understanding of
our committee, the Committee on Edu-
cation and Labor, that their yielding
jurisdiction on this point is done for the
Purpose of consideration of the next bill
which is coming up.
Mr. ULLBLAN, Mr. Speaker, I appreci-
ate the remarks of the gentleman. We
are in perfect accord, and we have a fine
working arrangement. There is no mis-
understanding here.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is in lieu of and
replacement for a bill reported last week
to establish a temporary special unem-
ployment compensation program. The
bill presently under consideration differs
in several respects from the bill that the
committee reported last week .H.R.
17570). The principal differences be-
tween the two bills are as follows.
First, the earlier bill would have es-
tablished a program to pay special un-
employment compensation both to per-
sons exhausting regular and extended
unemployment compensation benefits
and to unemployed persons who had
worked in noncovered employment The
bill under consideration is limited to pro-
viding benefits to persons who were en-
titled to benefits under the unemploy-
ment compensation programs.
Second, the special unemployment
compensation program established by
the earlier bill would have triggered into
operation on an area-by-area basis. The
bill under consideration provides that
emergency benefits under the new pro-
gram will be payable whenever extended
benefits are payable in a State or in the
entire country under the State and Na-
tional trigger procedures of the Federal-
State extended unemployment com-
pensation program.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
II 11566.
14i4 (C('
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE December 10, 1974
There was only one arrest of an American
for cocaine importation from late August to
Nov. 1 of this year.
The Mexicans have also arrested a small
number of other foreigners at the airport
for cocaine importation, including six Ca-
nadians. According to the U.S. Embassy, no
Mexican has been arrested at the airport for
this offense.
The airport campaign hal revealed some
details about the involvement of American
DEA agents in the work of Mexico's anti-
narcotics program. The US. DEA has 36 em-
ployes in Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monter-
rey, Hermosillo, and Mazatlan. Of these, 26
are classified as agents. In addition, DEA
agents in U.S. border towns have responsibil-
ity for working with Mexican agents in the
Mexican border towns.
U.S. officials have seemed reluctant to re-
veal exactly what these DEA: agents do. In
a confrontation with American prisoners at
Lecumberri prison last July, U.S. Consul
General Peter J. Peterson told them, "There
are no American police officers attached to
the embassy operating in Mexico."
Technically, this is correct, for the U.S.
DEA agents do not have the power of arrest
In Mexico. But they do perform certain police
functions, like taking part in the interroga-
tion of arrested persons and supplying tips to
Mexican police officials about suspected
offenders.
Even this role might not have been known
if it were not for the evident carelessness of
one agent. Several American prisoners have
said that Americans were present during
their interrogations at the airport, but the
prisoners did not know who they were. In
one case, however, an American identified
himself to a prisoner as Arthur Sedillo; a
DEA agent attached to the U.S. Embassy in
Mexico City.
Paced with this evidence, U.S. Consul Gen-
eral Peterson has confirmed that DEA agent
Sedillo, who is no longer in Mexico, was
present during that iniferrogation. But
Peterson said he knew of no other case.
Regional director Eyman, however, has con-
firmed that DEA agents have been present
in other interrogations.
"There are occasions," Eyman said, "when
the government of Mexico will request co-
operation or assistance in the interrogation
of English-speaking offenders." Eyman said
U.S. agents are called in because there is a
language problem or the Mexicans need the
DEA's "knowledge of what goes on in the
United States" or "if we alerted them" to
the offender in the first place.
Eyman said "we maintain liaison with the
Mexico airport operation" but "there really
is no dire need for our presence" in the
interrogations.
This involvement of the DEA in the inter-
rogations raises the question of whether the
U.S. government has been zealous in pro-
tecting the rights of the U.S. citizens ar-
rested in Mexico.
Contrary to international convention, Mex-
ican federal police officials, in almost every
case, have refused to allow the American
prisoners at the airport to phone the U.S.
Embassy for assistance. This has meant that
by the time a representative of the office of
the consul general, which handles the prob-
lems of arrested Americans, has reached a
prisoner, he has already signed a confession
in Spanish.
With the DEA so closely involved in the
airport operation, it would seem a simple
matter for the DEA in one part of the em-
bassy building to phone the consul general
in another part whenever the DEA knew an
American was arrested.
Both Peterson and Eyman insist that this
is done as a matter of routine. But, in the
one case in March, 1974, the consul general
confirms that DEA agent Sedillo was present,
embassy records show that the DEA did not
notify the consul general. The consul gen-
eral's office found out about the case by read-
ing about It in the Mexican newspapers.
In a frank moment, a U.S. Embassy official
shed some light on this. "It's an educational
thing," he said. "At first, the DEA thought
that we were trying to get these kids out of
Jail. Now they understand the need to coop-
erate with us."
.A number of Americans have accused Mex-
ican officials of beating and torturing them
during their interrogations. The U.S. Em-
bassy has passed on 11 such complaints to
the Mexican government. The Mexicans have
denied the accusations.
Eyman said he does not believe such abuse
is taking place. "I would take these allega-
tions with a grain of salt," he said.
But, according to informed sources, Eyman
recently sent a letter to all DEA agents order-
ing them to leave an interrogation if beating
or torture took place.
Asked about this, Eyman replied, "If our
agents are present when any activity violates
the civil rights of any person, we would leave.
Our people do not participate or ... them to
post bond and then leave the country. The
sentences of 61/2 to 13 years received by 50 of
the Americans are considered too severe by
the Mexican courts to allow bond.
Many prisoners insist that they have paid
large fees to lawyers and bribes to court offi-
cials to gain freedom, only to be informed
later that this was impossible because of U.S.
government pressure.
The accusation has troubled the U.S. Em-
bassy enough to solicit a disclaimer from the
Mexican Bar Assn.
In a letter to the embassy, Andres Melo
Abarrategui, president of the association,
said, "We have no knowledge, either official
or unofficial, of any intervention by this
diplomatic mission on Mexican judicial au-
thorities to prejudice the cases of American
citizens on trial in this country on
charges."
This issue is clouded. On one hand,
possible that Mexican court officials, kn
the U.S. government is watching them,
be reluctant to deal softly with these pr
ers. On the other hand, it is convenie
Mexicans who have accepted large Le
bribes to blame the 'U.S. government
they fail to do what they have promise
(Mr. MILLER asked and was
permission to extend his remarks a
point in the RECORD and to includ
traneous matter.)
t is
ing
ay
n-
for
or
en
yen
his
ex-
[Mr. MILLER's remarks will a pear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
(Mr. MILLER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to Maude ex-
traneous matter.)
[Mr. MIT ,T,FR's remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
STATEMENT OF ACTING CHAIR-
MAN AL ULLA/AN, COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, CONCERNING
REQUEST FOR A MODIFIED
CLOSED RULE ON THE BILL H.R.
16994, RELATIVE TO THE TAX
TREATMENT OF INTEREST ON
SAVINGS
(Mr. ULLMAN asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the REcoaD.)
Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am.tak-
ing this means of addressing my Demo-
cratic colleagues in the House to inform,
them that the Committee on Ways and
Means has directed me to request a hear-
ing before the Rules Committee for a
modified closed rule for consideration of
H.R. 16994 on the floor of the House. The
rule which the committee is requesting
would provide for four amendments to
be offered on the floor, but otherwise
would be the usual type closed rule.
These four amendments which might be
offered are as follows:
First, the exclusion for interest would
expire after 1 year's duration;
Second, the dollar amount of the ex-
clusion could be reduced to some lower
dollar figure;
Third, the tax treatment of interest
on savings would be made similar to the
present tax treatment of series E bonds.
Thus, taxation would be deferred until
the interest on savings Was withdrawn
from the account; and
Fourth, the exclusion for interest
would be limited to special accounts
whose funds are designated specifically
for residential mortgages or residential
construction loans.
The committee further directed me to
request that the rule provide for 2 hours
of general debate to be equally divided,
waiving points of order, for committee
amendments only except for the above,
and for the usual motion to recommit.
I am making this announcement in
order to comply with rule 17 of the Dem-
ocratic caucus concerning requests for
closed rules or modified closed rules.
I was directed to request the Rules
to hold a hearing on this mat-
ter next Tuesday, December 17, 1974,
and I have so written to the chairman
of the Committee on Rules.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 16136
Mr. PIKE submitted the following con-
ference report and statement on the bill
(H.R. 16136) to authorize certain con-
struction at military installations, and
for other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 93-1545)
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
16136) to authorize certain construction at
military installations, and for other purposes,
having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate and
agree to the same with an amendment as
follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to
be inserted by the Senate amendment insert
the following:
TITLE I
SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may
establish or develop military installations
and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con-
verting, rehabilitating, or installing perma-
nent or temporary public works, including
land acquisition, site preparation, appurte-
nances, utilities, and equipment for the fol-
lowing acquisition and construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
"UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $26,170,000.
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $9,742,000.
Fort Carson, Colorado, $2/7,701,000.
Fort Hood, Texas, $42,754,000.
Fort Sam Houston., Texas, $4,286,000.
Fort Lewis, Washington, $10,270,000.
Fort Riley, Kansas, $25,933,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
December 10, 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 1150
(in South America) to put the finger on
them in the Malted States as it Jean Mexico,"
an American ? cotics official said. But he
added that U.S. o ials prefer toodert Mexi-
can authorities b use of that nation's
tougher enforcemen ws.
The DEA is so pl with the enforce-
ment and conviction in Mexico that
the United States and Me aclording to a
DEA official, plan to utilize ? ifid extradi-
tion treaty which is based o xican law
"that allows for prosecution of ?ericans in
Mexico for crimes committed in United
States."
Interviewed in Washington, Trim to E.
Moreno, an official who has coo4inat ef-
forts of DEA agents in Mexico, said that e
extradition treaty, signed in 180, has
dom been used. It was used in 1917, he sat
when a Mexican citizen who hid violated
narcotics laws in San Diego was arrested,
tried and convicted in Tijuana Mex. The
Mexican was senteneed to five yehrs, Moreno
said.
Moreno, praising the Mexican prosecution
record, said:
"If we were to put a chart with our prose-
cution figures on it and the Mesthan figures
on it, it would show that the Mexicans do
much better than our courts omponvictions
and penalties.
"Mexico has much stiffer nathotics laws
and a much stiffer attitude towagli enforcing
them. The Mexicans are giving 'defendants
six years in cases that we are losiMs in Amer-
ican courts."
(While the U.S. maximum pen.sIty for pos-
session of narcotics with intent he distribute
is 15 years in prison, the average sentence
for offenders is 3 to 5 years with the possi-
bility of parole.)
Many of those imprisoned are from Cali-
fornia. A large number are ecifficated and
articulate people who insist they hate been
unfairly treated and who have enlisted the
aid of relatives and friends to 'bring their
plight to the attention of raembers of Con-
gress.
With DEA planning to greatly expand Its
joint enforcement efforts with the Mexican
Federal Police, the Los Angeles-Times has
undertaken an extensive investion into
how that enforcement program has worked
so far and how Americans =speed of drug
smuggling have fared.
In Mexico City, California and Washing-
ton, reporters have sought the hiets behind
allegations that American suspects have
been:
Beaten during interrogation sessions and
forced to sign confessions in Spanish by
Mexican agents trained by the DEA.
In some instances questioned by Mexican
agents accompanied by DEA agents whose
presence at such sessions is unauthorized.
Largely ignored by U.S. Embassy officials
charged with the responsibility of protect-
ing the rights of American citizens arrested
in Mexico City.
Exploited by Mexican attorneys and at
least one Los Angeles attorney who have
preyed on the suspects' friends and relatives,
bilking them of many thousands of dollars.
Beaten in prisons that are knoWn for their
cruelty, including the notorious Lecumberri
prison, where extortion is the rule.
In its investigation, The Times had access
to the files of Rep. Fortney H. (Sete) Stark
(D-Calif.), who has been working with rela-
tives of many of the prisoners in investigat-
ing the situation. Stark, a member of the
House's special subcommittee on interna-
tional narcotics traffic, said in Mi interview
he plans to call for a congressional investi-
gation of the matter.
Stark and his staff have compiled a large
file documenting approximately 100 cases,
including the treatment of Americans by
Mexican police, courts and prisOna allega-
tions about the failure of the t113. Embassy
to assist them, and the role of the U.S. rev-
ernment in the Mexican narcotics enforce-
ment program.
Much of the documentation consists of
written statements by prisocters and their
relatives.
The arrests at the Mexico City airport have
been a special sore point among the Amer
lean suspects because in their view they
have been tried and punished in Mexico for
a (same that, in essence, was against the
United States.'
Robert J. Eyman, the regional director of
. .
DEA in Mexico City, said in an interview:
-'Mexico's Ithility to interdict this cocaine
iS a significant step forward as far as the
United StOtes is concerned."
An official of the U.S. Embassy here put it
In more colorful terms; "It's just like some-
one was inside your neighbor's house with
bomb that he was going to throw at your
use. Wouldn't you be happy if your neigh..
b. topped him?"
there is disquiet about the program
-else re., Numerous doneressmen have
Writte the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City
-request more information about the
plight of ? e Americans in Mexican -jails.
Accordi ? the U.S. Embassy here, 525
Americans imprisoned La Mexican jails
as of Nov. 1. these, 441 were jailed on
narcotics char This is more than one-
third of all the ? leans imprisoned on such
charges in foreign s throughout the world.
The U.S. Embassy h says that about 126
were arrested while i nsis at the Mexico
City airport and ch with importing
cocaine into Mexico.
Fifty of the 125 have sentenced 6%:
to 13 years in prison; the them expect a,
similar fate. The other 316 ericans are
serving or will serve, prison - ? of 1 or 2
years. -
A strong case can be made tha t were
_caught because they were offendi a Mexi-
can government genuinely concern about
the problem of drugs within its own ntry.
But the arrests at the airport ? the
amateur smugglers?known as "mule or
"burroe"?differs in that cocaine is no a
major Mexican problem.
Dr. Guido Belasso, the director general o
the Mexican center for the Study of Drug
Addiction, a government agency, said of
cocaine in a recent interview: -There are
a few users here. But it is by no means a
social problem."
The cocaine arrests represent only part of
the results of recent joint American-Mext-
can efforts to stem the drug traffic. American
narcotics agents long believed that part of
the- American problem would be eased if
the Mexican government moved against its
drug producers, traffickers and smugglers
since Mexico is the source .g most of the
marijuana and a large part of the herion 'Samd
in the United States.
In September, 1969, the Nixon Administra-
tion set up "Operation Intercept" at the
frontier, in part to bring pressure on the
Mexican government. For 10 days, U.S. Bor-
der Patrol and Customs agents thoroughly
searched every person and car crossing the
border from Mexico. The interminable de-
lays disrupted border commerce and held up
Mexican workers with jobs in the United
States. And it dissuaded U.S. tourists from
making trips into Mexico.
Mexico,: with the economy heavily depen-
dent upon American tourism, got the mess-
age. As a U.S. embassy official said recently,
"The United States mechanised its leverage
in. Operation Intercept, and this sensitized
the Mexicans to the problem." The Mexi-
can government agreed to join the 'U.S. gov-
ernment in "Operation Cooperation"?a pro-
gram to crack down on the drug traffic from
Mexico to the United States.
Under Operation Cooperation, the U.S.
government, according to embassy officiate,
has given Mexico $14 million in aid for
drug-law eisfortement, including $8 million
in the current fiscal year. Most of the money
has been spent on 28 helicopters, used by
Mexico to hunt for opium poppy fields. In
addition, the U.S. government has trained
276 Mexican federal police and 152 customs
agents either in the United States or Mex-
too in drug enforcement and inspection. This
means that the vast majority of Mexican
federal and customs agents have had such
training.
During this period, Mexico has significantly
increased its destruction, of poppy fields and
heroin laboratories and its arrest of tan.
fickers and smugglers, both Mexican and
foreign.
The U.S. Embassy does not have statistics
prior to Operation Intercept, but one em-
bassy official estimated that the total num-
ber of Americans in jail was about 100--most
of them for failing to pay their hotel bins.
By July, 1970, there were 187 Americans in
Mexican jails on drug charges alone. By
July, 1971, the figure was 234. Now it is 411.
Despite the Mexican" cooperation, there
still is a feeling in some U.S. circles that
Mexico is not doing enough. During Opera-
tion Cooperation, the amount of heroin cart-
lug from Mexico increased from 15% to
60%.
In March, 1973, two congressmen, Reps.
Morgan P. Murphy (D-111.) and Robert H.
Steele (R-Conn.), issued a report insisting
that "the battle to stop narcotics from en-
tering the United States from Mexico is be-
ing lost." They said that "the VS. Embassy
In Mexico must be more forceful in impress-
ing upon Mexican officials that vigorous ac-
tion is necessary at all levels of government."
In a recent interview, an important Mexi-
can government official said, "There still is
considerable pressure: by that I mean nor-
mal diplomatic pressure. In fact, a substa n'
tial part of the recent talks on the border
between the two presidents was on this sub-
ject" He was referring to the meetings in
late October between President Ford and
President Luis Echeverria of Mexico.
There is a difference of opinion sine ng
U.S. officials about whether the United States
specifically asked for the program to slop
cocaine "mules" at the Mexico City airport,.
"At no point to my knowledge did we go to
e Mexicans and ask for this," a State De-
ent official said in an interview.
Mortal Director Eyroan of the DEA said,
" United States has encouraged this goy-
' ern nt and all other governments to im-
prov their enforcement, including airport
surve4 ,ce. In that sense, we are glad to
see it. t did we go out and specifically ask
for it? answer is no.
Howe Moreno, the project coordinasair
of the Me ? program, told The Times. "we
motivated
Moreno the program was a gentle-
men's agreera t between the attorney gen-
erals of the tw tries.
The Mexican mpaign coincided with a
training program y the U.S. Customs
ice. As part of worldwide project, U.S.
Customs trained wo Mexican customs
supervisors in the tted States in April,
1973, and then sent tructore to Mexico to
train 50 customs tors in Novemter,
1973. According to U.S. stoma, its training
was "oriented towards th practical aspects
of :seizure, searches, narcot identification,
cargo control, passenger and baggage con-
tut, and all other phases of border control
enforcement."
In addition, U.S. Customs -provided the
Mexico City airport in September, 1973,- vrith
an American dog handler and a dog trained
to sniff narcotics.
The arrests of the Americans at the air-
port began in late summer of 1973, alter the
Mexican supervisors returned from training
in the United States, and reached Its high
point in the spring of 1974, after the Ma-
Jean customs inspectors had completed their
classes. The campaign has since petered out.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
December 10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE H 11567
Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Geor-
gia, $42,197,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE
COMMAND
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $9,625,000.
Fort Benning, Georgia, $36,827,000.
Fort Bliss, Texas, $12,296,000.
Fort Eustis, Virginia, $8,124,000.
Fort Gordon, Georgia, $9,858,000.
Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation, Cali-
fornia, $1,108,000.
Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $19,078,000.
Fort Knox, Kentucky, $2,264,000.
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, $9,911,000.
Fort Lee, Virginia, $11,473,000.
Fort McClellan, Alabama, $17,344,000.
Presidio of Monterey, California, $3,107,000.
Fort Ord, California, $3,660,000.
Fort Polk, Louisiana, $7,304,000.
Fort Rucker, Alabama, $4,928,000.
Fort Sill, Oklahoma, $15,587,000.
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, $3,360,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF.
WASHINGTON
Fort Myer, Virginia, $2,497,000.
'UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 01,-
030,000.
Aeronautical Maintenance Center, Texas,
$ ?
Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, $7,648,000.
Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania,
$4,726,000.
Lexington/Blue Grass Army Depot, Ken-
tucky, $616,000.
Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, $2,820,000.
Red River Army Depot, Texas, $269,000.
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, $10,322,000.
Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, $2,731,000.
Sacramento Army Depot, California, $2,-
599,000.
Seneca Army Depot, New York, $815,000.
Sierra Army Depot, California, $717,000.
Watervliet Arsenal, New York, $3,256,000.
White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico,
$1,808,000.
Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, $1,859,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY COMMUNICATION
COMMAND
Fort Huachuca, Arizona, $556,000.
Fort Ritchie, Maryland, $2,023,000.
I7NTTED STATES M/LTTARY ACADEMY
United States Military Academy, West
Point, New York, $8,720,000.
HEALTH SERVICES COMMAND
Fort Detrick, Maryland, $486,000.
Various Locations, $19,773,000.
CORPS OP ENGINEERS
Cold Regions Laboratories, New Hampshire,
$2,515,000.
'UNITED STATES ARMY, ALASKA
Fort Greely, Alaska, $251,000.
Fort Richardson, Alaska, $1,732,000.
Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $1,512,000,
'UNITED STATES ARMY, HAWAII
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $15,324,000.
Tripler General Hospital, Hawaii, $1,205,-
000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $1,356,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $16,358,000.
DINING FACILITIES MODERNIZATION
Various Locations, $10,723,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
'UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES, SOUTHERN
COMMAND
Canal Zone, Various Locations, $557,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY, PACIFIC
Korea, Various Locations, $2,034,000.
UNTIED STATES ARMY SEC17RTTY AGENCY
Various Locations, $148,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY COMMUNICATION
COMMAND
Fort Buckner, Okinawa, $532,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY, EUROPE
Germany, Various Locations, $27,482,000.
Camp Darby, Italy, $4,159,000.
Various Locations: For the United States
share of the cost of multilateral programs
for the acquisition or construction of mili-
tary facilities and installations, including
international military headquarters for the
collective defense of the North Atlantic
Treaty Area, $84,000,000: Provided, That
within thirty days after the end of each
quarter, the Secretary of the Army shall
furnish to the Committees on Armed Serv-
ices and Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a description
of obligations incurred as the United States
share of such multilateral programs.
SEC. 102. The Secretary of the Army may
establish or develop Army installations and
facilities by proceeding with construction
made necessary by changes in Army mis-
sions and responsibilities which have been
occasioned by (1) unforeseen security con-
siderations, (2) new weapons developments,
(3) new and unforeseen research and devel-
opment requirements, or (4) improved pro-
duction schedules if the Secretary of Defense
determines that deferral of such construc-
tion for inclusion in the next Military Con-
struction Authorization Act would be in-
consistent with interests of national security,
and in connection therewith to acquire, con-
struct, convert, rehabilitate, or install per-
manent or temporary public works, includ-
ing land acquisition, site preparation, appur-
tenances, utilities, and equipment; in the
total amount of $10,000,000: Provided, That
the Secretary of the Army, or his designee,
Shall notify the Committees on Armed Serv-
ices of the Senate and House of Representa-
tives, immediately upon reaching a final
decision to implement, of the cost of con-
struction of any public work undertaken
under this section, including those real es-
tate actions pertaining thereto. This au-
thorization will expire upon enactment of
the fiscal year 1976 Military Construction
Authorization Act except for those public
works projects concerning which the Com-.
mittee on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives have been noti-
fied pursuant to this section prior to that
date.
SEC. 103. (a) Public Law 93-166, is amended
under the heading "Oursfaz THE UNITED
STATES-UNITED STATES ARMY, El7ROPE", in sec-
tion 101 as follows:
With respect to "Germany, Various Loca-
tions" strike out "$12,517,000" and insert in
place thereof "$16,360,000".
(b) Public Lam 93-166 is amended by
striking out in clause (1) of section 602
"$107,257,000" and "$596,084,000" and insert-
ing in place thereof "$111,100,000" and
"$599,927,000", respectively.
SEC. 104. (a) Public Law 92-545, as
amended, is amended under the heading
"INSIDE TUE UNITED STATES'", in section 101
as follows:
With respect to "Fort Myer, Virginia,"
strike out "$1,815,000" and insert in place
thereof "$3,615,000."
With respect to "Fort Sill, Oklahoma,"
strike out "$14,958,000" and insert in place
thereof "16,159,000".
(b) Public Law 92-545, as amended, is
amended under the heading "Oursma THE
UNITED STATES?UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES,
SOUTHERN COMMAND" in section 101 as fol-
lows:
With respect to "Canal Zone, Various Loca-
tions" strike out "$8429,000" and insert in
place thereof "$9,238,000".
section 702 "444,767,000;" "$117,311,000; "
and "$562,078,000" and inserting in place
thereof "$447,768,000;" "$118,420,000;" and
"$566,188,000", respectively.
SEC. 105. (a) Public Law 91-511, as
amended, is amended under the heading "IN-
SIDE THE UNITED STATES", section 101 BS
follows:
With respect to "Rock Island Arsenal, Il-
linois," strike out "$2,750,000" and insert in
place -thereof "$3,650,000".
(b) Public Law 91-511, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (1) of
section 602 "$181,834,000" and "$267,031,-
000" and inserting in place thereof "$182,-
734,000" and "$267,931,000", respectively.
SEC. 106. Public Law 93-166 is amended in
section 105 as follows:
Clause (1) of section 702 of Public Law
92-145, as amended by section 105 (b ) of
Public Law 93-166, is amended by striking
out "$404,500,000" and "$405,107,000" and
Inserting in place thereof "$405,000,000" and
"$405,607,000" respectively.
TITLE II
SEC. 201. The Secretary of the Navy may
establish or develop military installations
and facilities by acquiring, constructing,
converting, rehabilitating, or installing per-
manent or temporary public works, includ-
ing land acquisition, site preparation, ap-
purtenances, utilities and equipment for
the following a,cquistion and construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
FIRST NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine,
$261,000.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery,
Maine, $7,232,000.
Naval Security Group Activity, Winter
Harbor, Maine, $255,000.
Naval Education and Training Center,
Newport, Rhode Island, $3,553,000.
Naval Underwater Systems Center, New-
port, Rhode Island, $9,249,000.
THIRD NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Submarine Base, New London, Con-
necticut, $971,000.
' FOURTH NAVAL DISTRICT-
Naval Air Test Facility, Lakehurst, New
Jersey, $7,350,000.
Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Me-
chanicsburg, Pennsylvania, $2,336,000.
Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
$296,000.
NAVAL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON
Naval District Commandant, Washington,
District of Columbia, $2,883,000.
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington,
District of Columbia, $205,000.
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland,
$7,706,000.
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda,
Maryland, $14,943,000.
Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland,
$15,000,000.
FIFTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Regional Medical Center, Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina, $290,000.
Naval Air Rework Facility, Cherry Point,
North Carolina, $252,000.
Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training
Center, Atlantic, Dam Neck, Virginia,
$2,034,000.
Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Vir-
ginia, $896,000.
Atlantic Command Operations Control
Center, Norfolk, Virginia, $633,000.
Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia,
$3,471,000.
Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, $8,364,000.
Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia,
$4,990,000.
KWAJALEIN MISSILE RANGE (c) Public Law 92-545, as amended, is Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia,
National Missile Range, $1,272,000. amended by striking out in clause (1) of $1,047,000.
? Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
11115
A.?
?
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
ONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE December 10, 197.4
Norfolk Naval Regional Medical Center
Portsmouth, Virginia, 315,801,000.?
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, -Portsmouth, Vir
ginia, $5,602,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Vir-
ginia, $1,595,000.
SIXTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida,
$6,893,000.
Naval Air Station, Jackflonville, Florida,
$446,000.
Naval Regional Medical Center, Jackson
vine, Florida, $12,413,000.
Naval Station, Mayport, Florida, $3,239,000.
Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida,
$8,709,000.
Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama
City, Florida, $795,000.
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, $20.
948,000.
Naval Technical Training Center, Pensa
cola, Florida, $4,478,000.
Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida,
$1,561,000.
FOURTEENTH NAVAL =IMAMS
Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahu, Hawaii.
$795,000.
Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $1,-
505,000.
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, $3,856,000.
MARINE CORPS
Marine Barracks, Washington, District of
Colambia, $1,874,000.
Marine Corps Development and Education
Command, Quantico, Virginia, $2,803,000.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, 1113,864,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point,
North Carolina, $1,260,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, New River, North
_ Carcaina, $499,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona,
_ $3,203,000.
Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow.
California, $1,463,000.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton,
California, $7,271,000.
Marine Corps Base, Twentynine Palms,
California, $397,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay,
Hawaii, $5,497,000.
POLLUTION MIATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $9,849,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $44,281,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
TENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Telecommunications Center, Roose-
velt Roads, Puerto Rico, $3,186,000.
Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto
Rico, $947,000.
Naval Security Group Activity, Sabana
Seca, Puerto Rico, $1,026,000.
FIFTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Support Activity, Canal Zone, $800.-
000.
Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi,
$1,485,000.
Naval Hospital, Beaufort: South Carolina,
$7,112,000.
Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charlestan,
South Carolina, $200,000.
Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina,
$15,352,000.
Naval Supply Center, Charleston, South
Carolina, $3,750,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South
Carolina, $2,564,000.
Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tennessee, $4,-
284,000.
EIGHTH NAVAL narrama
Naval Support Activity, New Orleans,
Louisiana, $3,080,000.
Naval Air Station, Carpi= Christi, Texas.
$1,830,000.
Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas, $1,-
428,000.
NINTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Training Center, Ckreat Lakes, Illi-
nois, $1,953,000.
ELEVENTH NAVAL DTR/C'1'
Naval Regional Medical Center, Camp
Pendleton, California, $7,619,000.
Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Cali-
fornia, $8,371,000.
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach,
California, $6,011,000.
Naval Air Station, Miramar, California.
$11,772,000.
Naval Air Station, North Ind, California,
a12,943,000.
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port
Hueneme, .Cralifornia, $1,048,000.
Naval Electronics Laboratory Center, San
Diego, California, $3,238,000.
Naval Regional Medical Canter, San Diego,
California, $13,493,000.
Naval Training Center, San Diego, Cali-
fornia., $8,657,000.
Navy Submarine Support Facility, San
Diego, California, $4,231,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Cali-
fornia, $2,147,000.
TWELFTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Aix Rework Facility, Alameda, Cali-
fornia, $1,638,000.
Naval Hospital, Lemoore, California.
$333,000.
Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, California.,
$77,000.
Naval Communications Station, Stockton,
California, $1,102,000.
THIRTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Station, Adak, Alaska. $7,697,000.
Trident Support Site, Bangor, Wastallgtan,
$100,000,000.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, BremertOn,
Washington, $393,000.
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Wash-
?),$2,603,000.
ATLANTIC OCEAN AREA
Naval Air Station, Bermuda., $1,868,000.
Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, $2,317,-
000.
EUROPEAN AREA
Naval Security Group Activity, Edzeta
Scotland, $571,000.
Naval Activities Detachment, Holy Loch,
Scotland, $1,188,000.
INDIAN OCEAN AREA
Naval Communications Facility, :Diego
Garica, Chagos Archipelago, $14,802,000.
PACIFIC OCEAN AREA
Naval Communication Station, Fineman,
Guam, Mariana Islands, $355,000.
Naval Ship Repair Facility, Guam, Mariana
Islands, $1,782,000.
Navy Public Works Center, Guam, Mariana
Islands, $907,000.
Naval Air Station, Cub' Point, Republic of
the Philippines, $2,873,000.
Naval Station, Subic Bay, Republic of the
Philippines, $3,741,000.
pow:arms AMTEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $1,059,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $4,038,000.
Sac. 202. The Secretary of the Navy may
establish or develop Navy Installations and
facilities by proceeding with construction
made necessary by changes in Navy mansions
and responsibilities which have been occa-
sioned by (1) unforeseen security considera-
tions, (2) new weapons developments, (3)
new and unforeseen research and develop-
ment requirements, or 14) improved pro-
duction schecrules, if the Secretary of De-
fense determines Mat deferral of such con-
struction for inclusion in the next Military
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP7ASAORMIW68050003-1
Construction Authorization Act
inconsistent with interests of national se-
curity, and In connection therevrith to ac-
quire, construct, convert, rehabilitate, or in-
stall permanent or temporary public works,
including land acquisition, site preparation,
appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, in
the total amount of $10,000,000: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Navy, or lila desig-
nee, shall notify the Committee& on Armed
Services of the Senate and House or Repre-
sentatives, immediately upon reaching a de-
cision to implement, of the cost of construc-
tion of any public work undertaken under
this section, including those real estate ac-
tions pertaining thereto. This authorization
will expire upon enactment of the fiscal
year 1976 Military Construction Authoriza-
tion Act, except for those public wcaks proj-
ects concerning vehich the Commatees an
Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives have been notified pursuant
to this section prior to that date.
SEC. 203. (a) Public Law 90-408, as
amended, is amended under the heading
"INSIDE THE thsrrreo sTATEs-, in section 201
as follows:
With respect to "Naval Academy, Annapo-
lis, Maryland," strike out "$2,000,0)0" and
insert in place thereof "$4,391,000".
(b) Public Law 90-408, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of
section 802 "$211,668,000" and "$248,533,000"
and inserting in place thereof "$244,359,000"
and "$250,924,000", respectively.
SEC. 204. (a) Public Law 91-511, as
amended, is amended under the heading "IN-
SIDE THE UNITED STATES", in section 201 as
follows:
With respect to "Naval Air Rework 'Facility,
Jacksonville, Florida," strike out "$8,369,000"
and insert in place thereof "$4,534,0)0".
(b) Public Law 91-511, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of sec-
tion 602 "$247,204,000" and "$247,:142,000"
and inserting in place thereof "$247,869,000"
and "$275,007,000", respectively.
Sec. 205. (a) Public Law 92-515, as
amended, is amended under the :heading
"INSIDE THE UNITED STATES", in section 201 as
follows:
With respect to "Navy Public Works Cen-
ter, Norfolk, Virginia," strike out "$3,819,000"
and insert in place thereof "$7,019,000".
With respect to "Naval Hospital, New Or-
leans, Louisiana," strike out "$11,880,000" and
insert in place thereof "$14,609,000".
With respect to "Naval Ammunition De-
pot, Hawthorne, Nevada," strike out '$6.-
003,000" and insert in place thereoi "$10,-
203,000".
(b) Public Law 92-545 is amended under
the heading "Otastaz THE UNITED STATES"In section 201 as follows:
With respect to "Naval Air Facility, Sigo-
nella, Sicily, Italy", strike out "$8,632,000"
and insert in place thereat "$12,832,000",
(c) Public Law 92-545, as amended, Is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of
section 702 "$477,664,000", "$41,217,00)", and
"$518,881,000" and inserting in place thereof
"$488.493,000", "$44,917,000", and "$533,410,-
000", respectively.
SEC. 206. (a) Public Law 93-166 is amended
under the beading "Imam THE UNITEIA
STATES", In section 201 as follows:
With respect to "Naval- Home, Gulfport,
Mississippi," strike out $9,444,000" and insert
in place thereof "$11,802,000".
With respect to "Naval Air Station Merid-
ian, Mississippi," strike out "$4,532,000"
and insert in place thereof "$5,408,000.'?
With respect to "Naval Hospital, Now Or-
leans, Louisiana," strike out "$3,386,000" and
Insert in place thereof "$4,157,000*.
With respect to "Naval Air Station, Ala-
meda, California," strike out "a3,827,000"
and insert in place thereof "$7,758,000".
With respect to "Maxine Corps Supply
Center, Banistow, California," strike out
"$3.802,000" and insert in place thereof
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
December 10, 197.4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
(b) Public Law 93-166 is amended by strik-
ing out in clause (2) of section 602 "$511,-
606,000" and "$570,439,000" and inserting in
place thereof "$522,006,000" and "$580,839,-
000", respectively.
TITLE III
SEc. 301. The Secretary of the Air Force
may establish or develop military installa-
tions and facilities by acquiring, construct-
ing, converting, rehabilitating or installing
permanent or temporary public works, in-
cluding land acquisition, site preparation,
appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for
the following acquisition and construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Peterson Field, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
$6,885,000.
Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City,
Florida, $2,775,000.
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Grand-
view, Missouri, $805,000.
AIR roper LOGISTICS COMMAND
Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah, $11,-
894,000.
Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas,
$11,150,000.
McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento,
California, $15,873,000.
Newark Air Force Station, Newark, Ohio,
$1,977,000.
Robins Mr Force Base, Warner Robins,
Georgia, $792,000.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, $9,839,000.
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton,
Ohio, $13,871,000.
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Arnold Engineering Development Center,
Tullahoma Tennessee, $4,240,000.
Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas,
$3,100,000.
Edwards Air Force Base, Muroc, California,
$1,198,000.
Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, Florida,
$13,512,000.
Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, $232,000.
Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa, Florida,
$642,000.
Satellite Tracking Facilities, $832,000.
AIR TRAINING COMMAND
Chanute Air Force Base, Rantoul, Illinois,
$6,267,000.
Columbus Air Force Base, Columbus, Mis-
sissippi, $169,000.
Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, MissiselPloi,
$7,297,000.
Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Texas,
$298,000.
Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado,
$7,886,000.
Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento, Cali-
fornia, $2,143,000.
Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio,
Texas, $790,000.
Reese Air Form Base, Lubbock, Texas,
$836,000.
Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls,
Texas, $8,631,000.
Vance Air Force Base, Enid, Oklahoma,
$6,798,000.
Webb Air Force Base, Big Spring, Texas,
$776,000.
Williams Air Force Base, Chandler, Ari-
zona, $5,849,000. .
AIR UNIVERS/TY
Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery,
Alabama, $2,500,000.
ALASKAN A/R COMMAND
Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska,
$310,000.
Various Locations, $15,242,000.
HEADQUARTERS COMMAND
Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs,
Maryland, $14,699,000.
Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, Dis-
trict of Columbia, $3,155,000.
MILITARY AIRL/FT COMMAND
Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delaware,
$1,373,000.
McGuire Air Force Base, Wrightstown, New
Jersey, $108,000.
Scott Air Force Base, Belleville, Illinois,
$5,451,000.
Travis Air Force Base, Fairchild, California,
$8,800,000.
PACIFIC AIR roams
Ilickam Air Force Base, Honolulu, Hawaii,
$11,878,000,
STRATEGIC A/R COMMAND
Barksdale Air Force Base, Shreveport,
Louisiana, $641,000.
Blytheville Air Force Base, Blytheville,
Arkansas, $675,000.
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson,
Arizona, $3,009,000.
Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South
Dakota, $2,109,000.
(3rifliss Air Force Base, Rome, New York,
$1,774,000.
Grissom Air Force Base, Peru, Indiana,
$323,000.
K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Marquette,
Michigan, $7,050,000.
Kincheloe Air Force Base, Kinross, Mich-
igan, $835,000.
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls,
Montana, $3,740,000.
McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita, Kansas,
$3,038,000.
Minot Air Force Base, Minot, North Da-
kota, $238,000.
Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, Nebraska,
$5,595,000.
Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, $115,000.
Plattsburgh Air Force Base, Plattsburgh,
New York, $882,000.
Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Nosier,
Missouri, $6,692,000.
TACTICAL AIR COMMAND
Cannon Air Force Haze, Clovis, New
Mexico, $1,715,000.
George Air Force Base, Victorville,
$3,846,000.
Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, New
Mexico, $1,565,000.
Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, Vir-
ginia, $3,056,000.
Little Rock Air Force Base, Little Rock,
Arkansas, $5,141,000.
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, $300,000.
Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nevada,
$6,495,000.
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, $730,000.
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Golds-
boro, North Carolina, $3,948,000.
Various Locations, $5,194,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $2,056,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $13,700,000.
SPECIAL FACILITIES
Various Locations, $12,152,000.
AEROSPACE CORPORATION
Los Angeles, California, $9,000,000.
OUTSIDE TELE UNITED STATES
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Various Locations, $138,000.
PACIFIC AIR FORCES
Various Locations, $3,775,000.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE
Germany, $280,000.
United Kingdom, $884,000.
Various Locations, $63,081,000.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE SECURITY SERVICE
Various Locations, $4,135,000.
II 11569
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $595,000.
SPECIAL FACILITIES
Various Locations, $1,999,000.
SEC. 302. The Secretary of the Air Force
may establish or develop classified military
Installations and facilities by acquiring, con-
structing, converting, rehabilitating, or in-
stalling permanent or temporray public
works, including land acquisition, site prep-
aration, appurtenances, utilities and equip-
ment, in the total amount of $8,100,000.
SEC. 303. The Secretary of the Air Force
may establish or develop Air Force installa-
tions and facilities by proceeding with con-
struction made necessary by changes in Air
Force missions and responsibilities which
have been occasioned by (1) unforeseen
security considerations, (2) new weapons
developments, (3) new and unforeseen re-
search and development requirements, or
(4) Improved production sc,hedules, if the
Secretary of Defense determines that deferral
of such construction for InclUsion in the next
Military Construction Authorization Act
would be inconsistent with interests of na-
tional security and in connection therewith
to acquire, construct, convert, rehabilitate,
or install permanent or temporary public
works, including land acquisition, site prep-
aration, appurtenances, utilities, and equip-
ment in the total amount of $10,000,000:
Provided, That the Secretary of the Air Force,
or his designee, shall notify the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and House
of Representatives, immediately upon reach-
ing a final decision to implement, of the ,cost
of construction of any public work under-
taken under this section, Including those
real estate actions pertaining thereto. This
authorization will expire upon enactment of
the fiscal year 1976 Military Construction
Authorization Act, except for those public
works projects concerning which the Com-
mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives have been notified
pursuant to this section prior to that date.
Sac. 304. (a) Section 301 of Public Law
93-166 is amended under the heading "IN-
SIDE TiE UNTIED STATES" US follows:
(1) Under the subheading "AEROSPACE DE-
FENSE COMMAND" with respect to "Peterson
Field, Colorado Springs, Colorado", strike out
"$7,843,000" and insert in place thereof "$9,-
733,000".
(2) Under the subheading "AEROSPACE DE-
FENSE COMMAND" with respect to "Tyndall
Air Force Base, Panama City, Florida", strike,
out "$1,020,000" and insert in place thereof
"$1,284,000".
(3) Under the subheading "AIR FORCE COM-
MUNICATIONS SERVICE" with respect to "Rich-
ards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Grandview, Mis-
souri", strike out "$8,983,000" and insert in
place thereof "06,130,000".
(4) Under the subheading "arn FORCE LO-
GISTICS COMMAND" with respect to "Robins
Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Georgia",
strike out "$4,628,000" and insert in place
thereof "$7,324,000".
(5) Under the subheading "AIR FORCE SYS-
TEMS COMMAND" with respect to "Eglin Air
Force Base, Valparaiso, Florida", strike out
"07,039,000" and insert in place thereof "$8,-
882,000".
(6) Under the subheading "MR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Kessler Air Force
Base, Biloxi, Mississippi", strike out "$8,786,-
000" and insert in place thereof "$10,733,-
000".
(7) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Lackland Air
Force Base, San Antonio, Texas", strike out
"$6,509,000" and insert in place thereof "$9,-
186,000".
(8) Under the subheading "MR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Reese Air Force
Base, Lubbock, Texas", strike out "$4,211.-
000" ad insert In place thereof "$895,000".
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
H 11570
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE December 10, 1974
TITLE V? MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
AND HOME'OWNERS ASSISTANCE PRO-
GRAM
Sze. 501. The Secretnry of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to construct, at tho
locations hereinafter named,
Newly housing
units and mobile home facilities in th num-
bers hereinafter listed, but no ramn y hous-
ing -construction shall be commenced at any
such locations in the united States, until the
Secretary shall have consulted with the Sec-
retary of the Department of Housing and
_ Urban Development, as to the availability of
adequate private housing at such locations.
If agreement cannot be reached with respect
to the availability of adequate private hous-
ing at any location, the Secretary of Defense
shall immediately notify the Committees on
Armed Services of the House of Representa-
tives and the Senate, in writing, of such dif-
ference of opinion, and no contract far con-
struction at such location shall be entered
Into for a period of thirty days after such
notification has been given. This autacirity
shall include the authority to acquire land,
and interests in land, by gift, purchase, ex-
change of Government-owned land, or
otherwise.
(a) Family Housing units?
(1) The Department of the Army, two
thousand nine hundred units, $98,477,91)0.
Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield,
Georgia, four hundred units.
United States Army Tustallations, Oahu,
Hawaii, one thousand units.
Fort Riley, Kansas, one hundred unies.
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, one thousand
units,
Fort Eustis, Virginia, Dias hundred units.
United States Army Instanations, Atlantic
Side, Canal Zone, one hundred units.
United States Army Installations, Pen
de, Canal Zone, two hundred units.
(2) The Department of the Navy, two the
nd six hundred and fifty units, $93,781,9
Naval Complex, San Diego, California, fi
ndred units.
Naval Complex, Jacksonville, Florida., t
nclred units.
Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii, six hundr
its.
Naval Complex, New Orleans, Louisia
o hundred units.
a.rine Corps Air Station, Cherry Pain
rth Carolina, three hundred units.
Naval Complex, Charleston, South Car
a, three hundred and fifty units.
aval Complex, Bremerton, Washingto
ee hundred units.
avid Complex, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
hundred units.
3) The Department of the Air Force, on
usand and fifty unite, $35,236,120.
rated States Air Force Installations,
u, Hawaii, two hundred units.
ease Air Force Base, New Hernpshire, on
dred units.
ltus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, one lem
cl units.
isawa Air Base, Japan., two hundred
S.
adena Air Base, Okinawa, two hundre
ts.
ark Air Base, Philippines, two hundred
fifty unite.
) Mobile Home Facilites?
) The Department of the Army, two hen-
and forty spaces, $960,000.
) The Department of the Air Force, two
dred spaces, $888,000.
) Demolition of existing structures on
reposed sites for family housing:
val Complex, Bremerton, Washington,
000.
. 502. (a) Authorization for the con-
tion of family housing provided in see-
501 of this Act shall be subjects under
regulations as the Secretary of Defense
su eadeng ant TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Vance Air Force
Base, Enid, Oklahoma", out "Min
000" and insert in place thereof "$895,000".
(10) Under the subheading "ant euxernan
COMMAND" with respect to "Webb Air Force
Base, Big Spring, Texas", strike out "$3,154,-
000" and insert in place thereof "$4.307,000".
(11) Under the subheading "armaraar AIR-
LIFT COMMAND" With TeSpECt to "Altus Air
Force Base, Altus, Oklahoma", strike out
"$1,078,000" and insert in place thereof
"$1,440,000".
(12) Under the subheading "STRATEGIC AIR
COMMAND" with respect to S'Francis E. War-
ren Air Force Base, Cheyanne, Wyoming",
strike out "$5,834,000" and insert in place
thereof "$8,265,000".
(13) Under the subheading "earierean AlL
COMMAND" with respect to "lattle Rock Air
Force Base, Little Rock, Arkansas", strike out
"$1,165,000" and insert in place thereof
"$2,200,000".
(14) Under the subheading "TACTICAL AIR
COMMAND" with respect to "Nellie Air Fence
Base, Las Vegas, Nevada", strike out "$2,-
588,000" and insert in place thereof "$3,-
637,000".
(b) Public Law 93-166 is Anther emended
by striking out in clause (3) of section 602
"$238,439,000" and "$260,741,000" and insert-
ing in place thereof "$280,727,000" and
"$283,029,000", respectively.
TITLE IV
Sze. 401. The Secretary of Defense may es-
tablish or develop military installations and
facilities by acquiring, constructing, convert-
ing, rehabilitating, or installing permanent
or temporary public works, including land
acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances,
utilities and equipment, for defense agencies
for the following acquisition' and construc-
tion: Si
INSIDE THE UN/TED STAIRS
DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY sa
Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Ce- hu
tar (St. Louis AFS), St. Louis, Missouri,
$2,573,000.
Port Belvoir, Virginia, $670,000. hu
DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY un
Defense Construction Supply Center, Co-
lumbus, Ohio, $1,862,000.
Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pennsyl- M
yenta, $394,000. No
Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee, $1,-
399,000. lin
Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, $527,000.
Defense Electronics Simply- Center, Day- N
thr
ton, Ohio, $572,000.
Defense Industrial Plant liSquipment Fa-
two
cility, Atchison, Kansas, $616,000.
tho
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, $936,000. Oah
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,363,000. hun
A
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
dre
DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY
Johnston Atoll, $1,458,000. unit
SEC. 402. The Secretary of Defense may _.K
establish or develop installations and facili-
ties which he determines to be vital to the
security of the United Statea, and in con- and
of Defense or his designee shall notify the P
may prescribe, to the following /imitations on
coat, whiolit shall include shades, sizeens,
ranges, refrigerators, and all other installed
equipment and fixtures, the cost of the fam-
ily unit, and the proportionate cost; of land
acquisition, site preparation (excluding dem-
olition authorized in section 501(m)), and
installation of utilities.
(b) The average unit cost for all units
of family housing constructed in this United
States (other than Alaska and Hawaii) shall
not exceed $30,000.- and in no event shall
the cost of any unit exceed $46,000.
(e) When family housing units are con-
tructed in areas other than that specified
n subsection (b) the average cost of all such
units shall not exceed $40,000, and in no
vent shall the cent of any unit exceed
$46,000.
SEC. 503. The Secretary of Defense, or his
esignee, Ls authorized touccomplist alters.-
ions, additions, expansions, or extensions
ot otherwise authorized by law, to existing
ublic quarters at s, cost not to exceed--
(1) for the Department of the Army, $20,-
00,000.
(2) for the Department of the Navy, $20,-
0,000.
(3) for the Department of the Air Force,
20,000,000.
Sze. 504. Notwithstanding the limitations
oatained in prior Military Construction Au-
orization Acts on cost of construction of
amily housing, the limitations on such cost
ntained in section 502 of this Act shall
ply to all prior authorizations ice con.
ruction of family housing not heretofore
pealed and for which construction con.
acts have not been executed prior to the,
te of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 505. The Secretary of Defense, or his
signee, is authorized to construct or other-
se acquire at the locations hereinaftee
med, family housing units not subject to
e limitations on such cost contained in
ction 502 of this Act. This authority shall
elude the authority to acquire land, and
terests in land, by gift, purchase, exchange
Government-owned land, or otherwise.
tel costs shall include shades, screens,
nges, refrigeratore, and other installed
uipment and fixtures, the cost of the family
t, and the costs of land acquisition, site
paration, and installation of utilities.
a) Naval Station, Kefla.vilc, Iceland, two
dred Units, at a t,otal cost not to exceed
600,000.
b) Two family housing Units in Warsaw,
and, at a total cost not to exceed $120.000.
is authority shall be funded. by use of
ess foreign currency when zoo provided in
artment of Defense Appropriation Acts.
EC. 506, The Secretary of Defense, or his
ignee, Ur authorized to accomplish repairs
improvemente to existing public quarters
amounts in-excess of the $15,000 limitation
cribed in section 610(a) of Public Law
110, as amended (81 Stat. 279, 30t,), as
ows:
0
00
th
CO
ap
St
re
tr
da
mc
de
wi
na,
u--
th
ss? se
ye in
in
wo of
To
ed ra
eq
na? uni
pre
hun
o- $9,
? Pol
Th
exc
Dep
des
and
a in
pres
foils
Fort McNair, Washington, District of CoI
umbia, five units, $176,500.
cl Fort Sam Houston, Teem, one hundred
and forty units, $2,352,800.
SRC. 507. (a) Section 515 of Public Law
84-161 (69 Stat. 324, 852), as amended, is
further amended by (1) striking out ' 1974
and 1975" and inserting in lieu thereof "1975
and 1976", and (2) revising the third sen-
tence to read as follows: "Expenditures for
the rental of such housing facilities, includ-
ing the cost of utilities and maintenance and
operation, may not exceed; For the Dented
States (other than Alaska and Hawaii),
Puerto Rico, and Guam an average of 4235
per month for each military department or
the amount of $310 per month for any one
unit: and for Alaska and Hawaii, an avonge
at $295 per month for each military depart-
neetion therewith to acquire, construct, i(b,
convert, rehabilitate, or install permanent 1'
or temporary public works, including land sired
acquisition, site preparation, appurtenancesa u (2
utilities, and equipment in the-total amount "un
of $15,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary (c
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate Na
and House of Representatives immediately $540,..
upon reaching a final decision to implement, SEC
of the cost of construction of any pubile struc
work undertaken under this section, incltul- tion
ing real estate actions pertaining thereto. such
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050003-1
December 10, 1P74 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
ment, or the amount of $355 per month for
any one unit."
(b) Section 507(b) of Public Law 93-166
(87 Stat. 661, 676), is amended by striking
out "$325" and "seven thousand five hun-
dred" in the first sentence, and inserting in
lieu thereof "$355", and "twelve thousand",
respectively; and in the second sentence by
striking out "three hundred units", and in-
serting in lieu thereof "one hundred fifty
units".
SEC. 508. There is authorized to be appro-
priated for use by the Secretary of Defense,
or his designee, for military family housing
and homeowners assistance as authorized by
law for the following purposes;
(1) for construction and acquisition of
family housing, including demolition, au-
thorized improvements to public quarters,
minor construction, relocation of family
housing, rental guarantee payments, con-
struction and acquisition of mobile home fa-
cilities, and planning, an amount not to ex-
ceed $304,088,000.
(2) for support of military family housing,
including operating expenses, leasing, main-
tenance of real property, payments of princi-
pal and interest on mortgage debts incurred,
payment to the Commodity Credit Corpora-
tion, and mortgage insurance premiums au-
thorized under section 222 of the National
Housing Act, as amended (12 1715m),
an amount. not to exceed $935,515,000; and
(3) for homeowners assistance under sec-
tion 1013 of Public Law 89-754 (80 Stat.
1255, 1290), including acquisition of prop-
erties, an amount not to exceed $5,000,000.
SEC. 509. None of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this or any other Act may
be used for the purpose of installing air-
conditioning equipment in any new or exist-
ing military family housing unit in the State
of Hawaii.
TITLE VI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 601. The Secretary of each military
department may proceed to establish or de-
velop installations and facilities under this
Act without regard to section 3648 of the Re-
vised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529),
and sections 4774 and 9774 of title 10, United
States Code. The authority to place perma-
nent or temporary improvements on land
!includes authority for surveys, administra-
tion, overhead, planning, and supervision in-
cident to construction. That authority may
be exercised before title to the land is ap-
proved under section 355 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended (40 U.S.C. 256), and
even though the land is held temporarily.
The authority to acquire real estate or land
includes authority to make surveys and to
acquire land, and interests in land (includ-
ing temporary use), by gift, purchase, ex-
change of Government-owned land, or
otherwise.
SEC. 602. There are authorized to be ap-
propriated such stuns as may be necessary
for the purposes of this Act, but appropria-
tions for public works projects authorized by
titles I, II, III, IV, and V. shall not exceed-
(1) for title I: Inside the United States
$491,695,000; outside the United States
$120,184,000; or a total of $611,879,000.
(2) for title II: Inside the United States,
$509,498,000; outside the United States,
$41,458,000; or a total of $550,956,000.
(3) for title III: Inside the United States,
$307,786,000; outside the United States,
$74,887,000; section 302, $8,100,000; or a total
of $390,773,000.
(4) for title IV: A total of $28,400,000.
(5) for title V: Military family housing
and homeowners assistance, $1,244,603,000.
SEC. 603. (a) Except as provided in subsec-
tions (b) and (e), any of the amounts spec-
ified in titles I, II, m, and W of this Act,
may, In the discretion of the Secretary con-
cerned, be increased by 5 per centum when
inside the United States (other than
Hawaii and Alaska), and by 10 per Cent=
Approved
when outside the United States or in Hawaii
and Alaska, if he determines that such in-
crease (1) is required for the sole purpose
of meeting unusual variations in cost, and
(2) could not have been reasonably antic-
ipated at the time such estimate was sub-
mitted to the Congress. However, the total
cost of all construction and acquisition in
each such title may not exceed the total
amount authorized to be appropriated in
that title.
(h) When the amount named for any con-
structton or acquisition in title I, II, III,
or IV of this Act involves only one project
at any military installation and the Secre-
tary of Defense, or his designee, determines
that the amount authorized must be in-
creased by more than the applicable per-
centage prescribed in subsection (a), the
Secretary concerned may proceed with such
construction or acquisition if the amount
of the increase does not exceed by more
than 25 per centum of the amount named for
such project by the Congress.
(c) Subject to the limitations contained
In subsection (a), no individual project
authorized under title 1,11, III, or IV of this
Act for any specifically listed military in-
stallation may be placed under contract if-
(1) the estimated cost of such project is
$250,000 or more, and
(2) the current working estimates of the
Department of Defense, based upon bids
received, for the construction of such proj-
ect exceeds by more than 25 per centum
the amount authorized for such project by
the Congress, until after the expiration of
thirty days from the date on which a writ-
ten report of the facts relating to the in-
creased cost of such project, including a
statement of the reasons for such increase
has been submitted to the Committees on
Armed Services of the House of Representa-
tives and the Senate.
(d) The Secretary of Defense shall submit
an annual report to the Congress identify-
ing each individual project which has been
placed under contract in the preceding
twelve-month period and with respect to
which the then current working estimate
of the Department of Defense based upon
bids received for such project exceeded the
amount authorized by the Congress for that
project by more than 25 per centum. The
Secretary shall also include in such report
each individual project with respect to which
the scope was reduced in order to permit con-
tract award within the available authoriza-
tion for such project. Such report shall in-
clude all pertinent cost information for
each individual project, including the
amount in dollars and percentage by which
the current working estimate based on the
contract price for the project exceeded the
amount authorized for such project by the
Congress.
(e) In addition to other cost variation
limitations contained in this section or In
similar sections of prior year military con-
struction authorization Acts, any of the
amounts specified in titles I, II, III, and IV
of this and prior military construction au-
thorization Acts may be varied upward by
an additional 10 per centum when the Sec-
retary, of the military department concerned
determines that such increase is required to
meet unusual variations in cost directly at-
tributable to difficulties arising out of the
current energy crisis. However, the total cost
of all construction and acquisition in each
such title may not exceed the total amount
authorized to be appropriated in that title.
Sm. 604. Contracts for construction made
by the United States for performance within
the United States and its possessions under
this Act shall be executed under the juris-
diction and supervision of the Corps of Engi-
neers. Department of the Army, or the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Depart-
ment of the Navy, or such other department
or Government agency as the Secretaries of
H 11571
the military departments recommend and
the Secretary of Defense approves to assure
the most efficient, expeditious, and cost-
effective accomplishment of the construction
herein authorized. The Secretaries of the
military departments shall report annually
to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives a
breakdown of the dollar value of construc-
tion contracts completed by each of the'
several construction agencies selected to-
gether with the design, construction super-
vision, and overhead fees charged by each of
the several agents in the execution of the
assigned construction. Further, such con-
tracts (except architect and engineering con-
tracts which, unless specifically authorized
by the Congress shall continue to be award-
ed in accordance with presently established
procedures, customs, and practice) shall be
awarded, insofar as practicable, on a com-
petitive basis to the lowest responsible bid-
der, if the national security will not be im-
paired and the award is consistent with chap-
ter 137 of title 10, United States Code. The
Secretaries of the military departments shall
report annually to the President of the Sen-
ate and the Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives with respect to all contracts
awarded on other than a competitive basis to
the lowest responsible bidder.
SEC. 605. As of October 1, 1975, an authori-
zations for military public works including
family housing, to be accomplished by the
Secretary of a military department in con-
nection with the establishment or develop-
ment of installations and facilities, and all
authorizations for appropriations therefor,
that are contained in titles I, II, III, IV, and V
of the Act of November 29, 1973, Public Law
93-166 (87 Stat. 661), and all such authori-
zations contained in Acts approved before
November 30, 1973, and not superseded or
otherwise modified by a later authorization
are repealed except-
(1) authorizations for public works and for
appropriations therefor that are set forth in
those Acts in the titles that contain the gen-
eral provisions;
(2) authorizations for public works proj-
ects as to which appropriated funds have
been obligated for construction contracts,
land acquisition, or payments to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, in whole or in
part before October 1, 1975, and authoriza-
tions for appropriations therefor;
(3) notwithstanding the repeat provisions
of section 605 of the Act of November 29,
1973, Public Law 93-166 (87 Stat. 661, 681),
authorizations for the following items which
shall remain in effect until October 1, 1976:
(A) Sanitary sewer connection in the
amount of $2,200,000 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
that is contained in title I, section 101 of the
Act of October 26, 1970 (84 Stat. 1204), as
amended and extended in section 705(a) (3)
(A) of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86 Stat.
1153).
(B) Cold storage warehouse construction
in the amount of $1,215,000 at Fort DIX, New
Jersey, that is contained in title I, section 101
of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86 Stat. 1135),
as amended.
(C) Enlisted men's barracks complex con-
struction in the amount of $12,160,000 at Fort
Knox, Kentucky, that is contained in title I,
section 101 of the Act of October 25, 1972
(86 Stat. 1135), as amended.
(D) Enlisted 'women's barracks construc-
tion in the amount of $245,000 and bachelor
officer's quarters construction in the amount
of $803,000 at Fort Lee, Virginia, that is
contained in title I, section 101 of the Act
of October 25, 1972 (86 Stat. 1135), as
amended.
(E) Chapel center construction in the
amount of $1,088,000 at Fort Benjamin Har-
rison, Indiana, that is contained in title I,
section 101, of the Act of October 26, 1972
(86 Stat. 1135), as amended.
(F) Enlisted men's barracks construction
in the amount of $7,996,000 at Fort Ord, j
For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
H 11572 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
California, that is contained:sin title I, sea-
tion 101 of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86
Stat. 1135), as amended.
(G) Enlisted men's barrack a and mess con-
struction in the amount of $09,000 at Sierra
Army Depot, California, that is contained in
title I, section 101 of the Act of October 25,
1972 (86 Stat. 1136), as amended.
(H) Test facilities Solid State Radar in the
amount of $7,600,000 at Kw4alein National
Missile Range, Kwajalein, that is contained
in title I, section 101 of the Act of October 25,
1972 (86 Stat. 1137), as amended.
(I) Land acquisition in the amount of
$10,000,000 for the Naval Ammunition Depot,
Oahu, Hawaii, that is contarned in title xr,
section 201 of the Act of Cttober 25, 1972
(86 Stat. 1140), as amended.
(J) Message Center Addition, Aircraft Fire
and Crash Station, Aircraft Maintenance
Hangar Shops, Bachelor Enlisted Quarters,
Mess Hall, Bachelor Officers! Quarters, Ex-
change and Recreation Building, and Utili-
ties construction in the amount of $110,000:
$199,000; $837,000; $1,745,000; $377,000; $829,-
000; $419,000; and $792,000, respectively, for
the Naval Detachment, Solids Bay, Crete,
Greece, that is contained in title H, section
201 of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86 Stat.
1141), as amended.
(K) Authorization for exchange of lands
in support of the Air Installation Compatible
Use Zones at Various Locations in the amount
of $12,000,000 that is contained in title in,
section 301 of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86
Stat. 1145), as amended.
(4) Notwithstanding the repeal provisions
of section 705(b) of the Act of October 25,
1972, Public Law 92-545 (86 Kist 1135, 1153),
as modified by section 605(3) of the Act of
November 29, 1973, Public Law 93-166 (87
Stat. 661, 681), the authorization to construct
six hundred family housing units at Naval
Complex, Norfolk, Virginia, contained in title
V. section 501(a) (2) of the Act of October 25,
1972 (86 Stat. 1148), shall remain in effect
until October 1, 1975.
Sze. 606. None of the authority contained
in titles I, II, III, and IV of this Act shall be
deemed to authorize any building construc-
tion projects inside the 'United States in ex-
cess of a unit cost to be determined in pro-
Portion to the appropriate area construc-
tion cost index, based on the following unit
cost limitations where the area construction
index is 1.0:
(1) $31 per square foot for permanent
barracks;
(2) $33 per square foot for bachelor officer
quarters;
unless the Secretary of Defense, or his des-
ignee, determines that bedause of' special
circumstances, application to such project
of the limitations on unit costs contained in
this section is impracticable: Provided, That,
notwithstanding the limitations contained
in prior military construction authorization
Acts on unit costs, the limitations on such
costs contained in this section shall apply
to all prior authorizations for such con-
struction not heretofore repealed and for
which construction contracts have not been
awarded by the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEc. 607. Section 612 of Public Law 89-868
(80 Stat. '756, '757), is amended by deleting
the figure "$150,000" wherever it appears
and inserting in lieu thereof "$225,000".
SEC. 608. (a) The Secretary of Defense is
authorized to assist communities located
near the TRIDENT Support Site Bangor,
Washington, in meeting the costs of pro-
viding increased municipal services and fa-
cilities to the residents of sueh communities,
if the Secretary determines that there is an
immediate and substantial Increase in the
need for such services and facilities in such
communities as a direct result of work being
carried out in connection with the construe-
the TRIDENT Weapon System and that tin
unfair and excessive financial burden will be
incurred by such communities as a result
of the increased need for such services and
facilities.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall carry
out the provisions of this section through
existing Federal programs. The Secretary is
authorized to supplement funds made avail-
able under such Federal programs to the ex-
tent necessary to carry out the provisions of
this section, and is authorized to provide fi-
nancial assistance to communities descxibed
in subsection (a) of this section to help such
communities pay their :hare of the costs
under euch programs. The heads of all de-
partments and agencies concerned shall co-
operate fully with the Secretary of Defense
in carrying out the provisions of this section
on a priority basis.
(c) In determining the amount of finan-
cial assistance to be made available under
this section to any local community for
any community service or facility, the Sec-
retary of Defense shall consult with the head
of the department or agency of the Federal
Government concerned with the type of
service or facility for which financial assist-
ance is being made available and shall take
into consideration (1) the time lag betlereen
the initial impact of increased population
in any such community and any increase in
the local tax base which will result from such
increased population, (2) the possible tem-
porary nature of the increased population
and the long-range cost Impact on the per-
manent residents of any such community,
and (3) such other pertinent factors as the
Secretary of Defense dee:ns appropriate.
(d) Ifny funds approprlated to the Depart-
ment of Defense for the fiscal year begin-
ning July 1, 1974, for carrying out the TRI-
DENT Weapon System shall be utilized by
the Secretary of Defense in carrying out the
provisions of this section. to the extent that
funds are unavailable under other Federal
programs. Funds appropriated to the De-
partment of Defense for any fiscal year be-
ginning after June 30, 1975, for carrying out
the TRIDENT Weapon System may, to the
extent specifically authorized in an annual
Military Construction Authorization Act, be
utilized by the Secretary of Defense in car-
rying out the provision of this section to
the extent that funds arc unavailable under
other Federal programs.
(e) The Secretary shall transmit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives semian-
nual reports indicating the total amount
expended in the case of each local commu-
nity which was provided assistance under
the authority of this section during the pre-
ceding six-month period, the specific proj-
ects for which assistance was provided dur-
ing such period, and the total amount
provided for each such project during such
period.
SEC. 609. (a) Public Law 93-346 (88 Stat.
340), designating the premises occupied by
the Chief of Naval Operations as the official
resident of the Vice President, is amended
to read as follows: "That effective July 1,
1974, the Government-owned house to-
gether with furnishings, associated grounds
(consisting of twelve acres, more or
less), and related facilities which have here-
tofore been used as the residence of the
Chief of Naval Operations, Department of
the Navy, shall, on and after such date be
available for, and are hereby designated as,
the temporary official residence of the Vice
President of the United States.
"SEc. 2. The temporary official residence of
the Vice President shall be adequately staffed
and provided with such appropriate equip-
ment, furnishings, dining facilities, services,
and other provisions as may be required, un-
der the supervision and direction of the Vice
President, to enable him to perform and dis-
December 10, .1974
and obligations associated with his high
office.
"SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Nast shall.
subject to the supervision and control of the
Vice President, provide for the minters, staff-
ing and the care and maintenance of the
grounds of the temporary official residence of
the Vice President and, subject to reimburse-
ment therefor out of funds appropriated
for such purposes, provide for the civilian
staffing, care, maintenance, repair, improve-
ment, alteration, and furnishing o-' such
residence.
"SEC. 4. There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary
from time to time to carry out the foregoing
provisions of this joint resolution. During
any interim period until and before any such
funds are so appropriated, the Secretary of
the Navy shall make provision for staffing
and other appropriate services in connection
with the temporary official residence of the
Vice President from fur:ids available to the
Department of the Navy, subject to reim-
bursement therefor from funds subsequent-
ly appropriated to carry out the purposes
of this joint resolution.
"Sec. 6. After the date on which the Vice
President moves into the temporary official
residence provided for in this joint resolu-
tion no funds may be expended for the main-
tenance, care, repair, furnishing, or security
of any residence for the Vice President other
than the temporary official residence pro-
vided for in this joint resolution unless the
expenditure of such funds is specifically ast-
thorized by law enacted after such date.
"SEC. 6. The Secretary of the Navy is au-
thorized and directed, with the approval of
the Vice President, to accept donat.ons of
money or property for the furnishing of or
making improvements in or about the tern-
porary official residence of the Vice President,
all such donations to berame the property
of the United States and to be accounted for
as such.
"SEC. 7. (a) Section 202 of title 3, United
States Code, Is amended by striking out 'and
(5) ' in the first sentence and inserting in
lieu thereof the following: '(5) the tempo-
rary official residence of the Vice President
and grounds in the District of Columbia; (6)
the Vice President and members of :ails im-
mediately family; and (7)'.
"SEC. 8. The first sentence of section 3056
(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amend-
ed by-
"(1) inserting 'protect the members of the
immediate family of the Vice President, un-
less such protection is declined' immediately
after 'Vice President-elect',', and
"(2) inserting 'pay expenses for unfore-
seen emergencies of a confidential nature
under the direction of the Secretary of the
Treasury and accounted for solely on his
certificate:' immediately after 'apprehen-
sion of criminals;'.
"SEc. 91t is the sense of Congress that liv-
ing accommodations, generally equivalent
to those available to the highest remising of-
ficer on active duty in each of the other mili-
tary services, should be provided for the Chief
of Naval Operations.".
(b) Except as otherwise provided therein,
the amendment made by subsection (a) of
this section shall become effective ;nay 12,
1974.
SEC. 610. Section 2662 of title 10. United
States Code, is amended by adding at the
end of subsection (a) a new paragraph as
follows:
"(6) Any termination or modification by
either the grantor or grantee of an exist-
ing license or permit of real property owned
by the United States to a military depart-
ment, under which substantial investments
have been or are proposed to be made in con-
nection with the use of the property by the
military department".
SEC. 611. Chapter 159 of title 10. United
tion, installation, testing, and operation of charge appropriately the duties functions States Code Is amended by adding at the
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
December 10, 1.974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE H 11573
end thereof the following new section and a
corresponding item in the analysis:
"? 2685. Adjustment of or surcharge on sell-
ing prices in commissary stores
to provide funds for construction
and improvement at commissary
store facilities
"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of a military depart-
ment, under regulations established by him
and approved by the Secretary of Defense,
may, for the purposes of this section, pro-
vide for an adjustment of, or surcharge on,
sales prices of goods and services sold in
commissary store facilities.
"(b) The Secretary of a military depart-
ment, under regulations established by him
and approved by the Secretary of Defense,
may use the proceeds from the adjustments
or surcharges authorized by subsection (a)
to acquire, construct, convert, expand, in-
stall, or otherwise improve commissary store
facilities at defense installations within the
United States and for related environmental
evaluation and construction costs, including
surveys, administration, overhead, planning,
and design.".
SEC. 612. Notwithstanding any other pro-
visions of law, proceeds from the sale of
recycleable material shall be credited first, to
the cost of collection, handling, and sale of
the material including purchasing of equip-
ment to be used for recycling purposes and
second, to projects for environmental im-
provement and energy conservation at mili-
tary camps, posts, and bases establishing re-
cycling programs in accordance with regula-
tions approved by the Secretary of Defense.
The amount expended for environmental im-
provement and energy conservation projects
shalt not exceed $50,000 per installation per
annum. Any balance shall be returned to the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. The Sec-
retary of each military department shan
make an annual report to Congress on the
operation of the program.
Sze. 613. (a) None of the funds authorized
to be appropriated by this Act with respect
to any construction project at Diego Garcia
may be obligated unless?
(1) the President has (A) advised the
Congress in writing that all military and
foreign policy implications regarding the
need for United States facilities at Diego
Garcia have been evaluated by him, and (B)
certified to the Congress in writing that the
construction of any such project is essential
to the national interest of the 'United States;
(2) 60 days of continuous session of the
Congress have expired following the date on
which certification with respect to such proj-
ect is received by the Congress, and
(3) neither House of Congress has adopted,
within such 60-day period, a resolution dis-
approving such project.
(b) (1) For purposes of this section, the
continuity of a session of Congress is broken
only by an adjournment of the Congress sine
die, and the days on which either House is
not in session because of an adjournment of
more than three days to a day certain are
excluded in_the computation of such 60-day
period.
(2) For purposes of this section, "resolu-
tion" means a resolution of either House of
Congress, the matter after the resolving
clause of which is as follows: "That the
does not approve the proposed
construction project on the island of Diego
Garcia, the need for which was certified to
by the President and the certification with
respect to which was received by the
on .", the first and sec-
ond blanks being filled with the name of the
resolving House and the third blank being
filled with the appropriate date.
(c) Subsections (d), (e), and (f) of this
section are enacted by Congress?
(1) as an exercise of the rule-making power
of the Senate and as such they are deemed
a part of the rules of the Senate, but appli-
cable only with respect to the procedure to
be followed in the Senate in the case of
resolutions described by subsection (b) (2)
of this section; and they supersede other
rules of the Senate only to the extent that
they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitu-
tional right of the Senate to change such
rules at any time, in the same manner and
to the same extent as in the case of any
other rule of the Senate.
(d) A resolution with respect to a pro-
posed construction project of the island of
Diego Garcia shall be referred to the Com-
mittee on Armed Services of the Senate.
(e) (1) If the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices of the Senate to which a resolution with
respect to a proposed construction project
on the island of Diego Garcia has been re-
ferred has not reported such resolution at
the end of 20 calendar days after its intro-
duction, not counting any day which is ex-
cluded under subsection (b) (1) of this sec-
tion, it Is in ordey to move either to dis-
charge the committee from further consid-
eration of the resolution or to discharge the
committee from further consideration of any
other resolution introduced with respect to
the same proposed construction project which
has been referred to the committee, except
that no motion to discharge shall be in order
after the committee has reported a resolu-
tion of disapproval with respect to the same
proposed construction project.
(2) A motion to discharge under para-
graph (1) of this subsection may be made
only by a Senator favoring the resolution, Is
privileged, and debate thereon shall be lim-
ited to not more than 1 hour, to be divided
equally between those favoring and those op-
posing the resolution, the time to be divided
in the Senate equally between, and controlled
by, the majority leader and the minority
leader or their designees. An amendment to
the motion is not in order, and it Is not in
order to move to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(f) (1) A motion in the Senate to proceed
to the consideratiofl of a resolution shall be
privileged. An amendment to the motion
shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order
to move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(2) Debate in the Senate on a resolution,
and all debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith, shall be limited to not
more than 10 hours, to be equally divided
between, and controlled by, the majority
leader and the minority leader or their
designees.
(3) Debate in the Senate on any debatable
motion or appeal in connection with a reso-
lution shall be limited to not more than 1
hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the mover and the manager
of the resolution, except that in the event
the manager of the resolution is in favor
of any such motion or appeal, the time in
opposition thereto, shall be controlled by the
minority leader or his designee. Such leaders,
or either of them, may, from time under their
control on the passage of a resolution, allot
additional time to any Senator during the
consideration of any debatable motion or
appeal.
(4) A motion in the Senate to further lim-
it debate on a resolution, debatable mo-
tion, or appeal is not debatable. No amend-
ment to, or motion to recommit, a resolution
is in order in the Senate.
SEC. 614. (a) The Secretary of the Army
is authorized to convey, without monetary
consideration, to the Ozark Public Building
Authority, an agency of the city of Ozark,
Alabama, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the land described in
subsection (b) for use as a permanent site
for the museum referred to in subsection
(c), and subject to the conditions described
therein.
(b) The land authorized to be conveyed
to the Ozark Public Building Authority as
provided in subsection (a) is described as
follows: All that tract or parcel of land ly-
ing and being in sections 13 and 24, range 23
east, township 6 north, Saint Stephens Merid-
ian, Dale County, Alabama, more partic-
ularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point which is 216.0 feet
north 89 degrees 57 minutes west of the
northeast corner of the southwest quarter of
the northeast quarter of said section 24, on
the western right-of-way line of Alabama
State Highway Numbered 249, and on the
boundary of a tract of land owned by the
United States of America at Fort Rucker
Military Reservation;
thence north 25 degrees 07 minutes east
along the western right-of-way line of said
highway, which is along the boundary of
said United States tract, 1,395 feet;
thence north 64 degrees 53 minutes west
700 feet; thence south 25 degrees 07 minutes
west 2,800 feet; thence south 64 degrees 53
minutes east 700 feet, more or less, to a point
(which is on the western right-of-way line of
said highway and on the boundary of said
United States tract;
thence north 25 degrees 07 minutes east
along the western right-of-way line a said
highway, which is along the boundary of said
United States tract, 1,405 feet, more or less,
to the point of beginning, containing 46.00
acres, more or less.
(c) The conveyance provided for by the
Isubsection (a) shall be subject to the con-
dition that the real property so conveyed
shall be used as a permanent site for a mu-
seum to display suitable public exhibits of
the United States Army aviation equipment
land allied subjects and aviation-oriented ex-
hibits of other United States Government
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities,
land of foreign origin, and if such property is
not used for such purpose, all right, title, and
interest in and to such real property shall
revert to the United States, which shall have
the right of immediate entry thereon, and to
such other conditions as the Secretary of the
Army may prescribe to protect the interest of
the United States.
SEC. 615. (a) The Secretary of the Navy, or
his designee, is authorized to convey to the
Gulf Coast Council, Boy Scouts of America,
If or fair market value and subject to such
terms and conditions as shall be determined
by the Secretary of the Navy, or his designee,
to be necessary to protect the interests of the
United States, all right, title, and interest of
the United States of America, other than
mineral rights including gas and oil which
shall be reserved to the United States, in and
to a certain parcel of land containing 12.46
acres, more or less, situated in Escambia
County, Florida, being a part of the Naval
Education and Training Program Develop-
ment Center, Ellyson, Florida, more partic-
ularly described as follows:
Commence at the southeast property cor-
ner of Naval Education and Training Pro-
gram Development Center (NETPDC), for-
merly Naval Air Station, Ellyson,
thence north 3 degrees 55 minutes
west along the-east boundary of NETPDC a
distance of '725.8 feet more or less to the
point of beginning; from said point of be-
ginning, continue north 3 degrees 55 minutes
west along the east boundary of NETPDC
distance of 829.1 feet more or less to a point,
thence north 0 degrees 27 minutes west
along the east boundary of NETPDC a dis-
tance of 623.3 feet more or less to a point,
thence south 45 degrees 25 minutes east a
distance of 304.8 feet more or less to a point,
thence south 87 degrees 48 minutes east a
distance of 40.5 feet more or less to a point,
thence south 0 degree 25 minutes west a
distance of 38.1 feet more or less to a point,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
H 11574 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
thence south 45 degrees 25 minutes east a
distance of 189.8 feet more or leas to a point,
thence south 87 degrees 00 minutes east a
distance of 24.6 feet more or less to a point,
thence south 24 degrees 12 minutes west a
distance of 17.4 feet more or less to a point,
thence Muth 45 degrees 25 minutes east a
distance of 536.6 feet more or less to a point,
thence south 44 degrees 35 minutes west a
distance of 990.1 feet more or leas to the
point of beginning; containing 12.48 steles
more or less.
(b) All expenses for surveys and the prep-
aration and execution of legal documents
necessary or appropriate carry out the fore-
going provisions shall be borne by the Gulf
Coast Council, Boy Scouts of America.
SEC. 616. (a) The Secretary of the Army
(hereinafter in this section referred to as
the "Secretary"), or his designee is author-
ized and directed to convey by quitclaim
deed to the State of Louisiana all right, title,
and interest of the United States In and to
that certain real property located in Saint
Tammany Parish, Louisiana, containing one
thousand seven hundred and ten acres, more
or less, known as Camp Villere, being the
same property presently under license to the
State for National Guard use, and known as
Audited installation Numbered 22975 in the
files of the Office of the District Engineer,
Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District.
(b) The conveyance required to be made
pursuant to subsection (a) shall be made
without monetary compensation but shall
be in consideration of, and subject to, the
following terms and conditions:
(1) The conveyed property shall be used
primarily for the training of the Louisiana
National Guard and for other military pur-
poses of the Louisiana National Guard.
(2) Any revenue derived by the State
from any other uses of the property shall be
used Tor the maintenance and improvement
of the property or be shared with the United
States as prescribed by the Secretary. The
State shall maintain such records and fur-
nish such reports with respect to such rev-
enue as are prescribed by the Secretary.
(3) The State shall protect the timber,
water resources, gravel, sand, soil, mineral
deposits, and other natural resources of the
conveyed property in accordance with sound
conservation practices and to the satisfac-
tion of the Secretary.
(4) In time of war or national emergency
declared by the Congress, or national emer-
gency hereafter proclaimed by the President,
and upon a determination by the Secretary
of Defense that the conveyed property, or
any part thereof, is useful or necessary for
national defense and security, the Secretary,
on behalf of the United Stat, shall have the
right to enter upon and use such property, or
any part thereof (including any and all im-
provements made thereon by the State), for
a period not to exceed the duration of such
war or emergency plus six months. Upon
termination of such use, the property shall
revert to the State, together with all im-
provements placed thereon by the United
States, and be subject to the terms, con-
ditions, and limitations on its use and dis-
position which apply without regard to this
paragraph. The use of the property by the
United States pursuant to this paragraph
shall be without obligation or payment on
the part of the United States, except that
the United States, if required by the State,
shall pay the fair market rental value for the
use of any improvements on the property
which are constructed with State funds and,
upon completion of such use, will restore
any such improvements to the same condi-
tion as that existing at the time of initial
occupancy by the United States under this
paragraph. At the option of the Secretary,
cash payment may be made by the United
States in lieu of such restoration; except
that the value of any improvements erected
by the United States during its occupancy
Approved
and left on the property shell be offset
against the obligation of the United :States
to restore improvements constructed with
State funds.
(5) There shall be reserved from the con-
veyance such easements and right-of-way
for roads, water flowage, soil disposal, water-
lines, sewerlines, communications wires,
powerlines, and other purposes, as the Sec-
retary considers necessary or convenie:at for
the operations, activities, and functions of
the United States.
(6) All mineral rights with respect to the
conveyed property, including gas and oil,
shall be reserved to the United States, to-
gether with the right to permit such reason-
able exploration and mining operations as
will not interfere with the primary use of
the property.
('7) Such other terms and conditions as
the Secretary may deem necessary tc pro-
tect the interests of the United States.
(c) Upon a finding be the Secretary that
the State is violating or failing to comply
with any term or condition imposed by
paragraph (1), (2), or (3)tof subsection (b)
of this section, the Secretary is authorized
immediately to reenter and take possession
of the property described in subsection (a),
whereupon title to such property shall re-
vert to the United State; and contml there-
over may be asserted by the Secretary with-
out any further act or legal proceeding
whatsoever. Any improvements, fixtures, and
buildings placed on the property by the State
during its period of use shall become the
property of the United :atates without pay-
ment of compensation therefor.
(d) (1) Any surveying and related costs
Incurred Incident to the carrying out of this
section shall be borne by the State.
(2) Appropriate provi ;ions to implement
the terms and conditions of this Act shall be
included In the instrument of conveyance.
SEC. 617. Titles I, II, III, 117, 7, and VI of
this Act may be cited as the "Military Con-
struction Authorization Act, 1975".
TITLE VII
RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SEC. '701. Subject to chapter 193 of title 10,
United States Code, the Secretary of Defense
may establish or develop additional facilities
for the Reserve Forces, including the acquisi-
tion of land therefor, but the cost of such
facilities shall not exceed?
(1) For the Department of the Army:
(a) Army National Gaard of the United
States, $58,800,000.
(b) Army Reserve, $38,600,000.
(2) For the Department of the Navy: Naval
and Marine Corps Reserves, $19,867,000.
(3) For the Department of the Air Force:
(a) Air National Guard of the United
States, $31,500,000.
(b) Air Force Reserve, $14,000,000.
SEC. 702. The Secretary of Defense may es-
tablish or develop installations and facilities
under this title without regard to section
3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31
U.S.C. 529), and sections 4774 and 9774 of
title 10, United States Code. The authority to
place permanent or temporary improvements
on lands includes authority for surveys, ad-
ministration, overhead, planning, and super-
vision incident to construction. That au-
thority may be exercised before title to the
land is approved under section 355 cei the
Revised Statutes, as amended (40 U.S.C. 255) ,
and even though the land is held temporarily.
The authority to acquire real estate or land
includes authority to make surveys and to
acquire land, and interests in land (includ-
ing temporary use), by gift, purchase, ex-
change of Government-owned land, or other-
wise.
Sec. 703. Paragraph (1.) of section 2233e
of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out "$50,000" and inserting in lieu
thereof "$100,000".
See. 704. This title may be cited as the
December 10, 1974
"Reserve Forces Facilities Authorization !act1
1975."
And the Senate agree to the same.
F. Enw. HEBERT,
Oris G. PIKE,
CHARLES E. BENNETT,
SAMUEL STRATTON,
WILLIAM G. BRAY,
CARLETON J. KING,
0. WILLIAM WHITICHURST,
Managers an the Part of the Haase.
Srusaa SYMINGTON,
JOHN C. Spews's,
HENRY M. JAMISON,
SAM J. ERVIN,
HOWARD W. CANNON,
HARRY F. BYRD, Jr.,
Jona" TOWER,
STROM THURMOND,
PETER H. DOMENICE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
CONFEREZWE
The managers on the part of the House
and the Senate at the Conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
16136) to authorize certain construction ai
military installations, and for other perposea
submit the following joint statement in ex-
planation of the effect of the action agreed
upon by the Conferees and recommended in
the accompanying report:
LEGISLATION IN CONFERENCE
On August 9, 1974, the House of Represent-
atives passed H.R. 10136 :ethic& Is the Fiscal
Year 1975 Military Construction Authoriza-
tion for the Department of Defense and
Reserve Components.
On September 11, 1974._ the &awe con-
sidered the legislation, amended it by strik-
ing out all language after the enacting
clause and wrote a new bill.
COMPARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS
H.R. 16136, as passed by the House of
Representatives, provided new construction
authorization to the military depeutraenta
and the Department of Defense for Fiscal
Year 1975 in the total amount of $2,935,s
801,000.
The bill as passed by the Senate provided
new authorization in the amount of 93,027,-
925,060.
SUMMARY OF RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES
As a result of the Conference between the
House and Senate on the differences In H.R.
16130, the Conferees agreed to a new adjusted
authorization for military construction for
Fiscal Tear 1975 in the amen nt of
$2,984,378,000.
The Department of Defense and the respec-
tive military departments had requested a.
total of $3,278,380,000 for new construction
authorization for Fiscal Year 1975. The action
of the Conferees therefore reduces the De-
partmental request by $294,002,000.
CHART?Total Authorization for Appropria-
tion Granted fiscal year 1975
Title I?Army:
Inside the United States___ $491, 693, 000
Outside the United States__ 120, ..84. 000
Subtotal 611, 879, 000
Title II?Navy:
fnside the United States..., 2509,998, 000
Outside the United States__ 41, a58, 000
Subtotal 550, 956, 000
Title III?Air Force:
Inside the United States__ 2307, 86, 000
Outside the United States__ 74, 387, 000
Sec. 302 8, 100, 000
Subtotal
'390, 773, 000
Title IV?Defense agencies__ 28,900, 000
For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
December 10, 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE
Title V?Military family hous-
ing and homeowners aBSiSt-
SECO $1,
244,
603,
000
Total, titles I, U, III, IV
and V 2,
826,
611,
000
Title VII?Reserve components:
Army National Guard
53,
800,000
Army Reserve
38,
600,
000
Naval and Marine Corps Re-
serves
19,
867,
000
Air National Guard
31,
500,
000
Air Force Reserve
14,
000,
000
Total "
157,
767,
000
Grand total granted
by titles T, 11, 111, IV,
V and VII - 2,984,
378,
000
Excludes $1,500,000 for land at NAS Pensa-
cola, Florida.
a Excludes $9,000,000 for Aerospace Corpora-
tion, Los Angeles, California.
TITLE I?ARMT
The House had approved new construction
authorization in the amount of $611,653,000
for the Department of the Army. The Senate
approved new construction authorization for
the Army in the amount of $644,211,000. The
Conferees agreed t,o a new total for Title I in
the amount of $611,879,000 which is $32,-
332,000 below the Senate figure and $226,000
above the House figure. Among the major
items considered in Conference and acted on
by the Conferees were the following:
Fort Carson, Colorado?Land acquisition
$7,292,000
The Army requested a land acquisition
project to expand the maneuver area at Fort
Carson. Army witnesses testified that this
project was Phase I of a multi-phase plan
for acquisititon of 75,420 acres which the
Army said was necessary to obviate the ex-
penditure of over $3 million per occurrence
to transport a division to the nearest instal-
lation having sufficient land area to accom-
modate realistic training by a full divisioh
force. The House deleted the authorization
request in view of local Opposition to further
expansion of Fort Carson and the testimony
of the Army at the last request for land ac-
quisition in 1965 to the effect that the 1965
acquisition would be all the land ever needed
at Fort Carson. ,
The Senate included the requested amount
after special hearings but as a compromise,
Insisted that the funds be used to acquire
only the Phase III portion of the multi-
phase Army plan,
In Conference, after a very lengthy discus-
sion, the Conferees agreed that the author-
ization request would be deleted without
prejudice and that the Committee Members
and or Committee Staff would make an in-
spection trip to Fart Carson to determine
the priority of the Army's request and the
necessity for further expansion of Fort Car-
son. Conferees believe they would thereby
be in a position to better judge the merits
of this request in next year's program.
The Senate receded.
Fort Riley, Ransas--Suppon
$2,793,000
The House version of the bill deleted these
support facilities on the basis they could
safely be deferred for at least a year. In the
Conference the Senate Conferees pointed out
that this project has a direct impact on the
Army's program to provide adequate housing
for bachelor enlisted personnel at Fort Riley.
They argued that since a sufficient number
of administrative facilities were not provided
with the original barracks construction a
number of barracks spaces had been dieerted
for administrative use thui resulting in an
overcrowding in the barracks. This project
will alleviate the overcrowding condition in
the barracks as the unit headquarters are
Moved out.
The House receded.
Fort Hood, Texas?Entrance roads,
$2,540,000
This project was deleted by the House be-
cause information received by the Commit-
tee was to the effect that this project was
not time phased with the four-lane super-
highway being constructed. The Senate ver-
sion of the bill included this project.
In Conference it was pointed out that this
two division post has the most severe traffic
congestion problems of any Army installa-
tion. Further, Senate Conferees stated that
the Army had deferred this project in pre-
vious years until it was time phased with
the superhighway which is now 75% com-
plete. Therefore, to derive full benefit of the
new state highway in alleviating traffic con-
gestion the Senate was adamant in their po-
sition that this project be approved.
The House receded.
Anniston Army Depot, Alabama?Depot
headquarters and administrative build-
ing?$2,260,000
The Senate deleted this Army request for
, reasons of economy. The House bill included
this project.
In Conference the House Conferees pointed
out that the headquarters activities are now
disbursed in several widely separated build-
ings. They further pointed out that the in-
clusion of this project in the bill would as-
sist in increased productivity, reduction in
personnel travel time, waiting time, trans-
portation and overhead costs for an estimated
annual savings of $135,000. House Conferees
also pointed out that by consolidating all the
separate activities into this new facility it
would negate approximately $1,050,000 in
future construction requirements.
The Senate receded.
Fort Huachuca, Arizona?Academic building,
phase I, $6,951,000
The Senate version of the bill included
the authorization request for the academic
facility. The House version of the bill did not
contain the request. In Conference, the House
Conferees argued that the Defense Depart-
ment witnesses had testified in 1970 that
one of the reasons for moving the Intelli-
gence Center from Fort Holabird, Maryland
to Fort Huachuca was because the facilities
already in being at Fort Huachuca could ac-
commodate the move with only a minimum
expenditure for military construction of ap-
proximately $4 million total. Senate Confer-
ees argued that since the school was already
in being and the facilities were inadequate
and steadily deteriorating the Conferees
should approve this project. House Conferees,
however, were adamant in their position and
convinced the Senate Conferees that this
project should be reevaluated. The Conferees
agreed that Committee Members and or Com-
mittee Staff should visit this installation and
make an evaluation of the total future needs
for the intelligence center now at Fort Hua-
chuca.
The Senate receded.
Fort Jackson, South Carolina?Electrical-
mechanical upgrade, $3,173,000
The House deleted this project in its con-
sideration of the bill because it was felt
that this amount of money should not be
requested for a hospital that had not been
completed until 1972. The Senate included
this project in their bill.
In Conference the Senate Conferees argued
that although the hospital was relatively
new, the original design did not include fire
safety code criteria current at the time.
They further argued that this amount was
necessary to correct the fire safety deficien-
cies and from a health and safety standpoint
was urgent.
The House reluctantly receded.
H 11575
Fort Wainwright, Alaska?Barracks
modernization, $9,961,000
The House had included this project pri-
marily to Improve the unsatisfactory living
conditions of the existing facilities and
thereby generally enhance the attractive-
ness of military service to the individual.
The Senate version had deleted this project.
The Senate conferees pointed out that
for reasons of economy and its relatively low
priority to the Army, this project could be
deferred. In addition, the future manning
levels at Fort Wainwright were sufficiently
uncertain to justify a delay in this project.
The House receded,
NATO infrastructure?$4 million
The Department of the Army had re-
quested a total of $88 million for the U.S.
share of the NATO Infrastructure for the
coming fiscal year. The House version ap-
proved the requested amount; however, the
Senate version contained a general reduc-
tion in the amount of $4 million.
In Conference, Senate Conferees pointed
out that this general reduction was possible
because of certain carry over authorization
from prior fiscal years.
The House receded.
TITLE II?NAVY
The House approved $517,373,000 in new
construction authorization for the Depart-
ment of the Navy. The Senate approved
$557,054,000. The Conferees agreed to a new
total in the amount of $552,456,000. This
amount is $4,598,000 below the Senate figure
and $5,083,000 above the House figure.
Among the major items originally deleted
by either the House or the Senate and re-
stored in the Conference were the following:
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland?Luce
Hall addition and modernization, $6,450,000
The House deleted this particular project
believing that it was of a relatively low
priority in this year's Navy program. The
Senate approved the project.
In Conference, the Senate Conferees
pointed out that Luce Hall was built in 1920
and that the mechanical and electrical sys-
tems are antiquated and worn out and must
be replaced. Further, there (s no fire protec-
tion system, open stairwells, wooden floors,
and interior partitions. They further stated
that the antiquated building is environ-
mentally unsatisfactory for academic use.
The House receded.
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida,-
Aircraft maintenance hangar, $5,359,000
The Senate deleted this project believing
It can be safely deferred for at least a year.
The House approved the project.
In Conference the House Conferees pointed
out that Cecil Field is now the master jet
base of the Jacksonville-Mayport complex.
It is the home part of all Atlantic Fleet light
attack squadrons (A-7) and 5 ASW squad-
rons. There are now two 33-year-old obso-
lete hangars temporarily serving the needs
of many of these squadrons. The House Con-
ferees further pointed out that if the Hang-
ar is not provided the readiness and profi-
ciency training of Fleet operational squad-
rons equipped with modern ASW weapons
systems will be impaired.
The Senate receded.
Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida?
Bachelor enlisted quarters, $4,140,000
This project was deferred by the House
without prejudice to a future year's program.
The Senate approved the project.
In Conference, the Senate Conferees point-
ed out that these enlisted quarters were orig-
inally required to provide adequate billeting
in support of Nuclear Power Training. This
training function, which is moving to Or-
lando from Bainbridge and Mare Island, will
comprise approximately 80% of enlisted stu-
dent billeting requirement at the base.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050003-1
H 11576 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
After a thorough discustdon of this proj-
ect, the House receded.
Naval Training Center, Sen Diego, Cali-
fornia?Rachelor enlisted quarters, $18,-
657,000
The House Committee deferred this proj-
ect without prejudice believing that assets
in the area of the Naval Training Center
were adequate. The Senate approved the
project.
In Conference the Senate Conferees
pointed out that the space which le avail-
able was constructed between 1922 and 1943
as open bay barracks and leave served long
beyond their useful life. Many of the inade-
quate barracks are located directly under the
flight path of the commercial airport and
practically all are in high noise zone without
any acoustic attenuation.
The House receded.
Naval Underwater Systems Center, New-
port, Rhode Island?Weapons development
building, $4,742,000
The Senate Committee added this project
during their Committee review of the bill.
The House Committee did bot review this
project.
In Conference, the Senate Conferees
pointed out that this Center is the principal
RDT&E Center for underwater combat sys-
tems. Current and planned weapons pro-
grams require the capability to develop and
test under controlled conditions, models
which can simulate, at low oest, the system
or subsystem. They further pointed out that
if this facility is not provided, the optimum
development of new weapons and compo-
nents will be precluded through a lack of a
coordinated facility capable Of full system
assembly, Integration and analysis.
The House receded.
Diego Garcia?Support facilities, $14,802,000
The House Committee added the expan-
sion of facilities project in the amount of
$29,000,000 for the Naval Communications
Facility on Diego Garcia. The House Com-
mittee believes it is important in carrying
out our national policy and Ih the interest
of the United States for the I1S3. Navy, from
time to time, to have a greatsr presence in
the Indian Ocean. The proposed support
facilities will shorten the logistic tail for
various task groups that periodically deploy
to the Indian Ocean, and reduce the logistic
support cost.
The Senate Committee authorized $14,-
802,000 for the expansion of the present
facilities. Since the Navy did not reclama
the Senate money reduction, the House Con-
ferees did not object to the reduction.
Diego Garcia?Compromise Language Re-
garding Further Congressional Action
The Senate inserted language (Section
612; Section 613 of the Conference Report)
which requires the President to certify in
writing that the need for new expansion
facilities had been evaluated by him and
that such projects are es,senthel to the na-
tional interest of the United States and this
certification must be approved by a joint
resolution of both Houses.
The House Conferees argued that the Sen-
ate language, in effect, would allow legisla-
tion by Inaction and insisted that some lan-
guage should be used that would permit
either House of Congress to prohibit the ob-
ligation of funds for Diego Garcia by a reso-
lution of disapproval of that Houee.
The House Conferees offered a compro-
mise that none of the funds authorized to
be apprppriated under this Ala foe the
construction At Diego Garcia catild be obli-
gated until certain specified conditions are
met. These require that the Present certify
to the Congress in writing an evaluation by
him of the need for, and the essentiality of,
these facilities. Further, 60 days e)f continu-
ous session of Congress must lalive expired
following the certification wits the fur-
thee condition that within that 60 day period
either the House or the Senate may pass a
resolution of disapproval for the project,
thereby precluding obligation of any funds
authorized pursuant to this Act fer the
project.
At the insistence of the Senate Conferees,
additional language was added to the con-
ference report which provides in substance
that parliamentary tactics aimed at delaying
a vote on the Senate floor regarding a reso-
lution of disapproval will be precluded.
Under the circumstances the Senate re-
luctantly receded and agreed to the com-
promise language.
TITLE III?A1R FORCE
The House approved $410,227,000 in new
construction authorization for the DEpart-
ment of the Air Force. The Senate approved
$387,908,000.
, The Conferences agreed to a new total In
the amount of $399,773,000 which is $10,454,-
000 below the House figure and $11,867,000
above the Senate figure.
Among the major items in Confeeence
Which were resolved after much deliberation
are: '
, Kelly APB, Texas?Logistical, Materiels
storage facility $7,071,000
The Senate approved but the House denied
this project. The House was informed that
the facility could be safely deferred for at
least a year. The Air Force, prior to the pro-
gram being submitted to (longess, had sched-
uled this particular project in the FY-77 pro-
gram but moved it up two years.
The Senate Conferees insisted that this
project would reduce the Air Force budget for
personnel by 28; fork lift trucks by 10; tugs
by 2; trucks and trailers by 2; locomotives
by one; and operations and maintenance ex-
penditures on over 1,000 square feet of tem-
porary ww?n storage buildings. Senate Con-
ferees argued that tangible benefits would
allow for proposed capital investment to
amortize in 3 to 4 years.
The House receded.
McClellan AFB, California?Logistical mate-
riels processing facili,:y, $8,856,000
The House deleted this project in its
original consideration of the bill because
only 2 to 3 years ago some $400,000 was ex-
pended for the rehabilitation of a warehouse
for the installation of equipment to handle
the workload then at McClellan. House Con-
ferees felt that this building could be uti-
lized for the materiels processing for several
more years.
Senate Conferees argued that this project
would not be completed for at least one and
a haff to two years and that upon comple-
tion the direct savings that would be ob-
tained from this construction would amor-
tize the capital investment in 24 years. They
further argue that the present high bay
facility which is badly needed for storage
purposes is not functionally configured for
efficient receipt and issue processing. Mech-
anized materiel handling systems cannot he
properly arranged causing excessive se-
handling of materiel with resultant delays,
Increased costs, arid damage.
After a thorough discussion, the House
reluctantly receded.
Williams APB, Arizona?Flight simulator
training facility, $5,313,000
The House Committee deleted this project
without prejudice believing that the simu-
lator equipment would not be delivered until
after the completion of the facility. House
Conferees argued that the construction ef-
fort could safely be deferred at least one yes,r
without jeopardizing the simulator program
Which House Conferees agree is essential.
Senate Conferees argue thee; the simulator
equipment would be delivered on approxi-
mately the completion date of the facility.
They further insisted that the present simu-
lator technology permits the duplication of
December 10, 1974
all the airborne pilot experiences and that a
reduction of 40 hours of flying time per
student would be realized through the use
of the simulator. Air Force figures Indicate
that this change equals to a total reduction
of approximately 50,000 flying hours in FY-76
and an annual reduction of almost 150,000
hours when the entire program is imple-
mented at all eight graduate training bases
in FY-1982.
Senate Conferees were adamant that the
simulator program go forward immediately
with no delay, therefore the House reluctant-
ly receded.
Andrews APR, Maryland?Special aircraft
support facility, $8,770,000
The House deleted this project in view of
the fact that the FY-74 program as passed
by the Congress authorized $13.5 million for
these airborne support command facilities at
Andrews APB and this authorization was not
funded. The Senate bill contained the $8,770,-
000.
Senate Conferees argued that the Deletion-
ary spiral would make it impossible to pro-
ceed with the necessary support facil,ties at
Andrews Without the authorization recolested
by the Air Force. Senate Conferees iediher
argued that by awarding one contract for
these facilities instead of separate cm tracts,
the original facilities envisioned could he
completed within the money authorized even
with today's inflation. They insisted that
denial of the FY-75 request would eliminate
the proposed maintenance and logistics sup-
port facilities. Further, the Air Force's ability
to support the airborne command post would
be severely impaired and the aircraft down
time would increase considerably.
After much discussion the House receded.
Arnold Engineering Development Center,
Tennessee?HIRT facility, $44,000,090
The House Committee included $44 ntillion
for the HIRT Facility at the AEDC. Howevtr,
prior to the final Senate action the Air Fore e
revised their estimate from $44 million to $94
million. This revised estimate is a res.tlt of
rapidly escalating construction costs, coupled
with extensive increases In lead time fer
delivery of materials and equipment such as
structural steel, electric motors and electric
Compressors.
Although the need for this facility is Still
valid, according to the Air Force, it was
deemed advisable to delete this project at
this time for reexamination of its cost ..fiee-
tiveness.
The House receded,
TTTLE IV- -DEFENSE AGENCIES
The Senate bill provided $4 million for the
first phase of the radiological clean up of
Eniwetok Atoll; the souse had deleted the
funds. House Conferees insisted that testi-
mony before them failed to reveal any defini-
tive plans or cost estimates, The testimony
was to the effect that the $4 million would
establish a base camp and allow a "modest
beginning of the cleanup effort." The House
Conferees maintained that it would be pre-
mature to fund the clean up project until
the Defense Department had a coherent and
comprehensive rehabilitation plan. However,
all conferees wish to emphasize that the U.S.
Government should fulfill its commitments
to the people of Micronesia, and the Defense
-Department in particular must devise a posi-
tive program for cleaning up the Atol) as
soon as possible.
The Senate receded without prejudice
TITLE. V-- FAMILY HOUSING
The Department of Defense presented an
authorization request for appropriations for
military family housing and a homeow'r ere
!assistance program for totalling $1,347,283,-
000. This was for 10,462 units of new con-
struction, improvements to existing housing,
operations and maintenance, debt paymeets,
etc. Also included in the family housing re-
quest was an increase in the statutory aver-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
December
iage unit cost limitation on the construction Senator Roth which would prohibit the use
of military family housing from $27,500 to of any money authorized to be appropriated
$30,000 average cost for the United States by this or any other act for the purpose of
and from $37,000 average unit cost outside installing air conditioning equipment in any
the United States and Alaska and Hawaii to new or existing military family housing unit
1$40,000. The Department's new construction in the state of Hawaii.
request reflected cost increases due primarily The House receded.
to continued cost escalation. TITLE VI?GENERAL PROVISIONS
The House authorized 5,552 units which is Section 603 grants authority to the sec-
4,910 below the Department request and the retary concerned to increase line item au-
Senate authorized construction of 7,120 units thorization by 5% inside the United States,
a redwtion of 3,342 below the Department's other than Alaska and Hawaii, and by 10%
request. The House approved increases in in the latter states when he deems it fleece-
average unit cost limitation from $27,500 to sary to meet unusual cost variations. The
$30,000 for the United States (except Alaska Department request for FY 1975 asked for
and Hawaii); and from $37,000 to $40,000 an additional 10% to be added for the pur-
average cost in other areas. The Senate ap- pose of (1) including design and construe-
proved aterage unit cost increases from tion modifications estimated to yield sig-
$27 500 to 529.500 for the United States (ex- niflcant reductions in energy consumption,
Approved
For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
10, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE H 11577
use of the property. This amendment would
avoid the capricious cancellation or modifi-
cation of licenses or permits of public lands
tq, the military when large amounts of public
monies had already been expended or were
programed in support of essential military
activities on such lands unless the Armed
Services Comrizittees of the Senate and House
of Representatives were notified 30 days prior
to such action. The Senate bill contained no
such provision.
The Senate recedes.
Section 610 of the Senate bill (Section 611
of Conference bill) was added by the Senate.
It is designed to amend existing law to per-
mit the adjustment of and the use of the
surcharges an commissary sales for the con-
struction, acquisition and improvements to
commissary stores, which are now paid for
out of appropriated funds.
The surcharge is currently 3% for the
Army and Air Force within the U.S. and 3%
to 5% for the Navy and Marines worldwide.
Commissary prices were alleged to be on an
average 20% to 25% (this is believed to be
low?the Army testified to 30%) below the
private sector, and commissary patrons do
not pay local sales taxes, which makes the
overall savings quite substantial.
In the Army alone an increase of .5 of 1%
in the surcharge would provide one new
commissary per year.
After a thorough discussion of this pro-
vision, the House receded.
In section 608 of the House passed bill
(Section 612 of Conference bill), authority
was added for the use of proceeds from
the sale of recycleable materials at military
installations. First, the cost of collection,
handling and sale, including purchases of
equipment necessary for the recycling, could
be financed from these proceeds, and then
the remaining funds, up to a maximum of
650,000 per year at any one installation, could
be used for environmental improvements and
energy conservation projects. The balance, if
any after such expenditures, would be re-
turned to the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts. There was no such provision in the
Senate bill.
After a thorough explanation by the
sponsors from the House Committee the
Senate receded.
Section 612 of the Senate bill (Section
613 of the Conference bill), the compromise
language regarding the support facilities on
Diego Garcia, is discussed under the Navy
Section of the Joint Statement of Managers.
Section 613 of the Senate bill (Section 614
of Conference bill) was added to authorize
the Secretary of the Army to convey, without
monetary consideration, to the Ozark Public
Building Authority, an agency of the City
of Ozark, Alabama, all right, title, and in-
terest of the United States in and to the -
land described in subsection (b) for use as
a permanent site for the U.S. Army Aviation
Museum.
An identical bill has been approved by
Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Armed
Services Committee, therefore the House re-
ceded.
Section 609 of the House bill (Section 615
of Conference bill) was a provision added to
provide for the conveyance by the Secretary
of the Navy to the Boy Scouts of America
of approximately 12.46 acres of the Navy
Education and Training Program Develop-
ment Center at Ellyson, Florida. This con-
veyance would be at fair market value and
would require the Boy Scouts of America to
pay for the necessary surveys and pay for
the necessary legal documents. The Navy
posed no objection to this transfer and House
Conferees pointed out that the property
would substantially benefit the training and
camping programs in the Gulf Coast Council.
The Senate receded.
Section 612 of the House bill (Section 616
of Conference bill) would authorize the con-
cept Alaska and Hawaii); and from $37,000
to $40,000 average cost in other areas. Both
the House and the Senate approved $5 mil-
lion for homeowners assistance.
Of special significance was the Depart-
ment's request this year for 3,000 units of
housing for jyrzior enlisted personnel not
heretofore considered eligible for housing.
The House denied all 3,000 units but the
Senate approved 1,458.
In Conference the Conferees agreed to au-
thorize 6,800 family housing units at an
average cost of $30,000 per unit as originally
requested by the Department for inside the
United States (other than Alaska and Ha-
waii) and at $40,000 for Alaska, Hawaii and
overseas locations. Further, after a thorough
discussion the Conferees agreed that it was
not necessary for the government to invest
in constructing housing units for personnel
who may have enlisted for a minimum period
of time on a trial basis or for those personnel
who may not have seriously considered a
career in the military service.
The Conferees agreed to a new total for
the family housing program in the amount
of $1,244,603,000. The amount approved in-
cludes $5 million for homeowners assistance
'arid is $3,819,000 below the Senate figure and
$58,722,000 above the House figure.
The Defense Department proposed an in-
crease in the unit cost of leased housing for
the United States (other than Alaska and
Hawaii), Puerto Rico and Guam in increase
from an average of $210 per month to $235
per month and from $290 per month to $310
per month maximum for any one unit. Fur-
ther, they requested an increase for Hawaii
from $255 per month to $335 per month aver-
and (2) to meet unusual variations in cost
arising out of the current energy crisis.
This provision was denied by the House in
its entirety. The Senate approved the 10%
variation only as it relates to meeting un-
usual cost variations -directly related to the
energy crisis.
After a thorough discussion the House
receded:
In Section 607 the Defense Department re-
quested that the floor figure of $150,000 be
raised to $300,000 for architect/engineer
projects wherein contracts in excess of that
amount must be reported to the Congres-
sional committees with a waiting period of
30 days prior to execution of the contract.
The House approved a revision upward to
$225,000. The Senate approved the requested
$300,000 figure.
The Senate receded.
Section 610 of the House bill (Section 608
of Conference bill) compares to Section 608
of the Senate bill and authorizes the Sec-
retary of Defense to take certain actions
to lessen any adverse community impact
resulting from the TRIDENT installation
at Bangor, Washington.
The Senate version is identical to that
previously approved by the Congress for
the SAFEGUARD sites in Montana and North
Dakota. The Senate Conferees pointed out
that their version was preferable to the
House version because the Senate version
required specific authorization in each an-
nual Military Construction Authorization
Act and it required a semi-annual report to
the Armed Services Committees as to the
use of the funds.
After a thorough discussion the House
age and from $300 per month to $430 per receded.
month maximum for any one unit. The Section 609 of the Senate bill (Section 609
House approved the requested Increase a in of Conference bill), amends recently passed
the statutory average costs and maximum P.L. 93-346, which provides for a temporary
cost limitation for domestic leases except official residence for the Vice President. The
that in the case of Alaska and Hawaii the bill as it passed the Congress contained sev-
average cost would be increased to only $295 eral deficiencies and the purpose of this
and the maximum to $365. The Senate ap- provision is to clarify the original legisla-
proved the requested increases for the-United tion. In effect it is a rewrite,of P.L. 93-346.
States (other than Alaska and Hawaii) but This provision was not in the House bill.
limited Alaska and Hawaii to an average cost Particular attention was called to section
of $315 per month and the maximum of 5 of this provision which precludes the ex-
$375. penditure of funds for the maintenance, care,
In Conference the House argued that the repair, furnishing or security of any residence
increases requested for Alaska and Hawaii for the Vice President other than the tern-
were too extreme and that a lesser increase porary official residence provided for in Pub-
would satisfy the needs of the Department lie Law 93-346. It is not the intent of the
of Defense. - Congress to preclude the provision for tern-
After a thorough discussion the Senate porary security measures necessary for the
receded. protection of the Vice President and his
Section 507(b) places limitations on over- family for short periods of time at residences
seas leasing and had heretofore exempted other than the temporary official residence
300 units of representational quarters from of the Vice President, such as through the
the $625 maximum limitation. The House use of security Trip packages.
went along with this exemption as requested, The House receded.
but the Senate reduced the number of units..Section 611 of the House bill (Section 611
exempted by 150. Senate Conferees argued of Conference bill) amends Section 2662 of
that they had evidence of many abuses in this Title 10 USC to prohibit the termination of
program with exorbitant rents being paid an existing license or permit held by a mill-
unnecessarily. Senate Conferees were very tarp department for real property owned by
persuasive and the House receded. the U.S. Government if the military depart-
Section 509 is a new Section added on the ment has made or proposed to make sub-
Senate Floor by an amendment proposed by stantial investments in connection with its
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
11 11578
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE December Vi. 1974
veyance by the Secretary at the Army to the
State of Louisiana of approximately 1,710
acres of U.S. land in Saint Tammany Parish
now known as Camp Villere. This property
has for many years been under license to.
the State for Louisiana National Guard use
and will continue to be used for these pur-
poses under the proposed conveyance. This
conveyance would facilitate planned im-
provements to this property for National
Guard purposes by the State and would re-
serve to the United States the right to reoc-
cupy and use the property in time of was or
emergency. This provision Is similar to a
number of other like conveyances hi past
years where the U.S. Government has passed
title to such National Guard camps to the
States in order to facilitate militarily essen-
tial improvements by the States which in a,
great number of instances are prohibited by
State law unless title to the property is vested
in the State. This was added by the House
and is not in the Senate bill.
The Senate recedes.
Section 606 places statutory cost liraita-
tions on square foot costs of permanent bar-
racks and bachelor enlisted quarters. The
Department proposed an inarese to the square
foot cost of barracks from $28.50 to $31.00
and officer quarters from $30.50 to $33.00.
The House denied the requested increase but
the Senate approved the increase which is
approximately 8% and is consistent with
building cost increases.
The House receded.
Section 614 of the Senate bill wse added
by a floor amendment which inserted the
provision that any funds authorized in this
and future acts may be Used to provide ap-
propriate facilities in the event women are
admitted into the various service academies.
House Conferees pointed out that the an-
nual Military Construction Authorization
request is submitted to the Congress by line
item. The amendment would have given
blanket authorization to use funds specifi-
cally authorized and funded for other pur-
poses to be applied to construction of other
facilities not approved by the Administration
nor authorized in a Military Construction
Act.
After a thorough discussion the Senate
receded.
Section 611 of the Senate Bill was added
by the Senate and would aMend Chapter 37
U.S.C. in regard to the change in status of
members of the Uniformed Services who are
in a missing in action status. No change
could be made unless: (1) the President of
the United States had determined and noti-
fied the Congress in writing that an rea-
sonable actions have been taken into ac-
count for such members and that all rea-
sonable effort has been made to enforce the
provisions of article 8(b) of the Paris Peace
Accord of January 27, 1973; and (2) the Sec-
retary concerned notified the next-of-kin of
such person in writing of the proposed
change in status, and the next-of-kin of such
person has not filed with the Secretary con-
cerned, within sixty days after receipt of
notification of the proposed change in status,
Ian objection to such proposed change.
This section was discussed at length and
in view of the fact that the Rouse Commit-
tee has announced hearings on this matter
in a separate bill previously introduced, the
Senate reluctantly receded.
TITLE VH?RESERVE FORCES FACILIT/ES
The House bill contained a total of
$152,267,000 to support the facilities pm-
grams of the Guard and Reserve Components
of the military departments. The Naval and
Marine Corps total of $19,867,000 reflects an
added $1,335.000 which the House Committee
approved to facilitate the Naval Reserve ex-
pansion of an: existing excessi Air Force fa-
cility concurrent with a similar action by the
Army Reserve. The Senate version of the bill
contained no such addition.
After explaining the need for this facillt
and the necessity of concurrent construction
the Senate receded.
The Senate version of Title VII contained
an added $7 million to the amount requested
for the Air National Guard. The House ver-
sion contained no such addition. Senate Con-
ferees argued that aircraft conversions
within the Air Guard since the bill was sub-
mitted, to the Congress generated additional
construction requirements which e.stually
total around $11 million. These conversions
particularly relate to the F-106, A7, 334 and
0-1305 aircraft.
After a thorough discussion of new re-
quirements because of aircraft conversions,
the Conferees agreed to add $5.5 mil: ion to
the requested $26 mf lion giving the Air
Guard a total of $31.5 million.
The House receded with an Amendment.
F. EDW. HF,BERT,
OTIS G. Plats,
CHARLES E. BENNETT,
SAMUEL STRATTON,
WILLIAM G BRAY,
CARLETON J. RING,
G. WIL-LIAM WHITE/MAST,
Managers on the Part of the Hcntse.
STUART SYMINGTON,
JOHN C. STSNNIS,
HENRY M. JACKSON,
SAM J. ERVIN,
HOWARD W. CANNON,
HARRY F. Essen Jr.,
JOHN G. TOWER,
STROM THURMOND,
PETER H. DOMINICK,
Managers on the Part of tit, Senate.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave or ab-
sence was granted as follows to:
Mr. HOWARD (at the request of Mr.
O'NErrt.), from December 9 until Da-
cember 21, on account of illness.
Mr. Dwartas (at the request of Mr.
O'NEILL), for today, or account of it ness.
Mr. PATMAN (at the request of Mr.
O'NEILL), from 1:30 p.m. for the remain-
der of today, on account of official busi-
ness.
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to
address the House, following the legis-
lative program and any special o:ders
heretofore entered, was granted to:
Mr. ROGERS to address the House, to-'
day, for 60 minutes, and to revise and
extend his remarks, and include extra-
neous matter.
Mr. MictiEL, for 60 .ninutes, on Mon-
day, December 16, 1974, Mr. LEGGETT, for
60 minutes. today.
(The following Members (at the re-
quest of Mr. VEYSEY) to revise and ex'-
tend their remarks and include extra-
neous material;)
Mr. MILLER, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. HOSSLER, for 25 minutes, today.
Mr, STEELMAN, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the re.
quest of Mr. MEZVINSF.:Y) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extra-
neous material:)
Mr. DE LUGO, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. GONZALEZ, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. STARK, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. BINGHAM, for 30 minutes, on De-
cember 17, 1974.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
By unanimous consent, permission to
-revise and extend remarks was granted
to:
Mr. STUBBLEFIELD, and to include
extraneout matter notwithstanding the
fact that it exceeds two pages of the
REcoaa-and is estimated by the Public
Printer to cost $695.
Mr. STARK and to include extraneous
matter notwithstanding the fact that it
exceeds two Pages of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD and is estimated by the Public
Printer to cost $695.
Mr. LEGGETT and to include extraneous
matter notwithstanding the fact that it
exceeds two pages of the REcotte and is
estimated by the Public Printer to cost
$1,737.50.
Mr. STRATTON to include at the end of
his remarks in connection with Hebert
amendment on Surface Transportation
Act, two letters:
(a) from Deputy Secretary of Defense
William Clements to OMB.
(b) from Deputy Comptroller General
of the United States to Mr. &AGGERS.
(The following Members (at the re-
quest of Mr. VEYSEY) and to include
extraneous matter:).
Mr. FISH.
Mr. MCCLOSKEY in three instances.
Mr. GUYER.
Mr. RHODES.
Mr. Escrt.
Mr. ARENDS.
Mr. SNYDER.
Mr. KETCHUM.
Mr. MICHEL in four instance.
Mr. CRANE in two instances.
Mr. Wnvia.
Mr. now.
Mr. SHUSTER.
Mr. HURGENER.
Mr. PARRIS in two instances.
Mr. QUIE.
Mr. CRONIN.
(The following Members (at the re-
quest of Mr. MEEVINSKY) and to include
extraneous matter:)
Mr. RANGEL.
Mr. PATTEN.
Mr. ANDERSON a California in three
instances.
Mr. RARICK in three instances.
Mr. GONZALEZ in three instances.
Mr. Asent.
Mr. Vsavnt in three instances.
Mr. STARK in two instances.
Mr. Wor-Er in eight instances.
Mr. TEAGUE.
Mrs. Cutsnorar.
Mr. HAMILTON in two Instances,
Mr. FRASER.
Mr. LONG of Maryland.
Mr. LITTON.
Mr. SYMINGTON.
Mr. DEantorm.
Mr. FIARR1NGTON in two instances
Mr. MADDEN.
Mr. STUBBLEFIELD.
SENATE BILLS AND JOLLT-
RESOLUTION REFERRED
A bill and a ojint resolution of the Sen-
ate of the following titles were taken
froth the Speaker's table and, under the
rule, referred as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
r
,S 20740
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA7RDP75B00380R0007000500031l' (41.\-f4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE December 5, 1974
not e)peCting any agreement at this
time that would cause any appreciable
reduction in expenditures.
There is, though, a sound hope that
the agreement, if carried out as an-
nounced, will result in preventing an in-
crease. We have to do that first, and then
take the next step, if possible.
Because this agreement is an arms
limitation rather than an arms reduc-
tion, we can expect no actual reduction
in defense expenditures now because of
this agreement. It might work out a
little better than that, but this is not a
disarmament. I would not favor a dis-
armament in world affairs as conditions
are now. It would be a dangerous thing.
We could not afford to take such a
chance.
This has been, all the time, an arms
reduction effort, and an arms limitation
effort. This agreement is not a reduction,
necessarily, but a limitation, to define
some limits. That is what this agreement
has done.
I am a fact man. I like to know the
facts. We could develop some surprise
facts. I would like to count those for
others. I have learned most of what I
know here in the Senate, and I have
learned from other Senators. But man is
born with some common sense, and has
teachings from his parents or someone
in their place, before he ever goes to the
Senate. I think that common sense and
logic, and the down-to-earth qualities
about this agreement, are what sell it.
You do not have to be a scientist or a
technician to measure this one.
This is the approach that, I have been
looking for that we could take because it
has something to stand on.
The American people should also re-
member that our present arsenal of nu-
clear weapons and delivery systems, ca-
pable of placing nuclear weapons on tar-
get, are the most advanced in the world,
and are now capable of destroying any
given number of targets that we may
choose.
We do not want to choose to destroy
any, but if driven to it we have the
capability.
This capability is not confined either
to any one particular kind of weapon or
delivery system, but is based on a wise
mixture of what we call the TRIAD of
land-based and sea-based missiles and
heavy bombers.
Under the present plans, we, of course,
expect to keep it that way?the TRIAD
of land-based and sea-based missiles, as
well as the heavy bombers.
For well over two decades the United
States strategic policy has been one of
nuclear deterrence, which means the ca-
pability to mount an effective nuclear
counterattack against Russia or any
country in the event the United States
should be attacked first. This agreement
will not affect this capability.
Also, we shall be free to continue to
develop our research and technology in
this field of weapons.
This agreement, as now outlined, has
been discussed with the Chairman of our
Joint Chiefs of Staff. He assures me that
he and the Chiefs of Staff of all the serv-
ices approve the agreement as outlined.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that my request
not interrupt the continuity of the Sen-
ator's statement.
I ask unanimous consent that during
the rest of the day Senators may speak
out of order for not to exceed 30 minutes,
and the limitation on time not apply to
the distinguished Senator from Missis-
sippi (Mr. STENNIS) who has already
begun his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the leader very
much, advising me, too, in such a smooth
way that maybe I am out of order. I did
not mean to be. I received permission
from such of the leadership as could be
here at that time, and also the Presiding
Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair, by virtue of the order, has officially
recognized that the Senator is not out
of order.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It was not my
intent to object.
Mr. STENNIS. I want to back our
assistant floor leader as much as I can
in his efforts over the years?bringing
some order out of chaos here. He has
given long and patient effort, and has
greatly improved conditions on the floor.
Mr, ROBERT C. BYRD. I am sorry for
the interruption.
Mr, STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is
the will of the Senate?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
CASCADE HEAD SCENIC-RE
AREA, OREG.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. Preside I ask
the Chair to lay before the .S ate a
message from the House of Rep senta-
tiVes on H.R. 8352.
The PRESIDING OlveaCE (Mr.
CLARK) laid before the Sena the
amendment of the House of Rep enta-
tives to the amendment of the Se te to
the bill (H.R. 8352). to establi the
Cascade Head Scenic-Research A ea in
the State of Oregon, and for othe pur-
poses, as follows:
Page 3, line 24 of the Senate en ossed
amendment, strike out all after "a,cti ties."
over to and including "occurrences." o page
4, line 3, and insert: "Timber harvesti g ac-
tivity may occur in these subareas onl when
the Secretary determines that such h vest-
ing is to be conducted in connectio with
research activities or that the pr#Rerva-
tion of the timber resource is imminently
threatened by fire, old age, infestation, or
similar natural occurrences."
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, H.R.
8352 is a bill which was passed by the
House of Representatives earlier in this
session and was passed by the Senate on
August 16, 1974, with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute. The House has
concurred in the amendment of the Sen-
ate with an amendment which is tech-
nical in nature and does alter the sub-
stance of the Senate version.
My colleagues are aware of the need
for this protection, and Senator PACK-
WOOD and Congressman WENDALL WYATT
have played key roles in securing passage
of this important legislation.
The amendment of the House is ac-
ceptable to Senator PAcrtwooe and my-
self as well as to the other Members of
, the Commitee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. Therefore, Mr. President, I move
that the Senate concur in the amend-
ment of the House to H.R. 8352.
Mr. PACK WOOD. Mr. President, I
simply want to echo the sentiments of
the senior Senator from Oregon, to thank
him for the work he has done on this
matter, and to thank Representative
WENDELL WYATT, who is retiring this
year, in whose district this area exists.
This is one of the last unspoiled estuary
areas on the Pacific coast, and under
the provisions of this bill, that section
will be set aside as a scenic research
area. It was principally U.S. Forest Serv-
ice land, but this bill will guarantee its
protection forever.
I thank my colleague for getting this
measure through the Committee on In-
terior and Insular Affairs, and I am de-
lighted to share in the passage of it.
The PRESIDING 010.F10ER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from Oregon (Mr, HATFIELD).
The motion was agreed to.
QUORUM CALL
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OttleiCER. The clerk?
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous ? eat that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
DIEGO GARCIA
Mr. MANSiviELD. Mr. President, I feel
compelled to speak out on the issue of
Diego Garcia, the projected naval oper-
ating facility in the Indian Ocean. As we
move toward the final days of this sec-
ond session of the 93d Congress, Senators
are receiving a great deal of pressure
from both the Department of Defense
and the Department of the Navy to ap-
prove $14,802,000 as a downpayment on
naval facilities that will enable the Navy
to operate carrier task forces from the
island of Diego Garcia. In addition, the
Air Force is requesting Air Force facili-
ties on Diego Garcia that will enable
KC-135 tankers to refuel B-52's operating
out of Thailand over the Indian Ocean.
First of all, I would like to briefly give
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
December 5, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. PreSicient, 1 ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered,
The Senator from Miss pi is recog-
nized.
SUPPORT OF THE VLADTVSTOIC
AGREEMENT ON El TEGIC
WEAPONS
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I
not detain the Senate for but a few
utes. I do think I ought to say sorneth
with reference to the informal agree
ment that has been had with Soviet Rus-
sia by President Ford regarding nuclear
weapons. There is a great deal being said
about it, and all the detail acts are not
In, and the formalization of this proposed
treaty has not been had, but I base my
remarks on the assumption that the mat-
ter, as announced by President Ford, the
agreement, preliminary in nature, will
develop formally along the same substan-
tial lines that be has outlined.
Mr. President, in the coming weeks
and months this agreement between
President Ford and the Soviet Union will
be the subject of extensive discussions,
even though a congressional decision
will not be required until the compre-
hensive agreement is submitted to Con-
gress, hopefully in 1975, for ratification.
Mr. President, I fully support this pre-
liminary agreement as announced, and
I hope that President Ford will receive
growing public support in this historic
effort to limit the strategic arms.
Naturally, I would have preferred
lower ceilings on the strategic weapons
for both countries, and I continue to
hope that the vast arsenal at strategic
weapons in both the United States and
Soviet Russia can be mutually reduced
in the future on an equality basis.
This agreement, in establishing an
overall ceiling on two vital elements in
our strategic arsenal, will be a frame-
work within which more exterifive arms
limitations can be achieved.
This announcement, therefore, is a
critical step.
Mr. President, I felt for a loxig time,
until some boundary lines could be es-
tablished, or we may call it a ceiling or
a top, until those would be established
we would not be making substantial
headway.
Of course, this agreement had to be
preceded by a more preliminary one.
WHAT DOES THE AGREEMENT CONTROL-TWO
ELEMENTS
This agreement places a limitation or
ceiling on two elements of the strategic
systems of the United States and the
Soviet Union. The first is the limitation
of 2,400 strategic delivery vehicles which
Include land-based and sea-based inter-
continental ballistic missiles and stra-
tegic bombers.
Expressed in a more down-to-earth
way, they include our land-based ICBSs
and our sea-roving missiles like the
Poseidon, as carried by the Poseidon
submarine, and strategic bombers.
The second element is the limitation of
1,320 on strategic missiles which may be
armed with multiple independently tar-
geted warheads, that is, MIRVed
Spelling that out just a little more, it
just means that 1,320 of these missiles,
from whatver source propelled, may have
Independently targeted smaller bombs or
weapons on them?targeted toward
many places all in the same firing. Sev-
eral different cities, say within a reason-
able range could be targeted from the
same rocket.
NEW PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN NUMBER
Mr. President, as we well know, the in-
terim agreement of SALT proyided for
greater Russian numbers of certain
Strategic weapons in compensation for
tile U.S. qualitative advantage in these
sy ms.
F?he first time, this agreement
establighes identical numerical ceilings
for bo sides with respect to strategic
delivery vehicles and the number of
MIRV th1iles. This equality in numbers
is an Ian vement from the interim
agreement a. is a sound basis on which
to build furth limitations in the future.
OTHER rayons* ASPECTS OF AGREEMENT
In addition, theagreement has the ad-
vantage of being sitgple in covering those
systems which arePa the heart of tlse
strategic arms race. Inovercomes a num-
ber of hurdles that balk complicated ne-
gotiations up to now. Included In these
hurdles have been arguments over
whether recognition should, be given to
the side which has the greater techno-
logical advantage, possible geographical
advantages which affect strategic sys-
tems, whether the capability V allies
should be taken into accomit and
whether. the so-called forward-based
nuclear systeMs should be taken nito
account. All these issues were set ast4e.
This agreement, therefore, represent;
great progress from the standpoint oik,
negotiations.
NO JEOPARDY TO U.S. sEcnares
The strategic security of the United
States is based on the TRIAD, consisting
of our heavy bombers, land-based mis-
siles, and nuclear submarines. The
TRIAD will remain intact and undimin-
ished by this agreement. The United
States will not have to reduce its strate-
gic force by one single bomber, Or one
missile?land-based or sea-eased. Under
the agreeinent, the United'. States will
have the flexibility to improve the quality
and alter the mixture of its strategic
fbrces. Moreover, it will permit the com-
pletion of every new strategic weapon
system the United States now plans to
build. This is due to the fact that the
'United States long-range planning does
not contemplate more than 2,400 stra-
tegic delivery vehicles.
Now, this delivery vehicle, as used here,
refers to carrying vehicles that can de-
liver the weapon on target.
The Russians, on the other hand, have
already reached the allowable level of
2,400 strategic delivery vehicles and will
therefore be compelled to reduce slightly
their number in order to come within
the terms of the agreement.
The issue can be raised as to why this
agreement has any value if no signifi-
s 2o739 -
cant reduction is to result. The great vir-
tue is that this is a numerical ceiling, the
absence of which could compel both sides
to engage in an accelerated arms race
and exceed the overall ceiling of 2,400, at
enormous national cost to both sides.
Someone has said that this will create
an arms race. It will not Create an arms
race. We are already in an arms race,
and we have been in it for a long time
without any agreed ceiling, of boundary
lines of any kind, and this agreement
does take that necessary, highly import-
does take that necessary, highly impor-
tant step forward.
Mr. President, without this agreement
the additional cost to the U.S. defense
budget could be as much as $4 billion
per year. I refer that to the additianal
cost. This result is due to the fact that
the Russians both could, and probably
would, build up their strategic systems
in excess of the 2,400 ceiling which would
necessitate an additional buildup by
the United States to compensate for the
added Russian numbers.
I would emphasize that President Ford
has stated that as a result of this agree-
ment no major increases In 'U.S. stra-
tegic spending, other than for inflatson,
will be necessary in the future.
Well, we cannot guarantee a da lar
'figure of anything like that, of castrae,
but it is a committal here that nothing
except ordinary increases because of in-
flation and related matters, or rex Ily
purely research, is contemplated.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
Mr. President, this agreement is a
start and of course does not cover all of
the elements with which strategic war-
fare can be conducted. Recognizing that
there are many details and negotiating
problems to be resolved, the agreement
is nonetheless an important start. I feel
that both nations do want an agreement,
and this being the case. I am optimistic
that one can be reached.
ow, we could all be mistaken, of
c0rse, in that surmise or in that fact.
Ifathese negotiations succeed, it is my
hopeaand belief that there will be a good
chance- that further negotiations cou:d
be undertaken which would lead to a
mutual 'reduction in all elements of
strategic eanabilitY.
Another One of my chief concerns, Mr.
President, is?the growing and spreading
capability of kgany foreign nations, large
and small, for 'developing nuclear wear -
oils capability. this growing prolifera-
tion poses a most eri ous threat to world
civilization.
If we can somehow stabilize United
States and Soviet strategic weaponry by
concluding a comprehensive arms limita-
tion agreement, it willkshopefully be a
basis for controlling and reducing this
capability among other nations.
Along with many other citizens I had
hoped, too, that the new afteement in
Itself would cause a reductionln defense
expenditures.
I was disappointed that the first agree-
ment did not carry this possibility of a
reduction in the defense expenditures,
but I am not surprised that this one does
not. I understand the problem better
and have be-en into it deeper. I really was
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
December 5, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
you some background, both historical
and legislative, which bear directly upon
the Navy's efforts to make the island of
Diego Garcia an operating base.
Diego Garcia is an atoll located within
the Chagos Archipelago in the middle
of the Indian Ocean approximately 1,000
miles due south of the tip of India. The
heavily vegetated island consists of 6,700
acres with average elevations of 3 to 7
feet. It is horseshoe shaped with a 40-mile
perimeter. The enclosed lagoon is 51/2
miles wide by 13 miles long with average
depths of 30 to 100 feet. The annual rain-
fall is approximately 100 inches. The US.
Government became interested in Diego
Garcia in the early sixties, particularly
when the British Government announced
that it was withdrawing its naval forces
from Singapore and indications were
made public that Her Majesty's Govern-
ment intended to greatly reduce its In-
dian Ocean naval squadron. At about the
same time, the Russian navy began op-
erations in the Indian Ocean and making
port calls to nations bordering on the
Indian Ocean. It must be pointed out
that for years the U.S. Navy has been
traversing the Indian Ocean with car-
riers and other auxiliary combatants
when the transfer of aircraft carriers
was made to the Pacific Fleet.
Beginning in the early sixties, as afore-
mentioned, with the announcement that
the British were greatly reducing their
naval activity in the Indian Ocean, the
United States has in a more frequent
manner stepped up its operations in the
Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf,
which is a part of the Indian Ocean. At
the present time, naval presence is main-
tained at Bahrein consisting of a supply
ship and two destroyers. The Russians
have not matched this naval strength.
However, since 1968 the Russians have
greatly increased their presence in the
Indian Ocean, sometimes having as many
as 30 combatant ships, which include
a large number of minesweepers.
The United States some time in calen-
dar year 1966 began negotiating.with the
British Government for a lease to estab-
lish a communications station and an
operational base on Diego Garcia. This
base was to be an austere logistic support
activity which was mainly a refueling
stop for naval units operating in the In-
dian Ocean. In 1965, the British formed
the British Indian Ocean territory which
comprises the Chagos Archipelago which,
of course, includes Diego Garcia. The
U.S. Navy stated that the selection of
these islands was predicated on unques-
tioned United Kingdom sovereignty in
the absence of a population. A bilateral
agreement was signed in December 1966
between the British Government and the
United States, which granted base rights
for a period of 50 years to the U.S. Gov-
ernment to the Indian Ocean territory.
The Navy came to Congress in the
fiscal year 1970 military construction
program with a submission for the first
construction increment of a proposed
logistic facility on the island of Diego
Garcia. The logistic facility was approved
by the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees and the House Appropria-
tions Military Construction Subcommit-
tee. When presented to the Senate. there
was strong opposition from within the
Senate Appropriations Committee to the
United States becoming committed to
another naval operation base within the
Indian Ocean. Senator Richard Russell,
chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee at that time, was very much
opposed to the United States committing
the Navy to sustained operations within
the Indian Ocean and so stated in com-
mittee meetings on a number of occa-
sions. The Military Construction Sub-
committee also strenuously opposed the
appropriation of money to construct the
opertaing facility, and the military con-
struction fiscal year 1970 conference
committee debated this matter through
a number of meetings lasting over a 2-
week period.
Finally, an oral agreement was reached
wherein the Navy was to be instructed
to come back in fiscal year 1971 for a new
appropriation which would support only
a communications station, and all of the
logistic support facilities were to be de-
leted from the fiscal year 1971 program.
The rationale at that time for the com-
munications station was that, in time,
the United States would have to withdraw
from the main continent of Africa the
large communications facility that the
U.S. Government had at Asmara, Ethio-
pia. Kagnew Station Communications
Center, Asmara, Ethiopia, is now being
phased out and the Navy will centralize
its African communications facilities at
'Diego Garcia.
In support of the fiscal year 1971 ap-
propriations for the communications fa-
cilities on Diego Garcia, the Navy stated
the following:
The requirement to close the gap in reli-
able communication coverage which exists to-
day in the central Indian Ocean/Bay of Ben-
gal area was a major consideration in develop-
ing the initial concept for a support facility
on Diego Garcia. Establishment of a com-
munications support capability in this area
is an immediate requirement and is a require-
ment which exists independent of the modest
logistics support facility which was rejected
by the Congress. The purely passive role and
Image of a communications facility should
not raise the same concern of active commit-
ment which had apparently been associated
with the logistics suppOrt aspects of the orig-
inal concept.
As previously mentioned, the Navy was
instructed to come back in the 1971 mili-
tary construction program with a com-
munications package only and to all in-
tents and purposes the logistic support
facility was not to be a part of the pack-
age. In fact, it was specifically agreed
that there would be no items which could
In any way support a carrier task force.
In all of the communications and oral
conversations that the subcommittee had
with the Navy, it was indicated that the
Navy would not use Diego Garcia as an
operational base. Members of the sub-
committee were reassured, when the fis-
cal year 1971 construction budget for
Diego Garcia was approved, that the Navy
did not intend to operate fleet surface
units from Diego Garcia.
To bring Senators up to date concern-
ing the fiscal year 1975 military con-
struction authorization bill, H.R. 16136,
which is still in conference, I will explain
section 612 in the bill. This section pre-
S 20741
eluded the obligation of any funds until
the President of the United State has
advised the Congress in writing that he
has evaluated all military and foreign
policy implications regarding the need
for these facilities and has certified that
this construction is essential to the na-
tional interest Such certification must
be submitted to Congress and approved
by both Houses of Congress. This will as-
sure the opportunity for full debate on
the policy question of Diego Garcia.
I might say, parenthetically, that I
consider this most prudent and realistic
action for Congress to take. I wish to
point out further that section 612 of the
authorization bill was adopted by a rec-
ord vote of 83 to 0 in the Senate.
The position of the House Armed Serv-
ices Committee is that the administra-
tion should be given the authority to
build the facilities in Diego Garcia but
that, prior to the exercise of that author-
ity, the President shall notify Congress
of his intention and that Congress shall
have 60 days to reject the blanket au-
thority it had previously given to him.
This procedure has heretofore been
used too often by the Executive and ac-
quiesced in by Congress. The negative
power of Congress?the power to deny
a change in the status quo?is turned on
Congress itself. The burden of persua-
sion shifts away from those who desire
action to prove the rightness of their
cause. Congress must insist that the jus-
tification for a policy must be made prior
to the grant of authority. It is exactly
that insistence that was included in the
military construction authorization.
It is my contention, as stated earlier,
that the Senate position in the authori-
zation bill is realistic and prudent and
Diego Garcia, as a policy question,
should first of all be thoroughly investi-
gated by the Committee on Foreign Re-
lations, then the question should be
taken to the floor and the two Houses
of Congress should be allowed to work
their will.
On November 17, at a meeting in New
Delhi of the 30 nations surrounding the
Indian Ocean, a policy statement was is-
sued unanimously that America and the
Soviet Union should not escalate the
arms race in the Indian Ocean and the
area should be left in peace; particularly,
all 30 nations opposed the United States
building a facility on Diego Garcia. The
cost of this naval base for both con-
struction and equipment will amount to
approximately $173 million; thus, as you
can see, this $14 million plus $3.3 million
is only a downpayment.
Within the Department of Defense we
do have a difference of opinion as to how
important the building of this base is to
our national interest. The Navy says that
it is imperative for the defense of the
United States, particularly in keeping
the oil routes open in the Indian Ocean.
The CIA has stated that the buildup of
the Russians, particularly in Somaliland,
is certainly not as extensive as outlined
by admirals testifying for this project.
Mr. President, is this Southeast Asia
and Vietnam all over again? It appears
to me that our Government must have
learned something about trying to be
policemen for the World during our ex-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 20742
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?-- SENATE December 5, 19711,
perience in Vietnam: 55,000 dead and
303,000 wounded men must certainly
mean something to _us. I respectfully
submit that the United States cannot go
on attempting to be a policeman for the
world. And most certainly in my opin-
ion, the construction of this operating
base in the Indian Ocean is only a fur-
ther effort by the Department of De-
fense to play the role of policeman in the
Indian Ocean and to actively involve our
military forces in the politics of an area
that now wants to be left at peace.
Yet in the face of all the nations in the
littoral area requesting that we not build
up Diego Garcia as a naval base, there
are those individuals in high places that
contend we should go abead in our own
national interest with the building of
this naval base. I ask the question?what
really are our vital interests in the Indian
Ocean besides gunboat diplomacy and
"showing the flag"? Our presence in the
Indian Ocean had no effect on the oil
situation during the Yom Kippur war in
October 1973; in fact, our naval vessels
were completely cut off from Arab oil and
the United States could do nothing about
the Arab action.
In closing, there are a few points that
I wish to make that I think have a direct
bearing in my opinion upon whether or
not Diego Garcia funding should be
approved to build a naval base on Diego
Garcia. In allowing this naval base to be
built, I think Senators should be aware
that they are actualy voting for a three-
ocean Navy. It is my contention that this
base on Diego Garcia could cost hun-
dreds of millions of dollars. We already
have an admission from the Navy of a
eost of $173 million. Oh yes, the Navy will
contend that the base will only cost $35
million but they are not telling the Amer-
ican people of the cost for salaries of the
Seabees that are building the base, nor
are they advising the Congress of the
complete costs for the communications
equipment and other machinery that will
go into the making of this base.
I submit that all of the information I
have in hand shows that the aircraft
carrier is now obsolete with the technics/
advancement of the new cruise missiles
and I might say, by way of explanation,
that in the Mediterranean Sea, the So-
viets always know exactly where our car-
riers are.
I state that for just this one time can-
not the U.S. Government wait and really
find out what the intentions of the So-
viet Union are in regard to the. Indian
Ocean. All the reports I have indicate
that the Soviet Union's naval activity is
of a low order.
In summary, I would like to say that
It appears to me that our Department of
Defense is advocating a three-ocean Navy
to station sailors 10,500 miles from home
and putting obsolete carriers in the In-
dian Ocean, which are vulnerable and
practically defenseless against new weap-
onry.
Are we building a naval base, a new
Wake Island, that is completely, in time
of crisis, indefensible?
Mr. President, in closing I am remind-
ed of a very impor Ant incident that oc-
curred on the floor of the Senate. Some
years back when the defense appropria-
tion bill was on the floor and the Senate
was considering appropriating money
for the Navy for naval landing craft?
FDL'a--the late great chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committaa Sen-
ator Richard Brevaad Russell, said and I
quote:
If we make it east for the Navy to go
places and to do things, we will find our-
selves always going places and doing things.
I remind the Senate in approving the
building of a naval 'base on Diego Garcia
that we will be making it easy for the
United States to"go ki the Indian Ocean
and more than likely that we will do
things.
Mr. President, I kuggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OreaCER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSriELD. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent t1-..at the order forthe
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OrivICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 17505?ORDER FOR BILL TO BE
HELD AT DESK
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that H.R. 17505, to
rescind certain budget authority recom-
mended in messages of the President,
which has been passed in the House, I
believe, and is now at the desk, be held
at the desk pending further disposition.
The PRESIDING 0 laraCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE TRADE REFORM ACT OF
1974 (H.R. 10710)
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
It will be necessary, during the remain-
ing days of this session, for the Senate
to operate on a multiple-track system.
The unfinished business until dis-
posed of will be H.R. 10710, the trade re-
form bill.
Having discussed this request with the
distinguished majority leader, the dis-
tinguished minority leader, and the dis-
tinguished assistant minority leader, and
also with the distinguished Senator from.
Alabama, who is in the Chamber, I ask
unanimous consent that on each day un-
til the trade bill is disposed of, with the
exception of Monday, for which an or-
der has already been entered, that the
trade bill become the order of business at
no later than 1 o'clock p.m. unless, in
the discretion of the assistant majority
leader, after consultation with the mi-
nority leader or his designee, the assist-
ant majority leader then acts tl take the
trade bill up earlier. -
The PRESIDING OrwiCER Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. This will al-
low the Senate to transact other busi-
ness up until 1 o'clock every day. The
call for regular order cannot displace
pending business prier to 1 o'clock. At 1
o'clock the trade bill would automati-
cally come up.
Under the rules, it would be called up
at any time after the morning Your by a
call for the regular order. This would
allow the assistant majority leader who,
in the absence of the majority leader,
will be working in an attempt to move
the legislative process- along, after con-
sultation with the leadership on the
other side, to set aside pending ausiness
before the hour of 1 o'clock, if necessary,
on any day, and proceed immediately to
the trade bill.
Do I have a correct understar ding of
what I have requested?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That it
the understanding of the Chair.
ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION OF
ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORIZA-
TION BILL (S. 4033)
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Now, Mr.
President, I am going- to propcund a
unanimous-consent request which I have
not cleared with anyone.
There is an agreement on the Atomic
Energy authorization bffl I do not know
what our situation will be on Monday
next after the debate on Mr. Rockefeller's
nomination has played out.
There is no question but that under the
rules, once Senators have stopped dis-
cussing .the Rockefeller-nominatim, if
they do so prior to the expiratior of 5
hours of debate on Monday, the trade bill
would automatically be brought up by a
call for the regular order. Or at least it
could be brought up. Am I correct?
The PRESIDING ?FACER. After we
go into the legislative session, that is cor-
rect.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is the
reason why I said a call for the regular
order. A call for the regular order in ex-
ecutive session would not bring ug the
trade bill.
The PRESIDING-OreaCER. That is
correct.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unani-
mous consent, Mr. President, that after
the debate on the Rockefeller nomina-
tion on Monday next, if sueli debate does
not consume 5 hours on Monday, it may
be in order for the assistant leada- to
return to legislative session, and that it
be in order at that time to call up either
the Atomic Energy authorization bill or
the trade bill, and that if the Atomic En-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
1,14, 161 3
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
?
Serifeirber 12, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
year, the commercial apple crop is up 4
percent and the peach crop is down 31 per-
cent from last year.
The forecast also says crop conditions
could have been even worse if there had not
been a surplus of moisture in most of the
state at the end of June, when the drought
began.
LOCKING UP A CROP REPORT
(By Jack Egan)
When the United States Department of
Agriculture releases one of its crop reports,
the reverberations can quickly be felt around
the world.
This was true in the wake of last Monday's
forecast that put the corn harvest below 5
billion bushels?far less than even pessimis-
tic analysts had predicted?and which also
significantly reduced expected harvests for
other feed grains, wheat and soybeans.
In a_ year when U.S. grain stocks are at the
lowest point in more than a quarter of a
century, the message from the drought-
reduced crop report was clear: higher food
prices and more inflation both here rind
abroad.
Because Agriculture Department officials
from Secretary Earl Butz down as well as
other administration economists had earlier
held out hopes for bumper crops large
enough to tame the rate of inflation, the
disappointment was all the more acute.
The next day, the reaction was dramatic,
Corn hit a record $4 a bushel on some cash
markets.
Commodity prices shot up in a phalanx on
world futures exchanges. Though led by corn,
the activity was not limited to domestic
agricultural commodities but spread to
metals, sugar, cocoa and coffee.
In Europe, grain prices had record daily
advances.
The Dow Jones average of 30 industrial
stocks dropped another 10.88 points after a
10.01-point decline on Monday. Stock market
analysts said a major factor was the crop
report and what it said about future infla-
tion.
In the highest circles of this government,
there was consideration of export controls on
agricultural commodities, no matter how un-
palatable the prospect. Large export sales of
corn were rumored in Chicago grain markets.
And livestock: feeders, poultry raisers and
dairy farmers?already squeezed by soaring
feed costs?predicted widespread liquidation
in the short term with smaller supplies and
much higher prices to follow if corn, the
major feed ingredient, stayed at $4 a bushel.
The effect of the crop report was immedi
ate and obvious.
Because of the high stakes and poten
impact of the news?good or bad?con
in one of the crop reports, the Agric re
Department has established careful e-
dures to protect the integrity of the
reporting process and the inform Con-
tained in the final document.
Though the information ga ring had
begun laboriously some wee advance,
the final assembly by the Reporting
Board took place in the bo of the main
Agriculture Department b ing in Wash-
ington in a final 12-ho purt called the
lock-up.
A uniformed guard s ds outside. No one
who enters after the . start of the lock-
up may leave until i ds at 3 p.m. All tele-
phones have been nnected.
The reason for strict security is two-
/old.
First the Ulf ation contained in the
report can be ed for personal speculative
gain if reIease3prematurely.
There is a popular tale?though most say
it is apocryphal?of a breach in look-up se-
curity that involved use of venetian blinds.
A predetermined signal was given, the story
goes, by a lock-up participant who closed
the blinds at a window and tipped a wait-
ing accomplice outside on whether a crucial
crop estimate was high or low. The accom-
plice then invested in the market.
No one seems to be able to verify whether
the incident actually occurred. But there
are no windows in the basement lock-up
quarters today to either peer into or signal
from.
When the crop report is complete and the
lock-up period is ended, the head of the re-
porting board goes into an adjacent room
where waiting wire service reporters have
already dialed their telephones.
The reporters move away from their phones
and stand behind a white line in a procedure
as old as the Crop Reporting Board, which
was established in 1905. The head of the
board places a copy of the report, face down,
next to each reporter's phone.
At precisely 3 p.m., the signal is given and
the newsmen rush across the line and start
reading the report summary to their head-
quarters. This is quickly translated into
story and appears on wire service ticke
around the world within minutes.
The reason for the haste is more c
petitive than because of the imm'to
value of the information, although rest
is intense. The commodity markets, ever,
have all closed once the report is t and
speculators and hedgers have ov ght to
absorb the information before ding re-
sumes the next morning.
Another reason for the Ins ion of the
Crop Reporting Board is to tact it from
undue political pressures ing prepara-
tion of the report.
The temptation is per too irresistable
to nudge a number one y or another and
thus convince people t things are bet-
ter than they really To eliminate this
possibility, the rep ng board is out of
touch with the culture Department's
brass until the dee ent has been assembled.
Approximately a half hour before the
lock-up ends, Agriculture Secretary or
one of the as ant secretaries enters, re-
ceives a brie I on the report and certifies it
with his Si'ure. He also leaves only at
3 p.m.
The re t released on Monday was for
crop co tions as of Aug. 1. It contained
the fir lard production forecasts for corn,
sorg , and other feed grains, soybeans,
and ton that were based on actual grow-
in nditions in the fields.
'her estimates had been educated
sacs?some critically say wishful think-
g?that were based on surveys of how many
acres farmers intended to plant of a certain
crop, multiplied by historic yields.
The 6.7-billion-bushel corn crop projected
by the USDA in March before planting had
even begun was precisely this kind of guess.
An expected harvest of 69 million acres was
multiplied by a 97-bushel-per-acre yield and
the result was 6.7 billion bushels. The tool
was mainly arithmetic.
Subsequently, the USDA revised the num-
ber downward as the situation unfolded pre-
cariously. First, spring mine delayed plant-
ing of many acres. When the season finally
began, the nation's grain belt was subjected
to the worst drought in at least 20 years.
But although the number was dropped
first to 6.4 billion and then to a range of 5.95
billion to 6.25 billion bushels, the USDA was
still estimating rather than forecasting on
any hard evidence.
When the hard evidence came in, as reveal
in the August crop report, the news of th
drought's effect was brutal. Average yield fo
corn was 77.8 bushels per acre, down fro
last year's 91.4 bushels and nowhere nea
97 bushels.
Four million acres of corn had been los
entirely in the July weather.
Walter Goeppinger, chairman of the Na-
tional Corn Growers Association, estimated
S 16577
last week that farmers had t $320 million
because of the USDA's in al 6.7-billion-
bushel harvest projection.
Testifying before a San agriculture sub-
committee, Goeppinger s farmers sold 800
million bushels early b .ause of the bearish
price forecast and co have gained an extra
40 cents a bushel if ey had a more accurate
view of the situati
Crop Reporti Board chairman Bruce
Graham worn- aloud last week that the
public viewe 1 estimates from the USDA
the same, made no distinction between
the early jections put out by the depart-
ment a the August crop report forecast
based field evidence. The result, he felt,
might a strain on the board's credibility.
T Crop Reporting Board has two sources
of ormation for its forecasts. There are
surveys of farmers asking the condition
heir crops as compared to a normal year.
e average response for these surveys is ap-
roximately 35 per cent.
In addition, department employees called
enumerators are sent out into specific plots
of farm land statistically chosen to take
various measures of the crops.
These specific plots are staked out, for the
enumerators must return to them during the
growing season and 'refine their assessments
of how the crops are doing. This is how the
so-called objective yield is determined.
For example, for corn, initially, the num-
ber of ears on a stalk is counted. Later, the
length of the ear over the husk is measured.
Then, at a late stage, the enumerator will
determine the length of the average kernel
TOW.
Sample ears are then sent to a laboratory
to check their shelling percentage, their
average weight and their moistUre content.
Al! of these things have a bearing on the
ultimate yield.
After the harvest, enumerators will return
to the plots to find out how much of the
crop has been lost on the ground. Pieces of
corn ears, kernels and other fragments are
counted and measured so that a number can
be subtracted from the projected yield to ac-
count for this loss.
For the August crop report, enumerators
actually entered the fields on July 22. The
reports were then gathered in each of the
state offices, along with the mail surveys.
These reports are sent on to the Agricul-
ture Department in distinctive envelopes
that receive special handling. When they
arrive in Washington, they are placed in a
special steel box secured by two different
locks. One key is kept in the office of the
Secretary of Agriculture, and the other is
kept by the head of the Crop Reporting
Board.
The final assembly take place in the lock-
up with a six-member board for each crop.
Three of the members work for the USDA
An Washington, and the other three are from
the state offices.
Each board member makes an independ-
ent estimate of the projected average yield
for that particular crop in each state.
The chairman of that board then winnows
the separate estimates which are said not
to vary much from each other?and deter-
mines a final figure. This is the objective
yield figure which is multiplied against the
already determined acreage expected to be
harvested for a supply number.
010.110111M14
ORDER FOR THE PRINTING OF H.R.
16136, THE MILITARY CONSTRUC-
TION BILL, AS PASSED BY THE
SENATE
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 16136
?
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 16578
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE September 14 1.9 ;%:,
be printed as amended by the Senate
and passed yesterday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 16136
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Mated States of
America in Congress assembled.
TITLE I
SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may
establish or develop military installations
and facilities by acquiring, constructing,
converting, rehabilitating, or installing per-
manent or temporary public works, includ-
ing land acquisition, site preparation, ap-
purtenances, utilities, and enuipment for the
following acquisition and Construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $26,170,000.
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $9,742,000.
Fort Carson, Colorado, $34,993,000.
Fort Hood, Texas, $46,376,000.
Port Sam Houston, Texas, $4,286,000.
Fort Lewis, Washington, *10,270,000.
Fort Riley, Kansas, $273)74,000.
Fort Stewart/Hunter Arany Airfield, Geor-
gia, $42,197,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND
DOCTRINE COMMAND
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $9,625,000.
Fort Benning, Georgia, $36,827.000.
Fort Bliss, Texas, $12,296,000.
Port Eustis, Virginia, $8,124,000.
Fort Gordon, Georgia, $9,868,000.
Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation, Cali-
fornia, $1,108,000.
Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $19,078,000
Fort Knox, Kentucky, $2,264,000.
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, $9,911,000.
Fort Lee, Virginia, $11,986,000.
Fort McClellan, Alabama, $17,344,000.
Presidio of Monterey, California, $3,107,000.
Fort Ord, California, $3,660,000.
Fort Polk, Louisiana, $7,804,000.
Fort Rucker, Alabama, $3,906,000.
Fort Sill, Oklahoma, $16,265,000.
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, $3,360,000
UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF
? WASHINGTON
Fort Myer, Virginia, $2,491,000.
-UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, $1,-
030,000.
Aeronautical Maintenance Center, Texas,
$541,000.
Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, $5,388,000.
Army Materiel and Mechanics Research
Center, Massachusetts, $558.000.
Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania,
$4,726,000.
Lexington/Blue Grass Army Depot, Ken-
tucky, $616,000.
Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, $2,820,000.
Red River Army Depot, Texas, $1,160,000.
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, $10,322,000.
Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, $2,731,000.
Sacramento Army Depot, California, $2,-
599,000.
Seneca Army Depot, New York, $815,000.
Sierra Army Depot, California, $717,000.
Watervliet Arsenal, New York, $3,256,000.
White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico,
$3,574,000.
Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, $1,859,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY COMMUNICATION
COMMAND
Fort Huachuca, Arizona, $7,507,000.
Fort Ritchie, Maryland, $2,023,000.
UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY
United States Military Academy, West
Point, New York, $8,862,000.
HEALTH SERVICES COMMAND
Port Detrick, Maryland, $486,000.
Various Locations, $19,7/8,000.
CORPS OP ENGINEERE
Cold Regions Laboratories, New Hamp-
shire, $2,515,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY, ALASKA
Fort Greely, Alaska, $251,000.
Fort Richardson, Alaska, $4,002,000,
Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $1,512,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY, HAWAII
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $15,324,000,
Tripler General Hospital, Hawaii, /1,205,-
000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, iiir Pollution Abate-
ment, $1,356,000.
Various Locations, Witer. Pollution Abate-
ment, $16,358,000.
DINING FACILITIES MODERNIZATION
Various Locations, $10,723,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES, SOUTHERN
COMM AND
Canal Zone, Various Locations, $557,300.
UNITED STATES ARMY, PACIFIC
Korea, Various Locations, $5,139,000.
PUERTO RICO
Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, $1,862,000.
KWAJALEIN MI SSILE RANGE
National Missile Range, $1,272,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY SECURITY AGENCY
Various Locations, $148,000.
UNITED STATES ARM' r COMMIT N ICATI ON
COMM AND
Fort Buckner, Okinawa, $532,000.
nieris.0 STATES ARMY, EUROPE
Germany, Various Locations, $32,355 000.
Camp Darby, Italy, $4,159,000.
Various Locations: For the 'United States
share of the cost of multilateral programs
for the acquisition or construction of mili-
tary facilities and installations, including
international military aeadquarters, for the
collective defense of the North Atlantic
Treaty Area, $84,000,000: Provided, That
within thirty days afser the end of each
quarter, the Secretary of the Army shall
furnish to the Committees on Armed Serv-
ices and on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives a descrip-
tion of obligations incurred as the United
States share of such multilateral programs.
She. 102. The Secretary of the Army may
establish or develop Army installations and
facilities by proceeding with construction
made necessary by changes in Army no lesions
and responsibilities which have been occa-
sioned by: (1) unforeseen security consid-
erations, (2) new weapons developments, (3)
new and unforeseen research and develop-
ment requirements, or (4) improved produc-
tion schedules if the Secretary of Defense
determines that deferral of such construc-
tion for inclusion in the next Military Con-
struction Authorization Act would be in-
consistent with interests of national secu-
rity, and in connection therewith to acquire,
construct, convert, rehabilitate, or install
permanent or temporary public works, in-
cluding land acquisition, site preparation,
appurtenances, utilities, and equipment; in
the total amount of $10,000,000: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Army, or his
designee, shall notify the Committees on
Arnled Services of the Senate and House
of Representatives, immediately upon reach-
ing a final decision to implement, of the
cost of construction of any public work
undertaken. under this Beaten, including
those real estate actions pertaining thereto.
This authorization will expire upon enact-
ment of the fiscal year 1976 Military Con-.
struction Authorization Act except for those
public works projects concerning winch the
Committees on Armed Services of the Sen-
ate and Rouse of Representatives have been
notified pursuant to this section oior to
that date.
Sec. 103. (a) Public Law 93-106, is
amended under the heading "OUTSIDE THE
UNITED STATES?UNITED STATES ARMY_ ZUROPE",
in section 101 as follows:
iWth respect to "Germany, Various Loca-
tions" strike out "$12,517,000" and hisert :n
place thereof "$16,360,000".
(b) Public Law 93-166 is amended by
striking out in clause (1) of seesion 602
"$107,257,000" and "$596,1184,000" and insert-
ing in place thereof "$111,100.000" and
"$500,027,000", respectively.
SEC. 104. (a) Public Law 92- 546, as
amended, is amended under the heading
"INSIDE THE UNITED STATES", in section 101 as
follows:
With respect t& "Port Myer, Virginia,"
strike out "$1,815,000" and insert in place
thereof "$3,615,000".
With respect to "Fort Sill, Oklahoma,"
strike out "$11,958.000" and insert in place
thereof "$16,159,000".
(b) Public Law 92-545, as amended, is
amended under the heading "Oursme THE
UNITED STATES-13E11'ED STATES ARMY POE CES,
SOUTHERN COMMAND" in section 10: as fol-
lows:
With respect to "Canal Zone, Various Loca-
tions" strike out "$8,129,000" and nisert in
place thereof "$9,288,600".
(c) Public Law 92-545, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (1) of
section 702 "$414,767,006;" "$117,311,000;"
and "$562,078,000" and inserting in place
thereof "$447,768,000;" "$118,420,000;" and
"$566,188,000", restiectively.
SEC. 105. (a) Public Law 91-511, as
amended, is amended under the heading
"INSIDE THE UNITED STATES", in sec tion 101
as follows:
With respect to "Rock Island Arsenal, 11: i-
nois," strike out "$2,756,000" and ,insert in
place thereof "$3,650,000".
(b) Public Lave' 91-511, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clams (1) of
section 602 "$181,834,000" and "4207,031,-
000" and 'inserting in place thereof "$182.-
734,000" and "$267,931,000", respectively.
SEC. 106. Public Law 93-166 is amended in
section 105 as follows:
Public Law 93-166, section 105(b) , amend-
ing Public Law g2-145, section 702, clause
(1) as amended, having inserted erroneous
figures, is amended by striking out "$404.-
500,000" and "$405,107,000" and inssircing In
place thereof "$405,000,000" and '0405.607.
000", respectively:
TITLE II
SEC. 201. The Secretary of the Navy may
establish or develop military installations
and facilities by acquiring, constructing.
converting, rehabilitating, or installing per-
manent or temporary public works, includ-
ing land acquisition, site prepareciion, ap-
purtenances, utilities and equipment for the
following acquisition and construct un:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
FIRST NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine,
$261,000.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery,
Maine, $7,232,000.
Naval Security Group Activity, Winter
Harbor, Maine, $255,000.
Naval Education and Training Center,
Newport, Rhode Island, $4,153,000.
Naval Underwater Systems Centsr New-
port, Rhode Island, $10,274,000.
THIRD NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Submarine Base, New London, Con-
necticut, $4,971,000.
FOURTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air Test Facility, Lakehussn New
Jersey, $7,350,000.
Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Mechan-
icsburg, Pennsylvania, $2,336,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
;>.
lemoved FoztleslmEs2s0an.e9Rt
? F6ekity7gETOMR000700050003-1
Sen*nber 12, S 16579
Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
$296,000.
NAVAL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON
Naval District Commandant, Washington,
District of Columbia, $2,885,000.
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington,
District of 0o1umlaia, $3,377,000.
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland,
$7,706,000.
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda,
Maryland, $14,943,000.
Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences, Bethesda? Maryland,
$15,000,000.
turnt NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Regional Medical Center, Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina, $290,000.
Naval Air Rework Facility, Cherry Point,
North Carolina, $252,000.
Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training
Center, Atlantic, Dam Neck, Virginia,
$2,034,000.
Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Vir-
ginia, $896,000.
Atlantic Command Operations Control
Center, Norfolk, Virginia, $633,000.
Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia,
$3,471,000.
Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, $5,080,000.
Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia,
$4,990,000
Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia,
$1,047,000.
Norfolk Naval Regional Medical Center,
Portsmouth, Virginia, $15,801,000.
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Vir-
ginia, $5,602,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Vir-
ginia, $1,595,000.
SIXTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air .Station, Cecil Field, Florida, $1,-
534,000.
Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida,
$446,000.
Naval Regional Medical Center, Jackson-
ville, Florida, $7,417,000.
Naval Station, Mayport, Florida, $3,239,000.
Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida,
$8,709,000.
Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama
City, Florida, $795,000.
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, $19,-
418,000.
Naval Technical Training Center, Pensa-
cola, Florida, $1,478,000.
Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida,
$1,561,000.
Naval Air Station, -Meridian, Mississippi,
$1,485,000.
Naval Hospital, Beaufort, South Carolina,
$7,112,000.
Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston,
South Carolina, $200,000.
Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina,.
$15,352,000.
Naval Supply Center, Charleston, South
Carolina, $3,750,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South
Carolina, $2,564,000.
Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tennessee, $4,-
284,000.
Naval Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, $1,-
888,000.
EIGHTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Support Activity, New Orleans, Lou-
isiana, $3,080,000.
Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas, $1,-
428,000.
- TTINTII NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illi-
nois, $1,953,000.
ELEM./TR -NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Regional Medical Center, Camp Pen-
dleton, California, $7,619,000.
Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Cali-
fornia, 371,000.
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach,
California, $6,011,000.
Naval Air Station, Miramar, California,
$11,772,000.
Naval Air Station, North Island, California,
$12,943,000.
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port
Hueneme, California, $1,048,000.
Naval Electronics Laboratory Center, San
Diego, California, $3,238,000.
Naval Regional Medical Center, San Diego,
California, $13,493,000.
Naval Training Center, San Diego, Cali-
fornia, $8,657,000.
Navy Submarine Support Facility, San
Diego, California, $4,234,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Seal. Beach, Cali-
fornia, $2,147,000.
TWELFTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, Cali-
fornia, $1,638,000.
Naval Hospital, Lemoore, California, $333,-
000.
Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, California,
$77,000.
Naval Communications Station, Stockton,
California, $1,102,000.
Mare Island Naval Shipyard Vallejo, Cali-
fornia, $2,301,000.
THIRTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Station, Adak, Alaska, $7,697,000.
Trident Support Site, Bangor, Washington,
$103,808,000.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton,
Washington, $393,000.
'Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash-
ington, $2,603,000.
FOURTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Commander in Chief Pacific, Oahu, Hawaii,
$2,700,000.
Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahu, Hawaii,
$795,000.
Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,
$1,505,000.
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, $3,356,000.
Naval Communication Station, Honolulu,
Wahiawa, Hawaii, $971,000.
MARINE CORPS
Marine Corps Development and Education
Command, Quantico, Virginia, $2,803,000.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune North
Carolina, $f3,864,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point,
North Carolina, $1,260,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, New River, North
Carolina, $499,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona,
$3,203,000.
Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow, Cali-
fornia, $1,463,000.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, Cali-
fornia, $7,271,000.
Marine Corps Base, Twenty-nine Palms,
California, $397,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay,
Hawaii, $5,497,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $9,849,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $44,251,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
TENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Telecommunications Center, Roose-
velt Roads, Puerto Rico, $3,186,009.
Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto
Rico, $947,000.
Naval Security Group Activity, Sabana
Seca, Puerto Rico, $1,026,000.
FIFTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Support Activity, Canal Zone,
$800,000.
ATLANTIC OCEAN AREA
Naval Air Station, Bermuda, $1,866,000.
Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, $4,193,000.
EUROPEAN AREA
Naval Air Facility, Sigonella, Sicily, Italy,
$311,000.
Naval Security Group Activity, Edzell,
Scotland, $571,000.
Naval Activities Detachment, Holy Loch,
Scotland, $1,188,000.
INDIAN OCEAN
Naval Communications Facility, Diego
Garcia, Chagos Archipelago, $14,802,000.
PACIFIC OCEAN AREA
Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam, Mariana
Islands, $728,000.
Naval Communication Station, Finegayan,
Guam, Mariana Islands, $1,305,000.
Naval Ship Repair Facility, Guam, Mariana
Islands, $1,782,000.
Navy Public Works Center, Guam, Mariana
Islands, $907,000.
Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan, $360,000.
Naval Air Station, Cubi Point, Republic of
the Philippines, $1,624,000.
Naval Station, Subic Bay, Republic of the
Philippines, $3,741,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $1,059,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $4,038,1100.
SEC. 202. The Secretary of the Navy may
establish or develop Navy installations and
facilities by proceeding with construction
made necessary by changes in Navy missions
and responsibilities which have been occa-
sioned by (1) unforeseen security considera-
tions, (2) new weapons developments, (3)
new and unforeseen research and develop-
ment requirements, or (4) improved produc-
tion schedules, if the Secretary of Defense
determines that deferral of such construc-
tion for inclusion in the next Military Con-
struction Authorization Act would be incon-
sistent with interests of national security,
and in connection therewith to acquire, con-
struct, convert, rehabilitate, or install per-
manent or temporary public works, including
land acquisition, site preparation, appurte-
nances, utilities, and equipment, in the total
amount of $10,000,000: Provided, That the
Secretary of the Navy, or his designee, shall
notify the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and House of Representatives,
immediately upon reaching a decision to
Implement, of the cost of Construction of
any public work undertaken under this sec-
tion, including those real estate actions
pertaining thereto. This authorization will
expire upon enactment of the fiscal year
1970 Military Construction Authorization
Act, except for those public works projects
concerning which the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives have been notified pursuant to
this section prior to that date.
SEC. 203. (a) Public Law 90-408, as
amended, is amended under the heading
"Inside the United States", in seCtion 201 as
follows:
With respect to "Naval Academy, Annapo-
lis, Maryland," strike out "$2,000,000" and
insert in place thereof "$4,391,000".
(b) Public Law 90-408, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of
section 802 "$241,668,000",and "$248,533,000"
and inserting in place thereof "$244,059,000"
and "$250,924,000", respectively.
SEC. 204. (a) Public Law 91-511, as
amended, is amended under the heading
"INS/DE THE UNITED STATES", in section 201
as follows:
With respect to "Naval Air Rework Facility,
Jacksonville, Florida," strike out "$3,869,000"
and insert in place thereof "$4,531,000".
(b) Public Law 91-511, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of
section 602 "$247,204,000" and "$274,342,000"
and inserting in place thereof "$247,869,000"
and "$275,007,000", respectively.
SEC. 205, (a) Public Law 92-545, as
amended, is amended under the heading
"INSIDE THE UNITED STATES'", in section 201 as
follows:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R(1007000500,03-1
S 16580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE ,Neptember 12,019
? With respect to "Navy Public Works Cen-
ter, Norfolk, Virginia," strike out "$3,319,900"
and insert in place thereof "$7,019,000".
With respect to "Naval Ammunition Depot,
Hawthorne, Nevada," strike out "$6,003,000"
and insert in place thereof '110,203,000".
Under the heading "OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES" with respect- to "Naval Air Facility,
Sigonella, Sicily, Italy," strike out "$8,942,-
000" and insert in place thereof "$12,632,000".
(b) Public Law 92-545, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of
section 702 "$477,644,000", "$41,217,000", and
"$518,881,000" and inserting in place thereof
"$485,564,000", "$44,917,000", and "$530,481,-
000", respectively.
SEc. 206. (a) Public Law 93-166 is amended
under the heading "INSIDE TIIE -UNITED
STATES", in section 201 BS fdlOWS:
With respect to "Naval Borne, Gulfport,
Mississippi," strike out "$0144,000" and In-
sert in place thereof "$11,804,000".
With respect to "Naval Aix Station, Merid-
iansMississippi," strike out "$4,e32,000" and
insert in place thereof "$5,466,000".
With respect to "Naval Air Station, Ala-
meda, California," strike out "$3,827,000" and
Inert in place thereof "$7,156,000".
With respect to "Marine Corps Supply Cen-
ter, Barstow, California," strike out "$3,802,-
000" and insert in place thereof "86,210.000",
(b) Public Law 93-166 is amended by strik-
ing out in clause (2) of section 602 "$511,-
606,000" and "$570,439,000" and inserting in
place thereof "$521,235,000" and "$580,068,-
000", respectively.
TITLE III
SEC. 301. The Secretary of the Air Force
may establish or develop military installa-
tions and facilities by acquiring, construct-
ing, converting, rehabilitating, or installing
permanent or temporary public works, in-
cluding land acquisition, site preparation,
appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for
the following acquisition and construction:
INSIDE THE Unman STATES
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Peterson Field, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
$6,885,000.
Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, Flor-
ida, $2,775,000.
AIR !FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Grand-
view, Missouri, $805,000.
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS_ COMMAND
Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah, $11,894,-
000.
Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas,
$11,588,000.
McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, Cal-
ifornia, $15,873,000.
Newark Air Force Station, Newark, Ohio,
$1,977.000.
Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins,
Georgia, $792,000.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, $9,839,000.
Wright-Paatterson Air Force Base, Dayton,
Ohio, $16,271,000.
AIR FORCE SYSTEIVIS COMMAND
Arnold Engineering Development Center,
Tullahoma, Tennessee, $0.40,000.
Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas,
$3,100,000.
Edwards Air Force Base, Muroc, California,
$1,617,000.
Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, Florida,
$13,512,000.
Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque New
Mexico, $232,000.
Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa, Florida,
$642,000.
Satellite Tracking Facilities, $832,000,
AIR TRAINING COMMAND
Columbus Air Force Sage, Columbus, Mis-
sissippi, $169,000.
Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi,
$7,297,000.
Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Texas,
$298,000.
Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado,
$7,885,000.
Mather Air Force Bas, Sacramento, Cali-
fornia, $2,143,000.
Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio,
Texas, $790,000.
Reese Air Force Base, Lubbock, Texas,
$838,000.
Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls,
Texas, $8,631,000.
Vance Air Force Base, Enid, Oklahoma,
$6,798,000.
Webb Air Force Base, Big Spring, Texas,
$776000.
Williams Air Force Base, Chandler, Arizona,
$5,849,000.
AIR IINIVIMITY
Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgo Pry, Ala-
bama, $2,500,000.
ALASKAN AIR COMAIAND
Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska.
$310,000.
Various Locations, $1,5,242,000.
1YEADQUARTERE COMMAND
Andrews Air Force Hese, Camp S;srings.
Maryland, $14,699,000.
Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, Dis-
trict of Columbia, $3,155,000.
MILITARY aniarer COMMAND
Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delaware, $1,-
373,000.
McGuire Air Force Base, Wrightstown, New
Jersey, $408,000.
Scott Air Force Bass, Belleville, Illinois,
$341,000.
Travis Air Force Base Fairchild, California,
$8,800,000.
PACIFIC AIR FORCES
Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu, Hawaii,
$11,878,000.
STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND
Barksdale Air Force Else, Shreveport, Loui-
siana, $641,000.
Blytheville Air Force Base, Blytheville, Ar-
kansas, $675,000.
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson,
Arizona, $3,009,000.
Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South
Dakota, $2,109,000.
Griffis Air Force Base, Rome, New York,
$1,774,000.
Griasom Air Force Base, Peru, Indiana,
$323,000.
K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Marquette,
Michigan, $7,050,000.
leincheloe Air Force Base, Kinross, Michi-
gan, $835,000.
Malmstrom Air For se Base, Great Falls,
Montana, $3,740,000.
McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita, Kan-
sas, $3,038,000.
Minot Air Force Base, Minot, North Dakota,
$239,000.
Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, Nebraska,
$5,695,000.
Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, $115,000.
Plattsburgh Air Fence Base, Plattsburgh,
New York, $882,000.
Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Noster,
Missouri, $6,692,000.
TACTICAL MB COMMAND
Cannon Air Force Base, Clovis, New Mexico,
$1,715,000.
George Air Force Ease, Victorville, Cali-
fornia, $4,794,000.
Piollornan Air Force Base, Alamogordo, New
Mexico, $1,565.000.
Langley Air Peirce Base, Hampton, Vir-
ginia, $3,056,000. .
Little Rock Air Farce Bat*, Little Rock,
Arkansas, $5,141,000.
MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida,
$265,000.
Myrtle Beaeh Air Force Base, Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, 6309,000,
Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, 'Neeada,
$6,495,000.
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, $730,000.
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Golds-
boro, North Carolina, $3,948,000.
Various Locatione. $5,194,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $2,056,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $13,700,000.
SPECIAL FACILITIES
Various Locations, $13,962,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Various Locatione, $138,000.
PACIFIC AIR FORCES
Various Locations, $5,985,000.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EU1IOPE
Germany, $280,000.
United Kingdom, $884,000.
Various Locations, $63,081,000.
UNITED STATES 5111 FORCE SECURITY ',I?RVB E
Various Locatione. $4,135,000.
siossurloN ABATEMENT
Various Locatione, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $595,000.
SPECIAL FACILITIES
Various Locations, $1,999,000.
SEC. 302. The Secretary of the A ir Force
may establish or develop classified military
installations and facilities by acquiring, con-
structing, converting, rebabilitatins, or in-
stalling permanent or temporary public
works, Tncindlng Mild acaruisition, s te prep-
aration, appurtenances, utilities and, equip-
ment, in the total amount of 68,100,300.
SEC. 903. The Secretary of the Air Force
may establish or develop Air Force installa-
tions and facilities by proceeding with con-
struction made necessary by cheng _is in Air
Force missions and responsibilities which
have been occasioned by: (1) unforeseen
security considerations, (2) new weepons de-
velopments, (3) new and unforeseen research
and development requirements, or (4) un-
proved production schedules, if the secretary
of Defense determines that deferral of such
construction for inclusion in the next Mili-
tary Construction Authorization Act would
incensffitent with interests of national
security, and in connection therewith to ac-
quire, construct, convert, rehabilitate, or
install permanent or temporary public
works, including land acquisition, site prep-
aration, appurtenances, utilities, and equip-
ment in the total amount of $I)000,000:
Provided, That the Secretary of the Air
Force, or his designee, shall notify the Coal-
mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives, immedia ,,ely upon
reaching a final SeCIS1011 to Implement, ox
the cost of' construction of any public work
undertaken under this section, including
those real estate actions pertaining thereto
Z
305.
SEC.
This authorization will expire upon enact-
ment of the fiscal year 1976 Military Con-
struction Authorization Act, except for those
public works projects concerning which the
Committees on Armed Services of tae Senate
and House of Representatives have been no-
tified pursuant to this section prior to that
date.
SEC. 304. Section 609 Of Public Law 89--1 88,
is amended by changing the period at the
end thereof to a comma and adding the fol-
lowing: "or if no appropriated funds are
involved, has first been reported ky the Air
Force to the Congress in the na An,ner set
forth in section 2662, title 10, Uni State::
Code.".
(a) Section. 301 of Public Law
93-166 is emended under the heading "INSIDE
THE UNITED STATES" SS follows:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
September 12,
(1) Under the subheading "AEROSPACE DE.
FENSE COMMAND" with respect to "Peterson
Field, Colorado Springs, Colorado", strike
out "37,843,000" and insert in place thereof
"$9,733,000'.
(2) Under the subheading "AEROSPACE DE-
FENSE COMMAND" with respect to "Tyndall
Air Force Base, Panama City, Florida", strike
out "$1,020,000" and insert in place thereof
"$1,284,000".
(3) Under the subheading "AIR FORCE COM-
MUNICATIONS SERVICE" With respect to "Rich-
ards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Grandview,
Missouri", strike out "$3,963,000" and insert
in place thereof "$6,130,000".
(4) Under the subheading "AIR FORCE
LOGISTICS COMMAND" with respect to "Robins
Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Georgia",
strike out "$4,628,000" and insert in place
thereof "$7,324,000".
(5) Under the subheading "AIR FORCE SYS-
TEMS COMMAND" with respect to "Eglin Air
Force, Base, Valparaiso, Florida", strike out
"$7,039,000" and insert in place thereof
"$8,882,000".
(6) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Keesler Air Force
Base, Biloxi, Mississippi", strike out "$8,786,-
000" and insert in place thereof "$10,733,000".
(7) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Lackland Air
Force Base, San Antonio, Texas", strike out
"$6,509,000" and insert in place thereof
"$9,186,000".
(8) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Reese Air Force
Base, Lubbock, Texas", strike out "4,211,-
000" and insert in place thereof "$6,461,000".
(9) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Vance Air Force
Base, Enid, Oklahoma", strike out "$371,000"
and insert in place thereof "$895,000".
(10) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Webb Air Force
Base, Big Spring, Texas", strike out "$3,-
154,000" and insert in place thereof "$4,307,-
000".
(11) Under the subheading "mn,rrAar AIR-
LIFT COMMAND" with respect to "Altus Air
Force Base, Altus, Oklahoma", strike out
"$1,078,000" and insert in place thereof "$1,-
440,000".
(12) Under the subheading "STRATEGIC AIR
COMMAND" With respect to "Francis E. War-
ren Air Force Base, Cheyenne, Wyoming",
strike out "$5,834,000" and insert in place
thereof "$8,265,000".
(13) Under the subheading "TACTICAL AIR
COMMAND" with respect to "Little Rock Air
Force Base, Little Rock, Arkansas", strike out
"31,165,000" and insert in place thereof "$2,-
200,000".
(14) Under the subheading "TACTICAL AIR
COMMAND" with respect to "Nellis Air Farce
Base, Las Vegas, Nevada", strike out "$2,-
588,000" and insert in place thereof "$3,-
637,000".
(b) Public Law 93-166 is further amended
by striking out in clause (3) of section 602
"$238,439,000" and "$260,741,000" and in-
serting in place thereof "$260,727,000" and
"$283,029,000", respectively.
Amved For&eilmetigNieitagBp_mogyppoo0700050003-1
TITLE IV
SEC. 401. The Secretary of Defense may
establish or develop military installations
and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con-
verting, rehabilitating, or installing perma-
nent or temporary public works, including
land acquisition, site preparation, appur-
tenances, utilities and equipment, for de-
fense agencies for the following acquisition
and construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY
Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center
(St. Louis AFS), St. Louis, Missouri, $2,573,-
000,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $670,000.
DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY
Defense Construction Supply Center, Co-
lumbus, Ohio, $1,862,000.
Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pennsyl-
vania, $394,000.
Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee, $1,-
399,000.
Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, $527,000.
Defense Electronics Supply Center, Dayton,
Ohio, $572,000.
Defense Industrial Plant Equipment Facil-
ity, Atchison, Kansas, $646,000.
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, $936,000.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,363,-
000
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY
Johnston Atoll, $1,458,000.
Eniwetok Auxiliary Airfield, $4,000,000.
SEC. 402. The Secretary of Defense may es-
tablish or develop installations and facili-
ties which he determines to be vital to the
security of the United States, and in con-
nection therewith to acquire, construct, con-
vert, rehabilitate, or install permanent or
temporary public works, including land ac-
quisition, site preparation, appurtenances,
utilities, and equipment in the total amount
of $15,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary
of Defense or his designee shall notify the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and House of Representatives immediately
upon reaching a final decision to implement,
of the cost of construction of any public work
undertaken under this section, including real
estate actions pertaining thereto.
TITLE V?MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
AND HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PRO-
GRAM
SEC. 501. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to construct, at the
locations hereinafter named, family housing
units and mobile home facilities in the num-
bers hereinafter listed, but no family housing
construction shall be commenced at any such
locations in the United States until the
Secretary shall have consulted with the Sec-
retary of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, as to the availability
of adequate private housing at such loca-
tions. If agreement cannot be reached with
respect to the availability of adequate private
housing at any location, the Secretary of
Defense shall immediately notify the Com-
mittees on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, in writing,
of such difference of opinion, and no contract
for construction at such location shall be
entered into for a period of thirty days after
such notification has been given. This au-
thority shall include the authority to ac-
quire land, and interests in land, by gift,
purchase, exchange of Government-owned
land, or otherwise.
(a) Family Housing units?
? (1) The Department of the Army, two
thousand four hundred and sixty units, $82,-
396,000.
Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Geor-
gia, four hundred units.
United States Army Installations, Oahu,
Hawaii, one thousand units.
Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, sixty units.
Fort Riley, Kansas, five hundred units.
? Fort Jackson, South Carolina, one hun-
dred units.
Fort Eustis, Virginia, one hundred units.
United States Army- Installations, Atlantic
Side, Canal Zone, one hundred units.
United States Army Installations, Pacific
(2) The Department of the Navy, three
Side, Canal Zone, two hundred units.
(2) The Department of the Navy, three
thousand one hundred and fifty-eight units,
$108,778,960.
Naval Complex, San Diego, California, five
hundred units.
S 16581
Naval Complex, Jacksonville, Florida, two
hundred units. -
Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii, seven hun-
dred units.
Naval Complex, New Orleans, Louisiana,
two hundred units.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejune, North
Carolina, two hundred units.
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point.
North Carolina, three hundred units.
Naval Complex, Charleston, South Caro-
lina, five hundred and twenty-six units.
Naval Complex, Bremerton, Washington,
three hundred and thirty-two units.
Naval Complex, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
two hundred units.
(3) The Department of the Air Force, one
thousand three hundred units, $40,143,500.
United States Air Force Installations,
Oahu, Hawaii, two hundred units.
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, one
hundred and fifty units.
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire, two
hundred units.
Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota,
one hundred units.
Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, two hun-
dred units.
Misawa Air Base, Japan, two hundred
units.
Clark Air Base, Philippines, two hundred
and fifty units.
(b) Mobile Home Facilities?
(1) The Department of the Army, two
hundred and forty spaces, $960,000.
(2) The Department of the Air Force, two
? hundred spaces, $888,000.
(c) Demolition of existing structures on
proposed sites for family housing:
Naval Complex, Bremerton, Washington
$540,00.
? SEC. 502. (a) Authorization for the con-
struction of family housing provided in sec-
tion 601 of this Act shall be subject, under
such regulations as the Secretary of Defense
may prescribe, to the following limitations on
cost, which shall include shades, screens,
ranges, refrigerators, and all other installed
equipment and fixtures, the cost of the fam-
ily unit, and the proportionate costs of land
acquisition, site preparation (excluding dem-
olition authorized in section 501(c) ), and in-
stallation of utilities.
(b) The average unit cost for all units of
family housing constructed in the United
States (other than Alaska and Hawaii) shall
not exceed $29,500 and in no event shall the
cost of any unit exceed $46,000.
(c) When family housing units are con-
structed in areas other than that speci-
fied in subsection (b) the average cost of all
such units shall not exceed $40,000, and in
no event shall the cost of any unit exceed
$46,000.
SEC. 503. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to accomplish al-
terations, additions, expansions, or extensions
not otherwise authorized by law, to existing
public quarters at a cost not to exceed?
(1) for the Department of the Army, $20,-
000,000.
(2) for the Department of the Navy, $20,-
000,000.
(3) for the Department of the Air Force.
$20,000,000.
Sze. 504. Notwithstanding the limitations
contained in prior Military Construction Au-
thorization Acts on cost of construction of
family housing, the limitations on such cost
contained in section 502 of this Act shall
apply to all prior authorizations for construc-
tion of family housing not heretofore re-
pealed and for which construction contracts
have not been executed prior to the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 505. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to construct or other-
wise acquire at the locations hereinafter
named, family housing units not subject to
the limitations on such cost contained in
section 502 of this Act. This authority shall
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 16582
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 12, 11)74
Include the authority to acquire land, and
ipterests in land, by gift, purchase, exchange
ef Government-owned land, or otherwise.
Total costs shall include shades, screens,
ranges, refrigerators, and ether installed
equipment and fixtures, the coat of the fam-
ily unit, and the costs of land acquisition.
site preparation, and instaLlaticin of utilities.
(a) Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, two
hundred units, at a total cost not to exceed
$9,600,000.
(b) Two family housing units in Warsaw,
Poland, at a total cost not to exceed $120,000.
This authority shall be funded-by use of ex-
cess foreign currency when so provided in
Department of Defense Appropriation Acts.
Sec. 506. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to accomplish repairs
and improvements to existing public quarters
In amounts in excess of the $15,000 limitation
prescribed in section 610(a) of Public Law
90-110, as amended (81 Stat. 279, 305), asl
fellows:
Fort McNair, Washington, District of Co-
lumbia, five units, $176,500.
Fort Sam Houston, Texas, one hundred
and forty units, $2,352,800.
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, one
unit, $24,000.
Sec. 507. (a) Section 515 of Public Law
84-161 (69 Stat. 324, 352), as amended, is fur-
ther amended by (1) striking olit "1974 and
1975" and inserting in lieu thereof "1975
and 1976", and (2) revising the third sen-
tence to read as follows: "Expenditures for
the rental of such housing facilities, includ-
ing the cost of utilities and maintenance
and operation, may not exceed: For the
United States (other than Alaska and Ha-
waii), Puerto Rico, and Guam an average of
$235 per month for each military depart-
ment or the amount of $310 per month for
any one unit; and for Alaska and Hawaii, an
average of $315 per month for each militaxy
department, or the amount of $$75 per month
for any one unit."
(b) Section 507(b) of Public Law 113-166
(87 Stat. 661, 676), is amended by striking
out "$325" and "seven thousand five hun-
dred" in the lirst sentence, and inserting in
lieu thereof "$355", and "twelve thousand",
respectively; and in the second sentence by
striking out "three hundred units", and in-
serting in lieu thereof "one hundred fifty
units".
Sze. 508. There is authorized to be appro-
priated for use by the Secretary of Defense,
or his designee, for military family housing
and homeowners assistance as authorized by
law for the following purposes:
(1) for construction and acquisition of
family housing, including demolition au-
thorized, improvements to public quarters,
minor construction, relocation of family
housing, rental guarantee payments, con-
struction and acquisition of mobile home
facilities, and planning, an amount not to
exceed $307,907,060.
(2) for support of military family housing,
Including operating expenses, leasing, main-
tenance of real property, payments of prin-
cipal and interest on mortgage debts incur-
red, payment to the Commodity Credit Cor-
poration, and mortgage insurance premiums
authorized under section '222 of National
Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1715m),
an amount not to exceed $935,515,000; and
(3) for homeowners assistance under sec-
tion 1013 of Public Law 89-754 (BO Stat. 1255.
1290), including acquisition of properties, an
amount not to exceed $5,000,000.
Sac. 509. None of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this or any other Act may
be used for the purpose of installing air-
conditioning equipment in any new or exist-
ing military family housing unit in the State
of Hawaii.
TITLE VI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 601. The Secretary of each military
department may proceed to establish or de-,
velop installations and facilities tinder this
Act without regard to section 3648 of the Re-
vised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 52ii),
and sections 4774 and 9774 to title 10, United
States Code. The authorty to place per-
manent or temporary improvements on land
Includes authority for surveys, administra-
tion, overhead, planning, and supervision lia-
cinent to construction. That authority may
be exercised before title tc the land is ap-
proved under section 355 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended (40 U.S.C. 255), and
even though the land is :aeld temporarily.
The authority to acquire real estate or land
includes{ authority to make surveys and to
acquire land, and interests in land (includ-
ing temporary use), by gift, purchase, ex-
change of Government-owned land, or
otherwise.
SEC. 602. There are authorized to be appro-
priated such sums as may be *necessary for
the purposes Of this Act, but appropriations
for public works projects authorized by titles
I, II, Ili, IV, and 'SI, shall not exceed?
(1) for title I: Inside the United States
$514,187,000; outside the United States
$130,024,000; or a total of $644,211,000.
(2) for title II: Inside the United States,
$512,620,000; outside the United States,
$44,434,000; or a total of $157,054,000.
(3) for title III: Inside tne United States,
$302,709,000; outside the United States,
$77,097,000; section 302, $8,100,000; or a Meal
of $887,906,000.
(4) for title IV: A total of $22,400,000.
(5) for title V; Military family housing
and homeowners assistance. $1,248,422,060,
SEC. 603. (a) Except as prsvided in subsec-
tions (b) and (e), any of the amounts sped-
fled in titles I, II, III, and IV of this Act,
may, in the discretion of the Secretary con-
cerned be increased by 5 per centum when
inside the United States (o ;her than Hawaii
and Alaska), and by 10 per centum when
outside the United States or in Hawaii a:ad
Alaska, If he determines ti at such increase
(1) is required for the sole purpose of meet-
ing unusual variations in cost, and (2) could
not have been reasonably anticipated at the
time such estimate was submitted to the
Congress. However, the total cost of all con-
struction and acquisition ill each such tile
may not exceed the total amount authorized
to be appropriated in that title.
(b) When the amount named for any
construction or acquisition in title I, II,
or IV of this Act involves only one project
at any military installation and the Secre-
tary of Defense, or his designee, determines
that the amount authorized must be in-
creased by more than the applicable per-
centage prescribed in subsection (a), the
Secretary concerned may proceed with such
construction Or acquisition if the amount
of the increase does not exceed by more than
25 per centum of the amount named for such
project by the Congress.
(c) Subject to the limitations contained in
subsection (a), no individual project au-
thorized under title I, II, Ill, or IV of this
Act for any specifically le ted military in-
stallation may be placed under contract
if?
(1) the estimated cost of such project is
$250,000 or more, and
(2) the current working estimate of the
Department of Defense, based upon bids se-
ceived, for the construction of such project
exceeds by more than 25 per centum the
amount authorized for such project by the
Congress, until after the expiration of thirty
days from the date on Which a written report
oe the facts relating to the increased cost of
such project, including a statement of the
reasons for such increase has been submitted
to the Committees on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
(d) The Secretary of Defense shall submit
an annual report to the Congress identifying
each individual project which has been
placed under contract in the preceding
twelve-month period and With respect to
which the then current working estimate of
the Department of Defense based upon blebs
received foe such project exceeded the
the amount authorized by the Congres.s for
that project by more than 25 per centum.
The Secretary shall also include in such re-
port each individual project with respect to
which the scope was reduced in order to
permit contract award within the available
authorization for such project. Such report
shall include all pertinent cost information
for each individual project. including the
amount in dollars and percentage by which
the current working estimafa based on the
contract price for the project exceeded the
amount authortned for such project by the
Congress.
(e) In _addition to- other cost vane:non
limitations contained in this section Cr in
similar sections of prior year military con-
struction authorization Acts, any of the
amounts specified in titles I, II, III, and IV
of this and prior military construction au-
thorization Acta may be varied upward by
an additional 10 per centum when the Secre-
tary of the military service CI oncerned deter-
mines that such Increase is required to meet
unusual variations in cost directly attribut-
able to difficulties arising out of the cturent
energy oriels. However, the total cost of all
construction and acquisition in each such
title may not exceed the total amount au-
thorized to be appropriated in that title
SEC. 604. Contracts for construction reside
by the United States for performance with-
in the United States and its possessions un-
der this Act when be executed under the
jurisdiction and supervision of the Corps of
Engineers, Department of the Army, or the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, De-
partment of the Navy, or such other depart-
ment or Government agency as the Secre-
taries of the military departments recom-
mend and the Secretary of Defense apenoves
to assure the most efficient, expeditious, and
cost-effective accomplishment of the con-
struction herein authorized. The Secreteriee
of the military departments shall report an-
nually to the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
a breakdown of the dollar value of construc-
tion contracts completed by each of the
several construction Agencies selected to-
gether with the design, construction stper-
vision, and overhead fees charged by each of
the several agents in the execution of the
assigned construction. Further, such con-
tracts (except architect and engineering con-
tracts which, unless specifically authorized
by the Congress shall continue to be Awarded
in accordance with presently established
procedures, customs, and practice) shall be
awarded, insofar as practicable, on a com-
petitive basis to the lowest responsible bid-
der, if the national security will not be im-
paired and the award is consistent with amp-
ter 137 of title 10, United States Code. The
Secretaries of the military dinsartments shall
report annetilly to the President of the Sen-
ate and the Speaker Of the Rouse of Rep-
resentatives with respect to all contracts
awarded on other than a cempetitive basis
M the lowest responsible bidder,
Sac. 605. As of October 1, 1975, all au-
thorizations for military public works in-
cluding family housing, to be accomplished
by the Secretary of a military department in
connection with the establbliment or de-
velopment of installations and facilities, and
all authorizations for appropriations there-
for, that are contained in title I, II, III IV,
and V of the Act of NoVember 29, 1973, Pub-
lic Law 93-166 (137 Stat. 661y, and all seech
authorizations contained in Acts approved
before November 30, 1973, and not superseded
or otherwise modified by a later authoriza-
tion are repealed except?
(1) authorizations for public works and
for appropriations therefor that are set forth
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Septe;,ber 12, 414, roved Fo Ult.A99/?/frefit&ild3DRYTIMMR000700050003-1 S 16583
D. D r_Releass
in those Acts in the titles that contain the SEC. 606. None of the authority contained beginning after June 30, 1975, for carrying
general previsions; ) in titles I, II, III, and IV of this Act shall out the TRIDENT Weapon System may, to
of
(2) authorizations for public works proj- be deemed to authorize any building con- the extent specifically authorized in an an-
ects as to which appropriated funds have struction projects inside the United States nual Military Construction Authorization
been obligated for construction contracts, in excess of a unit cost to be determined in Act, be utilized by the Secretary of Defense
land acquisition, or payments to the North proportion to the appropriate area construe- in carrying out the provision of this section to
Atlantic Treaty Organization, in whole or tion cost index, based on the following unit the extent that funds are unavailable under
in part before October 1, 1975, and author- cost limitations where the area construction other Federal programs.
izations for appropriations therefor; index is 1.0: (e) The Secretary shall transmit to the
(3) notwithstanding the repeal provisions (1) $31 per square foot for permanent Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
of section 605 of the Act of November 29, 1973, barracks; and the House of Representatives semiannual
Public Law 93-166 (87 Stat. 661, 6131), author- (2) $33 per square foot for bachelor officer reports indicating the total amount expended
izations for the following items which shall quarters; in the case of each local community which
remain in effect until October 1, 1976: unless the Secretary of Defense, or his de- was provided assistance under the authority
(a) Sanitary sewer connection in the signee, determines that because of special of this section during the preceding six-
amount of `$2,200,000 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, circumstances, application to such project of month period, the specific projects for which
that is contained in title I, section 101 of the the limitations on unit costs contained in assistance was provided during such period,
Act of October 26, 1970 (84 Stat. 1204), as this section is impracticable: Provided, That, and the total amount provided for each such
amended and extended in section 705(a) (3) notwithstanding the limitations contained Project during such period.
(A) of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86 Stat, in rior military construction authorization SEC. 609. (a) Public Law 93-346 (88 Stat.
1153). 340 desi nating th,e premises occupied by
(b) Cold storage warehouse construction
In the amount of $1,215,000 at Fort Dix, New
Jersey, that is contained in title I, section
101 of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86 Stat.
1135), as amended.
(c) Enlisted men's barracks complex con-
struction in the amount of $12,160,000 at Fort
Knox, Kentucky, that is contained in title I,
section 101 of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86
Stat. 1135) , as amended.
? (d) Enlisted women's barracks construc-
tion in the amount of $245,000 and bachelor
officer's quarters construction in the amount
of $803,000 at Fort Lee, Virginia, that is con-
tained in title I, section 101 of the Act of
October 25, 1972 (86 Stat. 1135), as amended.
(e) Chapel center construction in the
amount of $1,088,000 at Fort Benjamin Har-
rison, Indiana, that is contained in title I,
section 101, of the Act of October 25, 1972
(86 Stat. 1135) , as amended.
(f) Enlisted men's barracks construction in
the amount of $7,996,000 at Fort Ord, Cali-
fornia, that is contained in title I, section 101
of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86 Stat. 1135) ,
as amended.
(g) Enlisted men's barracks and mess con-
struction in the amount of $699,000 at Sierra
Army Depot, California, that is contained in
title 1, section 101 of the Act of October 25,
1972 (86 Stat. 1136), as amended.
t f ilities Solid State Radar in the
amount of $7,600,000 at Kwajalein National
Missile Range, Kwajalein, that is contained in
title I, section 101 of the Act of October 25,
1972 (86 Stat. 1137), as amended.
(i) Land acquisition in the amount of $10,-
000,000 for the Naval Ammuntion Depot,
Oahu, Hawaii, that is contained in title II,
section 201 of the Act of October 25, 1972
(86 Stat 1140), as amended.
(j) Message Center Addition, Aircraft Fire
and Crash Station, Aircraft Maintenance
Hangar Shops Bachelor Enlisted Quarters,
Mess Hall, Bachelor Officers' Quarters, Ex-
change and Recreation Building, and Utilities
construction in the amount of $110,000;
$199,000; $837,000; $1,745,000; $377,000; $829,-
000; $119,000; and $792,000, respectively, for
the Naval Detachment, Souda Bay, Crete,
Greece, that is contained in title II, section
201 of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86 Stat.
1141), as amended.
(k) Authorization for exchange of lands
in support of the Air Installation Compatible
Use Zones at Various Locations in the
amount of $12,000,000 that is contained in
title III, section 301 of the Act of October 25,
1972 (86 Stat. 1145) ,az amended.
(4) Notwithstanding the repeal provisions
of section 705(b) of the Act of October 25,
1972, Public Law 92-545 (86 Stat. 1135, 1153),
as modified by section 605(3) of the Act of
November 29, 1973, Public Law 93-166 (87
Stat. 661, 681) ,the authorization to construct
six hundred family housing units at Naval
Complex, Norfolk, Virginia, contained in title
V, section 501(a) (2) of the Act of October 25,
1972 (86 Stat. 1148), shall remain in effect
until October 1, 1975.
Acts on unit costs, the limitations on such ,
the Chief of Naval Operations as the official
costs contained in this section shall apply to
all prior authorizations for such construe- residence of the Vice President, is amended
tion not heretofore repealed and for which to read as follows: "That effective July 1,
construction contracts have not been award- 1974, the Government-owned house together
ed by the date of enactment of this Act, with furnishings, associated grounds (con-
SEC. 607. Section 612 of Public Law 89-568 sisting of twelve acres, more or less), and
(80 Stat. 756, 757) , is amended by deleting the related facilities which have heretofore been
figure "$150,000" wherever it appears and used as the residence of the Chief of Naval
inserting in lieu thereof "$300,000". Operations, Department of the Navy, shall, on
SEC. 608. (a) The Secretary of Defense is and after such date be available for, and are
authorized to assist communities located hereby designated as, the temporary official
near the TRIDENT Support Site Bangor, residence of the Vice President of the United
Washington, in meeting the costs of provid- States.
ing increased municipal services and facili- !!SEC. 2. The temporary official residence of
ties to the residents of such communities, if the Vice President shall be adequately staffed
the Secretary determines that there is an and provided with such appropriate equip-
immediate and substantial increase in the ment, furnishings, dining facilities, services,
need for such services and facilities in such and other provisions as may be required,
communities as a direct result of work being under the supervision and direction of the
carried out in connection with the construe- Vice President, to enable him to perform and
tion, installation, testing, and operation of discharge appropriately the duties, functions,
the TRIDENT Weapon System and that an and obligations associated with his high
unfair and excessive financial burden will office.
be incurred by such communities as a re-
"SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Navy shall,
suit of the increased need for such services subject to the supervision and control of the
and facilities. Vice President, provide for the military
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall carry staffing and the care and maintenance of the
grounds of the temporary official residence of
out the provisions of this section through
existing Federal programs. The Secretary is the Vice President and, subject to reimburse-
authorized to supplement funds made avail- ment therefore out of funds appropriated for
able under such Federal programs to the ex- such purposes, provide for the civilian
tent necessary to carry out the provisions of staffing, care, maintenance, repair, improve-
ment, alteration, and furnishing of such
residence.
"SEo. 4. There is hereby authorized 'to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary
from time to time to carry out the foregoing
provisions of this joint resolution. During
any interim period until and before any
such funds are so appropriated, the Secretary
of the Navy shall make provision for staffing
and other appropriate services in connection
with the temporary official residence of the
Vice President from funds available to the
Department of the Navy, subject to reim-
bursement therefor from funds subsequently
this section, and is authorized to prov
financial assistance to communities de-
scribed in subsection (a) of this section to
help such communities pay their share of
the costs under such programs. The heads of
all departments and agencies concerned
shall cooperate fully with the Secretary of
Defense in carrying out the provisions of
this section on a priority basis.
(c) In determining the amount of fi-
nancial assistance to be made available un-
der this section to any local community for
any community service or facility,
Sec-
retary of Defense shall consult with the appropriated to carry out the purposes of
head of the department or agency of the this joint resolution.
Federal Government concerned with the .SEC. 5. After the date on which the Vice
type of service or facility for which financial President moves into the temporary official
assistance is being made available and shall residence provided for in this joint resolution
take into consideration (1) the time lag be- no funds may be expended for the main-
tween the initial impact of increased popu- ?tenance, care, repair, furnishing, or security
lation in any such community and any in- of any residence for the Vice President other
crease in the local tax base which will result than the temporary official residence pro-
from such increased population, (2) the pos- vided for in this joint resolution unless the
sible temporary nature of the increased expenditure of such funds is specifically au-
population and the long-range cost impact thorized by law enacted after such date.
on the permanent residents of any such .SEC. 6. The Secretary of the Navy is au-
community and (3) such other pertinent thorized and directed, with the approval of
factors as the Secretary of Defense deems the Vice President, to accept donations of
appropriate, money or property for the furnishing of or
(d) Any funds appropriated to the De- making improvements in or about the tern-
partment of Defense for the fiscal year be- pantry official residence of the Vice President,
ginning July 1, 1974, for carrying out the all such donations to become the property of
TRIDENT Weapon System shall be utilized the United States and to be accounted for as
by the Secretary of Defense in carrying out such.
the provisions of this section to the extent "sc. 7. (a) Section 202 of title 3, United
that funds are unavailable under other Fed- States Code, is amended by striking out `and
eral programs. Funds appropriated to the (5) ' in the first sentence and inserting in lieu
Department of Defense for any fiscal year thereof the following: `(5) the temporary
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 16584 Approved
For RidentagMlikat q6d9E5-13-WA?
Hp0700050ggiigmber
ir,' 19 74
ofnelal residence of the Vice President and
grounds in the District of Colunibia; (6) the
Vice President and members of his Imme-
diate family; and (7)'.
"See. 8. The first sentence of section 3056
of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by--
"(1) inserting 'protect the -Members of tne
immediate family of the Vico President, un-
less such protection is declined;' 1,13113313,-
diately after 'Vice President-elect;', and
"(2) Inserting 'pay expenses for unfore-
seen emergencies of a confidential nature
under the direction of the Secretary of the
Treasury and accounted for solely on his car-
te:Innen immediately after 'apprehension of
criminals;'.
"Sec. 9. It is the sense of Congress that
living accommodations, generally equivalent
to those available to the highest tanking
officer on active duty in each of the other
military services, should be provided for the
Chief of Naval Operations.".
(b) Except as otherwise provided therein,
the amendment made by subsection (a) Of
this section shall become effective July 12,
1974.
Sze. 610. Chapter 159 of title 10, United
States Code, Is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new section and a
corresponding item in the analysis:
"i 2685. Adjustment of or surcharge on sell-
ing prices in commissary stores to
provide funds for construction
and improvement of commissary
store facilities
"(a) Notwithstanding any other law the
Secretary on, a military department, under
regulations established by him and approved
by the Secretary of Defense- may, for the.
purposes of this section, provide for an ad-
justment of, or surcharge on, sales prices of
goods and services sold in commissary store
facilities. -
"(b) The Secretary of a military depart-
ment, under regulations established by hine,
and approved by the Secretary of Defense,
may use the proceeds from the adjustments
or surcharges authorized by imbsection (e)
to acquire, construct, convert, expand, in-
stall, or otherwise improve commissary store
facilities at defense installaticeas within the
United States and for related environmental
evaluation and construction costs Including
surveys, administration, averhead, planning;
and design.".
SEC. 611. (a) Notwithstanding the provi-
sions of section 555 or 556 of tette 87, United
States Code, on and after the date of enact-
ment of this section no change in the status
of any member of the uniformed services
who is in a missing status may be made un-
less and until the following two provisions
have been compiled with:
(1) the President of the United States hag;
determined, and notified the Congress in
writing, that all reasonable actions have
been taken to account for such members and.
that all reasonable effort has been made to
enforce the provisions of article 8(b) of the
Paris Peace Accord of January 27, 1973; and
( ) the Secretary concerned notifies the
next-of-kin of such person in writing of the
proposed change in status, and the next-of-
kin of such person has not filed 'with the
Secretary concerned, within sixty days After
receipt of notification of the proposed change
in status, an objection to each proposed
change.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this sec-
tion, the terms "uniformed services," "miss-
ing status," and "Secretary concerned" shall
have the same meaning ascribed to such
terms in chapter 10 of title 37, tinned States
Code.
Sze. 612. None of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act with respect to
any construction project at Diego Garcia may
be obligated unless and until--
(1) the President has ( A) advised the Con-
gress in writing that at. military and _for-
eign policy implications regarding the need
for United States facilites at Diego Garda
have been evaluated by itira; and (B) certi-
fied to the Congress in writing that the con-
struction on Any such project inessential to
the national interest of the United states;
and
(2) such certification an required by clause
(1) (B) of this section is submitted tc the
Congress and approved by joint resolution of
both Rouses.
SEC, 613. (a) The Secretary of the Array Is
authorized to convey, without monetary con-
sideration, to the Ozark Public Building Au-
thority, an agency of the city of Ozark, Ala-
bama, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the land descilbed
in subsection (b) for use as a permanent site
for the museum referred to in subsection
(c), and subject to the conditions described
therein.
(b) The land authorized to' be convey/4i to
the Ozark Public Building Authority as pro-
vided in subsection (a) is described as fol-
lows: All that tract or parcel of land lying
and being in sections 13 and 24, range 23
east, township 5 north., Saint Step tens
Meridian, Dale County, Alabama, more par-
ticularly described as for.ows:
Beginning at a point which is 216.0 feet
north 89 degrees 57 minutes west of the
northeast corner of the southwest quarter
of the northeast quarter of said section 24,
on the western right-of-way line of Alabama
State lilghway Ntunbereci 249, and on the
boundary of a tract of 1 ind owned by the
United States of America at Fort Rucker Mili-
tary Reservation.;
thence north 25 degrees 07 minutes east
along the western right-clnway line of said
highway, which is along tl- e boundary of said
United States tract, 1,395 feet;
thence north 64 degrees 53 minutes west
700 feet;
thence south 25 degrees 07 minutes west
2,800 feet;
thence ninth 64 degrees 53 minutes east
700 feet, more or less, to a point which Is on
the western right-of-way line of said high-
way and on the boundary of said United
States tract;
thence north 25 degree.; 07 minutes east
along the western right-of-way line of Raid
highway, which is along the boundary of said
United States tract, 1,405 feet, more or less,
to the point of beginning, containing 45.00
acres, more or less.
(c) The conveyance provided for by the
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condi-
tion that the real property so conveyed snail
be used as a permanent site for a museum to
display suitable public exhibits of the United
States Army aviation equ:pment and allied
subjects and aviation-oriented exhibits of
other United States Government depart-
ments, agencies, and instrumentalities, and
of foreign origin, and if such property is not
used for such purpose, an right, title, and
Interest In arid to such real property shall
revert to the 'United States, which shall have
the right of immediate entry thereon, and
to such other conditions as the Secretary of
the Army may prescribe to protect the inter-
est of the United States.
SEC. 614. (a) Notwithstnnding any other
provision of law, any funds made available
pinsuant to this or any other Act for the
construction or maintenance of facilities at
the service academy of any military depart-
ment may be expended by the Secretary of
the military department concerned for the
construction and maintenance of such facili-
ties as may be necessary r appropriate to
provide for the admission of females as cadets
or midshipmen (midshipwomen), as appns-
priate, at such academy.
(b) As used in subsection (a) the teem
"service academy Of any military dep:IPt-
meat" means (1) the United States Military
Academy in the cue of tie Army, (2) the-
United States Naval Academy in the case oi
the Navy, and (3) the United States Air
Force .Acaderay in the case of the Air Force.
Sao. 615. None of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this or any other Act
may be used for site acquisition or construc-
tion of the CONUS Over-The-Horizort racier
system receiver antenna during the penod
after the date of enactment of this Act and
prior to May 31, 1975.
SEC. 616. Titles I, II, 1,11? IV, V, anc VI of
this Act may be cited as the "Military Con-
struction Authorization Act, 1975",
TITLE VII
RESNEVER FORCES F5CITA=5
SEC. 701. Stet:nett to chapter 183 of titee 0.
United StatecCode, the Secretary of Defense
may establislinor develop additional fan/Mies
for the Reserve Forces, including the ac-
quisition of land therefor, but the tont in
such facilities shall not enticed?
(1) For the Department of the Army.
(a) Army national Guard of the lJnit,,d
States, $53,800,000.
(b) Army Reserve, $28,600,000.
(2) For the Deriertment of the Navy:
Naval and Marine Corps Reserves, 813.532.-
000.
(3) For the Department of the Air Force'
(a) Air Nietional _ Guard of the belted
States, $33,000.000.
(b) Air Inane Reserve, $14,000,000.
SEC. 702. The Secretary of Defense niss
establish or develop installations and facLli-
ties under that titel without regard ts sec-
tion 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amens-
ed (31 U.S.C. 529), und sections 4771 and
9774 of title 10, United States Code. The at- t-
thority to place permanent or temporary
improvements_ on lands includes anti-writ 3'
for surveys, administration, overhead, plait-
ming, and supervision incident to construc-
tion. That authority may be exercised before
title to the land is approved under sectior
355 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (i0
U.S.C. 255), and even though the land is
held temporarily. The authority to acquire
real estate OT land includes authority Ito
make surveys and to acquire land, and in
in land (including temporary use
by gift, purchase, exenange of Government -
owned land, cc otherwise.
SEC. 703. Chapter_ 133, title 10, tinntd
States Code, ea amended, Is further art-tend-
ed by striking out the figure $50,000" in
paragraph (1) of section 2283a, Limitation,
and inserting the figure "$100,000" in Place
thereof.
SEC. 704. This title may be cited as the
"Reserve Forces Facilities Authorization Ac?.
1975".
S. 355?OUBSIITUTION OF
-CONFEREE
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presitleri,.
I ask unanimous consentt and I Undel -
stand this ha been elearld on the other
side of the aisle, that the name of MI.
STEVENS be substituted for Mr. COOK as a
conferee on 8:355.
The PRESIDING -01eriCER . Witnth fl
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR ROLLCALL VOTES TO
?Mutt AFTER 3:30 P.M. ON MON-
DAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1974
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that there be
no rollcall votes before the hour of 3:30
p.m. on Monday next.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
/9*
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
niber 11, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
Productivity: One long range effort has
to be to improve productivity to partially
offset-wage increases that are needed and
inevitable. Productivity is a difficult
thing to get at through Government pro-
grams, but perhaps better funding and
more vigorous effort by the Productivity
Council would be a good place to begin.
In summary, Mr. President I see a need
for several actions. We should work im-
mediately to reduce Government spend-
ing. At the same time we must take ac-
tions to reduce hardship created by cur-
rent ecOnomic conditions?unemploy-
ment or the housing industry. Finally we
must more carefully take other steps to
slow inflation without prolonging un-
necessarily our present soft economy or
plunging it to further depths.
CZECHOSLOVAKIAN CONSULAR
CONVENTION
Mr. Fri Mr. President, I am de-
lighted with the series of constructive
developments recently in our relations
with Czechoslovakia. They should con-
tribute to the establishment of the realis-
tic kind of detente we are seeking in the
relations between the closed societies of
the East and the open societies of the
West.
Presently the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee is considering the new Consular
Convention with Czechoslovakia as a step
that I hope will bring the convention
into early effect.
In a separate statement, I have praised
the recent exoneration by the Czech
courts of Mr. John Hvasta, accused of
espionage in the cold war period. I cited
this encouraging indicator as a bright
spot in the lowering clouds of suspicion
that still envelop East-West relations.
If both our countries implement the
new convention with the objectivity and
sense of justice exhibited by the Czech
action in the Hvasta case, we can look
forward to continuing improvement in
the relations between the United States
and Czechoslakia.
Good consular relations foster in-
creased business and cultural contacts
between the citizens of the countries con-
cerned. They provide mutual protection
and reasonable freedom of movement for
the tourist, the student, the ethnic visi-
tor, the businessman. The multiplication
of these contacts becomes the warp and
woof of the fabric of genuine d?nte.
That is why the Consular Convention can
prove a real breakthrough in creating
improved relations with Czechoslovakia
and offsetting the crippling effects that
the very nature of a closed society impose
upon its external relations.
Good results of the successful negotia-
tion of the convention are already
discernable.
? The growing trade between the United
States and Czechoslovakia has received
a new impetus, so that the United States
is presently the largest Western exporter
to Czechoslovakia after West Germany.
In July of this year, preliminary agree-
ment was reached between our two coun-
trk,s on property compensation for
American citizens, an issue that had
plagued our relations with Czechoslo-
vakia since the coup d'etat in 1948. The
Implementation of this agreement will
be greatly facilitated by the Convention
and thus in finally eliminating a thorn
in the side of cordial relations.
And finally, the Convention is result-
ing in the reopening of our consulate
in Bratislava and the Czech con-
sular office in Chicago. Our building in
Bratislava is being readied for occupancy
within a few months by the designated
Consul General, Mr. John Dennis, an
experienced career Foreign Service of-
ficer.
For me, these developments have an
important personal meaning as well.
Over 25 years ago, as a young For-
eign Service officer, I had the oppor-
tunity to open the American consulate
at Bratislava just days before the 1948
Communist putsch. Throughout the
years since, I have sought to visit Czecho-
slovakia as often as possible, and to re-
main abreast of conditions there. I hap-
pened to be there again immediately
prior to and after the Soviet military
intervention of 1968 which crushed the
liberal dreams of the "Prague Spring."
In this regard, I was particularly
struck by the fact that while no Soviet
soldiers and scarcely any deaths resulted
from the initial Communist putsch of
1948, 20 years of first-hand exposure to
communism necessitated the use of more
than half a million Warsaw Pact troops,
and a good many deaths resulted from
the effort to maintain communism.
Today, I can only say. that I am en-
couraged by these announcements of
Improved economic and diplomatic re-
lations between the 'Governments of the
United States and Czechoslovakia. I hope
that they are but the prelude to a time
of increased contact between Americans
and Czechs and Slovaks, a development
which is certain to produce much more
cordial ties and benefits to the two coun-
ties. Prompt Senate action in ratifying
the consular convention will be most
helpful in realizing this objective.
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is
there further morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
ing business is concluded.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (S. 707)
TEMPORARILY LAID ASIDE
The PRESIDING 010.1010ER. The un-
finished business, S. 707, will be tem-
porarily laid aside and remain in a tem-
porarily laid aside status until the close
of business today.
AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUC-
TION AT MILITARY INSTALLA-
TIONS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of H.R.
16136, which the clerk will state.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
Calendar 1084, H.R. 16136, an act to au-
thorize certain construction at military in-
stallations, and for other purposes.
S 16379
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill, H.R. 16136, which had been re-
ported from the Committee on Armed
Services with an amendment to strike
out all after the enacting clause and
insert:
TITLE I
SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may
establish or develop military installations
and facilities by acquiring, constructing,
converting, rehabilitating, or installing per-
manent or temporray public works, includ-
ing land acquisition, site preparation, appur-
tenances, utilities, and equipment for the
following acquisition and construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES /MALY FORCES COMMAND
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $26,170,000.
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $9,742,000.
Fort Carson, Colorado, $34,993,000.
Fort Hood, Texas, $46,376,000.
Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $4,286,000.
Fort Lewis, Washington, $10,270,000.
Fort Riley, Kansas, $27,074,000.
Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Geor-
gia, $42,197,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND
DOCTRINE COMMAND
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $9,625,000.
Fort Benning, Georgia, $36,827,000.
Fort Bliss, Texas, $12,296,000.
Fort Eustis, Virginia, $8,124,000.
Fort Gordon, Georgia, $9,858,000.
Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation, Cal-
ifornia, $1,108,000.
Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $19,078,000.
Fort Knox, Kentucky, $2,264,000.
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, $9,911,000.
Fort Lee, Virginia, $11,936,000.
Fort McClellan, Alabama, $17,344,000.
Presidio of Monterey, California, $3,107,000.
Fort Ord, California, $3,660,000.
Fort Polk, Louisana, $7,304,000.
Fort Rucker, Alabama, $3,906,000.
Fort Sill, Oklahoma, $16,265,000.
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, $3,360,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY MILLTARY DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON
Fort Myer, Virginia, $2,497,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, $1,-
030,000.
Aeronautical Maintenance Center, Texas,
$541,000.
Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, $5,888,000.
Army Materiel and Mechanics Research
Center, Massachusetts, $558,000.
Letterkenny Army Deport, Pennsylvania,
$4,726,000.
Lexington/Blue Grass Army Depot, Ken-
tucky; $616,000.
Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey? $2,820,000.
Red River Army Depot, Texas, $1,160,000.
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, $10,322,000.
Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, $2,731,000.
Sacramento Army Depot, California, $2,-
599,000.
Seneca Army Depot, New York, $815,000.
Sierra Army Depot, California, $717,000.
Watervliet Arensal, New York, $3,256,000.
White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico,
$3,574,000.
Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, $1,859,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY COMMUNICATION
COMMAND
Fort Huachuca, Arizona, $7,507,000.
Fort Ritchie, Maryland, $2,023,000.
UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY
United States Military Academy, West
Point, New York, $8,862,000.
HEALTH SERVICES COMMAND
Fort Detrick, Maryland, $486,000.
Various Locations, $19,773,000.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Cold Regions Laboratories, New Hamp-
shire, $2,515,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Appv
roed For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700g5903-4
S 16380 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ep m1 e er 11 , 1,
9
UNITED STATES ARMY, ALASKA With respect to "Germany, Various Loos,- Naval Research Laboratory, Washington,
tions" strike out "$12,517,000" and insert Si District of Columbia, $3,377,000.
1 Academy, Annapolis Maryland, 07.-
Fort Greely, Alaska, $251,000.
Fort Richardson, Alaska, $4,002,000.
Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $1,512,000.
place thereof "$18,360,000".
(b) Public Law 93-166 is amended by arils- 706,000.
in out in clause (1) of section 602 "$107,- National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda,
UNITED STATES ARMY, HAWAII 257,000" and "$596,084,000" Ind inserting in Maryland, $14,943,000.
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii $15,324,000. place thereof "$111,100,000" and "$599,927,- Uniformed Services University of the
Tripler General Hospital, Hawaii, $1,205,000. 000", respectively.. Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, $15,-
POLLUTION ABATEMENT SEC. 104. (a) Public Law 92-545, as 000,000.
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate- amended, is amended under the heading FIFTH NAVAL DISTRICT
ment, $1,356,000. "INsmE THE UN/TED STATES", in section 101 as Naval Regional Medical Center, Camp
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-follows: Lejeune, North Carolina, $290,000.
With respect to "Fort Myer Virginia," Naval Air Rework Facility, Cherry Pcint,
strike out "$1,815,000" and insert in plaoe North Carolina, $252,000.
thereof "$3,615,000". Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training
With respect to "Fort Bill, Oklahoma," Center, Atlantic, Dam Neck, Virginia,
strike out "$14,958,000" and insert in place $2,034,000.
thereof "$16 159 000" Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Vir-
COMMAND (b) Public Law 92-545, as amended, is ginia, $896,000.
amended
Canal Ti 5700
under the heading "OnT NE sros T Atlantic Command Operations Control
Zone, Various ons, $5,
ment, $16,358,000.
DINING FACILITIES MODERNMATION
Various Locations, $10,723,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES, SOUTHERN
0.
UNITED STATES?UNITED STATES ARMy FORCES, Center, Norfolk, Virginia, $633,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY, PMIFIC screrrnEnis COMMAND" in section 101 as fol- Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Virgnia,
lows: $3471000.
With respect to "Canal Zone, Various Lo- Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, $5,080,000.
cations" strike out "$8,129,000" and insert Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia,
in place thereof "$9,238,000". $4,990,000.
(c) Public Law 92-545, as amended.E is Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia,
amended by striking out in clause (1) of $1,017,000.
section 702 "$444,767,000;" "$117,311,000;" Norfolk Naval Regional Medical Ceater,
and "$562,078,000" and inserting in place Portsmouth, Virginia,' $15,801,000.
thereof "$447,768,000;" "$118,420,000;" and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, POrtsmouth, Vir-
"$566,188,000", respectively, = ginia, $5,602,000.
SEC. 105. (a) Public Law 91-511, as Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Vir-
amended is amended uncle/ the heading "IN- ginia, $1,595,000.
SIDE THE UNITED STATES", in section 101 as
UNITED STATES ARMY, EUROPE SIXTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Germany, Various LOCat1011S, $32,355,000. With follows: respect to "Rock ISand Arsenal, Illi- Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Ficride.,
Camp Darby, Italy, $4,159,000. nois," strike out "$2,750,000" and insert in $1,534,000.
Various LOCations: For the 'United States place thereof"$3,650,000". $44N6s0v0a01. Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida,
share of the cost of multilateral programs for (b) Public Law 91-511, as amended, is
the acquisition or constructiOn of military amended by striking out in clause (1) of Eee- Naval Regional Medical Center, Tacitson-
facilities and installations, including inter- tion 602 "$181,834,000" and "$267,031,000" ville, Florida, $7,417,000.
national military headquarterS, for the col- and inserting in place thereof "$182,734,000., Naval Station, Mayport, Florida, $3 239,-
lective defense of the North Atlantic Treaty and "$267,931,000", respecttvely. 000.
SEC. 106. Public Law 93-166 is amended in Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida,
$8 709 000
Public Law 93-166, section 105 (b) , amend- Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama
section 105 as follows:
mg Public Law 92-145, section 702, cls use City, Florida, $795,000.
Nl Ai St P Fl
(1) as amended, having inserted erroneous ava r ation, ensacola, ori da,
$19,418,000.
Ii es is amended by striking out "$404,- Naval Technical Training Center, Pensa-
reof "
500,000" and "$405,107,000" and inserting in
place the$405,600,00)" and "$405 cola, Florida, $4,478,000.
,607,- Naval -Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida,
000", respectively. $1,561,000.
TITLE IL Naval Air Station, Meridian, Miss': sippi,
SEC. 241. The Secretary of the Navy may $1,485,000. .
establish or develop military installations Naval Hospital, Beaufort, South Carolina,
and facilities by acquiring, constructing, eon- $7,112,000.
verting, rehabilitating, or installing perrna- Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston,
nent or temporary publis works, including South Carolina, $200,000.
land acquisition, site preparation, appurten- Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina,
ances, utilities and equipment for the fol.- $15,352,000.
lowing acquisition and construction: Naval Supply Center, Charleston, South
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES Carolina, $3,750,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South
FIRST NAVAL DISTRICT Carolina, $2,504,000.
Naval Air Station, Brun >wick, Maine, $261,- Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tennessee,
GOO. $4,284,000.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine, Naval Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee,
ten $7,232,000.
quisition, site preparation, appurances,
utilities, and equipment; in the total amount Naval Security Group Activi $1,888,000.
bor, Maine, $255,000. ty, Winter Har- EIGHTH NAVAL DISTRICT
of $10,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary Naval Support Activity; New Orleans,
of the Army, or his designee, shall notify the Naval Education and Training Center, New- Louisiana, $3,080,000.
Committees on Armed Services of the Sen- port, Rhode Island, $4,153,000. Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas,
ate and House of Representatives, immedi- Naval Underwater Systems Center, New- $1428,000.
ately upon reaching a final decision to ira- port, Rhode Island, $10,274,000. NINTH NAVAL DISTRICT
plement, of the cost of construction of any THIRD NAVAL DISTRICT
publth work undertaken under this section, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illt-
Korea, Various Locations, $5,139,000.
PUERTO RICO
Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, $1,862,000.
KWAIALEIN MISSILE RANGE
National Missile Range, $1,272:000.
UNITED STATES ARMY SECURITY AGENCY
Various Locations, $148,000.
"UNITED STATES ARMY COMMUNICATIONS
COMMAND
Fort Buckner, Okinawa, $532,000.
Area, $84,000,000: Provided, That w
thirty days after the end of each quarter, the
Secretary of the Army shall turnish to the
Committees on Armed Serviceis and on Ap-
propriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a description of obligations
incurred as'the United States share of such
multilateral programs.
Sm. 102. The Secretary of the Army may
establish or develop Army installations and
facilities by, proceeding with construction
made necessary by changes in-Arnay missions
and responsibilities which have been occa-
sioned by: (1) unforeseen sectuity consider-
ations, (2) new weapons doselopments, (3)
new and unforeseen research and develop-
ment requirements, or (4) ingoroved produc-
tion schedules if the Secretary of Defense de-
termines that deferral of such construction
for inclusion in the next Military Construc-
tion Authorization Act would be inconsistent
with interests of national Security, and in
connection therewith to acernire, construct,
convert, rehabilitate, or install permanent or
temporary public works, including land ac-
including those real estate actions pertain-
necNaval Submarine Base New London. Con- nois, $1,953,000.ticut, $4,971,000.
Ing thereto. This authorization will expire ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
upon enactment of the fiscal year 1976 Mill- FOURTH NAVAI DISTRICT
val Regional Medical Center, Camp
Na
tary Construction Authorization Act except Naval Air Test Facility, Lakehurst, New _ _
for those public works projects concerning Jersey, $7,350,000. Pendleton, California, $7,619,000.
which the Committees on Armed Services of Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Meehan- Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Cali-
the Senate and House of Representatives icsburg, Pennsylvania, $3,336,000. fornia, $8,371,000.
have been notified pursuant to this section Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach,
Naval Hospital, Phi adelphia, Pennsyl- California, $6,011,000.
prior to that date. vania, $296,000. Naval Air Staticin, Miramar, California,
SEC. 103. (a) Public Law 93-166, is amended $11,772,000.
under the heading "OUTSIDE THE UNTrEn NAVAL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON
section 101 as follows: District of Columbia, $2,883,000. nia, $12,943,000.
STATES?UNLVW STATES ARMY, EUROPE", in Naval District Commendant, Washington, Naval A ,
Air Station North Island, Califors
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
RDP75600380R000700050003-1
September 11 ,AqO nved For Mee.2005/06/09 : CIA-
.K.LSSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16381
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port
Hueneme, California, $1,048,000.
Naval Electronics Laboratory Center, San
Diego, California, $3,238,000.
Naval Region Medical Center, San Diego,
California, $13,493,000.
Naval Training Center, San Diego, Califor-
nia, $8,657,000.
Navy Submarine Support Facility, San
Diego, California, $4,234,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Cali-
fornia, $2,147,000.
TWELFTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, Cali-
fornia, $1,638,000.
Naval Hospital, Lemoore, California, $333,-
000.
Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, California,
$77,000.
Naval Communications Station, Stockton,
California, $1,102,000.
Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Cali-
fornia, $2,301,000.
THIRTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Station, Adak, Alaska, $7,697,000.
Trident Support Site, Bangor, Washington,
$103,808,000.
Puget Sound Naval_ Shipyard, -Bremerton,
Washington, $393,000.
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Wash-
ington, $2,603,000.
FOURTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Commander in Chief Pacific, Oahu, Hawaii,
$2,700,000.
Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahu, Hawaii,
$795,000.
Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $1,-
505,000.
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, $3,356,000.
Naval Communication Station, Honolulu
Wahiawa, Hawaii, $971,000.
MARINE CORPS
Marine Corps Development and Education
Command, Quantico, Virginia, $2,803,000.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, $13,864,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point,
North Carolina, $1,260,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, New River, North
Carolina, $499,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona,
$3,203,000.
Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow, Cali-
fornia, $1,463,000.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, Cali-
fornia, $7,271,000.
Marine Corps Base, Twenty-nine Palms,
California, $397,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay,
Hawaii, $5,497,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment $9 849 000
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $44,251,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
TENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Telecommunications Center, Roose-
velt Roads, Puerto Rico, $3,186,000.
Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto
Rico, $947,000.
Naval Security Group Activity, Sabana
Seca, Puerto Rico, $1,026,000.
FIFTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Support Activity, Canal Zone,
$800,000.
ATLANTIC OCEAN AREA
Naval Air Station, Bermuda, $1,866,000.
Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, $4,193,000.
EUROPEAN AREA
Naval Air Facility, Sigonella, Sicily, Italy,
$311,000.
Naval Security Group Activity, Edzell, Scot-
land, $571,000.
Naval Activities Detachment, Holy Loch,
Scotland, $1,188,000.
INDIAN OCEAN AREA
Naval Communications Facility, Diego Gar-
cia, Chagos Archipelago, $14,802,000.
PACIFIC OCEAN AREA
Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam, Mariana
Islands, $728,000.
Naval Communications Station, Finegayan;
Guam, Mariana Islands, $1,305,000.
.Naval Ship Repair Facility, Guam, Mariana
Islands, $1,782,000.
Navy Public Works Center, Guam, Mariana
Islands, $907,000.
Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan, $360,000.
Naval Air Station, Cubi Point, Republic of
the Philippines, $1,624,000.
Naval Station, Subic Bay, Republic of the
Philippines, $3,741,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $1,059,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $4,038,000.
SEC. 202. The Secretary of the Navy may
establish or develop Navy installations and
facilities by proceeding with construction
made necessary by changes in Navy missions
and responsibilities which have been occa-
sioned by (1) unforeseen security considera-
tions, (2) new weapons developments, (3)
new and unforeseen research and develop-
ment requirements, or (4) improved produc-
tion schedules, if the Secretary of Defense
determines that deferral of such construc-
tion for inclusion in the next Military Con-
struction Authorization Act would be in-
consistent with interests of national secur-
ity, and in connection therewith to acquire,
construct, convert, rehabilitate, or install
permanent or temporary public works, in-
cluding land acquisition, site preparation
appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, in
the total amount of $10,000,000: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Navy, or his des-
ignee, shall notify the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives, immediately upon reach-
ing a decision to implement, of the cost of
construction of any public work undertaken
under this section, including those real
estate actions pertaining thereto. This au-
thorization will expire upon enactment of
the fiscal year 197G Military Construction
Authorization Act, except for those public
works projects concerning which the Com-
mittees on Armed Services of the Senate
and House of Representatives have been no-
tified pursuant to this section prior to that
date.
SEC. 203. (a) Public Law 90-408, as amend-
ed, is amended under the heading "IN-SIDE
THE UNITED STATES", in section 201 as fol-
lows: ?
With respect td "Naval Academy, Annap-
olis, Maryland," strike out "$2,000,000" and
Insert in place thereof "$4,391,000".
(b) Public Law 90-408, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of sec-
tion 802 "$241,668,000" and "$248,533,000"
and inserting in place thereof "$244,059,000"
and "$250,924,000", respectively.
SEC. 204. (a) Public Law 91-511, as
amended, is amended under the heading
"INSIDE THE UNITED STATES", in section 201
as follows:
With respect to "Naval Air Rework Fa-
cility, Jacksonville, Florida, strike out
"$3,869,000" and insert in place thereof
"$4,534,000".
(b) Public Law 91-511, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of sec-
tion 602 "$217,204,000" and "$274,342,000"
and inserting in place thereof "$247,869,000"
and "$275,007,000", respectively.
SEC. 205. (a) Public Law 92-545, as
amended, is amended under the heading
'INSIDE THE UNITED STATES", In section 201
as follows:
With respect to "Navy Public Works Cen-
ter, Norfolk, Virginia," strike out "$3,319,000"
and insert in place thereof "$7,019,000".
With respect to "Naval Ammunition De-
pot, Hawthorne, Nevada," strike out "$6,-
003,000" and insert in place thereof "$10.-
203,000".
(b) Public Law 92-545, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of
section 702 "$477,664,000" and "$518,881,000"
and inserting in place thereof "$485,564,000"
and "$526,781,000", respectively.
SEC. 206. (a) Public Law 93-166 is amended
under the heading "INSIDE THE Urar-ta
STATES", in section 201 as followS:
With respect to "Naval Home, Gulfport,
Mississippi," strike out "$9,444,000" and in-
sert in place thereof "$11,802,000".
With respect to "Naval Air Station, Merid-
ian, Mississippi," strike out "$4,532,000"
and insert in place thereof "$5,466,000".
With respect to "Naval Air Station, Ala-
meda, California," "strike out "$3,827,000"
and insert in place thereof "$7,756,000".
With respect to "Marine Corps Supply Cen-
ter, Barstow, California," strike out "$3,-
802,000" and insert in place thereof -$6,-
210,000".
(b) Public Law 93-166 is amended by strik-
ing out in clause (2) of section 602 "$511,-
606,000 and "$570,439,000" and inserting in
place thereof "$521,235,000" and "$580,068,-
000", respectively.
TITLE III
SEC. 301. The Secretary of the Air Force
may establish or develop military installa-
tions and facilities by acquiring, construct-
ing, converting, rehabilitating, or installing
permanent or temporary public works, in-
cluding land acquisition, site preparation,
appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for
the following acquisition and construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Peterson Field, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
$6,885,000.
Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, Flor-
ida, $2,775,000.
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base Grand-
view, Missouri, $805,000.
AIR FORCE LOG/ST/CS COMMAND
Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah, $11,-
894,000.
Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas,
$11,588,000.
McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento,
California, $15,873,000.
Newark Air Force Station, Newark, Ohio,
$1,977,000.
Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins,
Georgia, $792,000.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, $9,839,000.
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton,
Ohio, $16,271,000.
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Arnold Engineering Development Center,
Tullahoma, Tennessee, $4,240,000.
Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas,
$3,100,000.
Edwards Air Force Base, Muroc, California,
$1,647,000.
Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, Florida,
$13,512,000.
Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, $232,000.
Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa, Florida,
$642,000.
Satellite Tracking Facilities, $832,000.
AIR TRAINING COMMAND
Columbus Air Force Base, Columbus, Miss-
issippi, $169,000.
Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi,
$7,297,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 ? CIA-RDP75EMPLOR0007001p003-1,
S 16382 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? Shrq A I t pePynner 11, .1974
Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Texas, Nellie Air Force Base, La a Vegas, Nevada,
$298,000. $6,495,000.
Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado, Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North
$7.885,000. Carolina, $730,000.
Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento, Cali- Seymour Johnson Air Force Baste, Golds-
f arnia, $2,143,000. bore, North Carolina, $8,918,000.
Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio, Various Locations, $5,194,000.
Texas, $790,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Reese Air Force Base, Lubbock, Texas,
a:16 Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
000
:e,.
Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls, ment, $2,056,000.
Texas, $8,631,000. Various Locations,
Vance Air Force Base, Enid, Oklahoma, ment, $13,740,000.
$6,798,000.
Webb Air Force Base, Big Spring, Texas,
$76,000.
Williams Air Force Base, Chandler, Ari-
zona, $5,849,000.
AIR UNIVERSITY
Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala-
bama, $2,500,000.
ALASHAN AIR COMMAND
Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska,
$310,000.
Various Locations, $15,242,000,
HEADQUARTERS COMMAND UNITED STATES AIR FORCE SECURITY SERV CCE
Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs, Various Locations, $1,135,300.
Maryland, $14,699,000. POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, Dis-
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $595,000.
MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND
Dover S. Force Base, Dover, Delaware, $1,-
Water Pollution Abate-
SPEC/AL FACILT1TES
Various Locations, $13,952,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Various Locations, $138,000.
PACIFIC AIR FORCES
Various Locations, $5,985,000.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE
Germany, $280,000.
United Kingdom, $884,000.
Various Locations, $63,081,000.
SPECIAL FACILITIES
Various Locations, $1,999,000.
373,000.
Sec. 302. The Secretary of the Air Force
McGuire Air Force Base, Wrightstown, New
Jersey, $408,000. may establish or develop rlassified military
Scott Air Force Base, Belleville, Illinois, installations and facilities by acquiring, con-
structing, converting, rehabilitating, or in.
$341,000.
Travis Air Force Base, Fairchild, California, stalling permanent or temporary public
$8,800,000. works, including land acquisition, site prep-
PACIFIC AIR FORCES oration, appurtenances, utilities and equ ip.
merit, in the total amount of $8,100,000.
Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu, Hawaii,
$11,878,000. SEC. 303. The Secretary of the Air Force
may establish or develop Air Force installa-
STRATEGIC A/R COMMAND Dons and facilities by proreeding with con-
Barksdale Air Force Base, Shreveport, struction made necessary by changes in Air
Louisiana, $641,000. Force missions and responsibilities which
Blythe,ville Air Force Base, Blytheville, Ar- have been occasioned by: (1) unforeseen se-
kansas, $675,000. curity considerations, (2) new weapons de-
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson. velopments, (3) new and unforeseen research
Arizona, $3,009,000. and development requirements, or (4) im-
Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South proved production schedules, if the Secre ;erg
Dakota, $2,109,000. of Defense determines ths,t deferral of such
Griffiss Air Force Base, Rome, New York, construction for inclusion in the next Mill-
:31,774,000. tary Construction Authorization Act would be
Grissom Air Force Base, pent, Indiana, inconsistent with intereses of national se-
$323,000. a curity, and in connection therewith to ac-
K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Marquette, quire, construct, convert, rehabilitate, or in-
Michigan, $7,050,000. stall permanent or temporary public works,
Kincheloe Air Force Base, Kinross, Micln- including land acquisitior, site preparation,
gan, $835,000. appurtenances, utilities, and equipment in
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls, the total amount of $10,000,000: Provided,
Montana, $3,740,000. That the Secretary of the Air Force, or his
McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita, Kan- designee, shall notify the Committees on
sa.s, $3,038,000. Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Minot Air Force Base, Minot., North Dakota, Representatives, immediaeely upon reacning
$238,000. a final decision to implerr ant, of the cost of
Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, Nebraska, construction of any public work undertaken
$5,595,000. under this section, including those rea', es-
Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, New tate actions pertaining thereto. This authori-
Hampshire, $115,000. zation will expire upon enactment of the fis-
Plattsburgh ----------------------. cal year 1976 Military Constructicm Authori-
Field, Colorado Springs, Colorado", strike out
"$7,843,000" and insert in phew thereof "$9,-
733,000".
(2) Under the subheeding "AEROSPACE DE-
FENSE COMMAND" witin-respect to "Tyedall
Air Force, Base, Panama City, Florida",
strike out "$1,020,000" and insert in place
thereof "$1,284,000".
(3) Under the subheading "AIR FORCE COM-
MUNICATIONS SERVICE" with respect to "Rich-
ards-Gebaur Air Force Sam Grandview, Mis-
souri", strike out "$3,963,000, and insert in
place thereof "$6,130.000".
(4) Under the subheading "AIR
IRCII
Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Geo ria",
er
LOGISTICS COIVINIAND" with respect to "Robins
strike out "$4,628,000" and insert in place
thereof "$7,324,000".
(5) Under the subheading "AIR roller:
SYSTEMS COMMAND" With respect to "Eglin Air
Force Base, Valparaiso, Florida", strike out
"$7,039,000" in insert in place thereof
"$8,882,000".
(6) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Kessler Air Force
Base, Biloxi, Mississippi", strike out "$8,786.-
000" and insert in place thereof "$10,733,00".
(7) Under the subheading "Ant TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to "Lackland Air
Force Base, San Antonio, Texas", strike out
"$6,509,000" and insert in place thereof
"$9,186,000",
(8) Under the subheading "AIR TRArrerreci
COMMAND" with respect to "Reese Air Force
Base, Lubbock, Texas", strike out "$4,211,000"
and insert in place thereof "$6,461,000".
(9) Under the subheading "AIR IRAINTNG
COMMAND" with respect to "Vance Air :Force
Base, Enid, Oklahoma", strike out $371,000"
and insert in place thereof "$895,000".
(10) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to `Webb Air Force
Base, Big Spring, Texas", strike out "$3,154,-
000" and insert in place thereof "$1,307,000".
(11) Under the subheading "nerirrArer AIR-
LIFT cODAMaND" with respe to "Altus Air
Force Base, Altus, Oklahoma", strike out
"$1,078,000" and insert in place thereof
"$1,440,000".
(12) Under the subheading "STRATEGIC AIR
COMMAND" with respect to "Francis E. War-
ren Air Force Base, Cheyenne, Wyoming",
strike out "$5,834,000" and insert in place
thereof "$8,265,000".
(13) Under the subheading "TACTICAL /07t
COMMAND" With respect to "Little Rock Air
Force Base, Little Rock, Arkansas", strike out
"$1,165,000" and insert In place thereof
"$2,200,000".
(14) Under the subheading "TACTICIL Ant
COMMAND"- WWI respect to "Nellie Air Force
Base, Las Vegas, Nevada", strike out "$2.588.-
000" and 'insert in place thereof "3,637,We".
(b) Public Law 93-166 Is-further amended
by striking out in clause (3) of section 602
"$238,439,000" and "$260,741,000" and insert-
ing in place thereof "$260,727,000" and
"$283,029,000", respectively.
TITLE IV
SEC. 401. The Secretary of Defense may
establish or develop military installations
and facilities by acquiring, constructin a con.
New York, $882,000. mitten Act, except for those public works verting, rehabilitating, or installing perma-
Whiteham Air Force Base, Knob Nester, projects concerning which the Committees on nent or temporary public works, including
Missouri, $6,692,000. Armed Services of the Ssnate and House of land acquisition, site preparation, appur-
TACTICAL AIR COMMAND Representatives have been notified pursuant tenances, utilities and equipment, for de-
Cannon Air Force Base, Clovis, New Mex. to this section prior to that date fense agencies for the following acqu is Mon
ico, $1,715,000.? SEC. 304. Section 609 of Public Law 89-188, and construction:
George Air Force Base, Victorville, Call- is amended by changing the period at the INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
fornia, $4,794,000. end thereof to a comma and adding the fol. DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY
Holleman Air Force Bea, Alamogordo, lowing: "or if no appropriated funds are
New Mexico, $1,565,000. involved, has first been reported by the Air
ter (St. Louis AFS), St. Louis, Missouri $2,-
Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Cen-
Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, Virginia, Force to the Congress :.n the manner set a?., .,?,?.,
$3.056,000. forth in section 2662, title 10, United States " '''''"'
Little Rock Air Force MSS, Little Rock, Code.". Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $670,000.
Arkansas, $5,141,000. Sec. 305. (a) Section 301 of Public Law 93-- DEFENSE SIMPLY AGENCY
MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida. i66 is amended under the heading "INSIDE Defense Construction Supply ()enter, Co-
$265,000. THE tiler= STATES" as follows: lumbus, Ohio, $1,862,000.
Myrtle Beach Air Force Balse, Myrtle Beach, (1) 'Under the subheading "AEROSPACE DE- Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pennsyl-
South Carolina, $300,000. Verrsz COMMAND" with respect to "Peterson vania, $394,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
September 11, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16383
Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee, $1,-
899,000.
Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, $527,000.
Defense Electronics Supply Center, Day-
ton, Ohio, $572,000.
Defense Industrial Plant Equipment Fa-
cility, Atchison, Kansas, $646,000.
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phil-
adelphia, Pennsylvania, $936,000.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,363,-
000.
OUTSIDE THE 'UNITED STATES _
DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY
Johnston Atoll, $1,458,000.
Eniwetok Auxiliary Airfield, $4,000,000.
SEC. 402. The Secretary of Defense may
establish or develop installations and facil-
ities which he determines to be vital to the
security of the United States, and in con-
nection therewith to acquire, construct, con-
vert, rehabilitate, or install permanent or
temporary public works, including land
acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances,
utilities, and equipment in the total amount
of $15,000,000: Provided, That the Secre-
tary of Defense or his designee shall notify
the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives immedi-
ately upon reaching a final decision to im-
plement, of the cost of construction of any
public work undertaken under this section,
including real estate actions pertaining
thereto.
TITLE V?MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
AND HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PRO-
GRAM
Sac, 501. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to construct, at the
locations hereinafter named, family housing
units and mobile home facilities in the num-
bers hereinafter listed, but no family hous-
ing construction shall be commenced at any
such locations in the United States, until the
Secretary shall have consulted with the Sec-
retary of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, as to the availability of
adequate private housing at such locations,
If agreement cannot be reached with respect
to the availability of adequate private hous-
ing at any location, the Secretary of Defense
shall immediately notify the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representa-
tives and the Senate, in writing, of such dif-
ference of opinion, and no contract for con-
struction at such location shall be entered
into for a period of thirty days after such
notification has been given. This authority
shall include the authority to acquire land,
and interests in land, by gift, purchase, ex-
change of Government-owned land, or other-
wise.
(a) Family Housing units?
. (1) The Department of the Army, two
thousand four hundred and sixty units, $82,-
396,600.
' Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Geor-
gia, four hundred units.
United States Army Installations, Oahu,
Hawaii, one thousand units.
Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, sixty units.
Fort Riley, Kansas, five hundred units.
Fort Jackson, South Carolina, one hundred
units.
Fort Eustis, Virginia, one hundred units.
United States Army Installations, Atlantic
Side, Canal Zone, one hundred units.
United States Army Installations, Pacific
Bide, Canal Zone, two hundred units.
(2) The Department of the Navy, three
thousand one hundred and fifty-eight units,
$108,778,960.
Naval Complex, San Diego, California, five
hundred units.
Naval Complex, Jacksonville, Florida, two
hundred units.
Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii, seven hun-
dred units.
Naval Complex, New Orleans, Louisiana,
two hundred units.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, two hundred units.
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point,
North Carolina, three hundred units.
Naval Complex, Charleston, South Caro-
lina, five hundred and twenty-six units.
Naval Complex, Bremerton, Washington,
three hundred and thirty-two units.
Naval Complex, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
two hundred units.
(3) The Department of the Air Force, one
thousand three hundred units, $40,143,500.
United States Air Force Installations,
Oahu, Hawaii, two hundred units.
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, one
hundred and fifty units.
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire, two
hundred units.
Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota,
one hundred units.
Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, two hun-
dred units.
Misawa Air Base, Japan, two hundred units.
Clark Air Base, Philippines, two hundred
and fifty units.
(b) Mobile Home Facilities?
(1) The Department of the Army, two hun-
dred and forty spaces, $960,000.
(2) The Department of the Air Force, two
hundred spaces, $888,000.
(c) Demolition of existing structures on
proposed sites for family housing:
Naval Complex, Bremerton, Washington,
$540,000.
Src. 502. (a) Authorization for the con-
struction of family housing provided in sec-
tion 501 of this Act shall be subject, under
such regulations as the Secretary of Defense
may prescribe, to the following limitations
on cost, which shall include shades, screens,
ranges, refrigerators, and all other installed
equipment and fixtures, the cost of the fam-
ily unit, and the proportionate costs of land
acquisition, site preparation (excluding
demolition authorized in section 501(c) ),
and installation of utilities.
(b) The average unit cost for all units of
family housing constructed in the United
States (other than Alaska and Hawaii) shall
not exceed $29,500 and in no event shall the
cost of any unit exceed $46,000.
(0) When family housing units are con-
structed in areas other than that specified
in subsection (b) the average cost of all such
units shall not exceed $40,000, and in no
event shall the cost of any unit exceed
$46,000.
SEC. 503. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to accomplish altera-
tions, additions, expansions, or extensions not
otherwise authorized by law, to existing pub-
lic quarters at a cost not to exceed?
(1) for the Department of the Army, $20,-
000,000.
(2) for the Department of the Navy, $20,-
000,000.
(3) for the Department of the Air Force,
$20,000,000.
SEC. 504. Notwithstanding the limitations
contained in prior Military Construction Au-
thorization Acts on cost a construction of
family housing, the limitations on such cost
contained in section 502 of this Act shall
apply to all prior authorizations for con-
struction of family housing not heretofore
repealed and for which construction con-
tracts have not been executed prior to the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 505. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to construct or other-
wise acquire at the locations hereinafter
named, family housing units not subject to
the limitations on such cost contained in
section 502 of this Act. This authority shall
include the authority to acquire land, and
interests in land, by gift, purchase, ex-
change of Government-owned land, or other-
wise. Total costs shall include shades,
screens, ranges, refrigerators, and other in-
stalled equipment and fixtures, the cost of
the family unit, and the costs of land acqui-
sition, site preparation, and installation of
utilities.
(a) Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, two
hundred units, at a total cost not to exceed
$9,600,000.
(b) Two family housing units in Warsaw,
Poland, at a total cost not to exceed $120,-
000. This authority shall be funded by use
of excess foreign currency when so provided
in Department of Defense Appropriation
Acts.
SEC. 506. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to accomplish re-
pairs and improvements to existing public
quarters in amounts in excess of the $15,000,
limitation prescribed in section 610(a) of
Public Law 90-110, as amended (81 Stat. 279,
305), as follows:
Fort McNair, Washington, District of Co-
lumbia, five units, $175,500.
Fort Sam Houston, Texas, one hundred and
forty units, $2,352,800.
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, one
unit, $24,000.
SEC. 607. (a) Section 515 of Public Law
84-161 (69 Stat. 324, 352), as amended, is fur-
ther amended by (1) striking out "1974 and
1976" and inserting in lieu thereof "1975 and
1976", and (2) revising the third sentence to
read as follows: "Expenditures for the rental
of such housing facilities, including the cost
of utilities and maintenance and operation,
may not exceed: For the United States (other
than Alaska and Hawaii), Puerto Rico, and
Guam an average of $235 per month for each
military department or the amount of $310
per month for any one unit; and for Alaska
and Hawaii, an average of $3/5 per month
for each military department, or the amount
of $375 per month for any one unit."
(b) Section 507(b) of Public Law 93-166
(87 Stat. 661, 676), is amended by striking
out "$325" and "seven thousand five hun-
dred" in the first sentence, and inserting in
lieu thereof "$355", and "twelve thousand",
respectively; and in the second sentence by
striking out "three hundred units", and in-
serting in lieu thereof "one hundred fifty
units".
SEC. 508. There is authorized to be appro-
priated for use by the Secretary of Defense,
or his designee, for military family housing
and homeowners assistance as authorized by
law for the following purposes:
(1) for construction and acquisition of
family housing, including demolition auth-
orized, improvements to public quarters,
minor construction, relocation of family
housing, rental guarantee payments, con-
struction and acquisition of mobile home
facilities, and planning, an amount not to
exceed $307,907,060.
(2) for support of military family housing,
including operating expenses, leasing, main-
tenance of real property, payments of prin-
cipal and interest on mortgage debts in-
curred, payment to the Commodity Credit
Corporation, and mortgage insurance pre-
miums authorized under section 222 of the
National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C.
1715m), an amount not to exceed $935,515,-
000; and
(3) for homeowners assistance under sec-
tion 1013 of Public Law 89-754 (80 Stat.
1255, 1290), including acquisition of prop-
erties, an amount not to exceed $5,000,000.
TITLE VI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 601. The Secretary of each military
department may proceed to establish or de-
velop installations and facilities under this
Act without regard to section 3648 of the Re-
vised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529),
and sections 4774 and 9774 to title 10, United
States Code. The authority to place perm-
anent or temporary improvements on land
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 16384 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE September 11, 1974
includes authority for surveys, administra-
tion, overhead, planning, and supervision in-
cident to construction. That authority may
be exercised before title to the land is ap-
proved under section 355 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended (40 U.S.C. 255), and
even though the land is held temporarily.
The authority to acquire real estate or land
includes authority to make surveys and, to
acquire land, and interests in land (includ-
ing temporary use), by gift, prirchase, ex-
change of Government-owned land, or
otherwise.
SEC. 602. There are authorized to be ap-
propriated such sums as may be necessary
for the purposes of this Act, but appropria-
tions for public works projects authorized
by titles I, II, III, IV, and V, shall not ex-
ceed-
(1) for title I: Inside the United States
$514,187,000; outside the United States $130,-
024,000; or a total of $644,211,000.
(2) for title II: Inside the United States,
$512,620,000; outside the United States, $44,-
434,000; or a total of $557,054,000.
(3) for title II: Inside the United States,
$302,709,000; outside the United States, $77,-
097,000; section 302, $8,100,000; or a total of
$387,906,000.
(4) for title IV: A total of $4400,000.
(5) for title V: Military family housing
and homeowners assistance, $1,248,422,060.
See. 603. (a) Except as provided in subsec-
tions (b) and (e), any of the amounts spec-
ified in titles I, rr, in, and IV of this Act
may, in the discretion of the Secretary con-
cerned, be increased by 5 per centum when
inside the United States (other than Hawaii
and Alaska), and by 10 per centum when
outside the United States or in Hawaii and
Alaska, if he determines that such increase
(1) is required for the sole purpose of meet-
ing unusual variations in cost, and (2) could
not have been reasonably anticipated at the
time such estimate was stibmitted to the
Congress. However, the total cost of all con-
struction and acquisition in &act). such title
may' not exceed the total amount authorized
to be appropriated in that title.
(b) When the amount named for any con-
struction or actjuisition in title I, II, III, or
/V of this Act involves only one project at
any military installation and the Secretary of
Defense, or his designee, determines that the
amount authorized must be increased by
more than the applicable percentage pre-
scribed in subsection (a), the Secretary con-
cerned may proceed with such construction
or acquisition if the amount pf the in-
crease does not exceed by more than 25 per
centuin of the amount named for such proj-
ect by the Congress.
(c) Subject to the limitations contained in
subsection (a), no individual project au-
thorized under title 1, II, III, or IV of this
Act for any specifically listed military instal-
lation may be placed under contract if-
(1) the estithated cost of such project Is
$250,000 or more, and
(2) the current working estimate of the
Department of Defense, based upon bids re-
ceived, for the construction, of such project
exceeds by more than 25 per centum the
amount authorized for such project by the
Congress, until after the expiration of thirty
days from the date on which a written report
of the facts relating to the increased cost
of such project, including a statement of
the reasons for such increase has been sub-
mitted to the Committees on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
(d) The Secretary of Defense shall sub-
mit an annual report to the Congress identi-
fying each individual project which has been
placed under contract in the preceding
twelve-month period and with respect to
which the then current working estimate of
the Department of Defense based upon bids
received for such project exceeded the
amount authorized by the Congress for that
project by more than 25 per centum. The
Secretary shall also include in such re-
port each individual project with respect -;ro
which the scope was reduced in order to per-
mit contract award within the available au-
thorization for such projez.t. Such report
shall include all pertinent cost informa-
tion for each individual project, including
the amount in dollars and percentage by
which the current working estimate based en
the contract price for the project exceeded
the amount authorized for such project by
the Congress.
(e) DX addition to other coat variation
limitations contained in this section or in
similar sections of prior year military con-
struction authorization Acts, any of the
amounts specified in titles I, rr, In, and IV
of this and prior military construction au-
thorization Acts may be varied upward by
an additional 10 per centum when the Secre-
tary of the military service concerned deter-
mines that such increase is required to meet
unusual variations in cost directly attributa-
ble to difficulties arising on; of the current
energy crisis. However, the total cost of all
construction and acquisition in each such,
title may not exceed the tatal mount au-
thorized to be appropriated in that title.
SEC. 604. Contracts for construction made
by the United States for performance within
the United States and its possessions under
this Act shall be executed under the juris-
diction and supervision of the Corps of En-
gineers, Department of the Army, or the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, De-
partment of the Navy, or such other depart-
ment or Government agency as the Secre-
taries of the military departments recom-
mend and the Secretary of Defense approves
to assure the most efficient, expeditious, and
cost-effective accomplistime at of the con-
struction herein authorized. The Secretaries
of the military departments shall report an-
nually to the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
a breakdown of the dollar value of construc-
tion contracts completed by each of the
several construction agencies selected to-
gether with the design, construction super-
vision, and overhead fees charged by each of
the several agents in the execution of the
assigned construction. Further, such con-
tracts (except architect and engineering con-
tracts which, unless specifically authorized
by the Congress shall continue to be award,-
ad in accordance with presently established
procedures, customs, and practice), shall be
awarded, insofar as practicable, on a com-
petitive basis to the lowest responsible bid-
der, if the national security will not be im-
paired ;and the award is :.:onsistint with
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code.
The Secretaries of the military departments
shall report annually to the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Rev -
resentatives with respect to all contracts
awarded on other than a competitive basis
to the lowest responsible bidder.
Sue. 605. AS of October 1, 1975, authoriza-
tions for military public works including
family housing, to be accomplished by the
Secretary of a military department in connec-
tion with the establishment or development
of installations and facilities, and all at
for appropriations therefor, that
are contained in titles I, II, III, IV, and
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050003-1
'September 11, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16385
in proportion to the appropriate area con-
struction cost index, based on the following
unit cost limitations where the area con-
struction index is 1.0:
(1) $31 per square foot for permanent
barracks;
(2) $33 per square foot for bachelor officer
quarters;
unless the Secretary of Defense, or his des-
ignee, determines that because of special
circumstances, application to such project
of the limitations on unit costs contained
in this section is impracticable: Provided,
That, notwithstanding the limitations con-
tained in prior military construction au-
thorization Acts on unit costs, the limita-
tions on such costs contained in this sec-
tion shall apply to all prior authorizations
for such construction not heretofore re-
pealed and for which construction contracts
have not been awarded by the date of enact-
ment of this Act.
SEc. 607. Section 612 of Public Law 89-568
(80 Stat. 756, 757), is amended by deleting
the figure "$150,000" wherever it appears
Act, be utilized by -the Secretary of Defense 'Sr. 8. The first sentence of section 3056
in carrying out the provision of this sec- of title 18, United States Code, is amended
tion to the extent that funds are unavailable by?
under other Federal programs. "(1) inserting 'protect the members of the
(e) The Secretary shall transmit to the immediate family of the Vice President, un-
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate less such protection is declined,' immediately
and the House of Representatives semiannual after `Vice President-elect;', and
reports indicating the total amount expended "(2) inserting 'pay expenses for unfore-
in the case of each local community which seen emergencies of a confidential nature un-
was provided assistance under the author- der the direction of the Secretary of the
ity of this section during the preceding six- Treasury and accounted for solely on his
month period, the specific projects for which certificate;' immediately after 'apprehension
assistance was provided during such period, of criminals;%
and the total amount provided for each such "SEC. 9. It is the sense of Congress that
project during such period, living accommodations, generally equivalent
SEc. 609. (a) Public Law 93-346 (88 Stat. to those available to the highest ranking
340), designating the premises occupied by officer on active duty in each of the other
the Chief of Naval Operations as the official military services, should be provided for the
resident of the Vice President, is amended Chief of Naval Operations.".
to read as follows: "That effective July 1, (b) Except as otherwise provided therein,
1974, the Government-owned house together the amendment made by subsection (a) of
with furnishings, associated grounds (con- this section shall become effective July 12,
sisting of twelve acres, more or less) , and 1974.
related facilities which have heretofore been SEc. 610. Chapter 159 of title 10, United
used as the residence of the Chief of Naval States Code, is amended by adding at the end
D rtment of the Navy, shall, thereof the following new section and a cor-
and inserting in lieu thereof "$300,000".
SEC. 608. (a) The Secretary of Defense is on. and after such date be available for, and responding item in the analysis.
authorized to assist communities located are hereby designated, as the temporary offl- .1 2685. Adjustment of or surcharge on sell-
near the Trident Support Site Bangor, cial residence of the Vice President of the
ing prices in commissary stores to
Washington, in meeting the costs of pro- United States. provide funds for construction and
"SEc. 2. The temporary official residence of improvement of commissary store
viding increased municipal services and f a-
the Vice President shall be adequately staffed facilities
cilities to the residents of such communi-
and provided with such appropriate equip- (a) Notwithstanding any other law the
ties, if the Secretary determines that there
Is an immediate and substantial increase in ment, furnishings, dining facilities, services, "
Secretary of a military department, under
the need for such services and facilities in and other provisions as may -be required,
regulations established by him and approved
such communities as a direct result of work under the supervision and direction of the
by the Secretary of Defense may, for the
Vice President, to enable him to perform and purposes of this section, provide for an ad-
being carried out in connection with the
construction, installation, testing, and oper- discharge appropriately the duties, functions,
justment of, or surcharge on, sales prices
ation of the Trident Weapon System and and obligations associated with his high office,
of goods and services sold in commissary
that an unfair and excessive financial bur- "SEc. 3. The Secretary of the Navy shall, store facilities.
den will be incurred by such communities subject to the supervision and control of the "(b) The Secretary of a military depart-
as a result of the increased need for such Vice President, provide for the military staff- ment, under regulations established by him
services and facilities. ing and the care and maintenance of the and approved by the Secretary of Defense,
grounds of the temporary official residence of may use the proceeds from the adjustments
the Vice President and, subject to reimburse- or surcharges authorized by subsection (a)
ment therefor out of funds appropriated for to acquire, construct, convert, expand, install,
such purposes, provide for the civilian staff- or otherwise improve commissary store f a-
ing, care, maintenance, repair, improvement, cilities at defense installations within the
alteration, and furnishing of such residence. United States and for related environmental
"SEc. 4. There is hereby authorized to be evaluation and construction costs including
appropriated such sums as may be necessary surveys, administration, overhead, planning,
from time to time to carry out the foregoing and design.".
provisions of this joint resolution. During SEC. 611. (a) Notwithstanding the pro-
any interim period until and before any visions of section 555 or 556 of title 37, United
such funds are so appropriated, the Secretary States Code, on and after the date of enact-
of the Navy shall make provision for staffing ment of this section no change in the status
and other appropriate services in connection of any member of the uniformed services who
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall carry
out the provisions of this section through
existing Federal programs. The Secretary is
authorized to supplement funds made avail-
able under such Federal programs to the
extent necessary to carry out the provisions
of this section, and is authorized to provide
financial assistance to communities de-
scribed in subsection (a) of this section to
help such communities pay their share of the
costs under such programs. The heads of all
departments and agencies concerned shall
cooperate fully with the Secretary of De-
fense in carrying out the provisions of this
--
section on a priority basis, with the temporary official residence of the is in a missing status may be made unless
(c) In determining the amount of financial Vice President from funds available to the and until the following two provisions have
assistance to be made available under this Department of the Navy, subject to reim- been complied with:
section to any local community for any corn- bursement therefor from funds subsequently (1) the President of the United States has
munity service or facility, the Secretary of appropriated to carry out the purposes of determined, and notified the Congress in
Defense shall consult with the head of the this joint resolution, writing, that all reasonable actions have been
department or agency of the Federal Govern- "SEc. 5. After the date on which the Vice taken to account for such members and that
ment concerned with the type of service or President moves into the temporary official all reasonable effort has been made to en-
facility for which financial assistance is be- residence provided for in this joint resolu- force the provisions of article 8(b) of the
ing made available and shall take into con- tion no funds may be expended for the main- Paris Peace Accord of January 27, 1973; and
sideration (1) the time lag between the mi- tenance, care, repair, furnishing, or security (2) the Secretary concerned notifies the
tial impact of increased population in any of any residence for the Vice President other next-of-kin of such person in writing of the
such community and any increase in the than the temporary official residence pro- proposed change in status, and the next-of-
local tax base which will result from such in- vided for in this joint resolution unless the kin of such person has not filed with the
creased population, (2) the possible tern- expenditure of such funds is specifically au- Secretary concerned, within sixty days after
porary nature of the increased population thorized by law enacted after such date, receipt of notification of the proposed change
and the long-range cost impact on fhe perma- "SEc. 6. The Secretary of the Navy is au- in status, an objection to such proposed
nent residents of any such community and thorized and directed, with the approval of change.
(3) such other pertinent factors as the Sec- the Vice President, to accept donations of (b) As used in subsection (a) of this sec-
retary of Defense deems appropriate, money or property for the furnishing of or tion, the terms "uniformed services," "miss-
(d) Any funds appropriated to the De- making improvements in or about the tern- ing status," and "Secretary concerned" shall
-partment of Defense for the fiscal year be- porary official residence of the Vice Presi- have the same meaning ascribed to such
ginning July 1, 1974, for carrying out the dent, all such donations to become the prop- terms in chapter 10 of title 37, United States
Txident Weapon 'System shall be utilized erty of the United States and to be accounted Code.
by the Secretary of Defense in carrying out for as such. SEC. 612. None of the funds authorized to
the provisions of this section to the extent "SEc. 7. (a) Section 202 of title 3, United be appropriated by this Act with respect to
that funds are unavailable under other Fed- States Code, is amended by striking out 'and any construction project at Diego Garcia may
eral programs. Funds appropriated to the (5) ' in the first sentence and inserting in be obligated unless and until?
Department of Defense for any fiscal year lieu thereof the following: '(5) the tempo- (1) the President has (A) advised the Con-
beginning after June 30, 1975, for carrying rary official residence of the Vice President gress in writing that all military and foreign
out the Trident Weapon System may, to and grounds in the District of Columbia; policy implications regarding the need for
the extent specifically authorized in an an- (6) the Vice President and members of his United States facilities at Diego Garcia have
nnal Military Construction Authorization immediately family; and (7)'. been evaluated by him; and (B) certified to
Approved For Releasev2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 16386
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE September 11, 1974
(b) Air Force Reserve, $14,000,000. million for the Uniformed Services Uni-
SEC. 702. The Secretary of Defense may versity of Health Sciences, to be located
establish or develop inetallations and facil- near the National NaVal Medical Center
ities under this title without nitge.rd to sec-
tion 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amend- at Bethesda, Md. An additional $15 Mil-
ed (31 U.S.C. 529), and sections 4771 and lion is included for the beginning of the
9774 of title 10, United States Code. The reconstruction of this renowned medical
authority to place permanent or temporary center, vvhieh is long past due.
improvements on lands includes authority Substantial sums are also provided in
for surveys, administration, overhead, the bill for construction for the Reserve
planning, and supervision incident to con-
struction. That authority may be exercised components, NATO infrastructure, pol-
before title to the land is approved under lution abatement, and the Trident sub-
section 355 of the Revised Statutes, as marine support site at Bangor, Wash.
amended (40 U.S.C. 265), and even though NOW, Mr. President, I wish to cell par-
the land is held temporarily. The authority ticular attention to certain matters that
the Congress in writing that the construction
of any such project is essential to the na-
tional interest of the United States; and
(2) such certification as required by clause
(1) (B) of ;this section is submitted to the
Congress and approved by joint resolution
of both Houses.
SEC. 613. (a) The Secretaq of the Army is
authorized to convey, without monetary con-
sideration, to the Ozark Pultlic Building Au-
thority, an agency of the city of Ozark, Ala-
bama, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the land described in
subsection (b) for use as k permanent Ate
for the museum referred tp in subsection
(c), and subject to the conditions described
therein.
(b) The land authorized to be conveyed to
the Ozark Public Building teuthority as pro-
vided in subsection (a) is described as fol-
lows: All that tract or parcel of land lying
and being in sections 13 and 24, range 23 east,
township 5 north, Saint Stephens Meridian,
Dale County, Alabama, more particularly de-
scribed as follows:
Beginning at a point wh*h is 216.0 feet
north 89 degrees 57 minutes west of the
northeast corner of the southwest quarter of
the northeast quarter of said section 24, on
the western right-of-way line of Alabama
State Highway Numbered 2$9, and on the
boundary of a tract of land owned by the
United States of America at Fort Rucker
Military Reservation;
thence north 25 degrees 0'7 minutes east
along the western right-of-way line of said
highway, winch is along the boundary of said
United States tract, 1,395 feet;
thence north 64 degrees 513 minutes west
700 feet;
thence sbuth 25 degrees 07 minutes west
2,800 feet; . 2_
thence south 64 degrees Se minutes east
700 feet, more or less, to a point which is On
the western right-of-way line of said highway
and on the boundary of said United States
tract;
thence north 25 degrees 07 minutes east
along the western right-of-way line of said
highway, which is along the boundary of said
United States tract, 1,405 feet more or less, to
the point of beginning, containing 45.00
acres, more or less.
(c) The conveyance provided for by the
subsection (a) shall be subjed to the condi-
tion that the real property scvonveyed shall
be used as a permanent site for a museum to
display suitable public exhibits of the United
States Array aviation equipment and allied
subjects and aviation-orientpd exhibits of
other United States Goverment depart-
ments, agencies, and instrumentalities, and
of foreign origin, and if sucliproperty is not
used for such purpose, all rtght, title, and
interest in and to such real_property shall
revert to the United States, which shall have
the right of immediate entry thereon, and
to such other conditions as the, Secretary
of the Army may prescribe to protect the
Interegt of the United States.
SEC. 614. Titles I, II, III, IV, V. and VI of
this Act may be cited as the ?I'Military Con-
struction Authorization Act, 1-975".
TITLE VII
RESERVE FORCES FACTE,ITIES
SEC. 707. Subject to chapter 133 of title 10,
United States Code, the Secretary of Defense
may establish or develop additional facilities
for the Reserve Forces, including the acquisi-
tion of land therefor, but the cost of such
facilities shall not exceed?
(1) For the Department of the Army:
(a) Army National Guard of the United
States, $53,800,000.
(b) Army Reserve, $38,600,000.
(2) For the Department pf the Navy:
Naval and Marine Corps Reserves, $18,532,000.
(3) For the Department of the Air Force:
(a) Air National Guard of the United
States, $33,000,000.
to acquire real estate or land Includes au-
thority to make surveys and to acquire land, we believe to be of special interest,
and interests in land (including temporary First is the question of commissaries.
use), by gift, purchase, exchange of Govern- The interested committees of Congress
ment-owned land, or otherwise, have long felt that some provision should
SEC. 703. Chapter 133, title 10, United be made to provide for the construction
States Code, as amended, is further amended and maintenance of these facilities out
by striking out the figure "650,000" in pars- of nonappropriated funds. Commissaries
graph (1) of section 2213a, Limitation, and
inserting the figure "$100,000" in place there- enjoy numerous advantages which al
of. low them to reduce costs well below
Soc. 704. This title may be cited as the "Re- those of commercial counterparts. Fur-
s1e9r7v5e,, Force Facilities Authorization Act, thermore, the patrons of commissaries
Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. President, I
suggest the absence oi a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, the
bill before the Senate today provides
construction and other related author-
ity for the military departments and de-
fense agencies within and outside the
United States, includi og authority for
all costs of military family housing and
the construction of facnities for the He..
serve components.
The total new authority granted by
the bill is 63,027,925,060. In addition
thereto; approval is granted for an in-
crease in prior years authority of $51,-
726,000 for a total authority of approxi-
mately $3,080, million.
After careful consideration of some
601 individual construction projects at
263 major installations within the
United States and overseas the commit-
tee approved an amount totaling ap-
proximately $226,668,000 below the budg-
et request. This is a decrease of about 8
percent in new authority.
Considering the composition of the
bill, the committee considers this to be
a substantial reduction, but is of the
opinion the amount granted is fully ade-
quate to provide for the construction
needs of the Department, of Defense dur-
ing fiscal year 1975. The committee is not in full accord
Again, this year, the Department with this program to construct housing
Placed emphasis on providing new and units for use by these one-tour young
upgrading existing personnel facilities married couples. Accordingly the corn -
which they consider highly important in mittee reduced the number of such -Inns
achieving an all-volunteer force. For ex- to 1,458 distributed among installations
ample, $392 million was requested for the Department deems to have the high-
bachelor housing. It would provide 23,400 est priority. However, in approving a re-
new spaces and the upgrading of many duced effort in this regard the committee
existing spaces; $210 million __Was des- will expect the Department of Defense
ignated for upgrading existing and pro- to clearly state its policy on assignment,
viding for some new medical facilit:les. that these units, or any others that might
This included a first increment of $15 be available, will not be made available
pay no local sales taxes for the most part
which further increases their benefits,
At the insistence of Congress the Depart-
ment has made a study of the matter and
estimates that a small increase of 1 to 2
percent in the surcharge rate will be
ample to provide for commissary reeds.
With the increase in military salaries
and other benefits the committee be-
lieves the time is at hand when the com-
missary system should become self-sus-
taining. Accordingly, section 610 has been
Included in the bill to authorize the serv-
ice secretaries to adjust the surcharge
rate accordingly. Three commissaries, at
a cost of about $10 million, were deleted
from the bill,
Now I should like to discuss briefly the
military family housing program. Con-
siderable emphasis has been given dur- ?
Ing the past several years to providing
needed on-base housing for those eligible
for the assignment of such quarters. The
Congress has annually approved sub-
stantial increments of new construction
to eliminate the existing deficit. I am
pleased to state that the Department has
now turned the cornor and the deficit
Is at a manageable level for those in
grade E-4 and above who have hereto-
fore been considered eligible for hous-
ing. The programable deficit, prior to any
new authority granted in this bill, was
about 12,000 units.
Of the 10,462 units comprising the De-
partment request for new construction
in fiscal year 1975, 3,000 units are for
Junior enlisted personnel in grades E-1
through E-3, and E-4's with less than 2
years experience who have not hereto-
fore been considered eligible for hous-
ing.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
September 11, 1974
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?. SENATE S 16387
to junior enlisted personnel who are no
career oriented and have not committe
themselves to an active duty career o
at least 3 years. Overall, the committe
reduced the requested authority for th
family housing program by about $98.
million.
Now, finally, I want to discuss briefl
the Navy's proposal to provide a suppor
facility for a carrier task force on th
Island of Diego Garcia in the Indian
Ocean.
Let me review the situation briefly.
For a number of years the Navy has
been anxious to establish a support fa-
cility in the Indian Ocean?more par-
ticularly on the British-owned island of
Diego Garcia.
In fiscal year 1970 the proposal was
made to the Congress for authority and
funding for the first increment for such
a facility on Diego Garcia. It was to be
a communications station and a support
facility for a carrier task force.
This proposal was denied by the Con-
gress. The following year the Navy came
in with a greatly reduced program to
provide only an austere communications
facility, which was approved by the Con-
gress, and through fiscal year 1973 $20,-
450,000 in military construction funds
has been approved for this purpose. Con-
struction work has been performed by
the Seabees.
The last funding was in fiscal year 1973
when $6.1 million Was granted for dredg-
ing an entrance channel and a small
turning basin for supply ships within the
lagoon.
In the fiscal year 1974 supplemental
authorization bill the Navy attempted to
pursue their original idea further and
requested $29 million to expand the com-
munications facility into a support fa-
cility for a carrier task force of six ships.
This would require further dredging of
the lagoon, the building of a general
purpose and petroleum pier, additional
POL storage, additional personnel facili-
ties, and extending the runway from 8,-
000 to 12,000 feet. They would expect to
request another $5 million in a subse-
quent year.
Logistically, Diego Garcia would serve
as an Outpost support facility where ships
could perform limited inpoit upkeep, take
on fuel and receive critical supplies by
military airlift. In addition to the Navy
construction, the Air Force included in
Its fiscal year 1975 budget request $3.3
million for additional airlift improve-
ments and storage space for petroleum
products and munitions. The Air Force
requirements are contingency related; no
permanent Air Force presence is planned
on Diego Garcia.
The 1972 agreement between the Uni-
ted States and the United Kingdom spe-
cifically authorizes a limited communica-
tions station on Diego Garcia. Technical
level negotiations for a new agreement
between the United States and the
United Kingdom relating to expanded
use of Diego Garcia by the United States
were held in London February 25-28,
1974, resulting in agreed ad referendum
texts of an exchange of notes that would
supersede the Diego Garcia agreement of
1972. However, shortly after the ad ref-
erendum agreement was reached the
Labor Party formed a new government in
t the United Kingdom. As of this date th
d new government has not made a minis
f terial-level decision on the agreement.
e The defense and foreign policy impli
e cations of the construction projects a
9 Diego Garcia are, of course, broader tha
the $32.2 million request would suggest
It is true that the construction of sup
t port facilities at Diego Garcia does no
e necessarily mean an expanded U.S. mill
tary presence in the Indian Ocean. Bu
by increasing logistic flexibility and ca-
pability, expansion of the Diego Garcia
base is a distinct step in facilitating U.S
operations in the Indian Ocean, and thus
is directly related to the broader policy
questions associated with a U.S. military
presence in the Indian Ocean.
It has been suggested that the Soviet
presence in the Indian Ocean area will
increase with the opening of the Suez
Canal. This, of course, is conjecture and
remains to be seen. The date of the re-
opening of the canal is of course not
known, but clearance operations will be
completed by January of the coming
year.
After careful consideration of the
many factors involved and thorough de-
bate, the committee approved $14,802,000
as a first increment of the Navy's re-
quirements, and the $3.3 million re-
quested by the Air Force.
At the same time, thg_kujunittee in-
d ection 612 in tHeThill-to preclude
a on o any o ese
S e PresIdent Of e Utilted States as
asivised the Congress In writing that he
has evaluated all mummy WncI foreign
policy Implications reg.arding the nee
r t ese acilities, and has certifica that
t s cons ruc
tionacat. However, such certifica-
tion
us sti?mi - ? ? - ? ? -
Ina Rio,: troy.' both kiousesof ? - in-
gress. Thus, Congress will have an oppor-
r to focus on the expansion at Diego
at?triT a as a ? olio m
o e m n c rcums ances.
M. President, this concludes my state-
ment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OirviCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
yield to the able and distinguished senior
Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the distin-
guished senior Senator from Missouri.
Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R.
16136, the fiscal year 1975 military con-
struction authorization bill, as reported
from the Senate Committee on Armed
Services. This bill provides authoriza-
tion for $3.079 billion for construction of
facilities for active and Reserve military
services.
This authorization includes work to be
performed at 263 major bases and also
661 separate construction projects. The
total amount approved is $226 million
less than that requested by the Depart-
ment of Defense.
Mr. president, one of the key items in
e the bill concerns Diego Garcia, a tiny is-
- land in the Indian Ocean, on which the
Navy wishes to expand its support facili-
- ties.
t The Navy originally requested $29 mil-
n lion in the fiscal year 1974 supplemental
. bill to expand the Diego Garcia base.
- This request was approved by the House
t but our committee rejected it, feeling a
- matter of such importance should be
t more fully considered during the regu-
lar authorization process.
As a result, the Diego Garcia request
. became a part of the military construe-
tion authorization for fiscal year 1975.
Once again the House approved the
full amount but in the pending bill the
Senate Armed Services Committee has
reduced the request for $29 to $14.8 mil-
lion for the Navy and $3.3 million for the
Air Force. This sum of $18.1 million rep-
resents only a portion of the require-
ments to increase the support facilities
at Diego Garcia.
In recommending authorization for
the $18.1 million, the Senate Armed
Services Committee has taken the un-
usual step of making these expenditures
contingent upon subsequent action by
the President of the United States, with
the approval of the Congress. This has
been done by precluding the obligation
of the funds authorized until the Presi-
dent has adviSed Congress, in writing,
that these projects are essential to the
national interest. Further, the commit-
tee has provided that such certification
by the President to the? Congress must
be approved by both Houses. This step
will assure the opportunity for full de-
bate on the expansion at Diego Garcia,
as a foreign policy and defense matter.
Mr. President, the funds authorized
in this bill for Diego Garcia represents a
compromise position by the committee.
While the Navy requested $29 million._
the committee has approved this lesser
sum of $18.1 million in order to aviaLd
the impression of an escalation in the
neval balance of power in the Indian
Ocean. The committee is, in effect,
merely providing for greater capability
at Diego Garcia in the event the con-
tinued Soviet presence in that area
requires greater U.S. naval activity there.
The Senate may recall that last year
during the Arab-Israeli war and the
accompanying oil crisis the President
felt it necessary to place a small task
force in the Indian Ocean. Because of
our lack of facilities there, these forces
had to be supplied by a logistic tail going
all the way to Subic Bay in the
Philippines.
In recent years the Soviets have been
expanding their naval presence in the
Indian Ocean. While we have limited
support capabilities in this area, the
Soviets have been active in a number of
countries surrounding the Indian Ocean
and they have naval facilities in Somali,
Iraq, and southern Yeman.
Although Diego Garcia would not be
a naval base as such, it would provide a
means to support U.S. naval forces
should it become necessary that they be
deployed in the Indian Ocean at some
future time.
Mr. President, I fully support the
Navy's request and I believe that the
compromise position taken by the
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 16388
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R0007001,093-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE ep ember 11, 19 74
Senate Armed Services Committee by tion because of the spread-out nature appreciate the remarks of the able senior
an almost Unanimous vote will meet of the existing facilities. Clearly, in order Senator from Texas. As always, it is a
most of the objections heretofore raised to have adequate space, the proper privilege to work with him and for him
about this facility. In any event, the teaching facilities, and a cohesive siu- on problems of our national security.
Senate will have an onnortunitY to dent body, new construction must be Would the Senator like to bring LIP
debate this issue if Preiddent Ford authorized. This is the frst step in that his amendment at this time?
decides to go forward and meetthe program. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I have an
In addition to the above items which amendment at the desk and I ask for its
should have an impact on retention of immediate consideration.
requirements laid down by the com-
mittee.
Mr. President, in closing, let me say'
that this is an important bill and
deserves careful consideration by this
body. The Military Construction Sub-
committee, chaired by the distinguished
senior Senator from Missouri (Mr.
SYMINGTON) , conducted extensive hear-
ings on all elements of this bill. He was
particularly thorough in placing on the
public record as many fade as possible
reference the Diego Garcia facility. In
this committee effort, he was ably
assisted by the distinguished senior
Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER), who
is the ranking minority inember of the
Military Construction :Subcommittee
and who contributed so greatly to its
work.
Also, I think we should recognize our
able staff. Mr. Gordon Nease, majority
counsel for the subcommittee, and his
competent secretary, Ms. Joyce Topham-
servicemen, the bill contains 7,120 new The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
units of family housing, a reduction of will state the amendment.
3,342 units from the administration re- The assistant legislative clerk pro -
quest, and several other projects relating ceeded to read the amendment.
to recreation. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask
The committee does, however, feel that unanimous consent that further reading
the Department of Defense should me s- of the amendment be dispensed with.
tigate the possibility of constructing fu- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
ture commissaries from nonappropriated objection, it is so ordered, and the
funds. It is my understanding that the amendment will be printed in the
Department is sympathetic to this ap- RECORD.
proach, for it would take only a small The amendment is as follows:
surcharge in the amount of 1 to 2 per- On page 73, insert between lines 19 and 20
cent. Since this is considerably smaller the following:
than most local taxes whichare not Under the heading "Outside the United
ates" with respect to "Naval Air Facility,
paid by commissary customers, this St Sigonella, Sicily, - Italy," strike out "$ane.-
'
should not prove to be a burden. 000" and insert in place thereof "$12,632.000".
Of other interest to my colleagues is on page 73, line 21, after "4477,664,000" add
the provision of $14,80,000 to the Navy a $41,217,000" and in line 23, strike out
as the first increment for construction of "$526,781,000" and insert in place thereof
expanded support facilities at Diego "$44,917,000, and $530,481,000".
Garcia. This is a reduction to about half Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I shall not
' .
this bill in a proper form to the floor. guage was included making obligation I am offering an amendment today to
Mr. President, this is an excellent bill of these funds contingent upon written title II, of H.R. 16136, the military' con-
and while I would have prelerred a more notification of Congress by the President struction authorization bill. The amend-
aggressive plan to meet 'the needs at that this construction is essential to the ment would add $3.7 million to the Naval
Diego Garcia, I believe the proposal in national interest. Clearly, President Ford Air Facility, Sigonella, Sicily. This is in
this bill is a fair solution. Therefore, I should have the opportimity to study this reality an amendment to the fiscal year
would urge the Senate to M.ve this legis- 1973 Military Construction Authorize-
lation prompt attention and approval.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
Yield to the able and distinguished senior
Senator iron'i Texas, who Is the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Military
Construction.
T ,illkESTDING trFFICER. Without
ection, it is so ordered.
_Mr. TOWER. I thank tire distinguished
leriator from Missouri an. SymigoTort).
Campbell, have worked hard in bringing the original request. In addition, tan- detain the Senate on
Mr. President, this bill authorizes the
appropriation of $3.1 billion for the con-
struction of military facilities, a reduc-
tion of 000 million, in rough figures,
from the administration request. It also
authorizes 7,120 new units of family
housing. There are obviously quite a few
projects in the bill but I would like to
highlight just a few.
Of considerable concern to us all is the
progress being made on the all-volunteer
force. This is going to be an expensive
proposition,but I think most of us real-
ized when we embarked on this course
that this would happen. The administra- fighter aircraft in Europe?and I speak Fifteen projects at Sigonella were au-
tion requested $392 million for the addi- only in terms of numbers, not in terms thorized for a total amount of $8,932,000
tion and Upgrading of about 23,400 spaces of quality?it becomes even more essen- in the fiscal year 1973 Military Construe-
in the bachelor housing program. The tial that we protect those aircraft we tion Authorization Act. Three of these
budget request also contained $210 mil- have, from surprise attack. The Mideast projects in the amount of $684.000 are
lion for the improvement and addition of wars provide a clear example of what being built by Seabees and there will be
medical facilities. In most instances these can happen to aircraft caught unpro- no problem with their completion. One
projects were approved. tected on the ground. fixed priced contract for a tactical sup-
Beyond our immediate efforts to im- Mr. President, I should like finally to port center in the amount of $121,000 has
prove the medical care being received by extend my thanks to -the chairman of our already been completed. Of the remain-
our servicemen, the corionittee included subcommittee, Mr. SyranecroN, for the ing 11 projects, one was awarded by a
$15 million for the construction at the fine job he has done in getting oue, what fixed priced contract, and the other 10
new Uniformed Services University of I believe to be a reasonable bill. His were awarded to two contractors with
the Health Sciences. Current plans are statesmanship in the conduct of hear- cost escalation provisions. The inflation
to utilize existing facilities for the urn- Ings and particularly the markup on the in Italy has been enormous?to the point
versity; however, this will seriously frag- bill is deeply appreciated. that it is increasing by as much as 6 per-
ment the student and instructor popula- Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I cent in a month. One course open to the
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
matter, but I believe from my review of
the problem that such an expansion is
well iustified.
Some might argue that increasing
American involvement in the Indian
Ocean will only increase the temeo of
Soviet activities in the area. But, the
Soviets continue to increase their ship
days anyway. Shall we sit by and do
nothing? Shall we not even have the
capability to respond to events in the
area? Some have remarked that South
Asia should remain free of the specter
of nuclear arms. But the testing of a
nuclear device by India recently should
have removed all doubt about whether
nonuclear status of the area would
continue.
A final project of considerable interest
is the authorization of $62 million as the
first increment of an airbase hardening
tion Act, Public Law 92-545. I recognize
that it is unusual for a member of the
committee that reported the act to be
seeking an -amendment to the act, but
this is an unusual case. I learned of the
need for this amendment on my Lrip to
Europe over the Labor Day recess.
At the outset, I wish to emphasize that
these fiscal year 1973 construction pro)-
ects form the keystone of the Navy's
program to upgrade the Sigonella base
so that vital logistic support operations
can be carried out in support of our Sixth
Fleet. Sigonella is strategically located in
the central Mediterranean?its upgrade
is essential in view of the trends in recant
years to a predominance of Sixth Fleet
operations in the central and eastern
Mediterranean. The inetallation at Sigo-
nella will have the capability to rapidly
airlift supplies and personnel to SiEth
program in Europe. On a recent trip to Fleet task forces. In addition, our ASW
Europe it was made clear to me that this patrol aircraft will receive support for
is an absolutely vital construction pro-
their vital missions over the wide ex-
gram With the Soaiet advantage in panse of the Mediterranean.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
September 11, 197,4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Navy and the Army Corps of Engineers,
the Contracting Agency, was to termi-
nate 8 to 10 projects in order to recoup
sufficient funds to complete 1 or 2 high
priority projects, and then to seek fund-
ing of the remaining projects at a signifi-
cantly escalated cost in the fiscal year
1976 request.
However, there are problems with this
course of action beyond those of just de-
laying some construction by a year. The
contracts have been proceeding from 4
to 10 months and are at various stages
of completion and with many items of
equipment in various stages of fabrica-
tion in plants throughout Italy. It is a
very undesirable situation to leave these
projects in a partial state of completion
on an Italian military ? base for a year
until an amendment can be included in
the fiscal year 1976 Military Construction
Authorization Act.
Further should the contracts be ter-
minated and restarted, the cost is ex-
pected to be increased by another $5 mil-
lion over the amount in my amendment.
Therefore, because of the urgency of
the projects and the increased cost should
we delay them, I believe it is in our best
Interests to amend the fiscal year 1973
Military Construction Act this year. I
urge my colleagues to join me in support-
ing this amendment.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, as
chairman of the Subcommittee on Mil-
itary Construction, I have discussed this
with the chairman of the full commit-
tee, and we shall be glad to accept the
proposed amendment of the distin-
guished Senator from Texas and take it
into conference.
Mr. TOWER. I thank the able and dis-
tinguished Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. Will the Senator yield
to me?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to the distinguished chairman of the
committee.
Mr. STENNIS. I have a more complete
statement on the bill as a whole, focus-
ing on one particular item, that I should
like to use later. For the time being, I
want especially to thank the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) for the
long, hard hours, days, and weeks of
work that he did on this bill, and also
to thank the Senator from Texas (Mr.
TowEa) for the work that he did on it
as the ranking minority member.
This is a working subcommittee, and
I am sure that someone will mention or
has mentioned already the very valuable
services, to the full committee and this
subcommittee of our staff member, Gor-
don Nease, a long-time, highly valued
member of our staff. He happens to be ill
right now, a situation which is tempo-
rary, but I should not like to let any
chance pass without complimenting him
on his fine work.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Will the Senator
yield?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, I yield to the Sen-
ator from Missouri.
I was not taking his sentiments away
from him, but I did not know if I would
get another chance.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I deeply appreci-
ate the kind remarks made by the able
and distinguished chairman of the full
committee. I associate myself with the
remarks he has made. I have already
done so with those of the senior Sen-
ator from Texas, but I should like now
to express my regret at the illness of
Mr. Nease, who has been the authority
in this field for many years. I, therefore,
associate myself with the remarks of the
able and distinguished Senator from
Mississippi.
Mr. TOWER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, I am glad to yield.
Mr. TOWER. Again, I should like to ex-
tend my thanks to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Mississippi for his kind re-
marks about me, and certainly about
Gordon Nease. We certainly miss Mr.
Nease's presence today. He has been
helpful throughout the years, and we
wish him a speedy recovery.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the distin-
guished Senator. These are not pro forma
remarks which I made about my two col-
leagues and about Mr. Nease. We believe
he will be back soon.
Mr. President, I support this bill. I
have been through it. We had it up before
the full committee and had a real dis-
cussion of the major parts of it. I am
glad that I can and I do actively support
the entire bill.
Let me say just one word about the
item concerning Diego Garcia. This con-
cerns a naval installation represented by
provisions in the bill for piers, stor-
age facilities, and related facilities.
I support that item, Mr. President, on
the basis of our Nation's need and not
on the basis of being anti-Soviet Russia
or anything of that kind. I was con-
vinced, not by the Navy nor by anyone
else, but just by the commonsense and
logic of it, that we ought to do some-
thing about this naval fueling and dock-
ing facility, with places to use as piers.
We do have a policy question involved.
So the bill provides that the money is
authorized, but shall not be spent until
relations are more formally established
with Great Britain under terms that we
approve of. I shall have something fur-
ther to say about that part of the bill,
especially should it come under attack.
I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
He wants to get to these amendments, I
know, and I think he is right about it. So
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank my able
chairman. Mr. President, I suggest the
absence of the quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk on behalf of
myself, the distinguished Senator from
Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY) , and other Sen-
ators, and ask for its immediate consid-
eration.
S 16389
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous con-
sent that further reading of the amend-
ment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY'S amendment is as
follows:
On page 113, between lines 10 and 11, in-
sert a new section as follows:
SEC. 614. (a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any-funds made available
pursuant to this or any other Act for the
construction or maintenance of facilities at
the service academy of any military depart-
ment may be expended by the Secretary of
the military department concerned for the
construction and maintenance of such fa-
cilities as may be necessary or appropriate to
provide for the admission of females as ca-
dets or midshipmen (midshipwomen), as ap-
propriate, at such academy.
(b) As used in subsection (a), the term
"service academy of any military depart-
ment" means (1) the United States Military
Academy in the case of the Army, (2) the
United States Naval Academy in the case of
the Navy, and (3) the United States Air
Force Academy in the case of the Air Force.
On page 113, line 11, strike out "SEC. 614"
and insert in lieu thereof "SEc. 015".
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this
amendment tracks very closely an
amendment offered by the distinguished
Senator from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY)
and accepted by the Senate earlier this
year. Of course, it has some important
revisions in it, but it is an amendment
which I think is justified and entirely
appropriate for this particular legisla-
tion.
After it was accepted by the Senate
earlier in the year, it was dropped in
conference, because the House conferees
did not feel at that time that it was rele-
vant to the particular measure to which
it was attached.
The amendment would permit the use
of funds which are authorized for the
various service academies in a way
which would -be consistent with estab-
lishing a policy permitting women to at-
tend the service academies. Therefore,
it is an entirely relevant amendment to
the military construction program, which
is concerned with authorizing and even-
tually appropriating money that will be
used for military construction.
Mr. President, we know that women
today are enrolled in a number of ROTC
programs. That is so because the military
forces recognize the importance of hav-
ing women in the ROTC. Therefore, they
take training which is similar and com-
parable to the training that young men
take in being trained as officers. They
also take such training in the OCS. They
are also involved in taking courses in the
service War College, which are the most
important educational institutions with-
in the Military Establishment; and there
seems to be no real or convincing reason
why women should not also be permitted
to be enrolled in the service academies.
One point that has been raised over a
period of time is, how can we expect to
enroll women in the service academies
when the service academies are to train
people for combat forces?
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 16390
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE September 11, 1974
The Armed Services Committee has
recognized, through compilation of fig-
ures, that actually only a relatively small
number of military officer position are
combat related. It varies in the different
services from approximately 15 percent
in the Army who are actually involved
in combat-related training to approxi-
mately 30 or 35 percent In the other
services, the Navy and the Air Force.
There are a variety of different special-
ties at the service academies that women
could be superbly trained and equipped
for. This would also free men to serve in
the combat area, particularly considering
the shortfall in the combat arms area
we have seen over a period of recent
months. Women could be very well suited
for such other responsibilities.
I am hopeful that the amendment will
be accepted by the managers of the bill
and taken to conference. It seems to me
that during the period of recent years,
we have been attempting to establish the
basic and fundamental rights of women
in our society. I think there are many
who can play a vital role in the defense
of this country and in the military forces
of this Nation. This amendment would
provide them the kind of excellence in
training at the service academies which
Is being provided to the young men of
this country, and I think our whole de-
fense posture and establishment would
be basically better served If that were
the case.
This amendment does not mandate
the admission of females to the acad-
emies. However, it does put the Depart-
ment of Defense on notice that the
Congress expects the Department of De-
fense to use its authority to make that
decision. It does point out to the De-
partment of Defense that the Congress
would look favorably upon such a de-
cision. And, most importantly, it does
facilitate such a decision by authorizing
the construction of whatever facilities
may be necessary at the respective acad-
emies, in the view of the Services, in
order to prepare for the admission of
women.
Mr. President, last December the Sen-
ate passed the Hathaway amendment to
the military, pay bonus bill, an amend-
ment which mandated the admission of
women to the Service academies. That
amendment was objected to by the
House on two grounds: Firsts it was non-
germane to the bill it was attached to;
second, similar legislation in the House
would receive prompt hearings.
There are in fact some six bills in the
House related to the admission of women
in the Service academies. However, hear-
ings have not yet been concluded on
them, nor will they apparently be con-
cluded before an appeal has been heard
in the U.S. District Court of Appeals
concerning a suit that has been filed to
allow two women into the Air Force and
Naval academies. That appeal hearing
could take several months.
In the meantime, wide bipartisan sup-
port has arisen in both the Senate and
the House in favor of the admission of
women to the Service acacbmies. Some
25 Senators have publicly supported this,
including the majority and minority
leaders, and the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Armed Services
Committee.
The Department of Defense has recog-
nized that the power to appoint is totally
discretionary:
The power to appoint persons to the acad-
emies of the Army, Navy and Air Force :s a
discretionary function cf the President
alone. Since it is entirely within the discre-
tion of the President to determine who will
be appointed to a service academy, women
could be appointed by him without the need
for any new legislation. None of the statutes
relating to any of the three service academies
requires a person to be male in order to be
eligible for nomination or appointment to
the academies. (May 1973 letter from Defense
Department to House Armed Services Com-
mittee)
The U.S. District Court also held re-
cently that nothing in the admission
statutes indicates that males only must
be considered.
The primary reason for the nonadmis-
sion of women to the Service academies
at the present time is that it currently
happens to be Department of Defense
policy. It is also a tradition which is very
reluctant to cede to modern realities.
There are two strings which academy
traditionalists are holding on to in the
hope of maintaining the all-male policy:
First, that two laws prohibiting women
from assignment to combat vessels and
planes in the Navy and Air Force can
somehow continue to be interpreted as
also excluding women from the Service
academies, since the academies train offi-
cers for combat. However, the Defense
Department admits that those laws ex-
clude women from only 30 percent of
Navy officer positions, from only 38 per-
cent of Air Force officer positions, and
from no Army officer positions?since
the laws aply only to Air Force and Navy
combat positions, although only 15 per-
cent of Army officer positions fall in the
combat category. Thus, women Academy
graduates could serve in 70 percent of
Navy Officer positions, 62 percent of Air
Force officer positions, a:nd all Army offi-
cer positions without any change what-
soever in current law.
The second hope of academy tradi-
tionalists is that the Congress may get
so bottled up in its deliberative legislative
processes that it may not be able to soon
pass a law which will require the Serv-
ices to admit women to the academies.
Mr. President, this amendment dries
not require the Department of Defense
to admit women to our Nation's service
academies. But it does provide the full
authority to do so and it does strongly
urge Department Defense to change its
For the Department of Defense has
already done much to provide equal op-
portunities for American men and
women in the services. The Air Force
opened its Reserve Officers Training
Corps program to women in 1968, and the
Army and Navy did likewise in 1973.
Since initiation of the Volunteer Army
last year, the Defense Department has
undertaken to bring more women into
the services, in a concerted effort to im-
prove the quality, numbers, and repre-
sentativeness of the Volunteer Army.
Experimental programs were begun this
summer, and will be greatly expanded
next year, to have men and women un-
dergoing joint basic training. Of 430 job
classifications in the Army, 400 are now
open to women. Women are now being
assigned to command mixed units, and
women are making outstanding contri-
butions as pilots, chaplains, technicians,
mechanics, deck hands, truck dn,vers,
and drill sergeants.
Yet, much more can be done so that
our Nation can better benefit from the
dedication and talent of qualified and
willing women who wish to serve in our
Armed Forces. A very small percentage
of our Armed Forces are women, and only
about 4 percent of officers are women.
Women officers should not only be
trained in ROTC, which provides a great-
er percentage of military officers than
the academies, but also in the specialized
academy environments which will give
them superior job and career advance-
ment opportunities. Service statistics
show that academy graduates, as op-
posed to OCS and ROTC graduates, rise
higher in the rank and pay scales.
If women officers attend all of the
service war colleges, the, highest level
of service education, preparing oficers
for general and admiral rank, aliere is
no legitimate reason why they cannot
begin their careers at the military acad-
emies.
The situation becomes all the more re-
grettable when one recalls that a recent
bill was passed in Congress allowing a
Laotian general's son to attend West
Point, along with other foreigners at all
the academies, while American women
are refused attendance. In the case of
these foreigners, American taassa yen'
money is being spent to tin people who
will not even -serve in the American. mili-
tary, whether in a combat status or not.
Mr. President, it Is time that Congress
and the Department of Defense cooper-
ated in doing the right thing for Amer-
ican women and our Armed Forces. After
all, American women have as vital an
interest in our national defense as Amer-
ican men do.
The military academies should be open
to qualified women candidates. Tht; can
be done by a change in Department of
Defense policy. The Merchant Marine
Academy, under the Secretary of Com-
merce, has already set a precedent in
receiving women applicants. This
amendment will emphasize congres-
sional intent in encouraging the Depart-
ment of Defense to do likewise.
I hope my colleagues will support this
modest but important amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the fol-
lowing related items be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the items
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Norfolk Virginia-Pilot, July 23,
19741
TiE LADY IS A MIDSHIPIVIAN
It isn't attracting much notice, but the
armed forces are fighting a bitter rear-guard
action to keep women out of the service
academies.
There are bilis before Congress to au.hor-
ize the admission of the women to the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point, the Naval
Academy at Annapolis, and the Air Force
Academy at Colorado Springs, and a change
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
September 11, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16391
in the men only policies of the services is
just a matter of time. (The U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy has dropped its prohibition
of women.)
The military could have opened the acad-
emies to women "at any time in the last 10
years or any time this year, but they have
never done it and will not do it," says Rep-
resentative Otis G. Pike (D-N.Y.), a member
of the House Armed Services Committee.
Since thousands of women are serving in
the military, since the Air Force opened its
Reserve Officers Training Corps program to
women in 1968 and the Army and Navy did
likewise in 1973, and since the Defense De-
partment has undertaken "a concerted ef-
fort to bring more women into the services"
(as its general counsel testified last month
to the Military Personnel Subcommittee), it
is impossible to justify the exclusion of wom-
en from the academies on any grounds other
than tradition. (And even such traditional-
ists as Senators John Stennis and Strom
Thurmond are among the cosponsors of
measures to open the academies to women.)
The argument that the brass makes for
keeping women out is that the academies are
meant to train combat leaders and women'
are barred from combat by law. "The issue
Is not whether women should become cadets
at West Point; the basic question is wheth-
er Americans are prepared to commit their
daughters to combat," General Frederick C.
Weyand, Army Vice Chief of Staff, testified on
June 19. "I am not prepared to do that. And
I believe that is the sentiment of the major-
ity of Americans."
That is the sort of talk that causes people
to say war is too important to be left to
generals. No one proposes to send women into
the trenches. But the United States is not
at war and there are important noncombat-
ant roles for women even in wartime. That
much is obvious from the part women have
taken in past wars. And, as Senator Marlow
Cook (R-Ky.) observed when the question
was debated earlier in the Senate, "combat
today may be a lady sitting at a computer at
a missile site in North Dakota."
There is no good reason why women ought
not to be admitted to the service academies,
which is not to say that Annapolis is sud-
denly to become a finishing school. The mid-
shipmen and cadets would adjust to the
change a lot more quickly than the old salts
and old soldiers. The military ought to ac-
cede gracefully to the inevitable.
[From the Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal,
July 23, 1974]
ARMY TRAINING PROGRAM FOR WOMEN Is
CHECKED
(By John Filiatreau)
Pr. KNox, KY.?Alongside more than 1,600
men taking ROTC basic training at Ft. Knox
this summer are two WAC career officers.
The Women's Army Corps members, Maj.
Nancy E. Bird, 33, and Capt. Marla J.
Stripling, 31, hold desk jobs in the 2nd
Region headquarters of the Army's Reserve
Officer Training Corps (ROTC) at Ft. Knox.
But at various times they're also marching
with the men, throwing hand grenades, do-
ing calisthenics and trying most other basic
training staples.
How well they fare, and what they recom-
mend when the training is over, will help
determine what training is given next sum-
mer to the first women ROTC cadets attend-
ing boot camp with men at Pt, Knox.
The presence of Major Bird and Captain
Stripling is a mark of the changing role of
women in the U.S. Army?a role that is shift-
ing from their traditional clerical and sup-
port function in the direction of a possible
combat role.
Unlike many other nations, the U.S. is not
well disposed toward the idea of women in
combat. At the moment, the law says women
may not be employed as fighting soldiers.
However, many Viet Cong guerrilla fighters
were women, and American veterans will at-
test to the fact that they fought well. A re-
cent Miss World titleholder served in the
Israeli Army as a tank driver.
Women outside the military are objecting
to the roles they've been forced to play in
such male-dominated areas as business and
politics. Few organizations have been as
male-dominated as the military, and now the
WACs have begun sending up smoke signals,
too.
They say the new all-volunteer military is
in need of qualified people and cannot af-
ford to lose capable women by clinging to
cherish stereotypes. As one WAC officer re-
cently said, "They need the labor force . . .
There's been a general awakening." Talented
women just don't want to be 'Army career
secretaries.
Major Bird, a 13-year Army veteran and
Captain Stripling, who has nine years' serv-
ice, may be the first women to take the U.S.
Army's basic combat training with a group of
men.
Women have been members of college
ROTC units for several years, but the esti-
mated 300 to 400 coming next year for boot
camp along with thousands of men will be a
new experience for the Army and for Ft.
Knox.
"This is a far more strenuous course than
ours would be," Major Bird said recently of
the training which she and Captain Stripling
are taking at times of their own arranging.
"It's weighted in the direction of endur-
ance . . . and the hardest parts of the train-
ing are those that have to do with actual
strength, in the arms and shoulders, like the
horizontal bar exercise. The bars were made
for a guy's hands, they were just too big . . .
"The biggest problem was simply being out
of shape. And there are problems having to
do with our phyiscal stature. We're built
differently, in the pelvic area and the bust,
and that makes a difference in some of these
physical exercises. And there are a couple of
exercises that were actually easier for me."
Major Bird, a native -of Rochester, N.Y.,
is more concerned about what women ought
to do than what they can do.
"There's a fine line between what you can
do and what you should do," she said. "For
example, the grenade assault course looks like
a lot of fun to me. I want to do it because
it's fun and it's a challenge, but this kind
of training is expensive and women are still
prohibited by law from taking part in com-
bat. There is a cost factor. So the parts of
training directly related to combat are still
a question mark . . . This training is still
up for grabs."
Major Bird does see some value in train-
ing women in combat tactics.
"It does help you to understand what the
military is all about," she said. "I think it
might make a woman have a little more in-
terest in the piece of paper she's processing
. . . There's no way you can lose. Even if you
stayed just 24 hours you'd learn something."
According to Capt. Charles Crowley, under
Whose supervision the women have been
training they're getting "no particular spe-
cial attention . . . We do talk to the WACs
every day, and this has been an educational
process for us . . .The cadets have a posi-
tive attitude about it. They've more or less
left them alone."
Major Bird's most firm conviction is that
the women ought to train together with the
men, "with some modifications of the train-
ing process."
Captain Stripling, a native of Fort Valley,
Ga., and an instructor at Eastern Kentucky
University, feels differently about the matter.
"If you have the women training with the
men, you're going to have them competing
with the men," she said. "And I think SO/Yle
of the women would surpass the men, and
that would be a demoralizing factor . . . I
don't think they should train together.
"I think we need to develop a training
program that takes in the best parts of both
sides of the house . . . After all, basic
training isn't all there is, combat isn't all
there is. We've been training volunteers (in
the WAC) for 30 years for supportive roles,
and women are still not going into combat
arms. Yet everything here is geared to the
combat role . . . I don't even think this
training here applies." .
Captain Stripling, whose father was a 30-
year Army career man, thinks the presence
of women in training camps can have a bene-
ficial effect.
"I think when women get on the job there
won't be all this role playing," she said.
"There's a real difference in the way a man
approaches training women. In a training
mission there just can't be any difference."
The WAC branch of the Army is on the
move. Since July 1, the Army has been as-
signing WAC officers to other Army career
officer branches. This has led to suggestions
that the WAC branch may be merged soon
with the Regular Army.
WAC Director Brig, Gen. Mildred C. Bail-
ey, insists the WAC branch is alive and well
and will continue to play an important role
in WAC officer assignments and military
school selection.
She recently said the WAC branch in the
officer personnel directorate of the Military
Personnel Center in Washington will con-
tinue to coordinate WAC assignments with
the other officer branches "until we have
concrete proof that women are being prop-
erly used." She added, "I can assure you the
corps will be around for a good long time."
NEW TJNIFORMS BEING PLANNED
One of the current questions facing the
WAC's is what their new uniforms will look
like. Several are now in the testing stage.
A summer pants suit which will be part of
the training uniform is undergoing testing
now.
General Bailey said she is "sorry to find my
women required to wear fatigues unless per-
forming a job that justifies them. Putting
a woman into uniform shouldn't rob her
of her identity as a woman. I hope com-
manders will come to realize that it is just
as important for a woman to retain her
identity as it is for a man."
She added that the Army is making good
progress assigning women to instructor and
headquarters staffs at male training centers;
but she noted that more than half the
trainer personnel at the WAC Center at Ft.
McClellan, Ala. are men.
[From the Atlanta (Ga.) Constitution,
August 25, 19711
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE MADE Fr
(By Karen Peterson)
"It's fair to say that they wouldn't have
made it without us," says Women's Army
Corps Director Mildred Bailey.
The soft-spoken, white-haired WAC brig-
adier general freely acknowledges that in
order to make the "all-volunteer" concept
Work, the Army has had to dramatically in-
crease its number of female recruits.
In fact, if the WACs hadn't recruited 15,-
200 new women by June, 1974, the "new"
Army itself wouldn't have met its first-year
quota. The fledging volunteer program tech-
nically would have flopped.
It has been a year since the draft expired
in July, 1973. In spite of dire predictions of
falling 20,000 short, the volunteer Army has
just made its over-all goal of approximately
781,000. But that's in part because the WACs
have steadily increased their recruitment
goals to meet the need for more bodies.
"There's no doubt about it. We are help-
ing to make the concept viable," says Gen.
Bailey. At the end of 1972, total WAC
strength was set at 16,500 women. By 1979, it
is slotted to be 50,400. (Current WACs num-
ber 24,800 as of April.)
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 16392
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE September 11, 1974
Here's another way to view the numbers
game. At the end of 1971, WACs were less
than one percent of the total Army's
strength. At the end of '73, they were three
percent. If things go as they're now project-
d by 1979 they'll be eix percent of the
Army.
In addition, the WACs are getting a better
educated recruit than the regular Army. To
be a WAC, you have to be a high school
graduate, or its equivalent in Army tests.
The male Army recruits high school drop-
outs. It has lowered its standards to meet
quotas, and in some months is taking more
than 50 percent non-graduaten
Gen. Bailey comments, "Our goal now is to
improve the quality of men to meet our WAC
standards. If the regular Army could get high
school graduates entirely, it would. Our mar-
ket is different. We CAN get the graduates,
and don't feel it would be in our national
interest to drop our standards to meet
theirs."
There are several reasons Why the WACs
are more than making their recruitment
goals. (In Jinn, they made 106 percent of
their quota. Gen. Bailey says, "Everything is
coming together now. We have an increased
need for Army personnel at the same time
'Social attitudes are changing. . . .
"When the Women's Army Corps was
founded in the World War II era, serving in
the Armed Forces Was the patriotic thing to
do. No one worried whether it was `feminine'.
Then later we saw a Complete change in
viewpoint, and women withdrew from 'in-
appropriate' fields. If they didn't, their moti-
vations and morals were Suspect."
She continues, "Now we've seen another
complete reversal, and women want total
participation in public life ...Now we WACs
are seeing 30 years of our hard work pay off.
We're getting our share of the advertising
and recruiting dollar again. The Army is pay-
ing serious attention to recruiting women"
To get young women, the WACs are doing
a lot of very practical things, such as offering
them money and jobs on a par with men. Fer
example, now 250 ME's are military police-
women, a number expected to double in a
year. Says Gen. Bailey, "We've got women
welders, plumbers, heavy equipment opera-
tors, and the like."
Of 430 job classifications, only 30 are still
closed to women, and they are directly re-
lated to combat assignments, such as rifle-
men. Both men and women are being urged
to sign up for exotic jobs brhiging a $1,500 to
$2,500 cash bonus when training is finished.
An example is missile repairman?perhaps
more properly called a missile repairperson.
Opening jobs to women is one thing. Fill-
ing them with women is another. Approxi-
mately 81 percent of today's WACs are still in
some form of clerical or medical work. Com-
ments Gen. Bailey, "If we're going to have
50,000 WACs in 1979, we've nitst got to move
them out of traditional fielth, the ones they
already know. We're pushing these other
fields fields heavily now."
There are other reasons today's Women's
Army Corps is able to attract increasing
numbers of women. Court and Congressional
decisions have smashed paet inequities, so
that the women now get Mere of an equal
break with men. Recent Supreme Court deci-
sions prohibited discrimination in housing
and medical benefits for the families of fe-
male Armed Forces personnel. And pregnant
military women are no longer summarily dis-
charged, regardless of whether or not they're
married. In 1972 Congress brought a female
veteran's educational benefits under the GI
bill up to those of a man.
Finally, in 1973 the WACs decided you
could be married before enlisting, as well as
after. Gen Bailey says, "We're just trying
harder now to adjust our regulations to a
woman's family needs. Before, they weren't
often considered.
But there are other inequities. The Army
does not admit women to West Point, saying
that doesn't jibe with the academy's primary
mission of training combat leaders. And it
still doesn't give combat assignments to
women?or the $2,500 case bonus that goes
with accepting a combat slot.
[From the Christian Science Monitor,
August 27, 10741
WOMEN IN THE MILITARY: OPPORTONITM
IMPROVE
(NOTE?The progress ot U.S. women to-
ward true job equality is getting a close look
during this National Women's Week, mark-
ing the 54th anniversary of the constitu-
tional amendment giving women the right
to vote. And nowhere ars the paradoxical
problems of the working woman clearer than
in the military services. Uniformed women,
about 3 percent of the armed forces now,
have made great strides--and still face a
formidable barrier in fedei al law. Why wom-
en join and what awaits them in the service
is discussed below; at right, three senior
women officers talk about their careers.)
(By John D. Moorhead)
More young U.S. women now are flicking
a job-seeking glance at military service.
Perhaps their eyes are caught by the pro-
motional campaigns telling of expanded op-
portunities for training and travel. Or they
may want to pay off some bills when jobs are
scarce, as did one woman marine interviewed
recently.
In any ease, the minter it services are look-
ing for a few good women. Now that the
draft no longer conscripts or pressures ycluag
men into the military, the volunteer Army?
and the other services?need women so that
they will not need so many men.
And they are getting them.
The number of women in the U.S. Army
has doubled since 1972 and may double again
by 1977. The Air Force has boosted its fewer
of women 20 percent in a year, and the Navy's
increase over 1973 is about 40 percent.
JOB SPECIALTIES OPEN
The Coast Guard has begun to enlist wom-
en in its regular ranks. Previously they had
been confined to the reserves.
Most military job specialties now are apen
to women, except for dunes that would ex-
pose them to combat, service spokesmen say.
There are some stickirg points, however:
Women at present are barred from scene
advanced training schools directly rented
to combat jobs. (Federal law still bars women
from combat.)
The possibility of a woman's commanding
a mixed unit remains limited, although some
women recently have been assigned to minor
commands. Partially this is a carryover from
the time when women clearly were second-
Class citizens In the military, officers sae, be-
cause few women have had the opportmity
to build the kinds of experience and diver-
sity of training that would prepare them to
hold a major command.
TURTHER LEGISLATION NEEDED
military police, as well as other fields a hack
previously were male domains. Military
women now serve as pilots (on a very lim-
ited basis), tugboat technicians, deck hands,
truck drivers, end auto mechanics.
The pay equals that of military men: an
enlisted woman will make $5,829 yearly when
she enters the service but can expect tc pull
In over $8,000 yearly by the end of her first
enlistment.
Officers start at $9,74116 and after four years
of service and normal promotion will be mak-
ing around $16,000 yearly. -(The figures for
both officers and enlisted persons include
basic pay, living allowances, and tax advan-
tages.)
The security, amenities, and adventure of
military life are quite attractive to many
young women, but some discrimination re-
mains.
"There are some lingering thought proc-
esses that have to be overceine, with women
as well as with men," says Navy Capt. Alice
Marshall. "Women have to adjust then own
attitudes.
"Some of tile men have never worked with
women before, and if they tend to thiek not,
too highly of women in the military then it
is harder," she continues.
RESTR/CT/ONS CHARGED
Says a spokesperson for the Massachusetts
Governor's Commission on the Status of
Women. "It is very difficult for women to
get truly professional training in the military.
For women going into the service as a career,
most areas are a closed door?'
Married women in the military facs spe-
cial problems, (The A.rmy arid Air Force esti-
mate that about 30 percent of their women
are married, whereas the Navy says 14.8 per-
cent of its women officers and 12.8 percent of
its enlisted women are. A very small percent-
age of these have children, tile services say.)
If both husband and wife are in the armed
forces, the military generally makes an effort
to assign them to the same duty elation. This
is easiest if both belong tosthe same service.
"If you fall in loves try to make it as. Army
man," Brig. Gen. Mildred C. Bailey, director
of the Women's Army Corns, tells her troops.
ON ACTIVE DITTY
"We guarantee that women will not be
separated from the family any more than the
man," General Bailey says.
Military women who become pregnant may
in most cases remain. on active duty, as long
as their performance is good and remains so,
military officers say. This includes unwed
mothers.
The Marine Corps, however, reserves the
right to discharge military mothers. But even
here a woman can remain on active duty if
her special petition approved by Headquar-
ters Marine Corps.
The lot of a woman in uniform is better
than it has ever been, most observers agree,
but she still does not stand toes-on-the-line
equal with the man under arms.
[From the Christian Science Monitor, Au-
gust 27, 1914]
THREE WHO CAME UP _FROM PERSCH4 NEL
A pioneering experience, a daily struggle
to prove personal wenn, and a deeply ean
isfying challenge.
This is the picture drawn by three senior
women officers in the MB military about
their careers, spanning a time when service-
women have moved rapidly toward real
equality with their male counterparts.
"During World War II women did any-
thing that would free men for combat roles,
but when the war ended, almost overnight a
curtain was drawn before us," says Brig Gen.
Mildred C. Bailey, a 32-year Army veteran.
"Women vino were willing out of patriotism
to come into the armed tOrces became sus-
pect. We've spent 30 years trying to reverse
this," she said in a recent interview.
For Navy Capt. Alice Marshall, who en-
In the past, women in the military have
specialized in fields such as personnel or
public relations.
Ratification of the equal rights amend-
ment would clear the way for full partnipa-
tion by women in all military duties, al-
though further legislation would still be
needed, Officers say.
All the services say they are doing much
to eliminate old restrictions. As late as 1967,
there were statutory limits on the number
of women in the armed services, and women
could rise no higher than the rank of lieuten-
ant colonel or Navy commander.
Now these curbs are gone. Privileges and
benefits generally have been equalized for
men and women.
And opportunities for women are opening
up. Training is available in electronics, air-
craft maintenance, avionics engineering,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050003-1
September 11, 1974, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16393
tered the service in 1952, the struggle has
not been so visible: "I have always felt my
opportunities in the Navy were significantly
greater than for most of my college counter-
parts in civilian occupations."
"You really didn't think in terms of dis-
crimination," says Air Force Col. Billie M.
Bobbitt of her 23-year career. "Most of us
accepted it as a way of life."
General Bailey, trained as a teacher, came
Into the Army during World War II and
stayed on. 'Though she has found her work
satisfying, she speaks of the "humiliation,
the constant proving of oneself, trying to be
better than the man."
Most of her career was spent in public
relations, she says, although she also did
personnel work and served 13 years in in-
telligence.
General Bailey now is the director of the
Women's Army Corps. She is the second
WAC officer to reach the rank of brigadier
general.
After working in radio and television as
a civilian, Captain Marshall received a di-
rect appointment as a Navy ensign in 1952.
Her first duty station was as a communica-
tions watch officer in San Francisco during
the Korean war.
"That was a busy time and I enjoyed it,"
she recalls.
Most of the rest of her career has been
Spent in the public relations or personnel
fields.
In the late 1950's, she attended the general
line officers' school then operated in Mon-
terey, Calif.
"The men helped us with damage control,
and we coached them on personnel proced-
ures," she says of the experience.
In the middle 1960's, she served as flag
secretary to the U.S. fleet air commander
in the Mediterranean. "I also served as in-
spector general and traveled all over Europe
and the Middle East," she says.
She now is head' of the services and bene-
fits branch at the Bureau of Naval Person-
nel in Washington.
In 1961, Colonel Bobbitt received a direct
oommission in the Air Force based on her
civilian experience in education and school
counseling.
Her work since has been primarily in per-
sonnel. "I've worked for good people and
always had challenging jobs," she says.
"I came in at a time when a military
career was really not an acceptable alterna-
tive for a woman. Now it offers a much more
normal life for women," she says.
Two of the more unusual tasks she has
been given during her career were the as-
signment to activate a maintenance and
supply group in 1955-86 and a five-year stint'
as a special agent for the office of special
investigations.
[From Time magazine, Aug. 26, 19741
SKIRTS AND STRIPES
With her short hair, decisive manner, and
well-pressed Army greens festooned with rib-
bons, Colonel Nancy Hopfenspirger, 43, is
every inch an officer. As she strides across the
U.S. Army base at Wiirzburg, West Germany,
each day, G.I.'s snap to attention and the lo-
cal employees murmur a respectful "Guten
Morgen."
As the new deputy commander of Wiirz-
burg and of various support units in an area
covering nearly one-third of southern West
Germany, Hopfenspirger is one of a growing
'number of women to step into important
command assignments. Colonel Frances Weir,
47, issues orders to a mostly male outfit at
the support battalion in Fort Jackson, S.C.
Colonel Georgia Hill, 49, is head of the
sprawling supply depot at Cameron Station,
Va.
Until a year ago, female officers could com-
mand only other members of the Women's
Army Corps (the WAC). The Army, however,
is now reassigning women permanently to
previously all-male branches. Brigadier Gen-
eral Mildred C. Bailey, chief of the WAC, last
month finished turning over all its person-
nel files to the women's new units. At the
same time, the Army has reclassified 136,000
jobs, opening them to women. Thus there
have recently been a myriad of female firsts
on various bases: the first female parachute
rigger, the first turbine-engine maintenance
woman, the first female drill sergeant. Actual
combat is still barred to women, though that
too may change if the Equal Rights Amend-
ment is passed.
Female integration into formerly male
units is not easy. As a former battalion com-
mander at Fort Carson, Colo., explains: "A
soldier's day doesn't end at 5 p.m. There are
assignments like guard duty with a rifle,
charge of quarters, and special police hand-
ling of burly drunks." Women formerly rose
through the ranks only within the WAC. Now
they are competing directly with men for
promotions. The seeding into various Army
branches of senior WAC officers, some of
whom have been lieutenant colonels for more
than a decade, is especially difficult. Many
fear a hostile reception in the regular
Army; a few are even retiring rather than
make the switch. Younger women, however,
seem to welcome the new challenges.
This quiet revolution came about chiefly
by necessity. With only volunteers to choose
from, the Army needs all the recruits it can
get, female as well as male. The response
has been excellent: 14,000 women have
joined the Army this year up from 5,200 in
1971. In the other armed services, too,
women have been given a broader spectrum
of jobs. The Air Force now has 17,800 women,
compared wth 12,265 five years ago. There are
16,500 women in the Navy, up from 8,636 in
1969. Only in the Marines which needs fewer
volunteers, has the number of women re-
mained relatively constant (about 2,700).
Few of the new female recruits are sign-
ing on to become commanders. Military life
is often the best deal they can get in a
tight job market. A high school graduate who
enlists as an Army private can get a salary
of $326.10 a month, on-the-job training, free
room and board and security. Re-enlistment
rates are very high, partly because every
servicewoman earns the same pay as a male
of the same rank?an equality rare in the
civilian world.
[From NBC Sunday Night News, Sept. 1,
6:30 p.m.]
U.S. ARMY COED BARRACKS
ROWAN. Women in the United States Army
are nothing new as we all know. But women
living in the same barracks as men in that
same United States Army, well that is some-
thing new as we learn in this report from Pet
Thompson.
PAT THOMPSON. The military life has al-
ways been thought of as the ultimate strong-
hold of the male. This is part of the new
military which the Pentagon is trying to sell
to volunteers.
This is D Company at Fort Benjamin Har-
rison. It's different not only because it's made
up of personnel from all services attending
the Defense Information School, but it also
has both men and women. Even more un-
usual is the fact that both the men and
women live in the same barracks. They're not
the same kind of barracks most veterans re-
member, they're made up of individual rooms
like those found in a college dormitory. Men
share rooms right next to women.
PFC LANETTE FISCHER. Well my mother's
first reaction to?when I told her we were
going coed she was under the impression it
was one floor has females, one floor has males
and this sort of thing. And in a phone call
a little while later I had said, well the ser-
geant next door, the male sergeant next door.
And she said, the what, in the phone call and
it really threw her for a loop
THOMPSON. The men and women spend a
lot of time together. They eat most of their
meals close together, then classes together
and they relax together. This togetherness
has had some predictable results.
This couple Navy Seaman James REATHL
and Army Private Lee LONG met in the bar-
racks and now they're going to get married
next week. Some old Army types don't like to
see this, uniformed personnel holding hands
while on duty. But it's all part of the new
military.
Seaman REATHL. I think it's a much more
realistic way to live. I think it's definitely a
good step for the military to take, it shows
that they're keeping up with changes, that
are taking place in America, I think, today.
THOMPSON. Airman James LEWIS has
mixed emotions about the coed life style. He
likes it but it also presents a special problem
for him.
MAN. Now you are married, how does your
wife feel about it?
Airman JAMES LEWIS. Well my wife doesn't
really know that this is a coed dorm.
THOMPSON. The Army feels that the experi-
mental program at Fort Benjamin Harrison
has worked so well that it will mix the sec-
tions' in most of the units at the Indiana
base in October.
One of the women who will be affected by
this says she wants good substantial locks
on her door. But she's definitely in the
minority.
Psi: THOMPSON. NBC News.
[From the Philadelphia Bulletin,
Sept. 1, 1974]
ARMY APPLAUDS ITS WOMEN AS "DAMNED
GOOD SOLDIERS"
(By Claude Lewis)
A couple of years ago it clearly would have
been a matter for laughter. But no more.
Today's Army?or at least a part of it?has
gone soft.
Over at Ft. Dix in N.J. nearly two dozen
women soldiers moved in with the men, last
week, filling the air with an odd mixture of
after-shaving lotion and hairspray.
Once Army barracks were filled with
cheesecake pin-ups of Marilyn Monroe and
Jane Russell. That was the real Army, man!
But now the pin-ups are liable to be cen-
terfolds of actor Jim Brown or Burt Reynolds,
as women begin fixing up their rooms in the
same barracks with the male soldiers. Rules
require that men and women stay on sep-
arate levels.
But if soldiers are trained to crack the iron
curtain what's to stop them from infiltrating
a back stairwell and doing what comes nat-
urally?,
"We're all adults and everyone knows right
from wrong," a sergeant said at Ft. Dix the
other day. He didn't even crack a smile.
"Yeah," beamed a GI, eyeing a pretty sol-
dier. With girls as attractive as some of those
joining the Army, it's no wonder the military
reaches its quotas so often.
Actually, women in the Army are no joke.
In many cases they are proving to be su-
perior to men, in education, and in basic
training.
Department of Defense policy dictates that
all females in the military must be high
school graduates. As for men, they merely
have to be able to chew gum and walk at the
same time.
If women still suffer from discrimination
in civilian life, the all-voluntary army prom-
ises them equal opportunity.
They are joining the army in unprece-
dented numbers and, according to army offi-
cials, are proving to be "damned good sol-
diers."
In addition, said Maj. Gen. Charles Hixon,
"women have had a tremendous effect on the
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
S 16394
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE September 11, .7 9 7 4
male population." The men are said to be i
trying to keep up with their female counter- f
parts.
"The women . . ? in the first week of
training, they're all in step," Maj. Gen. Hixon
insists. "They're easier to train, oh yes. When
we say jump, the question they ask is: 'Is
that high enough?"
There is even a bit of healthy rivalry and
snobbishness between male and female re-
cruits, especially since all females must In4c1
high school diplomas and since tests given
women who are generally more stringent
than those taken my men.
A female soldier explained recently:
"The women do better than the men, def-
initely. For one thing we have to be smarter.
We have to be in better physical health ...
we're just more intelligent.
With the new all-volunteer army and no
U.S. involvement in a hot engagement, to-
day's war stories will probably read like
something out of Romance Magazine. Now
that the sergeant may be a female, who's
going to bother about Signing up for over-
seas duty?
Army Private Jill Whisker, 22 of Savanna,
Ill., said she liked the coed living arrange-
ments. "It's natural," she smiled. Pvt. Whis-
ker, who attended Illinois State University,
said the arrangement at the school was
pretty much the same as the army's.
"It worked out fine," she said, "It's a
brother and sister kind of thing. We look out
for each other."
The whole thing sort of makes me yearn
for the military life. I understand they've
even raised the pay. What a way to go to war!
[From the Baltimore News American,
Sept. 3, 19741
SHE FLIES INTO HURRICANE
JACKSONVILLE, Fr.a.?Judy_ rZeuffer looks at
herself as a woman who has been in the right
place at the right time, twIce.
The first was when the Navy opened flight
training to women.
The second came on Sunday when she was
In the pilot's seat of a Navy P3 weather re-
connaissance plane which penetrated the eye
of Hurricant Carmen, with its winds of 1'75
miles per hour.
The 25-year-old lieutenant from Wooster,
Ohio thus became the first women pilot in
naval history to fly into a hurricane's eye.
"I didn't know what to elpect, but I think
I can honestly say I didn't feel fear," she
said. "I have lots of confidence in the aircraft
and in the crew. They knew their job and
they know it well."
She also was helped by the commanding of-
ficer of the four-engine turboprop jet.
Cmdr. Dick Birch, an experienced hurricane
hunter who supported her and briefed her
on what to expect.
Birch said she compares will with other new
pilots.
"Basically, she did a super job," he said.
"When I found out I was getting a woman
pilot, I expected a tomboy or a woman'slib-
ber. This is just a young lady who seriously
wants to be a pilot. She knows she's being
observed as a new breed, so she makes an ex-
tra effort to do as well as she can."
Lt. Neuffer has been in the Navy for four
years since graduation from Ohio State 'Uni-
versity. Her first assignment was at a Com-
puter center in San Diego.
When the Navy opened its flight program
to women, Lt. Neuffer, the daughter of a
World War IT fighter pilot, rushed to apply.
"I had spent most of my life around air-
ports because my father has worked at or
managed airports since the war. Flying'S in
my blood," she said.
"I was surprised when I got this assign-
ment. But I wanted weather work, so I took
the chance, and I made it."
The Navy's five other female pilots are all
in the cargo transport division.
She says she didn't begin her flight train-
ng "to prove a point, advance women or fight
or my rights. I'm in it because I enjoy fly-
ing. I looked at myself as a pilot trying to
do what I've been trained to do.
"I don't consider myself a women's libber,
but I do believe in equal opportunity. I know
many people are watching me to see how I
do. I won't get up on a soap box and meek
out, but I hope my performance as a pilot
Can speak out for me."
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope
that this amendment, which was, as 1 say,
initially submitted by the distinguished
Senator from Maine and is now offered
by myself and him, will be accepted by
the managers of the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the Senator
include my name as a cosponsor?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the name of the
Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD)
be included as a cosponsor of the amend-
ment, as well as the names of the Sena-
tor from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY) the
Senator from Ohio (Mr. METZENBAUM),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Wn.-
LiAms) , the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
Brom), and the Senator from New York
(Mr. Jams).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, today
I am joining with Senator KENNEDY in
introducing an amendment to the mili-
tary construction bill This amendment
would authorize the construction funds
for the service academies to be used for
whatever construction might be neces-
sary to admit women to the academies.
I have already introduced a bill in the
Senate that would allow women to be
admitted to the service academies. This
bill was introduced last summer and
passed the Senate without opposition in
December as an amendment to S. 2771,
the enlistment bonus bill. The other co-
sponsors of the amendment to S. 2771
were Senators THURMOND, JANTITS, and
MANSFIELD, and the amendment had the
active support of Senator JOHN armor's,
the chairman of the Senate Armed Serv-
ices Committee. Thus, the amendment
had the support of both the chaarman
and the ranking Republican of that com-
mittee. That amendment was deleted
from S. 2771 in the House Armed Services
Committee by a margin of one vote under
circumstances which gave rise to exas-
peration on the part of some of the-mem-
bers of that committee.
I have more recently introduced a
substitute amendment to my original bill
which contains some technical changes.
This amendment has the support of a
large number of Senators, including
Senators DomINICK , JACKSON, GOLD-
WATER, NUNN, and HUGHES, all of whom
are on the Senate Armed Services Com-
mittee, as well as the original cosponsors
of the amendment to S. 2771.
Mr. President, the best military train-
ing in the world takes place at the Amer-
ican Service Academies. This training is
available for men, some of whom are not
even American citizens. It is not available
for American women, no matter how
well qualified they may be.
The service academies have never
satisfactorily explained the reason for
this discriminatory policy. They say it
is because the mission a the academies
is combat training, but most of the train-
ing which takes place at the academies
is not combat related, and no reason has
ever been advanced as to why women
are not allowed to receive academy train-
ing for the noncombat roles they have
been filling in the services for many
years. The Department of Defense made
the following statement in its report on
S. 2351 my bill in the Senate to allow
women to be admitted to the academies:
There are numerOus officer billets in the
armed services, other than in combat roles
which are necessary to the effective:less of
the military services. Competence in these
positions is no less important than in ,orriliat
roles,
Surely the best training for these non-
combat roles is also to be found at the
service academies. For the good of mo-
rale of the services, as well as because of
our own beliefs, that training shculd be
equally available to all.
The second reason most often given
for excluding women la the expense of
remodeling the facilities to accommo-
date them, but Women have been ac-
commodated in the Regular Army with-
out any particularly burdensome ex-
pense. Furthermore, any remodeling ex-
pense would be trifling compared to the
overall cost of operating the academies.
The purpose of the amendment I am
offering today with Senator KENNEDY,
however, isato make it Clear that there is
no longer any economic excuse whatso-
ever for excluding women from the serv-
ice academies. We feel -it is time to act.
We have removed discrimination in
many other areas. It is time to remove
it in this area as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD an
article which was published in Newsweek
on September 9, 1974.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE ARMY: FALL IN!
It's enough to make an old topkick tear
his hair. The Army basic-training center at
Fort Dix, N.J., has succuinbed to the sexual
revolution. Specifically, Building 5406, a
three-story, cinderblock structure designed
as a 160-man barracks, now houses fifteen
men and eighteen women, making it the
Army's first permanent coed barracks.
So successful has the experiment been,
says the brass at Fort Dix, that by the end
of October, all 3M3 WAC personnel will be
reassigned to previously all-male barracks on
the post. The cost of converting Building
5406 was "minimal," requiring only strong
locks on the doore to the third floor, where
the women are billeted, and a 24-hoar guard
at the stairway to the second-floor, where
the men sleep. Mingling of the sexes is con-
fined to the first-floor day room (pool tables,
Ping Pong, TV).
So far, all personnel seem to be pleased
with the arrangements. "You get more of a
feeling of belonging to a unit," says Pvt.
Betty Ruiz. The men, predictably, would
like expanded visiting rights, but there
seems to be little Clanger of their tsking too
many liberties. The eighteen tradition-shat-
tering women in Building 5406 belong to the
post's military-police battalion.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
have discussed the amendment. of the
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050003-1
Arroved For Release 2005/06/09 ? CIA-RDP7TERROR000700050003-1
September 11, 19 4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? S S 16395
distinguished senior Senator from Mas-
sachusetts and the distinguished junior
Senator from Maine with the distin-
guished senior Senator from South Car-
olina, the ranking Republican member of
the Armed Services Commitee, and we
will be glad to take the amendment to
conference.
May I say, speaking for myself, that
I think it is a constructive amendment,
and would look forward to being able to
sustain it with the House of Representa-
tives.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ap-
preciate that sentiment. When we have
a statement of support by the floor
manager, we probably should remain
quiet, but I wish to underline one point:
that there is nothing compulsory in this
amendment whatsoever. It is a reaffirma-
tion by the Members of the Senate of
our own belief in the importance of pro-
viding this kind of training for young
women. There is absolutely nothing com-
pulsory; it is completely discretionary
to the military forces, but it is a clear
indication of the sentiment and feeling
of the Members of Congress on this par-
ticular issue.
I appreciate the expression of support
on the part of the floor manager, and I
yield the floor.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me merely for a ques-
tion?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. STENNIS. I have already gone on
record as supporting an amendment of
this type. But I do want to point out to
him that the manager of the bill in the
conference, who would be the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) Could
well be up against a stone wall in the
conference on this matter because the
House has heretofore said that it vio-
lated their own rules, and maybe these
rules of germaneness?I say maybe?and
then maybe somebody someday will add
up the number of Senate amendments
adopted by conference and open a score
against the whole committee.
I am not against the amendment of the
Senator from Massachusetts. He has
been very cooperative and understand-
ing. He has had some good amendments,
and we brought back all of them we
could. Ido think this presents a problem
and I thought it just ought to be frankly
mentioned here. These military bills that
have to pass in one form or another?
and this is one of them?are pretty
handy things to hang an amendment on.
It leads to delay and trouble.
So I thank the Senator for his re-
marks, and I would support his amend-
ment on its merits.
Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the ex-
pression of the Senator from Mississippi.
I do think there is a difference in this
legislation from an amendment that
went on the military pay bonus bill last
year. Even though that was a clear ex-
pression of the Members of the Senate
in support of the purposes of that amend-
ment, we are now dealing with military
constructiont and I think this amend-
ment is entirely appropriate to be at-
tached to this particular proposal. Hope-
fully, with that distinction which, I think,
Is an extremely powerful one, and with
the clear and persuasive voice of the
Senator from Mississippi and the Sena-
tor from Missouri in defending the Sen-
ate's position, perhaps we will be able to
achieve the purposes of this amendment.
I appreciate the comments of the Sen-
ator from Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OrriCER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Massachusetts.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that during the con-
sideration of H.R. 16136 it be in order
that a separate vote occur on section 612
of the committee substitute prior to the
vote on the entire committee substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I do this, Mr. Pres-
ident, because I think this is a good bill,
and I think the committee has been as-
siduous and exacting in its study of the
needs of the Nation in the field of mili-
tary construction, and I want to show my
support?and I am sure the entire Senate
will?in the way in which this committee
has worked under the chairmanship of
the distinguished Senator from Missis-
sippi (Mr. STENNIS) the chairmanship
of the distinguished Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. SYMINGTON) as well as the
ranking Republican members, the dis-
tinguished Senator from South Carolina