BY MR. HUMPHREY: S. 1547. A BILL TO ESTABLISH A JOINT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100019-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 2001
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: April 11, 1973
• Content Type: OPEN

S 7082 Approved For Rele & ffAil kp8kW_LO?J N700100019-3 April 11, 1973
(Mr. CHURCH) prohibiting the reengage-
ment of U.S. forces in land, sea or air
combat anywhere "in: or over or from off
the shores" of the entire Indochina area.
Mr. President, we no longer can permit
the President's warmaking powers to go
unchecked and unchallenged. The legal
legerdemain that the administration of-
fers is an open challenge to the Congress
to assert our constitutional responsibility.
Accordingly, Mr. President, I send the
bill to the desk for appropriate reference,
and ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the RECORD at this
point.
There being no objection, the bill was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
S. 1544
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That in order
to avoid further involvement of the United
States in armed hostilities in Cambodia, no
funds heretofor or hereafter appropriated
may be expended to finance the involvement
of any member of the armed forces of the
United States in armed hostilities in or over
Cambodia unless such expenditure has been
specifically authorized by legislation enacted
after the date of enactment of this Act.
By Mr. TOWER:
S. 1545. A bill to amend title 37, United
States Code, so as to extend from 1 to 3
years the period that a member of the
uniformed services has following retire-
ment to select his home for purposes of
travel and transportation allowances
under such title, and for other purposes.
Referred to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, in the last
Congress, I introduced a measure to cor-
rect what I felt to be .an unfortunate
problem connected with the armed serv-
ices. That bill, S. 1321, very simply would
have extended the time a member of the
uniformed services has following his re-
tirement to select his home for purposes
of travel and transportation allowances.
As you know, a serviceman is currently
allowed 1 year after the date of his re-
tirement in which to select his permanent
home site for purposes of PCS travel and
transportation allowances. But this un-
necessarily short time places a burden
on those parents with children in high
school. Many times the child must forgo
graduation from the school in which he
has spent his secondary years so that the
final move may be made, as is the serv-
iceman's right at Government expense.
There are, of course, other exceptional
instances which prevent full utilization
of this privilege, for example a serious
illness which precludes movement of the
patient.
No matter what the reason, however,
the 1-year limit is an arbitrarily short
one. Extension of the limit to 3years will
solve most problems that could occur and
yet will not create additional costs to the
Government. I ask my colleagues to join
me in effecting rapid consideration and
passage of this legislation, which I intro-
duce today.
By Mr. HUMPHREY:
S. 154. A bill to establish a Joint
Co 1 e on National Security. Re-
ferred to the Committee on Armed
Services.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I am
introducing a bill today which would es-
tablish a permanent Joint Congressional
Committee on National Security.
I believe this committee will enable
Congress to address itself in a more com-
prehensive way than ever before to a
thorough and ongoing analysis and eval-
uation of our national security policies
and goals.
If the 93d Congress has one important
objective, it should be redressing the im-
balance between the executive and leg-
islative branches relating to both do-
mestic and foreign policy.
I propose that the committee have
these main functions:
First, to study and make recommenda-
tions on all issues concerning national
security. This would include review of the
President's report on the state of the
world, the defense budget and foreign as-
sistance programs as they relate to na-
tional security goals, and U.S. disarma-
ment policies as a part of our deense
considerations.
Second, to study and make recom-
mendations on Government practices of
classification and declassification of
documents.
Third, to conduct a continuing review
of the operations of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency, the Departments of
Defense and State, and other agencies
intimately involved with our foreign
policy.
For too many years, the Congress has
had inadequate information on matters
concerning national security. We in the
Congress have had to accept partial in-
formation, often in limited context, and
as a result have been unable to weigh
the total picture.
The consequence of this situation has
been a continuing dimunition in the for-
eign policy role of the Congress.
It is often difficult for Congress to
obtain adequate disclosure of Govern-
ment documents. On several important
occasions heads of the Defense and State
Departments and members of the Na-
tional Security Council have claimed
executive privilege and have refused to
answer congressional inquiries on mat-
ters concerning our national security.
While the President and key Govern-
ment officials meet occasionally with the
leaders of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on an informal basis,
there is no forum for a regular and frank
exchange between the Congress and the
executive branches on the vital issues
affecting our national security. I am par-
ticularly sensitive to this missing link,
having had the special experience of
serving as a U.S. Senator for 17 years
and as Vice President for 4 years.
The Joint Committee on National Se-
curity would provide that link.
It would function in the national se-
curity field in a manner comparable to
the Joint Economic Committee, which
conducts a systematic review and anal-
ysis of the President's annual economic
report.
Its unique feature would be the com-
position of its membership. It would have
representation from those individual and
committee jurisdictions that have pri-
mary responsibility in military, foreign
relations, and congressional leadership.
It would include the President pro
tempore of the Senate; the Speaker of
the House; the majority and minority
leaders of both Houses, and the chair-
men and ranking minority members of
the Committees on Appropriations, For-
eign Relations, and Armed Services, and
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
It would not usurp the legislative or
investigative functions of any present
committees, but supplement and coordi-
nate their efforts in a more comprehen-
sive framework.
I want to emphasize this last point.
The proposed Joint Committee on Na-
tional Security is not being created as a
competing force with the Armed Services
Committee or the Foreign Relations
Committee of which I am proud to once
again be a member. It will be a way to
coordinate the information which the
Congress so desperately needs to carry
out its oversight responsibilities of the
executive branch in the field of national
security.
Nor is it designed to usurp the Presi-
dent's historic role as Commander in
Chief, or to put the Congress in an ad-
versary relationship with the executive
branch.
It is, rather, a new body, to be com-
posed of members of both parties and
both Houses of Congress, that will make
possible closer consultation and coopera-
tion between the President and the Con-
gress.
In recent years, we have seen a gradual
isolation and insulation of power within
the executive branch. The Constitution,
I suggest, intended something quite dif-
ferent when it called for a separation of
powers.
We have not had the mechanism in
our national security apparatus for ade-
quate consultation between the two
branches in the formulation of national
security policy.
As one observer of the foreign policy
process observed:
National security is too important to be
left to the national security apparatus.
I concur with this view. The President
and his national security advisers have a.
duty and constitutional obligation to re-
linquish some part of the initiative which
they now command in the conduct of
American foreign policy.
There are reasons for the concentra-
tion of power which has developed with-
in the executive branch which are quite
understandable considering our experi-
ence in World Wear II and afterward. But
times change, and so must our institu-
tions and responses.
In an article in Foreign Affairs, July
1959, I expressed my concern over this
development. I noted that the Congress
"with its power of the purse, and through
the right to investigate, to criticize, and
to advocate-does exert a significant in-
fluence on the quality and direction of
U.S. foreign policy."
I found that the Congress must have
its own vehicle for educating itself and
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100019-3
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100019-3
April 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 7081
curity Act. Since 1967, these special proj-
:!ct grants have made possible one of the
best investments of the Federal health
care dollar. Maternal and Infant Care,
Children and Youth, Newborn Intensive
Care, Dental Care, and Family Planning
projects have had a profound impact on
the populations they serve, contributing
to the reduction of infant mortality, af-
.Lecting morbidity rates, and decreasing
the rate, duration and cost of hospital-
ization for high-risk pregnant women,
infants, and children.
In 1967, Congress revised the social se-
curity provisions under title V to redis-
tribute maternal and child health moneys
co that general support, through formula
grants, would be n3a4e available to all
States to promote optimal health care
for mothers and children, "ile targeted
support, through special protect grants,
would direct financial resources"to geo-
graphical areas of greatest need.'`Cton-
gress anticipated that the special project
grants, through steady increases in fund
ing, would develop to a point that begin-
ning July 1972, the States would assume
responsibility for them.
In early 1972 the Comptroller General
prepared a report for Congress which
pointed out that many States would not
have the funds to assume responsibility
for the special projects and that neither
the Federal Goverfinent nor the States
had made adequate plans for the tran-
sition. Although the Acadeiily-of Pediat-
rics, the American Medical Association,
the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, as well as other meds
ical and health related associations, rec-
ommended that the authority for special
project grants be extended for an addi-
tional 5 years, Congress approved only
a 1-year extension last year. Reports are
that the 1-year extension has not been
adequate to effect an orderly transition
process.
Take Illinois as an example. The im-
pending change in funding distribution
will reduce Illinois' share of maternal
and child health funds by 42 percent or
$3.5 million. Such a drastic reduction
will have a major effect on the avail-
ability of services to pregnant women,
infants, and children in medically in-
digent communities in Illinois where
there is virtually no alternative health
care. According to the state department
of public health, Maternity and Infant
Care programs, which currently serve
123,666 patients, and children and youth
programs, which serve 57,600 children,
will have to suffer a 50-percent cutback
should such a reduction take effect.
On the merits of effectiveness alone,
these special project grants deserve our
continued support. In a 1969 study, mor-
tality for maternal and_ infant care
newborns in Chicago was 19.4 per thou-
sand live births, as compared with 19.9
per 1,000 for newborns under private
physician care, 31.2 per 1,000 for new-
borns in hospital clinics, and 21.7 per
1,000 for American newborns in general.
Equally important, the average annual
cost per child in the Chicago children
and youth program is $120, while com-
parable cost per child under medicaid Is
$300. Such achievements are extraordi-
nary in view of the fact that the patients
served under these programs are drawn
from the least healthy areas of the
State.
Ill. nois, it must be stressed, is not an
exception to the rule. Nationwide infant
mortality rates decreased by only 5 per-
cent between 1960 and 1965; after ma-
ternal and infant care projects began,
infant mortality rates decreased by 19
percent between 1965 and 1970. Since
the beginning of maternal and child
health projects, there has been a 50-per-
cent decrease in the number of children
served who needed hospitalization, a
decrease of more than 50 percent among
those served in dental recall examina-
tions. Most important, the average an-
nual cost per child in these projects
dropped from $201.26 in. 1968 to $149.82
in 1970.
It should be noted that the President,
commendably, has recognized the worth
of these programs. Maternal and child
health is not one of the activities de-
signed to be phased out or significantly
'seduced. In fact, the President's fiscal
1$14 budget request for maternal and
child health is $244 million, an increase
of $5' illion over the past appropriation.
It should also be empaasized that the
bill which Senator MONDALE and I are
introducing, today does not ask for one
penny more than the President's budget
request for maternal and child health.
We are merely aging for a 2-year exten-
sion of the specialrojecl; grant authority
so th it some very sit cess,ful and effective
health programs might continue to exist
and perhaps enjoy incorporation into
whatever new health delivery for financ-
ing system is enacted b3\';Congress.
By Mr. MONDALE Uor himself,
Mr. NELSON, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr.
PELL, Mr. CRANISTON, Mr. Moss,
Mr. HUGHES, Mr. TUNNEY, Mr.
CLARK. Mr. ABGUREZK, and Mr.
HATHAWAY) :
S. 1544. A bill to prohibit the further
expenditure of funds to finance the in-
volve went of the Armed Forces of the
United States in armed hostilities in
Cambodia. Referred to the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, today
I am introducing, along with Senators
NELSON, HUMPHREY, PELL, CRANSTON,
Moss, HUGHES, TUNNEY, CLARK,
ABOUREZK, and HATHAWAY, a bill to pro-
hibit the further expenditure of funds
to finance the involvement of the Armed
Forces of the United 8;tates in armed
hostu ities in Cambodia unless such ex-
pend:.ture has been specifically author-
ized by Congress.
Mr. President, my bill is simple. It
provides that money can be spent for
U.S. combat efforts in Cambodia only
if authorized by Congress.
My purpose is also simple. It is to avoid
a constitutional tragedy as well as fur-
ther human tragedy. Twelve years after
American forces were first committed to
Vietnam in the name of protecting a
friendly but vulnerable government, once
again a President of the United States,
entirely on his own, is using U.S. mili-
tary :Porte in a foreign country with ab-
solutely no constitutional authority for
doing so.
In pursuit of a will-of-the-wisp-the
North Vietnamese Command Head-
quarters-COSVN-we invaded Cam-
bodia in April 1970. On March 12 of that
year, the Nixon administration indicated,
in a letter to Chairman J. W. FULBRIGHT,
that it was no longer depending on the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution "as legal or
constitutional authority for its present
conduct of foreign relations." The sole
constitutional authority claimed by the
administration for our military activity
in Indochina has been, as the President
stated in 1970, "the right of the Presi-
dent of the United States under the
Constitution to protect the lives of Amer-
ican men."
But now that U.S. combat forces are
out of Vietnam, U.S. participation in the
Vietnam war has ended. Hence any re-
newed military activity anywhere in In-
.dochina constitutes-even according to
the President's own reasoning-a new
war and therefore the need for the ad-
vance consent of Congress.
Yet incredible as it may now seem, we
are witnessing massive air raids over
Cambodia. On April 10, U.S. B-52 and F-
111 fighter planes struck insurgent forces
for the 33d consecutive day. As many as
60 B-52 sorties are flown in a single day,
dropping an estimated 1,800 tons of
bombs. We are told that this bombing
is essential to support the beseiged Lon
Nol government.
Efforts by the administration in re-
cent days to justify its bombing policy
have been imaginative but futile. The
SEATO Treaty commitment has been
suggested, but the government of Lon
Nol has not altered Prince Sihanouk's
1955 decision to exempt Cambodia from
the treaty's protection. A tenuous link has
been offered by Ambassador William Sul-
livan of . the State Department and Sec-
retary of Defense Richardson between
the President's mandate to make war and
his reelection mandate. Surely this can-
not be a serious point. State Department
lawyers have reportedly produced a com-
plex rationalization, but so far they are
reluctant to reveal it. The administration
has also tried to rely on a tacit under-
standing of an ambiguous section-ar-
ticle 20-of the Paris Agreement-an
agreement which was not even sub-
mitted to Congress for ratification-as
ju:5tification for its actions.
Finally, Secretary Richardson said that
the administration feels its constitu-
tional authority to bomb Cambodia "rests
on the circumstance that we are coming
out of a 10-year period of conflict."
'this is the wind up ... So I think one
way of putting it is that what we are doing in
effect is to try to encourage the observance
of the Paris agreements by engaging in air
action at the request of the government,
which is the principal victim of the non-
observance of the agreements.
Such a rationale could easily be ex-
tended to involve us again inboth Laos
and Vietnam as well as Cambodia. And
it is ominous that Richardson, in fact,
refuses to rule out the reintroduction of
American troops into Vietnam. Because
of this possible danger, I continue to
support the legislation introduced by the
senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
CASE) and the senior Senator from Idaho
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100019-3
 April 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
expressing ideas on this question and
the more general issue of national secu-
rity.
I wrote:
Such independent expertise is absolutely
necessary if the House and Senate are to
fulfill their constitutional responsibility of
surveillance and initiative. Without com-
petent independent sources of fact and wis-
dom they cannot make discriminating judg-
ments between alternative programs and
proposals.
I, therefore, suggested:
The Congress prompt the executive to put
its house in order by itself creating a Joint
Committee on National Strategy, to include
the chairmen and ranking minority' mem-
bers of the major committees of the House
and the Senate.
Such a comitteem's purpose would be
to look at our total national strategy-
military, political, economic and ideo-
logical. This committee would not usurp
the functions of any of the present com-
mittees, but supplement them by en-
dowing their work with a larger frame
of reference. As I said in 1959:
The Chairmen of the Committees rep-
resented would come away from the meeting
of the new Joint Committee with a greater
appreciation, for instance, of the relation-
ship between fiscal policy and national pro-
ductivity and how both factors relate to
our defense posture and our negotiating
position. Responsible statesmanship consists
precisely in the capacity to see complex
relationships in a perspective as broad as
the national purpose itself.
Mr. President, I made that proposal in
1959. Had it been adopted, perhaps the
history of the past 12 years might have
been different. I cannot help but believe
that if we had shared more fully in mo-
mentous decisions, like those In Viet-
nam, we would be less divided as a nation
by the bitterness and hatreds that con-
front us today.
But I submit, Mr. President, that now
is not the time for regrets. It is a time for
careful and responsible decision; it is a
time to adapt our institutions to change;
above all, it is a time to act.
It is not enough for the Congress to
insist upon its prerogatives if it is not
prepared to cope with its responsibilities.
The executive branch, recognizing the
deep interrelationships between issues of
foreign affairs, military policy, and some
crucial domestic issues prepared itself
to fulfill its responsibilities to the Con-
stitution by forming a National Security
Council.
It is fitting, therefore, that the Con-
gress adopt a similar, parallel and coun-
terpart mechanism: a Joint Congres-
sional Committee on National Security,
which could draw on the experience and
expertise of legislative leaders in vari-
ous national security areas.
Our existing congressional committees
lack coordination. The joint committee
would not, under my proposal, usurp any
of the functions of these committees of
the two Houses, but would address itself
to the broad-gaged issues that overlap
their jurisdictions and thereby assist the
congressional and executive decision-
making process.
Issues of defense, arms control, foreign
development and security assistance, na-
tional priorities, foreign policies, the de-
velopment of a global concept for our
national interests, and a simultaneous
evaluation of our security interests, clas-
sification and declassification proce-
dures-all these and many more issues
require coordination and a broad focus.
The joint committee I am proposing
would concentrate on these and other
topics. Let me summarize why I believe
such a committee is desirable:
First, it would provide for a total anal-
ysis and evaluation of national security
jointly by both Houses of Congress.
Second, it would permit closer consul-
tation and cooperation in national secu-
rity planning with the executive branch
than is now possible. This, I believe,
would help restore the intended balance
of power between the two branches and
strengthen the decisionmaking process.
Third, the committee will have the
power to review and simplify classifica-
tion procedures and to declassify docu-
ments whose contents should not be with-
held from the public. Thus, we can
achieve greater understanding, support,
and public participation in the establish-
ment of our objectives and policies.
The composition of the joint committee
can be summarized as the following:
The Joint Committee-
First. There will be 25 members with
fully bipartisan representation. The ma-
jority party will have three members
more than the minority party.
Second. The experienced authority of
the Congress would be fully represented
on the joint committee.
Third. Each House also would have the
opportunity to be represented by out-
standing members who are not chairmen
or elected leaders through the provision
for membership of two majority and one
minority member from each House.
For a more complete description of the
functions and composition of this com-
mittee, I ask, Mr. President, unanimous
consent that the bill to establish a Joint
Committee on National Security be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
S. 1547
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
Congress declares that-
(1) it has been vested with responsibility
under the Constitution to assist in the for-
mulation of the foreign, domestic, and mili-
tary policies of the United States;
(2) such policies are directly related to the
security of the United States;
(3) -the integration of such policies pro-
motes our national security; and
(4) the National Security Council was es-
tablished by the National Security Act of
1947 as a means of integrating such policies
and furthering the national security.
SEC. 2. (a) In order to enable the Congress
to more effectively carry out its constitu-
tional responsibility in the formulation of
foreign, domestic, and military policies of the
United States and in order to provide the
Congress with an improved means for formu-
lating legislation and providing for the inte-
gration of such policies which will further
promote the security of the United States,
there is established a joint committee of the
Congress which shall be known as the Joint
Committee on National Security, hereafter
S 7083
referred to as the "joint committee". The
joint committee shall be composed of
twenty-five Members of Congress as follows:
(1) the Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives;
(2) the majority and minority leaders of
the Senate and the House of Representa-
tives;
(3) the chairmen and ranking minority
members of the Senate Committee on Appro-
priations, the Senate Committee on Armed
Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, and the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy.
(4) the chairman and ranking minority
members of the House Appropriations Com-
mittee, the House Armed Services Commit-
tee, and the House Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee;
(5) three Members of the Senate appointed
by the President of the Senate, two of
whom shall be members of the majority party
and one of whom shall be a member of the
minority party;
(6) three Members of the House of Rep-
resentatives appointed by the Speaker, two of
whom shall be members of the majority party
and one of whom shall be a member of the
minority party.
(b) The joint committee shall select a
chairman and a vice chairman from among
its members.
(c) Vacancies in the membership of the
joint committee shall not affect the power
of the remaining members to execute the
functions of the joint committee and shall
be filled in the same manner as in the case
of the original appointment.
SEc. 3. (a) The joint committee shall have
the following functions:
(1) to make a continuing study of the
foreign, domestic, and military policies of
the United States with a view to determin-
ing whether and the extent to which such
policies are being appropriately integrated
in furtherance of the national security;
(2) to make a continuing study of the
recommendations and activities of the Na-
tional Security Council relating to such
policies, with particular emphasis upon re-
viewing the goals, strategies, and alternatives
of such foreign policy, considered by the
Council; and
(3) to make a continuing study of Gov-
ernment practices and recommendations
with respect to the classification and de-
classification of documents, and to recom-
mend certain procedures to be implemented
for the classification and declassification of
such material.
(b) The joint committee shall make re-
ports from time to time (but not less than
once each year) to the Senate and House of
Representatives with respect to its studies.
The reports shall contain such findings,
statements, and recommendations as the
joint committee considers appropriate.
SEC. 4. (a) The joint committee, or any
subcommittee thereof, is authorized, in its
discretion (1) to make expenditures, (2) to
employ personnel, (3) to adopt rules respect-
ing its organization and procedures, (4) to
hold hearings, (5) to sit and act at any time
or place, (6) to subpena witnesses and docu-
ments, (7) with the prior consent of the
agency concerned, to use on a reimbursable
basis the services of personnel, information,
and facilities of any such agency, (8) to pro-
cure printing and binding, (9) to procure
the temporary services (not in excess of one
year) or intermittent services of individual
consultants, or organizations thereof, and to
provide assistance for the training of its
professional staff, in the same manner and
under the same conditions as a standing
committee of the Senate may procure such
services and provide such assistance under
subsections (i) and (j), respectively, of sec-
tion 202 of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946, and (10) to take depositions and
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100019-3
 ,Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100019-3
S 7084 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE April 11, 1973
other testimony. No rule shall be adopted by
the joint committee under clause (3) pro-
viding that a finding, statement, recom-
mendation, or report may be made by other
than a majority of the members of the joint
committee then holding office.
(b) Subpenas may be issued over the sig-
nature of the chairman of the joint commit-
tee or by any member designated by him or
the joint committee, and may be served by
such person as may be designated by such
chairman or member. The chairman of the
joint committee or any member thereof may
administer oaths to witnesses. The provi-
sions of sections 102-104 of the Revised
Statutes (2 U.S.C. 192-194) shall apply In
the case of any failure of any witness to com-
ply with a subpena or to testify when sum-
moned under authority of this section.
(c) With the consent of any standing,
select, or special committee of the Senate or
House, or any subcommittee, the joint com-
mittee may utilize the services of any staff
member of such House or Senate committee
or subcommittee whenever the chairman of
the joint committee determines that such
services are necessary and appropriate.
(d) The expenses of the joint committee
shall be paid from the contingent fund of
the Senate from funds appropriated for the
joint committee, upon vouchers signed by
the chairman of the joint committee or by
any member of the joint committee au-
thorized by the chairman..
(e) Members of the joint committee, and
its personnel, experts, and consultants, while
traveling on official business for the joint
committee within or outside the United
States, may receive either the per diem al-
lowance authorized to be paid to Members
of the Congress or its employees, or their
actual and necessary expenses if an itemized
statement of such expenses is attached to
the voucher.
By Mr. PELL (for himself; Mr.
PASTORE, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr.
BROOKE) :
S. 1548, A bill to establish a Commis-
sion to review the proposed closing of
any military installation. Referred to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am intro-
ducing today legislation to establish a
Commission to review and evaluate pro-
posals by the Department of Defense for
closing of military installations within
the United States.
Joining me in presenting this legisla-
tion are my distinguished senior col-
league from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE ,
and my distinguished colleagues from
Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY and Mr.
BROOKE).
I am presenting this legislation be-
cause of my deep concern over reports
of impending an:aouncements of the
closing of military installations in Rhode
Island, the procedures that are followed
in making decisions on base closings,
and the immense impact that closing of
military installations can have on the
economic life of a region.
The legislation I have proposed would
establish a 17-member Commission, in-
cluding executive branch officials, Mem-
bers of Congress, and public representa-
tives, to review and evaluate proposals
by the Defense Department for the clos-
ing of military installations. The legis-
lation would require 180 days advance
notice of any proposed base closings to
the Commission. The Commission would,
within 90 days of receiving notice of a
proposed base closi:ag, submit to the De-
fense Department and the Congress a
report including its findings and recom-
mendations.
The Commission's recommendations
would be based on a determination of
whether the base closings would be in
the best interest of national defense, the
Nation's economy, and military effi-
ciency.
Mr. President, th:,s legislation is timely
and badly needed.
The Defense Department has con-
firmed that a major package of military
base closings will be announced before
the end of this month.
Because of reports that these impend-
ing base closings vrould affect installa-
tions in the State of Rhode Island, the
Rhode Island congressional delegation
has met twice with Secretary of Defense
Elliot Richardson. The second of these
meetings was held just yesterday in con-
junction with the congressional delega-
tion from Massachusetts in the office of
the majority leader of the House of Re-
:lresentatives THOMAS P. O'NEILL.
At that meeting, it was made clear
that the New England area would be
zard hit by the forthcoming base clos-
.ngs.
And at both of our meetings with See-
retary Richardson, the Members of the
Senate and the House presented cogent
and, I believe, persuasive arguments for
the continued operation of the military
installations in our States.
At the meeting yesterday, I presented
factual information, based on strategic
and cost-saving considerations, that I
believe argue very strongly for the con-
tinued operation of the Newport Naval
Base.
I ask unanimous consent that there be
printed at this point in the RECORD two
charts, prepared at my request by the
General Accounting Office, which demon-
state very clearly the economic and
strategic advantage of maintaining New-
port as the home port of the Atlantic
Cruiser-Destroyer Force.
I think these are factors that should
be considered when vitally important
decisions are made about deployment of
forces and the closing of military in-
stallations.
Mr. President, these decisions are
much too important to be left entirely to
middle level, faceless bureaucrats, op-
erating in the executive branch without
any opportunity for objective public
review.
The decisions are much too important
to economic operation of the Defense
Department, too important to the maxi-
mum strategic use of our military forces,
and much too important to thousands of
workers who have devoted years of their
lives to loyal and efficient service at
these installations, to permit arbitrary
decisions without review.
For example, the civilian workers at
the Naval Air Rework Facility at Quon-
set Point in Rhode Island have through
the years proven their efficiency by meet-
ing production quotas and consistently
achieved their work objectives with
fewer work hours than the targets estab-
lished by the Defense Department. I ask
unanimous consent that there be printed
at this point in the RECORD a table com-
paring the productivity of these workers
with other similar Government facilities,
prepared by my staff with the assistance
of the GAO.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Norwegian Sea (Bergen, Norway) mission area
Home port
Home port
Norfolk
(+26 hours)
Charleston
(+50 hours)
Mayport
(- 76 hours)
Norfolk
(+32 hours)
Charleston
(}58 hours)
Mayport
(+82 hours)
CVS-11 (aircraft carrier, ASW)------- _ ----
$2,070
353,820
$120,060
$157,320
$66,240
$120,060
$169
740
CVA-42 (attack aircraft carrier)-----------------------------------
3,026
78,676
175,508
229,976
96,832
175,508
,
132
248
CV-60 (attack aircraft carrier) I-----------------------------------
3,243
84,318
188,094
246, 468
103, 776
188,094
,
265
926
CA (heavy cruisers) ---------------- ------------------------------
159
4,134
9,222
12, 084
5, 088
9, 222
,
13
038
CG (guided missile cruiser)__________________________________
153
3,978
8,874
11, 1,628
4
896
8
874
,
12
546
DLG (guided missile frigate) - - -
113
2:938
6,554
8, 588
,
3, 616
,
6, 554
,
9
266
DOG (guided missile destroyer)--------------------------- -------------------------------- r-J
85
2,210
4,930
6, 460
2, 720
4, 930
,
6
970
DD (FRAfd I) destroyer ---------____________________________-
61
1,586
3,538
4, 636
1, 952
3
538
,
5
002
DE (1052 class) escort ship - - -
53
1,378
3,074
4,028
1,696
,
3;074
,
4,346
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100019-3
 May 1, 1hpproved For 85"&ABINAZ kECORD 76 0 T vR0007F00r100019-3
T) A
ington, D.C.; Dr. Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, director,
Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Palo
Alto, Calif ; and Dr. Herbert Scoville, Jr., Washington,
D.C.
BUDGET CONTROL
Committee on Government Opera ions: Subcommittee
on Budgeting, Managerqx t and Expenditures ed
control over the budget (S. 4o, 565, 703, 758, 846, 905,
1030, 1213, 1215, 1392, 1414, 1516, 1541, and S. Con. Res.
19), receiving testimony from Representative Ullman
I and Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General Accounti
Hearings continue on Monday, May 7.
ENERGY MESSAGE AND FUEL SHORTAGES
Committee on Interior and Insular Afairs: Committee
concluded hearings on the recent message received from
the President proposing a broad range of actions to
insure an adequate supply of fuels and energy for the
years ahead, and on S. 1570, proposing more precise
and definite authority for the President to deal with
emergency shortages of petroleum products, after re-
ceiving testimony from Secretary of the Interior
Rogers C. B. Morton; William E. Simon, Deputy Sec-
retary of the Treasury; William J. Casey, Under
Secretary of State for Economic Affairs; John N.
Nassikas, Chairman, Federal Power Commission; and
Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commis-
sion; and on S.157o from Lee White, Consumer Federa-
tion of America, Washington, D.C.; and Gregg Potvin,
National Oil Jobbers Council, Washington, D.C.
RUNAWAY YOUTH
Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Juvenile
Delinquency, in executive session, approved for full
committee consideration S. 645, to strengthen interstate
p
n authorizations, receiving testi--
o
1 Mathias, Davits, and Stevenson;
Ch
ommission, Uni fe4/ ites and Canada; Robert Knecht,
ask Force, do al Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Dep *tment of Commerce; James P.
Alexander, Director, Department of Environmental
Services, District of Columbia government; and nu-
merous other witnesses, including representatives of
State and local governments.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
SUGAR IN HUMAN DIETS
Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs:
Committee continued hearings on the possible relation-
ship between the intake of refined sugar and various
human diseases, receiving 'testimony from Dr. George
D. Campbell, Durban Diabetes Study Project, May-
ville, Natal, South Africa; Dr. John Yudkin, Queen
Elizabeth College, London University; and Dr. T. L.
Cleave, London, England.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
CRIME AND SMALL BUSINESS
Select Committee on Small Business: Committee re-
sumed its hearings on the impact of crime on small
businesses, with testimony today on the practice of
redistribution of stolen items (commonly referred to as
fencing) from Joseph P. Busch, district attorney, and
Lt. John Gocke, police department, both of Los Angeles
County; and three individuals who were subpenaed by
the committee.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
House of Representatives
Chamber Action.
Bills Introduced: 28 public bills, H.R. 7368-7395; 7
private bills, H.R. 7396-7402; and 8 resolutions, H.J.
Res. 532, H. Con. Res. tog, and H. Res. 367-372, were
introduced. Pages H 3252-H 3253
Bills Reported: Reports were filed as follows:
I-I. Res. 37o, providing for the consideration of H.R.
6,88, Airport Development Acceleration Act of 1973
(H. Rept. 93-160);
H. Res. 371, providing for the consideration of H.R.
6370, to extend certain laws relating to the payment of
interest on time and savings deposits, to prohibit deposi-
tory institutions from permitting negotiable orders of
withdrawal to be made with respect to any deposit or
account on which any interest or dividend is paid, to
authorize Federal savings and loan associations and
national banks to own stock in and invest in loans to
certain State housing corporations (H. Rept. 93-161);
H. Res. 372, providing for the consideration of
H.R. 6452, Urban Mass Transportation Act (H. Rept.
93-162) ; and
H.R. 6646, to provide that certain changes in the loan
and purchase program for the 1973 peanut crop which
the Department of Agriculture is contemplating shall
not be made (H. Rept. 93-163). Page H 3252
D 449
reporting and interstate services w c ildren who are
"runawags" and for parents of nawlay youth.
eVE
v
CrPubli rks: Subcommittee on Water
ristia
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100019-3
 D 450
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700100019-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - DAILY DIGEST May 1, 1973
Late Reports: Committee on Agriculture received per-
mission to file a report by midnight tonight on H.R.
(646, to provide that certain changes in he loan and
purchase program for the 1973 peanut crop which the
Department of Agriculture is contemplating shall not
be made; and the Committee on Rules received permis-
sion to file certain privileged reports Dy midnight
tonigi t. Pages H 3211, H 3213
0MB Director: By a record vote of 221) yeas to 171
nays, the House passed H.R. 3932, to prcvide that ap-
pointments to the Office of Director and Deputy Direc-
tor of the Office of Management and Budget shall be
subject to confirmation by the Senate.
Rejected a motion to recommit the bill to the Com-
mittee on Government Operations.
Agreed to the committee substitute.
Rejected a substitute to the committee substitue that
sought to exempt the current Director and Deputy Di-
rector of the OMB from Senate confirmation, but would
require confirmation of all future nominees for those
posts (rejected by a recorded vote of 13o ayes to 263
noes).
Subsequently, this passage was vacated; and S. 518, a
similar Senate bill was passed in lieu after being
amended to contain the language of the House bill as
passed.
Agreed to amend the title of the Senate bill.
H. Res. 351, the rule under which the bill ~N as con-
sidered was adopted earlier by a record vote of 318 yeas
to 56 nays, with 5 voting "present". Pages H 3212-H 3229
Referral: One Senate-passed bill was r_ferree to the
appropriate House committee. PaSe H 3252
Quorum Calls-Record Votes: Two re:ord votes and
one recorded vote developed during the proceedings
of the House today and appear on pages :-13212-H,213,
1I3227, and H3228. There were no quorum calls.
Program for Wednesday: Met at noon and adjourned
at 3:1o p.m. until noon on Wednesday, May 2, when
the House will consider H.R. 6388, to amend the Air-
port and Airway Development Act of 11170 to increase
the U.S. share of allowable project costs under such
Act; to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to
prohibit certain State taxation of persons in air com-
nicrce t open rule, i hour of debate).
Committee Meetings
D.C. APPROPRIATIONS
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia continued hearings on 1Q74 D.C.
budget items.
LABOR-HEW APPROPRIATIONS
Committee on Appropriations: Subeomrniitee on
Labor-HEW continued hearings on Department of
Labor.
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on De
fense continued hearings and received testimony from
Secretary of the Army Robert F. Froehlke and Army
Chief of Staff Creighton W. Abrams.
TREASURY APPROPRIATIONS
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on
Treasury-Postal Service-General Government held a
hearing on Office of Management and Budget.
PUBLIC WORKS AEC APPROPRIATIONS
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Public
Works-AEC held a hearing on the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
U.S.I.A: APPROPRIATIONS
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on State,
Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and Related Agencies
held a hearing on U.S. Information Agency.
DOD AUTHORIZATION
Committee on Armed Services: Continued executive
hearings on military posture and Department of De-
fense authorization for fiscal year 1974. Testimony was
heard from Secretary of the Navy John W. Warner;
Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., Chief, Naval Operations;
and Gen. Robert E. Cushman, Jr., USMC, Com-
mandant.
Hearings continue tomorrow.
CIEP ANNUAL REPORT
Committee on Banking and Currency: Subcommittee
on International Trade began hearings on the Annual
Report of the Council on International Economic Pol-
icy. Testimony was beard from Peter Flanigan, Execu-
tive Director of the Council.
Hearings contir?ie tomorrow.
STREET CRIME
Select Committee on Crime: Continued hearings on
street crime and received testimony from Philadelphia
District Attorney Arlen Specter; Judge David Ross,
administrative judge, Supreme Court of New York;
Judge Lisa Richette, Philadelphia Common Pleas
Court; and District Attorney Robert Leonard, Flint,
Mich.
I Icarings continue tomorrow.
NO-FAULT INSI RANCE
Committee on the District of Columbia: Subcommittee
on Business, Commerce, and Taxation began hearings
on l -i.R. 5448, to establish in the District of Columbia a
system of first party, no-fault insurance for victims of
motor vehicle accidents. Testimony was heard from Dr.
John Hazard, A: