CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 46
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 20, 2004
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: January 1, 1956
• Content Type: REQ

1956 Approved &!Gftjapj[0 R aK6 RD? T j45R 100200006-2 11349
Marquette L. Neal, Clarksville.
Seward M. Dawes, Clinton.
OREGON
Clover A. Stiles, Floyd.
Irwin H. Dent, Davenport.
Marie E. Marshall, Cannon Beach.
Clarence Starkweather, Jr., Greene.
Wendell C. Wilber, Delanson.
Milton H. Binge, Dundee.
Helen I. Stanger, Hopkinton.
Joseph R. Iadarola, Elmsford.
Audrey S. Phillips, Island City.
Lyle E. Van Scyoc, Tabor.
Ralph L. Marshall, Freeport.
Stella G. Lowe, Rickreall.
Reggie J. Abbondandelo, Greenvale.
KANSAS
Albert A. Clark, Hall.
PENNSYLVANIA
Olive M. Rudd, Belpre.
Harry C. Cotier, Hicksville.
James W. Daubert, Allentown.
Lloyd E. Cope, Netawaka.
Burdette W. Playfoot, Horseheads.
PUERTO RICO
KENTUCKY
Oliver K. Palm, Jamestown.
Jose Alberto Poventud, Ponce.
Barber L. Shelton, Nortonville.
Alice M. Bird, Lake Peekskill.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Ronald M. MacKenzie, Lake Placid.
LOUISIANA
Ruth P. Benedict, Lewis.
John B. Blanton, Nichols.
Nola B. Romero, Avery Island.
William A. Maillet, Lockport.
Bennett C. Bedenbaugh, Prosperity.
Howell H. Smith, Bossier City.
James C. Browne, Mahopac.
TENNESSEE
MAINE
John S. Volpe, Manchester.
Albert M. Daniel, New Market.
Wesley A. Sawyer. Anson.
Willis Clayton Farnham, Manlius.
TEXAS
Biddeford.
Laverriere
Willie H
Richard G. Gavette, Margaretville.
,
.
James E. Reilly, Massapequa Park.
Ponder A. Pickett, Big Wells.
MASSACHUSETTS
Kathryn D. Probert, New Hampton.
Joe C. Cobb, Lewisville.
John L. Brigham, Boylston Center.
Howard A. Searle, Newfane.
Gilbert R. Thayer, Port Lavaca.
John R. Fisher, West Dennis.
Richard Charles Rutland, Olcott.
UTAH
MINNESOTA
George Conrad Sauer, Port Jervis.
J. Stanford Stahell, Enterprise.
Carl G. Bergstrom, Cokato.
Edna C. Yaple, Rock Hill.
Joseph Huber, Rockville Centre.
VIRGINIA
Wesley P. Rathvon, Deerwood.
Wesley H. Kline, Sanborn.
Burton R. Floyd, Buena Vista.
Dexter N. Femling, Dent.
Celia B. Ferguson, Schuyler Lake.
Virgie C. Rawls, Burkeville.
Leroy F. Lingwall, Emily.
Reginald T. Stevenson, Sea Cliff.
Thomas N. Langhorne, Evington.
Charles A. Lukens. Hadley.
John A. Fiero, Shortsville.
Frank J. Horlander, Jr., Meherrin.
Lester H. Egerstrom, Murdock.
Roy E. Hodges, Spencer.
Virginia M. Deane, New Canton.
William R. Marx, Preston.
Wilbert J. Regnet, Swormville.
WASHINGTON
Alvord J. Dammann, Sanborn.
Joseph F. Ambrose, Thornwood.
Harold C. Olson, Two Harbors.
Beatrice V. Conway, Warners.
Glenn R. Fredericksen, Cashmere.
MISSISSIPPI
William H. Olcott, Wurtsboro.
Fred S. Hughes, Clarkston.
Arlow R. Evers, Electric City.
Billy M. McEachern. Ruleville.
NORTH DAKOTA
Dwight L. Cruea, Everson.
William B. Askew, Sardis.
Pearl E. Taylor, Alexander.
Dean W. Larimore, Granger.
NEBRASKA
Ivan O. Wick, Brocket.
Jack Doty, Greenacres.
John H. Rethwisch, Carroll.
01110
Henry Grosso, Harper.
Vernon A. Lamb, Hubbell.
Carlton W. Strosnider, Ansonia.
Clifford E. Swenson, Harrington.
Ivan Jack Gemmell, Ogallala.
Gertrude G. Nottke, Berlin Heights.
Charley T. Garrison, Hoquiam.
Alvin O. Jones, Sutherland.
Oscar J. Pierce, Coolville.
John H. Bonus, Klickitat.
NEVADA
Raymond C. Harris, Eaton.
Jack A. Middle, Mabton.
Alice L. Green, Medina.
Bernice K. Morse, Tungsten.
Harold E. Mills, Franklin.
Kenneth E. Roberts, Nooksack.
John D. Ingram, New Milford.
Robert F. Whitten
Ocean Park.
NEW YORK
Ralph G. Bostwick, North Benton.
,
Ruby .Irene Paulson, Outlook.
Mildred H. Merrell, Afton.
John William Evans, Orville.
Marion E. Keeney, Pacific Beach.
Bruce E. Champlin, Andes.
Leo F. Davis, Payne.
Wesley Wayne Gibbs, Woodinvilloc
Reginald A. Brick, Angola.
Robert L. Murdock
Ridgeway.
WISCONSIN
Maurice W. Keating, Beacon.
Patrick J. Foley, Bethpage.
,
Clarence B. Stahl, St. Henry.
Lyle A. Gallenbeck, Burnett.
Beatrice L. Stevens, Bridgewater.
Edgar W. Stevanus, Sugarcreek.
James E. Davidson, Markesan.
Jeanette Y. Short, Cloverdale.
LeRoy A. Wright, West Alexandria.
Henry W. Luebke, Winneconne.
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
House of Representatives
THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1956
The House met at 11 o'clock a. m.
The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,
D. D., offered the following prayer:
God of all grace and goodness, grant
that in these dark and doubtful days we
may turn to Thee for light and leading
and discover the power and possibilities
of prayer.
Inspire us with a daring faith and an
unconquerable hope and may we see our
duties clearly and discharge them with-
out fear or favor.
May we never be merely content with
the deductions and conclusions of our
minds but may we be blessed with those
spiritual revelations and intuitions
which will make us feel instinctively
that we are obeying and doing Thy will.
Help us for our joy and strength to
strive more earnestly to bring the power
of lofty ideals to bear on our everyday
life and daily give witness that we belong
to an eternal fellowship.
Hear us in the name of the Christ who
is our eternal contemporary. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of yes-
terday was read and approved.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate. by Mr,
Carrell, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate had passed without
amendment bills of the House of the fol-
lowing titles:
H. R. 9774. An net to provide for the con-
veyance of certain lands of the United
States to the Board of Commissioners of
Volusla County, Fla.;
H. R. 10075. An act to provide for the con-
veyance of certain real property of the United
States to the town of Bald Knob. Ark.; and
11. R. 10479. An act to authorize the Ad-
ministrator of General Services to convey
certain land to the county of Galveston, Tex.
The message also announced that the
Senate had passed, with amendments in
which the concurrence of the House is
requested, bills of the House of the fol-
lowing titles:
H. R. 8817. An act to provide for the con-
veyance of certain property of the United
States to the city of Corbin, Ky.; and
TI. R. 9842. An act to authorize the Post-
master General to hold and detain mail for
temporary periods In certain cases.
The message also announced that the
Senate had passed bills of the following
titles, in which the concurrence of the
House is requested:
5.147. An act to require that interns-
tional agreements other than treaties, here-
after entered Into by the United States, be
transmitted to the Senate within 60 days
after the execution thereof; and
5.3958. An act to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended.
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees tc the amendments of the
House to a bill of the Senate of the fol-
lowing title:
S. 47. An act for the relief of Guiseppe
Agosta.
The message also announced that the
Senate disagreed to the amendment of
the House to the bill (S. 2182) entitled
"An act for the relief of the city of
Elkins, W. Va.," requests a conference
with the House in the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon, and appoints
Mr. DANIEL, Mr. O'MAHONEY. and Mr.
DIRxsEN to be the conferees on the part
of the Senate.
The message also announced that the
Senate insists upon its amendment to
the bill (H. R. 3957) entitled "An act
for the relief cf Pauline H. Corbett,"
disagreed to by the House; agrees to the
conference asked by the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses
thereon, and appoints Mr. KEFAUVER, Mr.
JOHNSTON of South Carolina, and Mr.
LANCER to be the conferees on the part of
the Senate.
The message also announced that the
Senate insists rpon its amendment to
the bill (H. R. 9593) entitled "An act to
simplify accounting, facilitate the pay-
ment of obligations, and for other pur-
poses," disagrees: to by the House; agrees
to the conference asked by the House
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Huuses thereon, and appoints Mr. KEN-
NEDY, Mr. WOFFORD, and Mr. CoTToN to be
the conferees on the part of the Senate.
PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, on yes-
terday I was on the floor of the House
all afternoon- Shortly before rollcall
No. 98 on the mutual security appropria-
tion bill, I was called back to my office to
interview some constituents. Shortly
thereafter the bars rang for rollcall No.
98. I waited for the second bells to ring,
but they failed to ring. As a conse-
quence I got here on the floor of the
House just a minute or so late. Had the
second bells runi. I would have been able
to vote on rollcall No. 98: therefore I ask
unanimous consent that the permanent
RECORD record me as voting "aye."
The SPEAKER. It is not possible to
do that. as it is in violation of the rules of
the House. Th'? gentleman from In-
diana may state how he would have voted
had he been here.
Mr. MADDEN. I made such a state-
ment In the RECORD yesterday, Mr.
Speaker.
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Mr. THOMPSON of Texas. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
the Committee on Agriculture may sit
during general debate today.
The SPEAKER.. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
DELETION FROM RECORD
Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to strike from the
permanent RECORD my reference to the
distinguished minority leader on page
11192 and 11193 in yesterday's RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
the permanent RECORD will be so cor-
rected.
There was no objection.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION,
1957
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I call up House Resolution 584 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That during the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 12138) making supple-
mental appropriations for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1957, and for other purposes,
all points of order against the bill are hereby
waived.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio IMr. BROWN].
I now yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution waives
points of order on the bill that is about
to be called up, which is the supple-
mental appropriations bill. The reason
for the rule is that there are some minor
legislative provisions in the bill itself,
but the main reason for this rule is that
the authorization bill for the military
construction, while it has passed the
House and I believe passed the Senate,
has not as yet, as far as I know, become
law. While it will be enacted into law
in the next day or so, that is the main
reason for this rule waiving points of
order. The items for military construc-
tion have not as yet been authorized.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield.
Mr. GROSS. That is the main rea-
son for asking for this rule waiving points
of order, because some law has not yet
been enacted?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Not some
law, but the , law authorizing military
construction projects for this year.
Mr. GROSS. Would the gentleman
say there is no legislation in this bill in
connection with the Jones Point bridge?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Not to my
knowledge. There is no legislation on
that matter. If the gentleman will look
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 July 12, 1956
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
at the report on the bill, he will find
listed there the legislative provisions
concerning which a waiver is sought.
That does not apply to the Jones Point
bridge.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield.
Mr. McCORMACK. I desire to an-
nounce that the next order of business
after the disposition of the supplemental
appropriations bill will be the suspension
on the veterans ,bill, for which permis-
sion was obtained yesterday.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speak-
er, that the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs may have permission to sit today
and tomorrow during general debate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was
granted permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I yield myself such time as I may use.
As the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
SMITH] has so ably explained, this reso-
lution makes in order the consideration
of H. R. 12138 with waiver of points of
order on the bill. As a member of the
Rules Committee, I voted for this rule,
although I have a great interest in one
certain provision in this bill, as do the
other Members from Ohio, and espe-
cially Representative SCHENCK, of Ohio.
On page 7 of this bill is a provision for
transferring the Air Research and' De=
velopment Command of the Air Force to
Andrews Field. The gentleman from
Ohio CMr. SCHENCK] has in his district a
great portion of the Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, and I have the balance
of that installation in my own district.
Under the provisions of this bill, on page
7, the Secretary of the Air-Force would
be authorized to expend some $6 million
for the moving of the Air Research and
Development Command headquarters
from Baltimore to Andrews Air Force
Base in the District of Columbia, where
we already have an overcrowded condi-
tion. All in spite of the fact we are
already spending hundreds of millions
of dollars to move Federal institutions
and installations out of this congested
area in and near the District of Colum-
bia because of dangers involved.
The work of air research and develop.
ment belongs primarily somewhere close
to the Air Materiel Command at Dayton,
Ohio, where most of the Nation's war-
plane experimentation goes on. The
location of the Air Research and Devel-
opment Command is very important.
Prior to 1951, when the Air Force first
established an Air Research and Devel-
opment Command, the Air Materiel
Command at Dayton embraced all pro-
duction, supply, maintenance, and en-
gineering functions at Dayton, Ohio. In
order to create the Research and Devel-
opment Command the engineering func-
tions of,the Air Materiel Command were
separated therefrom, and most of the
personnel to man this new function came
from the Air Materiel Command itself,
Since the Air Force had included this
research function as a part of the Air
Materiel Command for several years be-
fore a program of separate research
activity was created, it must be obvious
to all that this function still has a very
close relationship to the Air Materiel
Command itself, and should be a part
thereof if it should ever cease to exist
as a separate command.
Some time ago the Armed Services
Committee of the House investigated this
whole matter as to where the Air Re-
search and Development Command
should be located very fully and unani-
mously recommended to the House, and
to the Air Force, that the Research and
Development Command should be lo-
cated near the Air Materiel Command
in Dayton, where the two could work to-
gether as in the past.
The House itself once voted that the
Air Research and Development installa-
tion should be moved to Dayton. Then,
later, the Senate in the closing days or
hours of the last session amended that
particular section of the bill to provide
that the Secretary of the Air Force
should decide where such research and
development work should be done, and
the House rather reluctantly adopted
that Senate amendment.
I note the subcommittee of the Ap-
propriations Committee which reported
this bill said in its report:
The committee has some doubt that the
immediate vicinity of the Nation's Capital is
the best location for command headquar-
ters of this type-
Referring, of course, to Air Research
and Development Command. Further
the committee said:
This committee would have preferred that
another location had been selected.
Let me point out to you, and I give it
to you upon my word as a Member of
this House, that the experienced officers
and men in this research work in the Air
Force, who investigated this whole mat-
ter, recommended that the Air Research
and Development Command be transfer-
red back to Dayton, Ohio, where for
many years it operated as part of the Air
Materiel Command, where the two com-
mands could again work together, and
where, if peace should come or the world
situation grow less tense, the two could
again be incorporated into one endeavor.
And let me tell you of some of the steps
and some of the plans that are now un-
derway, or are being worked out, if this
House approves the removal of the Air
Research and Development Command to
Andrews Air Base.
Mr. Speaker, first, the present plans
envision the following steps:
Step 1: The transfer of a majority of
the present training command subactivi-
ties from Randolph to Waco. This will
result in a consolidation of flight train-
ing and technical training operations at
one headquarters at Waco with a result-
ing reduction of some 100, or more, peo-
ple.
Step 2: Involves the transfer of the
headquarters of the training command
from Scott Field to Randolph Field.
Step 3: This involves the movement
of the MATS headquarters from An-
drews Field to Scott Field. In this case,
the movement of some 700 training head-
quarters people out of Scott will be re-
placed by moving in around 1,200 people
in the MATS headquarters.
11351
Step 4: ARDC headquarters will be
moved from the present location at Bal-
timore to take over the present MATS
headquarters at Andrews. These moves
will require the expenditure of mainte-
nance and operating funds of at least $3
million and more possibly in the area of
$4 million.
Second. Included in this plan is the
creation of a new and additional head-
quarters building for some $6 million for
ARDC at Andrews. Initially, ARDC
would move at some point after the third
quarter of fiscal year 1957 into the pres-
ent MATS headquarters building when
it was vacated by MATS for the move to
Scott. Perhaps 21/2 years later, ARDC
would move into the new headquarters
and the present MATS headquarters
would then be available for the move of
people out of the Pentagon and out of
the temporary buildings in the Washing-
ton area.
Third. The proposal which is really
the one under consideration as step 1
involves the new headquarters for ARDC
retaining the MATS headquarters at
Andrews.
Fourth. The net effect of this series of
proposals is the increase in the number
of organizations in the Washington area
and many people believe this should be
undesirable both from a vulnerability
standpoint and from the overconcentra-
tion of Government personnel in this
area. In the studied opinion of many
people a more desirable course of action
appears to be the construction of a new
headquarters for ARDC at Dayton, Ohio,
and the movement of the headquarters,
when it is moved, from Baltimore to Day-
ton. This consolidation of ARDC on the
same base with its major operating activ-
ity should result in both increased effi-
ciency of operation and a total reduction
of many people, on the order of several
hundred.
Fifth. The proposed move of ARDC
headquarters to Andrews, along with the
other proposed moves involves the max-
imum expenditure, and maximum dis-
ruption in the Washington area.
Mr. Speaker, may I also point out in
connection with the proposed location of
ARDC headquarters:
First. The separation of the engineer-
ing function-ARDC-from the produc-
tion, supply, and maintenance functions
of AMC in 1951 duplicated a somewhat
similar separation of functions during
World War II, where supply and mainte-
nance functions were separated from
production and engineering. In each
case, the reason was to reduce the size of
the job that any one person or head-
quarters would be responsible for-in
both supervisory and operational func-
tions. When the separation was made
in World War II, the resultant problems
were solved somewhat more expeditious-
ly because the two headquarters, which
of necessity required a great deal of lat-
eral coordination, were only 3 miles
apart.
Second. The major problem caused by
the creation of the ARDC headquarters
at Baltimore was the fact that the close
teamwork and working relationships
necessary, particularly at the operating
level, were made?di#ficult. In the engi-
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11352 Approved For Relf ].g ff AFli T00J18SE 100200006-2
U July 12
veering change proposal area alone, it nel of the Air Staff are inclined to enter fore three congressional committees, in
was difficult enough under a single or- into the operating functions of the sep- which some of the foregoing facts and
ganization to get timely and expeditious arate command, The management of many other detailed and related matters
action. With the ARDC headquarters the separate command are inclined to were brought to the attention of the
removed to Baltimore, it was my per- endeavor to take over part of the opera- congressional committees, with the
sonal experience that serious delays were Lions of the Air Staff.
encountered which might have been House ati committees fuay supporting the
Eighth. From standpoint of long- location of headquarters ARDC at
avoided in getting changes instituted in range economy, , it is usually desirable to Wright-Patterson.
production aircraft, particularly when locate a headquarters so that it is rea- Mr. Speaker, I urge that when the
the total engineering responsibility from sonably equidistant, areawise, from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK]
the cradle to the grave was placed in units which it controls. We should take speaks on his amendment you give this
ARDC. advantage of long-term positions of base matter your serious attention, because I
Three. The other serious difficulty en- availability, and therefore, possible re- am convinced that the Secretary of the
countered was the fact that ARDC head- ductions in long-range operating costs. Air Force made a bad decision when he
quarters was created, in the main, from. These factor:., under the present pro- went against the advice of the Air Force
the most experienced people of the gram of austerity, become of major im- leaders, the unanimous advice of the
engineering division at Wright Field. portKance.
Therefore, at a very critical time in the Ninth. There are three major factors and Che express on Armed Sense
build-up of the Air Force, the slew which make .he Wright Field location of , Rer sen express wishes of the House
WADC and the AMC production division for ARDC headquarters of overriding took oopffieesueives and soon after he
were forced to carry on a tremendously importance, first, at the present time, `moo ce issued orders d transfer this
accelerated workload with less People at roughly 50 percent of ARDC's total man- I alll the to Andrews Field.
project level than they had had be- agement affairs are carried on through the Schenck all the Members will support
fore the reorganization. the project offices, in close coordination Mr. S. SMIT TH of amendmena.
ViremiaMr. Speaker,
Fourth. The inevitable minor prob- with AMC: second, the laboratories at I yield to the gentleman from Georgia
lems and petty jealousies in connection Wright Field are the logical areas for the [Mr. FLYNT).
with any such reorganization as this Initiation and technical supervision of (Mr. FLYNT asked and was given
have been pretty well reconciled. The practically every major program, except permission to extend his remarks at this
present commanders-Powell and Rawl- the responslb:l ties of the ICBM and point in the RECORD and to include ex-
ings-have established a close working IRBM; and th:rd, it is a central location, traneous matter.)
relationship, and personnel and organs- which is certainly somewhat less vul- FORT BENNING A MODEL OF WILDLIFE MANAGE-
zationwise, both organizations have, nerable than a coastal location and rela-
within the last year, attained a stable tively equidistant from the other ARDC MENT AND GAME CONSERVATION
and clear understanding of their com- centers, as well as reasonably coequal in Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Speaker, in the light
mon problems, and the total mission re- distance from the various centers of of many loose and unfair charges being
quirements to which they must contri- technical knowledge located, in the made that our military personnel are
bute, for the overall advancement of Air main, on the West Coast, in the North- willfully killing game and taking fish on
Force technology and the Air Force in- cast, and in the Chicago-Detroit areas. service reservations in violation of State
ventory requirements. Tenth. In the past, the Air Force has laws and conservation practies, I include
Fifth. The coordination and close co- tried operation of engineering, produc- herewith an article from the Army and
operation attained by the present proj- tion and procurement from the Wash- Navy Journal of July 7, 1956, on wildlife
ect office organization have produced ington headquarters. In each case it management at the Army's huge reser-
real dividends. ARDC initiates the was found that superior results were ob- vation at Fort Benning, Ga. Further,
weapon system offices and retains their tained when the operating activities were I am assured that similar programs are
management until the production cycle decentralized to Dayton and the Staff in force at many other service installa-
is initiated, then AMC takes over the responsibilities of the Chief were carried tions. The report on Fort Kenning's
management at Dayton of the project out in the Washington headquarters. commendable program follows:
office, until the weapon system has pro- Eleventh. For the same reasons that FORT KENNING CITED AS MODEL OF WILDLIFE
gressed through production to the point have been advanced for the placement of MANAGEMENT AND GAME CONSERVATION
where its management may be trans- the ARDC headquarters at Baltimore, The fish and game preserve on Fort Ben-
ferred to the responsible AMC depot. Andrews Air Force Base, Langley Air on
ning's e of the riich strand best regulatedawildll e
Sixth. Coupled with the weapons sys- Force Base, and other eastern points, sanctuaries In the Southland.
tem offices, the related phasing groups, adjacent to Washington, we could ad- That It Is so can be credited largely to the
composed of members from USAF vance the philosophy that AMC head- Fort Benning Fish and Game Management
headquarters, tactical commands in- quarters should also be moved to the Association, a voluntary group which has
valved, and the pertinent depots and Washington area. been working since 1949 to make the area
centers, have resulted in a better job of Twelfth. If either AMC or ARDC abundant with natural life.
ation is an organi of
initial planning, detailed operational headquarters are located within an The en. lim
it in e ership to ve
and materiel planning, production for hour's drive from Washington, then the military p limited d in membership to active
the inventory and tactical support than duties of that headquarters might well members pers onnel their families, retiredBmilitary
has even been accomplished before in be combined with the Deputy on the Air personnel living in the Columbus, Ga., area,
the history of the Air Force or its prede- Staff in charge of that responsibility. and disabled veterans.
cessor organizations. Certainly, there is no reason for having Its aim Is to conserve wildlife while at the
Seventh. In consideration of the many two senior officers and staffs essentially same time affording its members hunting
recommendations advanced, both by charged with tae same responsibilities in their fishing grounds where t its can the game
those people with responsibility for re- in the same local area, laws sport within the limits of Ala game
of the States of Georgia and Alabama.
cults and those who are only in an ad- Thirteenth. For the long pull, it ap- The association's new ew president is Col.
visory capacity, it is obvious that any pears that the major justification for the Lester L. Wheeler. United States Army, who
headquarters for any Air Force function relocation of the ARDC headquarters recently succeeded Brig. Gen. Frederick R.
could be located anywhere in the United was the construction of a new headquar- Zierath, United States Army.
States. It has been the repeated decision tees building a; Wright Field proper. To create and maintain a game refuge on
he Benning
of many senior commanders that if you The only additional problem lies in the rma
intain a gawere adopreservationted th he laws and
are to command an operating organiza- provision of more housing under the These tare rigidly enforced at groassociation 12
tion charged with a major portion of the Capehart Act, or by local construction men known as Range Guards, who operate
Air Force mission, such as TAC, SAC, firms. This, from the standpoint of under the supervision of the infantry center
ADC, ARDC, or AMC, that the farther morale and wel -being of personnel in Provost Marshal's Section. Although their
you get away from Washington, the bet- the most critical categories, would be duties vary, they are, essentially, game ward-
ter. This Is for the simple reason that the simplest, ma;t straightforward solu- ens. They are under the Immediate com-
too close a location of the headquarters tion. mans of 2d Lt. Edward B. Rogers, United
to Washington results In confusion Fourteenth. T-ie Commander, ARDC, of
SLates Army, ficer. L eute Fort
ntBRoge s Is a graduate of
rather than coordination. The person- made strong repiesentation last year be- the University of Georgia with a degree of
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 1956 Approve 8 2 & M- 6ffg 5R000100200006-2 11353
forestry, with a minor in wildlife manage.
ment.
In addition to seeing that the associa-
tion's laws are observed, the Range Guards
also carry out the group's restocking and
feeding program. They plant and maintain
some 500 acres of feed patches around the
reservation. Also, they supervise prescribed
areas for proper biological balance in fish and
wildlife control. This balance entails lake
restocking and fertilizing, game feeding and
trapping predatory animals. Last season,
for example, more than 1,000 predatory ani-
mals, such as bobcats, opossums and skunks,
were exterminated, thereby greatly increas-
ing the game population for the 1955 season.
One program whibh began last year, but
which will be enlarged, is the planting of
aquatic foods for migratory fowl. In the
past, fowl stopped only for a short while on
the reservation. Finding inadequate food,
they soon moved on. To remedy this condi-
tions, a relatively small area was planted this
year. A larger area will be planted next year.
The bag limit set down by the association,
as well as the opening and closing dates for
the various hunting and fishing seasons,
follow the State laws of Georgia and Ala-
bama, since the reservation overlaps into
both States. Although the States' seasons
permit hunting from opening to closing
dates, Fort Benning limits hunting to
Wednesday afternoons, Saturdays, Sundays,
and holidays, while still observing the in-
clusive dates as prescribed by the States.
Last year, Fort Benning opened its deer
season early. Critics of this failed to take
into consideration that it was opened early
by special permission of the Georgia and
Alabama Fish and Game Commissions so
that members of the Third Infantry Division
would have an opportunity to hunt prior to
leaving the post for Exercise Sage Brush.
The "association also has been charged with
allowing the shooting last year of does as
well as bucks. This is true. But permission
was given by the Georgia Game Commission
to reduce the population of surplus old does.
Howtver, does were shot only in the Georgia
area, since Alabama did not give specific
approval for the killing of does.
By and large, at a time when House In-
terior Committee is hearing charges that
e military reservations around the United
States are flouting State game and fish laws,
Fort "Henning is in the enviable position of
being considered by Federal and Georgia
State experts to be the Nation's most pro-
ductive military wildlife preserves.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Geoss].
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, it is be-
coming the rule rather than the excep-
tion that when appropriation bills come
before this House there is a rule waiving
points of order. The gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. SMITH] says that this rule
is made necessary by virtue of the fact
that it refers to some law which has not
as yet been enacted:
I contend that the rule is also made
necessary because of legislation in con-
nection with the Jones Point Bridge for
which $14,325,000 would be appropriated
under the terms of this bill, the Jones
Point Bridge to be built across the Poto-
mac River down-at Alexandria, Va., at
the expense of all the taxpayers of the
country. There is legislation concern-
ing that appropriation in this bill de-
spite what the gentleman from Virginia
may say.
I certainly was prepared to raise a
point of order against the legislation in
connection with the construction of that
bridge and it is becoming something
close to an affront to the House to bring
these appropriation bills in here under
rules waiving points of order.
We might just as well throw out the
rule book so far as points of order on
appropriation bills are concerned if this
sort of thing is going to continue.
The rules specifically provide that ap-
propriation bills shall not be brought into
the House containing legislation. If
there was some emergency, I could un-
derstand waiving points of order, and
certainly I would go along, but you can
read this bill backward and forward and
you will not finti a single item in this bill
of an emergency nature.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the
House to give serious consideration to
what is happening when repeatedly rules
are being brought in waiving. points of
order on appropriation bills.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker,
I yield myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question
asked by the gentleman from Iowa a lit-
tle while ago, I find that I did not give
him accurate information on it, and I
want to correct my previous statement
and explain the purport of the item
relating to Jones Point Bridge so far as
the point of order is concerned.
So far as the construction of the bridge
is concerned, it is water over the dam.
It has been authorized by both bodies
and signed by the President. It is a very
much needed project, not for Virginia
or Maryland but for the District of Co-
lumbia and the Federal Government it-
self in getting its people back and forth
over the river, where you all know con-
gested conditions exist and have existed
for a long time and are getting worse all
the time.
Now, so far as the point of order is con-
cerned, I was not aware of it until it
was pointed out to me a moment ago
after I had replied to the gentleman from
'Iowa. There is a provision on page 4 in
the nature of a proviso which says:
Provided, That the unexpended balance of
the appropriation granted under this head
in the Second Supplemental Appropriation
Act. 1955, is hereby merged with this appro-
priation.
It does not increase the appropriation
but just merges the previous appropria-
tion with this appropriation and throws
it all into one pot.
Then there is a proviso which I think
is not subject to a point of order because
it is a limitation on the appropriation
and favors the point of view which the
gentleman from Iowa takes. That pro-
viso reads:
That this paragraph shall be effective only
upon the final consummation of agreements
for the maintenance and operation of the
bridge and approaches by the States of Vir-
ginia and Maryland.
If those things constitute objectionable
points of order, of course, it is up to the
'House what they want to do about it.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-
tion on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken, and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote of.the ground that a quorum is
not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 361, nays 30, not voting 41?
as follows:
[Roll No. 991
YEAS--361
Abbitt
Coudert
Healey
Abernethy
Cramer
Hebert
Adair
Cretella
Henderson
Addonizio
Cunningham
Herlong
Albert
Curtis, Mass.
Hiestand
Alexander
Dague
Hill
Allen, Calif.
Davidson
Hillings
Allen, Ill.
Davis, Ga.
Hinshaw
Andresen,
Dawson, Ill.
Hoeven
August H.
Dawson, Utah
Holifleld
Andrews
Deane
Holland
Anfuso
Delaney
Holmes
Arends
Dempsey
Holt
Ashley
Denton
Holtzman
Ashmore
Derouniart
Hope
Aspinall
Devereux
Horan
Auchincloss
Diggs
Hosmer
Avery
Dingell
Huddleston
Ayres
Dixon
Hull
Bailey
Dodd
Hyde
Baker
Dollinger
Ikard
Baldwin
Dolliver
Jackson
Barrett
Dondero
James
Bass, N. H.
Donohue
Jarman
Bates
Dorn, N. Y.
Jenkins
Baumhart
Dorn, S. C.
Jennings
Beamer
Dowdy
Jensen
Becker
Doyle
Johnson, Calif`
Belcher
Durham
Johnson, Wis.
Bennett, Fla.
Edmondson
Jonas
Bennett, Mich.
Elliott
Jones, Ala.
Bentley
Ellsworth
Jones, Mo.
Betts
Engle
Jones, N. C.
Blatnik
Fallon
Judd
Boggs
Fascell
Karsten
Boland
Feighan
Kean
Bolling
Fenton
Kearns
Bolton,
Fernandez
Kee
Frances P.
Fino
Kelly, N. Y.
Bolton,
Fisher
Keogh
Oliver P.
FJare
Kilburn
Bonner
Flood
Kilday
Bosch
Flynt
Kilgore
Bowler
Fogarty
King, Calif.
Boykin
Forand
King, Pa.
Boyle
Ford
Kirwan
Bray
Forrester
Klein.
Brooks, La.
Fountain
Knox
Brown, Ga.
Frazier
Knutson
Brown, Ohio
Frelinghuysen
Krueger
Brownson
Friedet
Laird
Broyhill.
Fulton
Landrum
Buckley
Garmatz
Lanham
Budge
Gary
Lankford
Burdick
Gathings
Latham
Burnside
Gavin
LeCompte
Bush
Gentry
Lesinski
Byrd
George
Lipscomb
Byrne, Pa.
Gordon
Long
Canfield
Grant
McCarthy
Cannon
Gray
McCormack
Carlyle
Green, Oreg.
McCulloch
Carrigg
Green, Pa.
McDonough
Cederberg
Gregory
McGregor
Ce1Jer
Griffiths
McIntire
Chase
Gubser
McMillan
Chatham
Hagen
McVey
Chelf
Haley
Macdonald
Chenoweth
Halleck
Machrowicz
Chiperfleld
Hand
Mack, Ill.
Christopher
Harden
Mack, Wash.
Chudoff
Hardy
Madden
Clark
Harris
Magnuson
Clevenger
Harrison, Nebr. Mahon
Colmer
Harrison, Va,
Mailliard
Cooley
Hays, Ark.
Marshall
Coon
Hays, Ohio
Martin
Cooper
Hayworth
Matthews
Approved For Release 2004/08/25: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved For e ffl,yM4;P R@"1Wfi3M?#AR000100200006-2 July 12
Meader
Ray
Staggers
Morrow
Reece, Tenn.
Sullivan
Metcalf
Reed, N. Y.
Table
Miller, Calif.
Reuss
Taylor
Miller, Md.
Rhodes. Aria.
Teague. Calif.
Miller, Nebr.
Rhodes. Pa.
Teague. Tex.
Miller, N. Y.
Richards
Thomas
Mills
Riehlman
Thompson, N. J.
Minshall
Riley
Thompson. Tex.
Mollohan
Rivers
Thom-on. Wyo.
Morano
Roberts
Tolletson
Morrison
Robeson. Va.
Trimble
Moss
Robelon, Ky.
Tuck
Moulder
Rodlno
Tumulty
Minter
Rogers. Colo.
Udall
Mumma
Rogers, Fla.
Utt
Murray, 111.
Rogers, Mass.
Vanik
Natcher
Rogers, Tex.
Velde
Nicholson
Rooney
Vinson
Norblad
Roosevelt
Vorys
Norrell
Rutherford
Wainwright
O'Brien, I1l.
Sadlak
Walter
O'Brien, N. Y.
St. George
Watts
O'Hara, Ill.
Saylor
Weaver
O'Neill
Schenck
Westland
Osmers
Scherer
Whitten
Ostertag
Schwengcl
Widnall
Patterson
Scott
W i ggl esworth
Polly
Scrlvner
Williams, N. J.
Perkins
Seely-Brawn
Williams, N. Y.
Pfost
Belden
Willis
Philbin
Sheehan
Wilson, Calif.
Phillips
Shelley
Wilson. Ind.
Filcher
Sheppard
Winstead
Pillion
Shuford
Wolcott
Poage
Sikes
Wolverton
Poff
Stier
Wright
Powell
Simpson, Ill.
Yates
Preston
Sisk
Young
Price
Smith, Kans.
Younger
Quigley
Smith, Miss.
Zablockl
Rabaut
Smith. Va.
Zelenko
Radwan
Spence
Rains
Springer
NAYS-30
Alger
Hale
Smith, Wis.
Andersen,
Harvey
Taber
H. Carl
Heselton
Thompson.
Bow
Hess
Mich.
Byrnes, Wis.
Hoffman, Mich. Van Pelt
Church
Johansen
Vursell
Corbett
Keating
Wharton
Crumpacker
Mason
Wier
Curtis, Mo.
O'Konskl
W llliams,
Dies
Prouty
Miss.
Gross
Rees, Kans.
Withrow
NOT VOTING--41
Barden
Gamble
Passmnn
Bass. Tenn.
Gwlnn
Patman
Bell
Hoffman, Ill.
Polk
Berry
Kearney
Priest
Blitch
Kelley, Pa.
Scudder
Brooks, Tex.
Kluczynaki
Short
Burleson
Lane
Sierninski
Carnahan
Lovre
Simpson, Pa.
Cole
McConnell
Steed
Davis, Tenn.
McDowell
Thompson, La.
Davis, Wls.
Morgan
Thornberry
Donovan
Murray, Tenn.
Van Zandt
Eberharter
Nelson
Wickersham
Evins
O'Hara, Minn.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Patman with Mr. Lovre.
Mr. Passman with Mr. Cole.
Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania with Mr. Short.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr. Simp-
son of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Bell with Mr. Van Zandt.
Mr. Morgan with Mr. Hoffman of Illinois.
Mr. Barden with Mr. Gwlnn.
Mr. Carnahan with Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Donohue with Mr. McConnell.
Mr. Elvins with Mr. O'Hara of Minnesota,
Mr. Polk with Mr. Davis of Wisconsin.
Mr. Priest with Mr. Kearney.
Mr. Wickersham with W. Scudder.
Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Gamble.
Mr. Burleson with Mr. Berry.
Mr. HALEY changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
Mr. REES of Kansas changed his vote
from "yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorder.
The doors were opened.
QUESTION OF PERSONAL
PR,rV ILEGE
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Speaker, I rise to a question of personal
privilege.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state his question of personal privilege.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Speaker, I rise to a question of personal
privilege. On July 9, 1956, beginning
at page 11015 of the daily CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, there appears a statement,
which, among other things, includes the
rollcall of the vote on H. R. 7535, known
as the Federal aid to education bill, and
the vote on the Powell amendment to
that bill.
The statement gives the names and
the manner in which the individual
Members of the House voted on the
adoption of the Powell amendment and
the passage of the bill, and the State
from which each. Member voting came,
as well as the political affiliation of each
Member.
A Member of the other body, referring
to the House, among other things, said:
Mr. President. the Washington Post and
Tulles Herald In an editorial onJuly 7. cor-
rectly referred to the Republican vote on the
Powell amendment as "cynical politicking."
The Post editorial says "Having squeezed
what benefit they could out of voting for a
rider that doomed the bill to death, most
Republicans joined callously in burying it."
The statement also included the edi-
torial from the Washington Post and
Times Herald, captioned "Ignoring the
Children," which, among other things,
stated:
The measure was put to death by a com-
bination of prejudice and politicking in an
atnu,sphcre of corfuslon and finagling dis-
creditable to Democrats and Republicans
alike, and to the House Itself as a lawmaking
body.
Both parties mist share the blame for
unconscionable jockeying for political ad-
vantage over the formula for allocation of
Federal funds In aid of education.
It Is difficult to interpret this as anything
but cynical politicking.
Many who are now of school age will suffer
an irreparable Injury from the shabby con-
duct of the Mousse of Representatives on
Thursday. They have been denied a part
of their American birthright,
The RECORD further discloses that
from the floor of the Senate, the follow-
ing statements were made:
If the Presidents health, or recuperation,
or concern over personal political problems.
prevented him from exerting some personal
influence and leadership In behalf of school
construction, where were those junior presi-
dents, Sherman Adams and James C. Hag-
erty, who have always seemed able to assert
White House leadership when they really
want to?
No Member of the Senate. perhaps, has
been any more dedicated to preserving the
civil rights of all our people than I have.
On page A5384 of the daily CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD, under date of July 9,
1956, there is a statement captioned "Ig-
noring the Children" in which the edito-
rial previously referred to is again
quoted.
Inasmuch as the statement shows how
the Member from the Fourth Congres-
sional District of Michigan voted on the
Powell amendment and on final passage
of the bill when that statement is cou-
pled with the editorial from which quo-
tations have just been made, it is obvious
that it was made in violation of the rules
of the House, if not of the other body,
that it violates the rule of comity pre-
vailing in the Congress, and that it ad-
versely affects the rights, the reputation,
and conduct individually in his repre-
sentative capacity of the Member from
the Fourth Congressional District of
Michigan, and charges that his vote on
H. R. 7535 and amendments thereto were
motivated, brought about by improper
influences to which he yielded.
Mr. Speaker, I have, in that same con-
nection, a question of the privilege of
the House, and in order to save time and
consolidate the matter, I ask that they
be considered together, if that is possible.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
they can be considered together.
There was no objection.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF THE
HOUSE
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege
of the House and offer a resolution, which
I send to the Clerk's desk. I ask to be
heard on the question of privilege and
on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 1956, beginning
at page 11015 of the daily CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, there appears a statement,
which, among other things, includes the
rollcall of the vote on H. R. 7535, known
as the Federal aid to education bill, and
the vote on the Powell amendment to
that bill. The statement gives the names
and the manner in which the individual
Members of the House voted on the
adoption of the Powell amendment and
the passage of the bill, and the State
from which each Member voting came,
as well as the political affiliation of each
Member.
Then followed the same statements
quoted in my previous statement and
which will not be here repeated.
Mr. Speaker, the quotations previously
read in connection with the question.of
personal privilege are in violation of
the rule of comity which exists in the
Congress, they adversely affect the rights
of the House collectively, its safety, its
dignity, and the integrity of its proceed-
ings in that, among other things, the
quotations charged that the House acted
from improper motives and because of
improper influence. They raise a ques-
tion of the privilege of the House.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I offer
a resolution (H. Res. 588) which has to
do with the question of the privilege of
the House.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved, whereas In the CONGRESSIONAL
RecoRn of July 9, 1956, certain articles ap-
pear which reflect upon the integrity of the
House as a whole in its representative capac-
ity, and upon Individual Members of the
House; and
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approval
Cp ~AI~Q~RB~45R000100200006-2
Whereas such statements tend to disgrace,
degrade, and render ineffective the actions
of the Members of the House; and
Whereas the statements so made and car-
ried in the RECORD adversely affect the rights
of the House collectively, its safety, dignity,
and the integrity of its proceedings: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House hereby by the
adoption of this resolution most respectfully
requests that the other body expunge from
its records the rolicall votes and remarks ap-
pearing on pages 11016-11017 and the re-
marks appearing on page A5384 of the daily
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of July 9, 1956, under
the caption "Ignoring the Children"; and
be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the Presiding Officer of the
other body.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the resolution be referred to
the Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the House Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service
be allowed to meet this after loon during
general debate for testimony only.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Loui-
siana?
Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speak-
er, reserving the right to object, I be-
lieve there has been. some agreement on
this side that no committee will be per-
mitted to sit while the House is in ses-
sion. If the gentleman's request in-
cludes that, I will have to go along with
my colleagues on this side and object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
The SPEAKER. The question is on should be stricken out. Suppose you get
the motion offered by the gentleman a project started for an airfield in
from Missouri. France or somewhere like that and
The motion was agreed to. France tells us that we cannot stay any
Accordingly the House resolved itself longer, or something like that happens.
into the Committee of the Whole House This is pure supposition. I do not mean
on the State of the Union for the con- they have that tendency now. We
sideration of the bill H. It. 12138, with would not be able to stop the construc-
Mr. KILDAY in the chair. tion work on it. We would have to go
The Clerk read the title of the bill. on just the same.
By unanimous consent, the first read- Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
ing of the bill was dispensed with. gentleman yield?
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, this bill Mr. TABER. I yield to the gentleman
is largely a matter of routine. It is the from Texas.
supplemeital appropriation bill--we Mr. MAHON. I am in complete agree-
used to call it a deficiency bill-which is ment with the gentleman's desire to be
always brought in at the end of the ses- able to stop projects that should be
sion, making provision for certain regu- stopped. It was not in any way the in-
lar supply items and for supplemental tention of the Defense Subcommittee to
appropriations. It naturally concerns bring about the condition which the
practically every department of the Gov- time lthe bill is ready Between
for amendment, I
e r
The is made up by chapters. Each should be glad to work with the gentle-
The bill
chapter represents supplementals or man in an effort to arrive at some agree-
general appropriations for the year end- ment in regard to a change in the
ing June 30, 1957. The bill includes 13 language. Of course the gentleman can
chapters and will be handled seriatim always offer a motion to strike out the
by the chairmen of the respective sub- language in the bill.
committees. It embraces, with one pos- Mr. TABER. I simply feel that I
sible exception so far as I am aware, should call attention to it at this point
nothing of a controversial nature. It because I do not feel it is safe to have
consists largely of routine stereotyped that kind of language in the bill. I
matter and procedure. We are tying up would like to have it corrected, and if
all the loose ends and preparing for ad- it is not corrected it might better be
journment with the expectation that we stricken out, in my opinion. But T
will have provided enough money to car- felt that I should call attention to it
ry all departments at least up to the next and I have done so. I do not think I
session in January. care to make any extensive comment on
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is the question at this time.
not a small bill. All budget estimates Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will
considered aggregated $1,222,849,525. the gentleman yield?
Apparently on the face of the bill it is Mr. TABER. I yield.
$332,685,900 in excess of the budget esti- Mr. CANNON. Section 309, which the
mates. However, that excess is merely gentleman has just discussed, is the sec-
apparent, as it does not take into consid- tion on which the gentleman and I are
mode through re-cis- in complete accord as to its general ob-
____~._-
the ngs
n the ---
s10ns, prlnclua.uy i
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION chapter of the bill. When that is taken which might be the means of turning
BILL, 1957 into consideration, we actually present a over to the departments duties and pre
bill which is $32,300,000 less than the rogatives of the House the determination
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move estimate submitted to the committee. of how much money shall be provided
that the House resolve itself into the Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield and how it shall be used. The Govern-
Committee of the Whole House on the myself such time as I may desire. ment is wisely divided into three see-
State of the Union for the consideration Mr. Chairman, this bill calls for tions-the legislative, judicial, and exec-
of the bill (H. It. 12138) making supple- $1,555,535,425 of appropriations. I utive. They are not to encroach upon
mental appropriations for the fiscal year served on one of the subcommittees each other's jurisdiction as laid down in
ending June 30, 1957, and for other pur- that was involved in it, and there is the Constitution. To the legislative
poses; and pending that motion, Mr. a cut of $625,500. There are other 'cuts branch exclusively belongs. the function
Speaker, I should like to make 2 involved, some of which are very good of appropriating money. From time im-
unanimous consent requests; first, that in proportion to the amount asked for. memorial, the departments have sought a
all Members have 5 legislative days in On the other hand, the committee felt voice in how much money shall be appro-
which to extend their remarks and to they should increase the direct appro- priated for them and how they shall use
include extraneous matter. I do that priation available for the Military Es- it after they get it. We have for a long
in order to save time during the con- tablishment's construction program. time been trying to bring the situation
sideration of the bill under the 5-minute The construction program is crippled down to where the appropriations are
rule. by an amendment which ? appears on to be made by the Congress and the ac-
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to page 10 of the bill as section 309. That tion of the Congress accepted and ob-
the request of the gentleman from is drawn in such shape that if a project served by the departments. The money
Missouri? the Department starts goes sour it can- appropriated by Congress shall be ad-
There was no objection. not take the money away from it. It ministered by the departments in ac-
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, second has to go on through with it. cordance with the directions and for the
I ask unanimous consent that general They indicate in their report that they purposes for which the money was pro-
debate on this bill be limited to 2 hours, want to accomplish something different vided by the Congress and not for other
one-half" of that time to be controlled from that. Whether or not they can purposes desired by the departments.
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. supply any language that will accom- To insure control of the pursestrings
TABERI and one-half by myself. plish what they want to do, whether or by the Congress rather than by the de-
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to not the provision will be worded so as to partments, we have in recent years
the request' of the gentleman from accomplish that, I do not know. If they finally completed and enacted a satis-
Missouri? can, I would be willing to go along with it. factory antideficiency law. The purpose
There was no objection. If they cannot, I think that provision of the antideficiency law is to place in
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11356 Approved For R "ts?MffqiCft D3T0? (JUSE 0100200006-2 July 12
the Congress complete control of the to be pulled out in the event that these sour or is not needed. That is what I do
appropriation machinery, rather than in projects go sour or become no longer not like about it.
the departments and under this revised needed. i hope as we go along we will Mr. GROSS. I think the criticism of
enactment it Is a penitentiary offense to be able to cove.- that.
spend a dollar for a purpose other than I do not think there is anything more t the onion it provision is that there is no restric-
spend for which appropriated. I care to say unless someone desires to
Mr. TABER
Also we have recently enacted a loll ask question. my
g Mr. Chairman, I re-
Also definition of "obligation." But Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman, will serve MrtCe balance
NON. of r. Ch time.
just as fast as we tie these departments the gentleman yield? ter IV M. C Mr.
chap-
beginning on page 10,
down, they try to find some way of Mr. TABER. I yield. of the bill this bill, pter III of the rt
slipping out from under the restrictions. Mr. SHEPPARD. I have read this beginning of the big and chapter III e the report,
And here as usual, regardless of what section very carefully. Where does the on reTt to the De-
the Congress does, they are trying to get gentleman find that the language incor- from mTexas of Defense. [Mr. The g chairman
the money and spend It or refuse to porated in section 309 has changed the of that Texas Me, an f chairman
spend it as they please. The gentleman present authority of the Department of of subcommittee, and at this time
minutes.
from New York and I are in complete Defense? I yield him 'E 20
agreement that Congress should ap- Mr. TABER. Well, at the NATIONAL DNSS AND THE INSI)CVRITY OF
propriate the money and Congress time the Defense Department or present
Mr. ON OVERSEAS
should say how it is to be spent. The Budget may impound funds. before us cous inso Mr. the bin
Chairman,
departments appear before the com- Mr. SHEPPARD. They still can of funds ne n the appropriation
mittee and have the widest latitude in under this language. for military concerned is largely a direct
explaining what money they want and Mr. TABER. No. appropriations construction. The dirc-
what they expect to do with it. After Mr. SHEPPARD. Oh. yes, they can. ing into o consideration the wtransf raof
they have presented their case, the Con- Dir. TABER. If the gentleman would fag into transfer have
f
gress decides whether they have justi- listen while I read: funds from other accounts which hunt
fled their program. After they have No funds appropriated for military con- been previously appropriated, amount
had their day in court they should abide structton shall be made available to the re- to $1,826,000,000 for military public
by the decision of the Congress. Too spective military departments in a manner works. If you add to that money which
often, they have failed to do that. Too so as to restrict the application of funds the Defense Department now has which
often after Congress has appropriated a to any specific project or installation. has not been obligated you run that
definite sum of money for a specific cur- That practica'ly means that they can- figure up to $2,699,000,000 for military
over-
pose, they propose to freeze it and leave not touch funds that are made appli- seasliforoths lfiscalsye r. If you take
it unexpended. In effect they take the cable to any particular project or in-
position "Congress says that we are to stallation. After it starts there is no tinto his ill and unexpended ende funds as of
spend it for a certain purpose, but to heck way to stop it. That is where the trouble this bill and hex total funds as it of
with Congress, we will not spend it at is. It says just that. I do not like to for June expenditure 1dit the total funds sska of
all-or we will spend it for some other see the Government get Into that kind of this bill for after
military the paos of
purpose." That is in violation of the a position, thbill $4,500,000,000. 0tpublic works will
constitutional prerogatives of the House Mr. SHEPPARD. Of course I do not be $t a very sizable So we are talking
and
is what we are trying to avoid here. agree-with the gentleman's interpreta- about a very sizable measure here be-
Congress has heard the executive tion. I will admit he has a right to his fore us.
departments, and after they have had Interpretation, but I have had it inter- FOREIGN AID AND THE DEFENSE PROGRAM
their opportunity to present their case, preted by a legal division of a Govern- Yesterday there was considerable com-
and the Congress has passed upon It, meat agency involved, and they do not ment in the House in regard to our over-
they shall observe both the amount and take that interpretation. seas bases and how secure those bases
the purposes which the Congress has in- Mr. TABER. I have had several con- were for the defense of the United States.
corporated in its appropriation acts. tacts since this thing came up, and that I look at our defense program about like
Section 309 provides for that situation. is the conclusion I came to, not only on this: We are spending about $35 billion
It speaks for itself. I am anxious to go my own reading of the thing, but on my a year for the Army, Navy, and Air
along with the gentleman from New talks with these other people. Force; we are spending about $31z bil-
York to the point where the department Mr. MAIION. Mr. Chairman, will the lion for foreign aid which we hope is
shall observe the directions of the Con- gentleman yield? American aid. In other words, we are
gress. Avoiding any apprehensions the Mr. TABER. I yield. spending about 10 percent of the defense
departments may have with respect to Mr. MAHON. I believe it is not the appropriations for assistance to coun-
sudden emergencies or changed condi- Intention of Congress to deprive the Sec- tries overseas, for military assistance
tions, the Congress is in session the retary of Defense of control of the De- and otherwise. If we should eliminate
larger part of the year. This year we fense Department at all, in the exercise all foreign-aid programs, all military as-
are to be in recess over a period of some- of authority which it now has. sistance overseas; if we should write off
thing like 5 months; a longer period than Mr. TABER. If that is the case, and all our friends overseas we would prob-
the usual recess, but that is exceptional, we say, so, that would satisfy me. If we ably have to increase this defense appro-
even that is not too long for the de- would put in here just that, "This is not priation bill by $10 billion or $15 bil-
partments, even if in their superior wis- intended to deprive the Department of lion a year.
dom they feel the Congress has erred Defense or its controllers or the budget Always when the Chairman of the
and they should take constitutional au- of any authority ;hat they now have." Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Radford,
thority in their own hands. If we would add that or similar lan- and the members of the Joint Chiefs ap-
Sessions of Congress are close enough guage I would be satisfied.
Commit-
and the committee staff is always here Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the tee,ratfonett eporoanother they are
and the subcommittees can assemble on gentleman yield?
short notice. The Constitution while Mr. TABER. to state whether d not add Army,
somewhat shopworn is not . .: yield to the gentle- f asked
would be required for the Army,
yet com- man from Iowa. Navy, and Air Force should there be no
pletely outmoded. Mr. GROSS. Is it the gentleman's foreign-aid program. Without excep-
Mr. TABER. I think this language contention that this is a restriction or tion and throughout the entire foreign-
should be straightened out, if possible. not a restriction upon the Secretary of aid program these high military officials
If it is not, I think this section should Defense?
of the Government have always said that
be stricken out. I agree that the ap- Mr. TABER. IL Is my contention that vast additional billions would be re-
proach should be that the department after moneys are allocated to a proj- quired were it not for the foreign-aid
should do what the Congress laid out ect and it gets :started they must go program. It is much cheaper to equip
for them. On the other hand, I do not right straight thiough with it without and finance a native soldier in Turkey
like to see it in such shape that there and possibility of salvage or anything of or some other foreign area than to
is no opportunity for the Government that kind in the event the project goes maintain an American soldier overseas.
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
1956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOIDIA 11357
Of course, the program takes on different
aspects from country to country. Gen-
erally speaking, we spend about 10 per-
cent of the defense budget on foreign aid.
We spend about 5 percent of the defense
budget on the atomic energy program.
That is about the way the defense pro-
gram stacks up. Of course, it is an un-
fortunate fact that neither our foreign-
aid program nor our military-defense-
program at home is free from waste and
error.
As I said, references have been made
to the hazardous aspects of our overseas
program of military bases. There are
$400 million in this bill for overseas air
bases alone and it is about these over-
seas bases that I would like to speak to
you briefly today.
If foreign soldiers In large, numbers
were quartered in Washington and in
other areas of the United States that
would represent a very abnormal and
unnatural situation, a very precarious
situation, a situation which would more
or less be calculated to bring on friction
and difficulty. The situation is no dif-
ferent overseas. We have these large
numbers of military bases, we have our
military personnel overseas in free and
sovereign countries. It is a difficult sit-
uation, it is bringing about friction, it
has brought about friction in Iceland to
the extent that we may not be there for
very long.
Of course, any Member of the House
of Representatives who is opposed to our
overseas bases could offer an amendment
to strike from this bill the funds in it,
running into the hundreds of millions
of dollars,: for further construction of
overseas bases. Most of these funds are
not for new bases, they are for the com-
pletion of existing bases. I think we
ought to face up frankly to the situa-
tion with which we are confronted. I
would say if no one offered such an
amendment it could be assumed that the
Members of the House approve the pro-
gram for overseas bases and the imple-
mentation thereof as carried in this bill.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. How
can the average Member know how many
bases there are, where the bases are to
be constructed?
Mr. MAHON. I think it would be
necessary for Members to read the re-
ports, to study the bill and to have a
general overall idea of the complete
situation. I recognize that no Member
of Congress could get up and say: We
want to knock out this overseas base, we
want to keep that one. It is an overall
question of whether we want to with-
draw our forces and our contacts from
abroad and rely for our defense solely
on Fortress America and provide the ad-
ditional billions for defense which the
adoption of this concept would require.
Do we want to adopt the Fortress Amer-
ica concept or do we want to keep these
bases overseas in our possession, bases
which constitute a ring around the
U. S. S. R.?
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield fur-
ther?
Mr. MAHON. I yield.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Now,
how many overseas bases have we at this
time?
Mr. MAHON. Well, I do not have the
total figure for all services in mind at the
moment. I understand that the Air
Force has 145 major airbases outside
the continental United States. This in-
cludes bases in Alaska, Newfoundland,
Labrador, Hawaii, and other areas of a
like nature. The other two services have
a number of installations overseas, but
not nearly as many as the Air Force.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Nine
hundred, as I get the information from
the Department.
Mr. MAHON. Well, 900 is certainly
erroneous, if you are speaking of major
bases. If you include each individual
communications station and like instal-
lation, then the total would be several
hundred.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. That is
wrong?
Mr. MAHON. - That is very much
wrong if we are referring to major in-
stallations. it is a question of termi-
nology.
Mri HOFFMAN of Michigan. That is
the answer they gave me. Maybe it is
wrong. Does not the gentleman real-
ize-we will leave the average Member
out of it-but the Member from Michigan
is almost wholly dependent upon the
members of the committee to get that in-
formation.
Mr. MAHON. I - recognize the diffi-
culties which the gentleman describes.
But this is an issue that is so big and
represents so many hundreds of millions
of dollars that every Member ought to
know something about it, and it is for
that reason that I have decided to make
a statement about it. And, if I may be
permitted to proceed a little while, then
I will yield later, but I want to make my
statement, and I think the gentleman
will be interested in it. This is a very
serious situation, as I say.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Indiana.
Mr. HALLECK. I just want to com-
mend the gentleman. I am happy that
he is putting these facts before us, be-
cause I am quite convinced' that it is
the failure to understand the purposes
of these overseas bases and their useful-
ness in our own defense that causes so
much confusion and concern in the
country, I think If the people could
have heard the gentleman's statement
and understood it, they would know that
these overseas bases are the first line of
defense for the United States of Amer-
lea and the free world.
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is en-
tirely correct. But, I point out how un-
natural it is for us to have these bases
'overseas in these sovereign countries. I
point out this, that we are going to lose
some of them from time to time, but I
will say to the gentleman from Indiana
that perhaps if we lose them all tomor-
row they would have already served a
most vital purpose. They may have
prevented World War III and the ex-
penditure of several billions of dollars
and many lives. It is a very important
point, and the fact that the base at Ke-
flavik, in Iceland, is threatened-I do
not think the base will be lost, but the
fact that it is threatened has caused us
to, I think, look at this important ques-
tion again. It Is something that the
committee has been looking at all the
time, and I think, to use Mr. HOFFMAN's
words, the average Member of Congress
ought to look at it, and that is the reason
I am making these remarks.
I read from, I think, the most au-
thoritative magazine that comes to our
desk, and I read the following head-
line: "United States Bases Overseas
Going, Going-." And, I think the im-
plication is "gone" is going to be the
next thing.
The first paragraph of that story is:
The next few. weeks will tell whether or
not the United States will be able to keep
intact its chain of overseas airbases, built
up at great expense in money, time, and ef-
fort since World War U.
There is some truth in the statement
which I have just read.
Now, I would like to just take a look at
some of these bases. Since we'are talk-
ing about Iceland, which is very much in
our minds, let us take a look at Iceland.
There is no money in this bill for the base
in Iceland, but on the airbase in Iceland
we have already spent $1.07 million. We
have a right to stay in Iceland for 18
months after a decision to terminate the
agreement or the life of NATO or for 20
years, beginning to run when NATO was
created. Of course, the right to remain
is renewable-if we and Iceland so agree.
Look at Greenland. in this bill we
have $6 million for bases in Greenland,
but we have already appropriated for
Thule, just one base in Greenland, $225
million, and most of it has been spent.
There are other bases, in Greenland,
running the expenditure for overseas
bases in Greenland, under the jurisdic-
tion of Denmark, around $300 million.
Look at Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have already spent $271 million there,
and we have in this bill $48 million. And,
if this program is wrong, we ought to
have stopped it yesterday.
Now, in Morocco we are in a very diffi-
cult situation. We have in this bill $27
million for bases in French Morocco ; that
is, for the improvement of those bases.
We have already appropriated-and most
of it has been spent-$355 million on the
bases in French Morocco, and you know
the difficulty between the French and the
Moroccans.
We are now negotiating with the Arabs
of Morocco for the further occupancy
of these bases. The truth is we are over
the barrel. We have spent our $355
million. Some wise man may say, "Well,
why did you do that?" But it was done
at a time when it appeared that world
war III was in the offing. It was done
on a crash program. And it is well that
it was done. But in my judgment, we
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11358 Approved For Relg (g ( of6NALCI tIMT00if5g~0100200006-2 Jlcl y 12
must recognize the difficulties Involved. beginning in 1949 and it can be renewed Japan, Korea, the Philippines, southern
Of course, the people in Morocco would if the powers agree. It is on a 10-year Asia, with the single exception of India,
like to have $400 million a year, perhaps, basis in Spain, where we are paying $825 Pakistan, Turkey, Greece and Italy,
for our occupancy of the bases there. million. it is renewable. If we should France. Germany, and England. Is not
We cannot and would not pay it. So we happen to leave, there is an agreement that true? We have brought any area
have got to negotiate with the Arabs with Spain that we will be reimbursed for of the potential aggressor within the
for a continuation of that program, some of the physical properties we would range of our planes within a few hours.
which is an unhappy situation. But leave there. There is no real agree- Mr. MAHON. We have brought them
when you deal with sovereign countries went with England as to tenure. It is within that range or are bringing them
you must take into account the facts of just an open-cnd affair, but perhaps that within that range.
life. For the Wheelus Air Force Base in is as good a:; any of the rest of the In order to get that in proper perspec-
Libya in North Africa we have in this agreements. tive, let us assume for a moment that the
bill $21/ million. We have already ap- It is not po.;sible to get an agreement Soviets had bases in the Caribbean, bases
propriated in previous years $70 million. to stay in a sovereign country any longer in Canada, and bases offshore in the At-
Our tenure there is until 1970. than the people in that country want you lantic and the Pacific. We could then
Of course, these can always be re- to stay. I discussed the situation in realize the terrific advantage our coun-
newed: that is, If the two countries agree. Morocco. I think we must face up to try does have in this perilous world. We
In the Azores we have in this bill this. When you vote for the $400 mil- can also realize why the Soviets will
$4,200,000 for a base there. We have lion here just for airbases alone, plus dedicate any effort and any money that
already appropriated $77 million. Our, funds for Army and Navy requirements, may be advantageously expended from
base rights in the Azores expire in De- you might just as well face up to this, their viewpoint in order to dislodge us
cember of this year. We are now nego- that any time any country in the world from the overseas bases. It is a very
tinting for the continuation of that says, "You must pack up and go home." important operation from our standpoint
tenure. we can do only one of two things. We and from theirs.
in Bermuda we have a 99-year lease, can pack up and go home or we can go Mr. SPRINGER. And in the mainte-
negotiated just before World War II. We to war in order to stay there. That is nance of these bases in these countries,
have $17 million in the bill for that base. the very precarious position which we this is in our own self interest; is it not
We have spent previously $57 million. occupy in regard to our overseas bases. and that is why we are maintaining
In Spain we have a terrific program. Mr. SCRIVN'ER. Mr. Chairman, will these bases are over the world.
It is a kind of combination of foreign aid the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. Correct. That is the
and military aid. The Program in Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle- reason we are providing the funds. I
Spain calls for the expenditure of $827 man from Kan.ias. think even If the program blows up
million. About half of that is for the Mr. SCRIVIKE.R. In other words, we eventually it has perhaps alrleady been
bases and about half is for economic aid are in these various countries as a guest worth the money. But, I am convinced it
of one kind or another. We are in the of these countries and not as an occupy- will not blow up in the near future.
midst of that program, We are con- mg, victorious group, so that, being Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, will the
strutting 4 big bases. Some addi- guests, any time our hosts find that they gentleman yield?
tional bases are on the schedule for fu- do not want us in the house any more, Mr, MAIHON. I yield.
ture consideration. they can do to us just as we would to Mr. BOW. I notice on page 33 of the
We have in this bill for Spain $37 mil- guests in our own home, ask them kindly report, there are three items that I think
lion. We have already spent on the to make their departure, should be explained. They are as fol-
program there for air bases-American Mr. MAHON. That is correct. lows:
Air Force Bases-$127 million. That is, I do not believe this matter has here-
we have made those funds available. tofore been presented in as brutal and Various T locations, ______________ $1, 240, 000
The Navy has a program in Spain In factual a way in the House in general Aircraft control dnw rnin____ 8, 250,000
g___ 148,458,000
excess of $30 million. So we have a debate as the :ituation really warrants.
very large program there. The late and Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, will the I would like to ask the distinguished
able Admiral Sherman originally nego- gentleman yield? gentleman from Texas whether or not
tiated for those bases. It was necessary Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle- this appropriation in these amounts
to get bases in Spain, which are very im- man from Flor_da, means that the military now is setting
portant to us. and to do that it was nee- Mr. HALEY. Would it not be a fair up their own airways and the operation
essary for our Government to make cer- statement to sa:i that the committee and of their own airways.
tain economic concessions and advances the Congress as a whole must follow the Mr. MAIHON. I would say to the
in order to raise the economic standard advice of the people who have the re- gentleman that this is not in conflict
of the people of Spain. So, as I say, that sponsibility for the defense of this coun- with the agreement between Civil Aero-
is an $800 million program. try? That is as far as we can go. nautics and the military as to the phas-
Here is another very big progyoram. Mr. MAIION. I think we need to re- ing in of different control programs
the cost figure will almost shock u, if ceive their advice, consider their advice within this country. Some of these
we can be shocked any more by big fig- and, if we differ with them, argue about stations are set up for classification pur-
ures. In Alaska, since 1950. we have it with them. Then, if we are posi- poses. There is secrecy involved in some
provided $900 million in funds for the tively sure they are wrong and we have of these operations around the world and
Army, Navy and Air Force, just short of the better proposal, I think it is up to there are difficulties in setting forth the
$1 billion. us to propose it because I think we do whole picture.
For our worldwide radar network, the have a definite responsibility. Mr. BOW. Can the gentleman say
radar fence, the DEW line, the Pine Tree The CHAIRMAN. The time of the whether or not the military is now adopt-
line and other lines for radar to detect gentleman from Texas has expired. ing TACAN as their distance measuring
the approach of the enemy to an overseas Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman. I yield instrument as against the VOR, DME
base or to an American city or industrial 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas. used by civilian aircraft?
in pre ex we bills provide of $79G l lslland the SPRINGER. Eie.d Mt. Chairman, will Mr. MAHON. I think they are in the
TACAN program
a very sizable program. Mr. MAHON. I yield to the process of adopting the
gentle- over a a period of years. . I think it comes
We have gone into great detail from man from Illincis? out of an agreement which has been
time to time as to the tenure on our over- Mr. SPRINGER. May I ask the dis- reached with the CAA and with the De-
seas bases. We would like to have iron- tinguished gentleman from Texas this partment of Defense. Insofar as we
clad assurances that we can stay on them one question to bring this all up in a were able to determine in our hearings
as long as we want to, but those are free bundle. We have only one potential ag- this year, there is no longer any contro-
countries and we cannot get that as- gressor. What we have done in effect is versy with regard to that question.
surance. to bring those bases in a sort of a semi- Mr. HOW. Do we understand that
I mentioned that in connection with circle around that potential aggressor, there is nothing in this that will establish
NATO the tenure is for a 20-year period starting in Alaska and going through a separate airways for the military in
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approv CONGRESSIONAL /RECORDA-F5fD245R000100200006-2 11359
1956
this country and that they will lie con- tee for funding approval in connection
trolled by the CAA? with the 1957 program and those which
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is ab- have been approved in the past, but not
solutely correct in that statement. yet funded, amounts to $636,764,700.
Mr. BOW. So that we will have no The committee feels that the difference
confusion in the air between the two between this program and the total funds
agencies? available for construction was entirely
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is cor- too great. Therefore the Department of
rect. the Navy was requested to analyze its
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to overall program and submit to the com-
submit a brief summary as to construe- mittee a priority list containing all of
tion funds provided in the pending bill the items in this program listed in order
for Army, Navy, and Air Force. Before of their essentiality. Using this prior-
doing so perhaps I should point. out that ity list the committee has approved a
in the regular military appropriations funding program of $541,318,700, a pro-
bill which I presented to the House gram approximately 20 percent greater
earlier this-year approximately $34.5 than the total available funds of ap-
oillion were provided for the general proximately $451 million which includes
overall program for the Department of $51 million of unobligated balances from
Defense, exclusive of military construe- prior year appropriations. Specific de-
cion. In the bill now before us the total tails of the committee action will be
value of new programs submitted to the found in the committee report.
committee by the three services was esti- In considering the military construc-
mated at $2,967,000,000, divided as fol- tion estimates, the committee did ' not
lows: Army, $351 million; Navy, $445- have available the conference report on
million; Air Force, $2,161,000,000. the military construction authorization
The appropriations requested to bill.
finance the above programs are as fol- The bill as reported by the committee
lows: Army, $193 million; Navy, $400 is based generally upon the military con-
million; Air Force, $1,228,000,000. Of struction authorization bill as passed by
this total of $1,826,000,000, the amount the House of Representatives. Subse-
of $785 million was recommended to be quent to reporting this bill to the House,
derived by transfer from other funds the conference report on the authoriza-
previously made available to the services. tion bill has been agreed upon by the
. The committee has approved for fund- House and Senate conferees. This has
ing a total program of approximately resulted in the deletion from the au-
$2,305,000,000, or a reduction of $662 mil- thorization bill of funds for certain Navy
lion most of which is applied to the Air housing at the Naval Observatory in
Force. Washington. Since this item was in-
The full amount of the budget esti- eluded fn the authorization bill as passed
mate, $1,826,450,000, was approved by the the House, and was given high priority
committee, except that the amount of by the Navy, the committee approved
$428 million, rather than $785 million, the project in the overall construction
is to be derived by transfer. The com- program set forth in the report accom-
mittee felt that instead of a proposed panying the supplemental appropriation
transfer of $357 million from the Army bill. Inasmuch as there is now no au-
stock fund to the Air Force for construe- thority for this construction, I take this
tion purposes, a better and more clean- opportunity to inform the House that
cut procedure would be to make a direct this item is accordingly stricken from
appropriation, which was done. How- the approved program as set forth in the
ever, this action will have no effect on the committee report on page 22, and from
United States Treasury, because at the section 307 (b) on page 9 of the bill.
same time the committee recommends a Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I have
rescission of $357 million in the Army just been handed an excerpt from the
stock fund. editorial page of this afternoon's Wash-
The total appropriation of $1,398,450,- ington News which has just reached the
000 included in the bill will be augmented newsstands., There is an editorial here
by an estimated unobligated balance of castigating the gentleman from New
$873 million, making a total of $2,699,- York [Mr. TABER] and me.because, as it
150,000 available for obligation in fiscal intimates, we have sabotaged legislation
year 1957. which would save $4 billion a year. The
As to expenditures 1957, the be ap- total News has brought this matter up at a
availability for this purpose will time when both of us are recipients of a
teby $4,526,000,000. Of this flood of letters from responsible busi-
mount, approximately $2,700,000,000 nessmen all over the country asking us
epresents unexpended balances as of why we are not willing to save $4 bil-
bil-
une Mr. SHEPPARD. 95EPPARD. Mr. Chairman, the lion a year? 'It is a very natural and
Mr. question.
;ommittee has approved the budget esti- Four, billion dollars is an enormous
note of $400 million for the public-works amout of money. Its purchasing power
grogram of the Department of the Navy is so great that the finite mind of man
` fiscal year This provides new for cannot begin to comprehend its vast ex-
Appropriations of of $ $165 million n in
money and $200 million to be derived by tent.
transfer from the Navy stock fund and But the long and distinguished record
$35 million from the Marine Corps stock of the gentleman from New York, is suf-
.und. ficient guaranty that if it was possible
The military public-works program of to save that amount of money he would
he Department of the Navy, including save it. And that is true notwithstand-
hose projects presented to the commit- ing his efforts to increase administra-
tion expenditures these last few weeks
for purposes he formerly opposed.
Incidentally I have saved some billions
myself including $64 billion at one time.
Either of us would be glad to take
advantage of the opportunity to save
that amount of money.
But of course there- is no such oppor-
tunity. The assertion that we could
save $4 billion annually is absurd. It
is the most fantastic statement that
could possibly be made. After it had
been circulated through the press of the
country, we had the Director of the
Budget, Mr. Brundage, before a subcom-
mittee of the Committee on Appropria-
tions and I asked him how we could
save $4 billion a year or how any agency
of Congress could save $4 billion a year
by the enactment of legislation or the
adoption of any recommendations that
might be made to us along the lines so
widely publicized.
He said-and I quote from page .848
of the hearings, part 2, supplemental
appropriations bill, 1957--he could not
make any estimate because, as he said,
it was too intangible. Then he closed by
saying: "I feel satisfied that we will save
several million dollars."
I said to him, "Several million?" He
said, "Yes." Then I said, "There is a
great difference between several million
and the $4 billion advertised."
In short, he did not assure us that he
could save $1 million, much less $4 bil-
lion, and at no time was he willing to say
positively that he could assure us he
could save any specific amount by the
use of any device or the adoption of any
Hoover Commission recommendation,
and this is the Director of the Budget
talking.
Then the testimony began to assume
a very familiar trend. The gentleman
from New York [Mr. TABER] has been
here a long time, and I have been here
with him. Practically every year some
department comes up telling us, "We can
save a lot of money. Give us an extra
amount in our appropriation and we will
have millions."
Sure enough, Mr. Brundage began to
tell us he would make large savings and
asked us for more money in his appro-
priation. He wanted $405,000 more than
he had this year in order to save some-
thing. He did not say how much.
We gave him $375,000 for extra per-
sonnel in the Bureau of the Budget, with
the hope that he really could save some-
thing. But frankly, I have little hope of
getting material results.
I am going to include in the RECORD at
this time an excerpt from page 41 of the
report. It is as follows:
ESTIMATED SAVINGS
The committee wishes to point out, in
passing, the dangers of arbitrary and un-
founded assumptions as to the value of re-
visions in financial management and ac-
counting systems per se. The Commission
on Organization of the E cecutive Branch of
the Government quoted its task force claim-
ing savings from improved financial man-
agement-to amount, to $4 billion. Many
well intentioned persons, corporations, and
associations have spent much time and
money bombarding the Congress and the
public to effect these savings. No witness
appeared before the committee during con-
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11360 Approved For ReI~TQ$(Af~100 0100200006-2
Jid y 12
sideration of the 1957 budget request to cific purpose They lull us into a sense approval of the three panels of the
point out, nor could the Director of the Bu- of security by explaining plausibly that Armed Service Subcommittee.
reau of the Budget at the present hearing
identify, any part of these savings. It is they are not asking for an appropriation, They come to you also with the unan-
preposterous to assert that a mere change merely an authorization. And on that imous approval of the subcommittee as
in recordkeeping, unaccompanied by specific account we are not so meticulous in a whole and, as far as I know, with, the
reductions in appropriations, can result in screening the proposition. unanimous approval of the full com-
any appreciable savings, let alone such a Armed with contract authority, and mittee.
vast sum as 44 billion. without particularly adequate considera- I shall, therefore, make no extended
The committee is fearful that forcing the tion, they ccntract to spend enormous statement.
entire Federal fiscal structure to the accrued sums of money, and when we come back The committee has gone into the sit-
expenditure concept or appropriating Is a next year and find an appalling bill cation with
professional accountant's dream that may awaiting us and begin to go into the de- great ncee. It has realized
well become the taxpayer's nightmare. In the vital importance of this program
approving 4375,000 of the pending estimate tails they say: "This is an incurred li- particularly in the light of new devel-
for the Bureau, the committee is therefore ability, you authorized this contract. It opments in weapons.
approving the strengthening of the staff of has been car'; icd cut. There is nothing It has realized that the overall pro-
the Bureau of the Budget, but without sub- to do but appropriate the money to pay gram cannot be completed in a short
scribing to the recommendations of the for it." time, that it will require a number of
Commission on Organization of the Execu- It is the most reprehensible form of years for completion.
Live Branch of the Government in their appropriation legislation, the most dan- After careful consideration it has rec-
entirety.
._~
I yield to the gentleman from New the United States Treasury there is. quested by the Bureau of the Budget for
York. 'Ihe gentleman from New York opposes this program in fiscal 1957; namely, $1,-
Mr. TABER. Mr. Brundage claims it and I oppo:;e it. 041,450,000 of new money net.
he could save several million dollars in Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman. will the Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the
connection with the new funds he was gentleman yield? gentleman yield?
getting, without any legislation. This Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentle- Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I yield to
editorial denounced the gentleman and man from Texas. the gentleman from Washington.
it denounced me because we were opposed Mr. MAHON. The hearings to which Mr. PELLY. I wonder if the gentle-
to insertion in the bill that was before the gentleman from New York and the man can reconcile his statement that
the Committee on Government Opera- chairman of the committee are referring the committee is granting all money re-
tions a provision to reestablish and re- were held before the committee presided quested with the statement that I find
quire the Congress to operate on the basis over by the gentleman from Alabama in the report on pages 20 and 21 regard-
of contract authorization instead of ap- I Mr. ANDREWS I. In view of the fact that ing certain projects which are justified
propriation of funds. The appropriation some of our constituents have been led by the committee as being immediately
of funds brings before the Congress the to believe that by some little change essential to the Navy, while it appears
exact amount that the projects will cost here in Congress we could save S4 billion, to me there are $200 million which has
to completion. Contract authorization I think it would be good if all Members not been granted toward essential naval
brings before the Congress only the ini- could get a CoPy of the hearings and programs.
tial amount. When you have a contract read them carefully. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The gentle-
authorization, perhaps 1 percent of the I sat through all the hearinks with man is perhaps confusing the amount of
total which the thing is going to cost the other members of the subcommittee funds which the committee recommends
will be included, and you can get It and listened to Mr. Brundage, Director be made available with the value of the
through the Congress much easier than of the Bureau of the Budget. He could projects which it has approved as a fiscal
you can a big project which will cost a not pinpoint the saving of any money. 1957 program for the respective depart-
billion dollars or $600,000,000, or some- To try to foist upon the American pro- ments.
thing like that. That is the kind of pie this cruel hoax, that Congress could Mr. PELLY. Did the Bureau of the
thing that they tried to fasten on us. save the huge sum of $4 billion by a Budget not request any more than the
You and I both opposed that sort of thing slight change in language Is utterly amount allowed by the committee?
before the Committee on Government ridiculous and absurd. This hoax ought Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. So far as
Operations, and the Government Opera- to be exposed on the floor for what it new funds are concerned, the amount
tions Committee saw that it was in the really is, and I would like to commend recommended is 100 percent of the
interest of the Government to refuse to the gentleman from Missouri and the budget request.
use the contract authorization business. gentleman from New York for their posi- It has been the practice in recent
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will Lion in this instance, which I think is years however, to request approval of
the gentleman yield? absolutely cor-ect. a far larger total in projects than the
Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentle- Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I ask dollars requested for application to proj-
man from Texas. unanimous consent to revise and extend ects in any given year.
Mr_ THOMAS. Of course, the criti- my remarks and include the excerpts Mr. PELLY. The ceiling then of $451
cism of the gentleman from New York to which I made reference. million for naval facilities was put in by
I Mr. TABEa 1 and the gentleman from The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection the Bureau of the Budget and not by the
Missouri I Mr. CANNONI, I think, was cer- to the request; of the gentleman from committee?
tainly out of line and unfounded. The Missouri? Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. That is cor-
argument all boils down to the simple There was no objection. rect.
proposition, if you do what they ask you Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield Mr. PELLY. I do not want to take the
to do you are giving them. in truth to the gentleman from Michigan for a gentleman's time if he is going to be
and in effect, the departments down- consent request. short of time; but I do appreciate his
town, a blank check, because you give (Mr. HOFPVIAN of Michigan asked information on this because I am greatly
them the power to bind the Government and was given permission to revise and concerned that many of the projects
by contract. There must be a payday extend his remarks just made.) left out are essential ones.
later. Is not that about the situation? Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield speaking, the naL as program inBwhich
Mr. CANNON. Definitely. 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mas-
Mr. TABER. And it will cost a lot sachusetts lMr. WIGGLESWOBTIiI. the gentleman is interested calls for an
more money. (Mr. WIGGL.ESWORTH asked and appropriation of $451 million in 1957 to
Mr. THOMAS. It is bound to; there was given applied projects aggregating i the
permission to revise and ex- total about t $541541,,3 318,700. In other
is no escape from it. tend his remarks.) words, there is a 20 percent leeway or
Mr. CANNON. Supplementing what Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Chair- elasticity provided for, in the discretion
the gentleman from New York has said, man, the recommendations in chapter of the Department, but the new funds
the departments ask Congress for con- III with respect to the Army, Navy, and recommended, as I have stated, are 100
tract authority; that is, authority to go Air Force m-litany-construction pro- percent of the total requested by the
out and make contracts for some spe- grams come to you with the unanimous Bureau of the Budget.
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved g JJM%8InC@ DP#U 45R000100200006-2 11361
Similarly if we look at the whole pro-
gram here-Army, Navy, and Air Force-
which, of course, has been thoroughly
screened, not only by the Committee on
Armed Services but by the Appropria-
tions Committee, you will find that the
projects in respect to which the 1957
money may be applied aggregate about
$2,305,000,000, representing a decrease as
the result of screening from a figure of
about $2,967,000,000.
The overall result is that you have all
the new funds requested, and a. total of
$1,041,450,000 net, for application
against projects aggregating about
$2,305,000,000, in the discretion of the
several departments.
Section 309, about which some discus-
sion has been had on the floor, is
designed to speed up the program and to
preserve the elasticity insofar as the De-
partment of Defense and the Bureau of
the Budget are concerned.
Mr. PELLY. My concern is due to the
fact we have just discussed the foreign
air bases. I look upon our aircraft car-
riers as mobile bases. In case we lose
any of the foreign bases we will have to
look to the aircraft carrier. Now, on the
west coast we have no facilities for re-
pairing battle damage on a modern air-
craft carrier. The drydock facilities are
not large enough. As I understand, this
is a ceiling on the amount that is allowed
on these justified and essential facilities
for the Navy, and would not allow -for
any planning funds for a large drydock,
which takes 5 years, from the time that
planning funds are appropriated, to
complete.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH, I will say to
the gentleman that the approved proj-
ects, as distinguished from funds, insofar
as the Navy is concerned, follow exactly
a priority list submitted to the commit-
tee by the Navy Department.
As far as planning funds are con-
cerned, I think and I hope-the chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from California [Mr. SHEPPARD], will cor-
rect me if I am wrong-there is a segre-
gation of these funds which could make
available the necessary funds for plan-
ning such a project as you have in mind,
even though the project itself might
trot be sufficiently high on the priority
list to warrant starting construction.
Mr. Chairman, I assume that the de-
tails of chapter 3 will be taken up under
the 5-minute rule. I have no further
general comments except to express the
hope that the recommendations of the
committee will be approved.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman. from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. FLOOD].
(Mr. FLYNT asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks in the
RECORD following Mr. FLOOD.)
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, this
seems to be my Support-the-President
Week, earlier this week on the foreign-
aid bill and now to support his request
for $37.5 million to build a second na-
tional airport at Burke, Va. Because of
the parliamentary situation and the tac-
tical situation again, -similar to yester-
day,,I am not going to introduce here in
the House the necessary amendment to
this supplemental appropriation bill. I
have discussed this matter with the dis-
tinguished leaders in the other body who
are concerned with this matter, as am I;
the Senators dealing with the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and
the subcommittee dealing with aviation
matters. They have indicated that un-
der all the circumstances they feel it
would best be done this way. I have
discussed the matter with the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. PRESTON], chairman
of the Subcommittee on the Department
of Commerce, which includes the CAA,
and he is of the opinion with me.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no sense
in burdening this committee with the
situation dealing with our safety at the
National Airport here. It has gotten to
the point of saturation for several years.
The near misses, the close problems we
have had for years are of record for all
who wish to read, and you have all read
about. I have no interest in the Burke
airport one way or the other except as
I have told you for years on this problem
I have a high regard for the gentleman
from Pennsylvania who is now talking to
you and his neck and I also have great
love and affection for all of you, my
brothers in the ,House, who use the Na-
tional Airport. It is a menace and it is
a hazard; it is a death trap and it has
been for years. Now, all the technicians
who know this problem, the Secretary of
Commerce, the Commission of the Pres-
ident of the United States which re-
ported to him in December, all favor this
new airport at Burke, Va. I must resist
this opposition of the delegation from
Maryland and a few men from Virginia,
like my friend [Mr. BROYHILL] who is
nearby. If I represented that district, I
would be upset about it, too. But the
sum total of these parochial nearby sub-
urban interests cannot match the gen-
eral national welfare and the general
safety of the hundreds of thousands of
people who come in and out of Washing-
ton National Airport.
I am not going to burden you with tell-
ing you how many minutes it takes to go
to this place and how many to go to that
place. We have been through that for
years. I have taken these trips in cabs; I
have gone with newspaper and radio
men; I have traveled in the limousines
from the Mayflower and from the Stat-
ler; I have gone in private cars and in my
own car. "You pays your money, and
you takes your choice" on how long it
takes to get from here to there. You can
get any kind of figures that you want.
There is that white elephant that our
good friend Tommy D'Alesandro, who
used to be in this House, gave birth to out
at Friendship. The people who know, the
air transport people who run the airlines,
and the pilots who fly the planes and the
Commission appointed by the President
of the United States, the Secretary of
Commerce, and now the President him-
self, who sends up to this Congress a re-
quest to appropriate the money to begin
the construction of this new airport at
Burke, Va., have told you what are the
facts. I am on the side of the angels on
this at this time; it could be otherwise in
a crash at National Airport.
I hope the House will not wait until
there is a terrible tragedy and hundreds
of people are killed by crashes over this
overburdened airport, now the National
Airport. Ypu should meet this issue.
I . am not going to introduce this
amendment. I am advised by distin-
guished Members of the other body from
these contiguous, adjacent States to
which a great many Yankees from New
York have come and bought horse farms,
that they are going to be upset by air-
planes.. That leaves me cold. And while
I have love and affection for the gentle-
man from Maryland [Mr. LANKFORD] and
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BROY-
HILL], the distinguished Senator from
Virginia, Mr. ROBERTSON, and all these
great leaders and great Senators and
great Representatives, "That has noth-
ing to do with the case tra la," as far as
the rest of the United States is concerned.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman,
would the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLOOD. Now I yield to my friend
from Maryland.
'Mr. LANKFORD. I should like to ad-
vise the gentleman from Pennsylvania
that I have as much regard for his neck
as I have for my own. I am not going to
burden him or the Members with how
many minutes it takes to go from this
place to that or the other, but I wonder
if the gentleman realizes that within ?a
13-mile area of Burke, there are 6 major
airports and 5 minor ones. And I won-
der if the construction of the airport at
Burke would relieve this congestion
which is paramount in our minds today.
Mr. FLOOD. The technicians and the
experts have decided. The President has
resolved this controversy and asked
funds for Burke, Va. I am. not going to
substitute the opinion of-my friends from
Virginia and Maryland for theirs. The
overwhelming, disinterested, informal,
and the best opinion declares for a new
national airport at Burke, Va. We have
delayed overlong; further delay would
amount to gross negligence.
Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Chairman, It was
with particular interest that I listened
to the remarks of the distinguished gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania in announc-
ing to the committee that he would noj;
introduce his amendment to the supple-
mental appropriation bill, H. R. 12138,
for the purpose of including in the ap-
propriation+for the building and com-
pletion of a metropolitan Washington
airport to be located at Burke, Va.
I especially noted that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania is nonetheless en-
thusiastic about the Burke airport site,
but that he apparently feels that such
an amendment will stand a better
chance of adoption and inclusion in the
bill in the other body than it would here.
Let me commend my distinguished
colleague for his interest in this particu-
lar question, for he is probably as well
informed on the particular subject as
any Member ;of this body. I know that
his support of the Burke airport site
stems from motives of air safety and
convenience just as my opposition to the
Burke airport site has its origin in these
same high motives.
Therefore, I regret that he saw fit to
withhold his amendment from consid-
eration by this body because I think that
full and ample time should be allowed
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11362 Approved For P., l 42 ; 1 1 3T( fiMRQ00100200006-2 July 12
to this House to debate the advantages
and disadvantages of the Burke site.
We all know that in the limited time
allowed that this subject cannot be
properly discussed if and when it reaches
us in the form of a conference report.
Therefore, it is my desire and my pur-
pose at this time to outline to you some
of the reasons dealing primarily with air
safety, why I am very strongly opposed
to the development of the Burke airport
site as a major airport facility to serve
metropolitan Washington.
As some you may know, I have just
returned, along with eight other Mem-
bers of this body, from an extensive in-
quiry into the facts surrounding the re-
cent major air tragedy which apparently
took place in mid-air over Grand Can-
yon. Let us bear in mind that there is
absolutely no similarity between the area
over Grand Canyon where air traffic is
very slight, and the metropolitan area of
Washington, where the air traffic den-
sity is almost as heavy as In any part of
the United States. The committee
which investigated the Grand Canyon
disaster Is not yet ready to announce
any conclusions because in all probabil-
ity we will take considerably more testi-
mony. However, the findings of fact
which are thus far undisputed Indicate
clearly the need for utmost caution in
future planning and development of air
safety regulations. With the testimony
which we heard last week still fresh in
my mind, I wish to inform this body
that I am of the firm opinion and belief
that the installation of a major airport
at Burke, Va., within a small radius
circle from the present Washington Na-
tional Airport, would intensify air haz-
ards much more than would be the case
if no additional major airport facility
for metropolitan Washington were
planned.
This is not to say that a properly plan-
ned and located airport facility would
not provide greater safety, but I think
extreme thought should be given and ex-
treme caution should be exercised in de-
termining exactly where this new airport
facility should be located.
The Burke site would, in my opinion,
be especially dangerous because it would
add to the existing local airport con-
gestion not only additional flights, in-
cluding takeoffs and landing in this area,
but it would necessitate a third major
air traffic pattern within an 11 i/s mile
circle, which would cause many planes
from one traffic pattern to properly or
inadvertently enter into another traffic
pattern under what is known as "hold-
inn conditions." Please bear in mind
that within the 111/2 mile circle to which
I refer would be located the Washington
National Airport, Bolling Air Force Base,
Anacostia Naval Air Station, Andrews
Air Force Base and, if authorized and
completed, the new airport site at Burke,
Va., not to mention at least two private
airports within the same circle, and also
Davison Army Air Field at Fort Belvoir,
Va., which is accommodating more and
more air traffic each month.
It seems to me to be absolutely fool-
hardy and extremely dangerous to add
another major airport to what is already
perhaps the most congested air traiiio
area of similar size anywhere in America.
We all realiza the desirability of re-
moving part of the present air traffic con-
gestion from this 111'2 mile circle to
which I have just referred, but let me
tell you as strongly as I can that the
building of Burke airport is not the
answer. Instead of eliminating air
hazards it would- probably create perhaps
the greatest single air hazard existing
anywhere in America.
Let us now turn to an alternative prop-
osition and let ine say that except for a
desire to provide the greatest possible air
safety I have no preference either way
between the proposed Burke site and the
Friendship, Md., airport site. If I
thought for one second that Burke would
provide even an infinitestimal bit more
air safety than the Friendship Airport
would provide, glen I would be coming to
the support of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania and championing his espousal
of the Burke site, but as I see it, after a
careful and exhaustive study, I am con-
vinced that converting Friendship In-
ternational Airport into the second major
Washington area airport would provide
infinitely more air safety and equally
as much convenience to the Nation's
Capital, its residents and its visitors. I
wish that every Member of this body
could already have personally visited and
inspected the facilities of Friendship Air-
port. The best way I know to describe
it is to say that it is the equal of any in
America in phyciical facilities, including
runways, taxi strips, aprons, ramps and
terminal facilities. It can probably be
best described a,i saying it is a first class
airport accommodating second class traf-
fic density.
The Friendship Airport is well beyond
the 1112-mile circle to which I have re-
peatedly referred. It is out of the pres-
ent danger zone, so far as the creation of
a new major air traffic pattern is con-
cerned. I am informed that the traffic
pattern of Friendship Airport does not
conflict under any existing conditions
with the traffic patterns of either Wash-
ington National Airport, Andrews Air
Force Base, Bolling Air Force Base.
Anacostia Naval Air Station, Davison
Army Air Field, or either of the two pri-
vate airports which are located in Vir-
ginia within the 1112-mile circle.
Therefore, no new traffic pattern
would be created, because Friendship has
an existing air traffic pattern which
does not in any way conflict with or in-
terfere with either of the other air traf-
fic patterns in what we refer to as the
Washington metropolitan area.
The runway facilities at Friendship
International Airport are already capa-
ble of accommodating any existing com-
mercial airline sircraft, and we are re-
liably Informed that the runways at
Friendship can and will accommodate by
1959 jet air transports of the DC-8 and
707 types of commercial aircraft.
We have a ready-made solution to the
problem of relieving the congestion at
Washington National Airport and in the
airspace over the metropolitan area of
Washington, D. C. That is by converting
Friendship International Airport into
the second major airport to accommo-
date commercial aircraft serving the
Washington metropolitan area.
By diverting a substantial portion of
the present traffic of Washington Na-
tional Airport to Friendship Airport a
large portion of the air traffic congestion
now existing over Washington can be
and will be eliminated; whereas the de-
velopment of the Burke Airport site,
while eliminating takeoffs and landings
at Washington National Airport, will not
only fail to eliminate air traffic conges-
tion in the airspace over metropolitan
Washington, it will actually increase
both the air traffic density in the air-
space over Washington and increase the
air hazard over Washington, because it
can be assumed that when the second
major airport serving metropolitan
Washington is placed into operation that
the flights into and out of this area will
substantially increase.
Let me now come to another reason
why the Friendship site is much to be
preferred over the Burke Airport site.
The residents of Maryland and the area
adjoining Friendship, together with most,
If not all, public officials in that area
not only have no objection to converting
Friendship into the second major air-
port serving the Washington metropoli-
tan area, but they actually want it; and
I believe that this will possibly be re-
flected by questions asked of or confer-
ences with the representatives of that
general area. On the other hand, the
residents, public officials, and Members
of Congress who are directly concerned
with the Burke, Va., site are almost
unanimously, if not unanimously, op-
posed to the authorization and comple-
tion of a major airport at the Burke, Va.,
site.
If the Maryland officials and the Vir-
ginia officials were not in accord and if
both wanted the new facility or if both
did not want the new facility, then I
think that this body could properly and
appropriately disregard the views of
either and both. On the other hand,
when the Virginia public officials and
the Maryland public officials appear to
be in complete accord that both prefer
the Friendship site and that neither
prefer the Burke, Va., site, then I think
we who reside in and represent other
areas can well afford to listen to their
considered judgment and respect their
mature and well-considered opinions on
this subject.
I am sure that you will be interested
to know that in December of 1955 the
Commerce Department submitted to a
subcommittee of the other body a report
relative to the selection of a site for the
supplemental airport for Washington.
That report discussed in detail the vari-
ous sites that had been considered,
among others being the site known as
Annandale, Va. The Annandale site is
located 31,z miles northeast of the pro-
posed Burke Airport site.
I am of the firm and considered opin-
ion that the construction of an airport
at Burke, Va., would add to the con-
gested air traffic in the metropolitan
area, and this is further borne out by
the statement made by the Commerce
Department in its report. As I have just
stated, Annandale is located 3',2 miles
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approve % J kJ8/1J-Jr@I DP9U45R000100200006-2 11363
1956
from the Burke site, and in discussing under the FHA and VA policies in exist- soldier could pick up and go and come as
the Annandale site the Commerce\De- ence at the present time, they have re- the exigencies of the service required.
partment pointed out that an airport fused to insure mortgages within the That is no longer true. Even the
would, at that location, interfere with so-called approach zones around major youngest enlisted man, for the most part,
the operation of Washington National airports for a distance of 21/2 miles from is a married man and you must have a
Airport under extreme flying conditions the end of the runways in triangular or suitable place for him in which to live
to the extent of 30 percent, and the con- fan-shaped a 6,0 , starting If this t he ex- with his Pais a requirement. It is a fac-treme tidnration of its proximity reduce the were followed at Burke, it would kill the tor in reenlistment, but I would point
con National Airport would reduce the at Annandale 60 percent. use for residential purposes about 5,000 out to the services that it does no good apacity They also airport at An- acres, in addition to the land taken for if we provide many, many more units of
nand lewoustated ld interfere uld that th the o r. the airport itself. We have no assurance, housing if the men do not have the op-
tions e s Aiwith the opera- however, that with the coming of jet portunity to live in those houses with
Washington Nn National Air Force Airport. It Base and seems planes that this policy will continue. As their families.
haelieve that a separation of 31/2 a matter of fact, in San Diego, surround- During the hearings I called the at-
rd to believe o b
miles would cure this contention to any ing Miramar Field, the FHA has refused tention of the officers of the Air Force
extent. to guarantee mortgages as late as March to one young man who is the very type
Since the tentative selection of Burke of this year within a radius of 20,000 of man we and they want to keep, a fine
Airport as a site in June of 1951, there feet, or 3.7 miles from the airport. If youngster, a highly trained and very
has been a great deal of development this policy were followed at Burke, it capable pilot. He loves the Air Force
around that area, particularly to the would kill the use of several thousands and he loves the B-47 that he piloted,
of acres of land in already developed But he is not staying in the service. As
north and east. At the time the site was sections. a matter of fact, he is already out.
selected, the CAA pfor orthea that the Mr. Chairman, let me urge that this The armed services will tell you these
dominant runway. for north and south body fully acquaint itself with the re- military men are going out to take jobs
east of north, would s pointed 18 ow thee spective advantages and disadvantages in private industry at much higher
east of north, which would throw th of the Burke site and the Friendship wages. That is true, only in part. This
approaches east the town of Fairfax, site, so that if this matter should come young man went out and took a job with
ha. Since that time, htweveo, the CAA back to us in the form of a conference private industry at considerably less
has found necessary to relocate these report and the decision is to be made by than he was earning as a B-4.7 pilot. I
runways, and they are now planned to this Congress on the relative merits of was surprised when I heard about his
run directly north and south, which the Burke, Va., airport site and the service termination because I knew of
makes the he westernmost runway of these Friendship, Md., airport, that this body his love for the Air Force. The reason
rec north and sn of rfarunways The point town wn would and shall vote down any confer- he gave was simply that in the last year tly of F to the town of miles report to a supplemental appro- as a B-47 pilot although there was hous-
of is . 2,62 I miles from the edge priations bill which will include funds ing available-sure, they have it-he
ar the aitprt ? In this approach zone for a major airport at Burke, Va. could only be home with his wife fewer
te located several schools, several Let me caution you that a vote to than 30 days out, of the entire year.
churches, and the county olcy courthouse e authorize the construction of a major That housing does not do any good if
building, to say nothing of the enormous airport at Burke, Va., within the 111/2 the services do not change some of these
Since the tenon of Bt in this area. mile circle to which I have repeatedly programs and permit these men to have
Since the selection of Burke pa. site referred, will in my opinion be a vote a little more stabilization in their lives.
in 1951, the Fairfax County po popululation against air safety in this area and might Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
has increased from 98,000 to approxi- even be a vote in favor of increased air gentleman yield?
mately 175,000, and a great deal of this Mr. SCRIVNER. I yield to the gentle-
development being in the area east and hazards, regardless of the high motives man from Virginia.
north of the Burke Airport site, mainly of those who sponsor and advocate the Mr. POFF. I wish to associate myself
proposed Burke airport site. with the remarks the gentleman is mak-
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
in npddititioonn, , the and Board o r of Supervisors areas.
In a addid 10 minutes to the gentleman from Kan- ing. I have had several letters from
of Fairfax County has in the meantime sas iMr. SCRIVNERL servicemen both at home and abroad
made provisions for and supplied sewers (Mr. SCRIVNER asked and was given who are primarily concerned about their
for a great deal of the area which, of permission to revise and extend his re- careers for this one reason. Will any
course, is designed for increased use. marks.) of these 84,000 housing units be placed
Repeating some portions of what I at overseas bhave previously said, an examination of Mr. SCRIVNERZ. Mr. Chairman, pri- Mr. SCRIVNER. overseas bases?
ase Some of them go
a map will readily show that if the marily under chapter III you are being overseas, yes.
Burke Airport were constructed, you asked to appropriate almost $11/2 billion Mr. POFF. I thank the gentleman.
would then have 5 major airports lo- for military construction That is fif- Mr. SCRIVNER. As the gentleman
cated within a radius of 111/2 miles, teen hundred million dollars. A great from Texas pointed out, we have some
namely Andrews Air Force Base, Ana- portion of that goes to operational bases rather difficult situations overseas.
costia, Naval Air Station, Bolling Air that you must have if the Air Force is Some of the housing will of necessity
Force Base, Washington National Air- going to fly their planes and if the Army have to be trailers, but I have been in
port, and Burke. In addition, in this is going to train, and the Navy to oper- those trailers. Of course, it was some
same radius there are located 2 small ate. 35 years ago, when my wife and I were
flying fields, Washington-Virginia at We are moving now into a series of first married, but if we could have had
Baileys Cross Roads, and Falls Church expanded bases for the B-52's which quarters as modern and as comfortable
Airport near Falls Church. There is also require greater runways, and different as those trailers are we would have been
located a 4,800 foot landing strip at Fort types of maintenance facilities. There two very pleased young people, who were
Belvoir, known as Davison Army Air is also the matter of fuelling systems nevertheless quite happy in some rather
Field, the use of which is constantly in- and many other construction items, all humble quarters.
creasing. of which cost a great deal of money. Another subject that has been dis-
Another matter which gives the people One portion of this relates to housing cussed, and we mentioned it on page 10
in Fairfax County grave concern is the for our military, and their dependents. of the committee report, relates to the
depreciation of property values by rea- Over $100 million will be provided in this guided missiles. The men who are be-
son of the location of a major airport in bill for approximately 85,000 housing hind these various projects feel that
these are the real answers. This is natu-
this site. While it is admitted that the units.
aa?ea actually taken for the airport is The Army, as some of us older men ral. If they did not have that enthu-
at, this time undeveloped to any great knew it, was considerably different from siasm they would not be worth their salt
extent, the areas surrounding the site today's Army. It used to be considered on the job. We had some witnesses be-
a e In the process of rapid development. primarily a single man's Army. The fore us, and many of them told us how
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11361 Approved For ReI1R9_Q4t@tE. C##(P
,(Qffi3T0W00100200006-2 July 12
fine Nike is-and Nike is good and will gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHONI with the salaries of the interns in the
do a good job-and others came In to mentioned, the only other alternative other hospitals.
tell us how wonderful Taros is and will would be by force of arms to stay. Of Mr. RABAUT. I do not think the
be-and Taros will do a good job. We course, we are not going to do that. As gentleman need worry about the salaries.
did not ask, as some have reported, that tenuous as our tenancy may be, those I refer the gentleman to page 63 of the
we have you might call a "duel" between bases are an essential element in our report:
Taros and Nike. Most of the presenta- defense and the construction should be Testimony was presented to the committee
tions on these items have been made by financed by these appropriations, as rec- that an increase in the salary schedule would
the advocates, those men who have ommended by the committee, aid in recruitln.^, interns and residents at
worked with that weapon, perhaps a Mr. Chairman, unless there are some the District of Columbia General Hospital.
civilian with a contractor, all of whom further questions, I yield back the bal- Testimony was also presented that recruiting
are sold on that one weapon. So the ance of my time. for fiscal year 1957 has already been com-
committee has recommended, and I Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairmar., I yield 5 pleted.
think quite properly, that the Secretary minutes to the gentleman from Mary- It was under those two statements that
of Defense immediately appoint a com- land I Mr. HYDE I. the committee decided it would not be
mittee of disinterested persons who are (Mr. HYDE asked and was given per- quite proper to give them any more
qualified to pass on the merits of each mission to rev-se and extend his re- money at this time.
of these defense weapons and let them marks.) Mr. HYDE. Yes. I am familiar with
make a report to the Secretary as to Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I should that statement, and that is where I think
which should be used, not necessarily like to get away a little bit from these the misunderstanding enters into it. It
ruling the other out entirely. The ri- military problems and call the attention may be that it was a poor argument made
valry in development between the two of the committee to an item on page by the advocates of this particular item.
systems is a good thing, because each of 25 of the bill dealing with the Depart- The real reason for the $126,000 which
them has something good and each has ment of Public Health for the District of was stricken out, was to bring the sal-
something that the other might well Columbia. I understand this item was arics of the interns in this hospital in
adopt. reduced some $126,000 in committee. line with the salaries of the interns in
The idea proposed Is to have disinter- Unless I can gst the approval of the other Government-supported hospitals
ested people on that committee, nobody committee, I do not propose here to offer in the area.
connected with the companies building an amendment to restore it. Rather, I Mr. WILSON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-
either of these missiles, nobody connect- would hope to have it restored in the man, will the gentleman yield?
ed with the Department of the Navy or other body because I do not feel I have Mr. HYDE. I yield.
the Air Force or the Army that has lived the time to make the full explanation Mr. WILSON of Indiana. As I under-
so closely with it, because sometimes they which would give us a fair chance of stand it, they had completed their re-
live so close to the things that they having the item restored here in the cruiting. We did not feel that it was
cannot actually see problems in connec- House. But, it deals specifically with the the place in a supplemental appropria-
tion with their project. We believe that salaries of interns at the District of Co- tions bill to start a rat race between the
was a good recommendation. It does lumbia General Hospital. These interns, various hospitals to recruit these people,
not call for any so-called dual proposi- according to the information I received, when they had already recruited their
tion at all. now get about $1,500 a year whereas the quota for the present fiscal year. They
There are many subjects In the bill interns in other Government supported can come up at the next regular appro-
about which we could talk. As the hospitals in this area, for example the priation and we will consider it.
chairman of the military subcommittee Freedmen's Hospital and St. Elizabeths Mr. HYDE. I appreciate the feeling
[Mr. MAHON] has pointed out, we do Hospital get in the neighborhood of of the subcommittee and that is the rea-
have bases pretty widely around the $2,500 a year. It seems to me these son I do not expect to propose an amend-
world, roughly between 750 and 1.000 interns at the District of Columbia Gen- ment on the floor, but I hope the gentle-
going all the way from installations eral Hospital should be at least brought man may be persuaded, in the event it
where perhaps there may be 3 to 5 mili- into line with the interns in the other comes into conference on this matter.
terry on each up to, our big base camps Government supported hospitals in this The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
and depots for the Army, Navy, and Air area so far as th,2ir pay is concerned. I gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HYDE]
Force. Some of them are huge installa- would like to call the attention of the has expired.
tions and we do have a rather consider- members of the committee to this item
able number of billions of dollars in- and, if possible, between now and the Mr. TABER.
Mr. Chairman, I yield
vested in them. There was a time right time the bill is read for amendment, per- 5 minutes tes to to the gentleman from Vir-
after the end of the war when we were haps get consent to increase that item g]n]a IMr. BROYHILL].
in, for instance, Japan and Germany as to the extent of at least $126,000 so we , Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I
occupying victorious troops. But that might take care of the salaries of these - have a very unusual request to make at
day and time is past. We are no longer interns. this time. Rather it is an unusual re-
there as occupying victorious troops, but Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chairman, will quest for me. That is, I would like to
we are in each one of the countries of the gentleman yield? urge the Committee not to appropriate
these allies as guests. We are there by any more money for my congressional
their sufferance-most often under a Mr. HYDE. I am glad to yield to the district at this time than is now in the
treaty, but you know and I know that gentleman from Michigan in regard tO bill. There is now included in the bill
any of these treaties can be abrogated at this subject. $49 million for the construction of a CIA
any time the host nation desires to end Mr. RABAUT. I realize that the gen- building, there is $14,300,000 for the con-
it. If they say we are no longer wel- tieman wants to increase this by $126,- sti'uction of a new bridge. That is
come in their land even though we may 000 above the amount now provided in enough money for any congressional dis-
co there to protect them from some pos- the bill of $121,290. Under the instruc- trict to have in any one particular bill.
Bible attack, there is only one thing that tions of the full committee that is the I refer to the threat to include in this
we could do. We may hesitate and we amount we are reporting to the House, bill an appropriation of $34 million for
may tell them that we do not like to and it would be beyond my power as the construction of a new airport out at
leave and that we think it is vital that chairman in charge of this chapter of the ,!! Burke, Va. I say, "a threat"-I do not
we stay, but when all is said and done, bill to accede to the gentleman's proposal, believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania
if they do say, "The time has come when Mr. HYDE. I think there was some [Mr. Fi.ooDl will offer the amendment
you have worn the welcome off the mat," misunderstanding in the committee with today, because he knows it will be over-
there is only one thing we can do, and respect to the item. It was stated it whelmingly defeated. I think the strat-
that is to leave. It would be the same was needed to st;mulate acquisition of egy is to try to get the other body to put
situation exactly if these other troops new interns. Of course, it is hoped that it in the bill and then the conferees can
were in this country and we felt that the increase in salary will do that, but' adopt it and possibly ram it down the
they had outlived their welcome. We the primary purpose of it was simply to throats of the House in the closing days
would ask them to get out, too. As the bring the salaries of those interns in line: of this Congress.
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approve, I or Release 2004/08/25: CIA-RDP63TW2458000100200006-2 11365
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
I realize that the facilities around here ferred to as the bedroom of the Nation's $40 m million i cos ng approximately what we could
are crowded. At least the technicians Capital. The effect of building a major hane this Mr. YAT S Did you know this at the time
and experts say they are crowded. I airport in the middle of this area would you asked the Bureau of the Budget for
guess we have to take their word for it, be to make a large section of the district $54,900,0002
but I do not believe that all of the alter- uninhabitable. The people living there Mr. LowEN. I was not Administrator then.
natives to this congested situation have now are opposed to it and the local gov- Mr. YATES. Do you check to see whether the
been fully explored. As pointed out by ernment is unalterably opposed to it. I equipment is available before you make
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. hope that if funds for this should be In- up your urr monetary requests? possible, yes.
LANxFOenl, a few moments ago, there are serted in the other body that the con- MrPATES In this care you determined,
five-he said six-there are five major ferees will not agree to accept anything did you tell the this case you Budget that
le or did they tell you it
airports already existing in this area and which is so overwhelmingly opposed. it was not availabBureau of
they are not operating to their full ca- If it is inserted in this bill in confer- was not available for this year? They cut
pacity. That is in addition to several ence I shall oppose it on the floor when the money. Somebody must have known
minor airports. We have helicopter we consider the conference report. whether or not it was available.
service between Fort Belvoir Army Base Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield Mr. ROTHSCHILD. The first figure was a
and the Pentagon, who are not permitted 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois horseback figure, Mr. YATES. They took the
to fly over 500 feet, because they will [Mr. YATES]. Mr, YATES. you don't mean the Depart-
come in contact In the congested ap- Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the dis- wt Commerce ts a he Bureau
get with horseback figures.
proach to the National Airport. estrous collision which occurred over the Budof to of
It seems to me we should redistribute the Grand Canyon last week has served Mr. ROTHSCHILD. I mean that in this in-
the traffic and use the present airports. to focus the Nation's attention on the stance this was a horseback figure. CAA
The construction of another airport at necessity for taking immediate steps to took the $250 million in round numbers for
Burke, Va., 22 miles away, I maintain assure greater safety in air travel. All this airways implementation plan and said
will not eliminate the congestion which of a sudden we hear about near acci- it is going to take 5 years; we need a fifth
Is existing In this area now. It was re- dents occurring in the Washington vi- of it every year. That is how the amount
cinity and it is certain that this is a con- of money was arrived at in the first instance.
ported the other day collisions that there
around were she the dition which is prevalent in every metro- As you see from the hearings, we were proxim National Airport. nThose sn
a
Nnear collisions politan area throughout the country, interested in providing all the money
were in the air approaching the National The CAA is suddenly galvanized into ac- necessary to assure the installation of
Airport, within 10 to 20 miles of the air- tion. They are now prepared to speed equipment which would protect those
port. To construct another airport up the 5-year air safety program which traveling by air. Fourteen million dol-
within a 22-mile radius of the National" the Department-of Commerce took years lars of necessary equipment was stricken
Airport will not do anything to alleviate to approve. by the Bureau of the Budget. The CAA
that danger which exists. We do not But one wonders whether or not we said that it could not spend the addi-
have airplane crashes on the ground, can ever obtain the safety in air travel tional money. And yet 2 days ago the
these tragic disasters have always oc- we desire and need unless we clear up same people appeared before a subcom-
curred in the air because of congestion the confusion that now exists in the Civil mittee of the Government Operations
In the air-and sometimes without any Aeronautics Administration. Committee of the House and said, "Yes,
congestion whatsoever as occurred in the. I am a member of the appropriations we can have improved air safety in this
recent tragedy out In Arizona. subcommittee considering funds for the country; all we have to do is buy it."
So I maintain that the construction of Department of Commerce and related The impression was given that if Con-
an additional airport in this area will agencies. In March of this year, in gress appropriates the money, the 5-year
not alleviate the danger of congestion in hearings before my subcommittee-and program can be speeded up.
the air in the metropolitan area of I refer your attention to page 239 of the Mr. Chairman, our committee was
hearings, the following colloquy between ready to provide the money, but the
Washington. thi the CAA people and myself occurred: agency said it did not want it. Mr.
Another n, this so-called Burke Mr. YATES. All right. Then I come back Rothschild, the Under Secretary of Com-
location which is 22 miles away Is not to the question I asked. The major cut was coerce for Transportation, stated that he
suitable for the construction of an air- in air-navigation equipment. What did you could not spend the money because he
port and its runways from the stand- ask for in the amount of about $15 million ent. Two days
point of the terrain. It would cost mil- that the Bureau of the Budget eliminated? could not o buyw an, any eqequipmAdent. wo d s
lions of dollars additional to make that Mr. BASNIGHT. Airport surveillance radar ago, Mr. Lo
the equipment o
of the quipm f
land adaptable to airport use over what and approach lights at airports. CAA, that said he was could short buy the
t
it would to buy farm land that Is already Mr. YATES. What amounts? the equipment. Thmanpower e fact re-
Mr. level. Mr. BASNIGHT. Approximately $14 million. operate
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the Mr. YATES. Can you tell us what items are mains that if there is any delay in pro-
gentleman yield? represented by the approximately $50 mil- viding equipment which will improve
Mr. BROYHILL. I yield. lion and the amounts for each? and make air travel safer, it will be at-
Mr. GROSS. I agree with the gen- Mr. BA5NIGHT. I can give you the approxi- tributable to the administration rather
tleman in his position in opposition to mate figures. The radar would amount to than to the Congress.
the Burke airport. I am going to try to approximately $10 million. The lights, ap- Another example of the confusion that
proximately $4 million, exists is shown by the testimony given
help him and the people Virginia Mr. FLOOD. The radar would be only In before the Government Operations Com-
beiridge over oveer r the of the burden Potomac. of another certain great centers?
b Mr. YATES. Are those not necessary? They mittee 2 days ago with respect to VOR-
Mr. BROYHILL. I would just like to must be, obviously, or you would not ask DME-distance-measuring equipment.
leave things as they are. I would not for them if they were not necessary. I ask Let me read to you from page 231 of the
want to make it any more than it is'nor the administrator that question." hearings:
Mr. Bow. I. will yield to you now, Mr,
would I want to make it any less than it Then Mr. Rothschild got Into it: YATES.
ecl for that this area is concerned. owhat is in- Mr. ROTHSCHILD. The decision of the Bu- Mr. YATES. I just wanted to point out, Mr.
iuded in tbill is reau of the Budget was made on the basis Rothschild just stated to you he was happy
Another thing: Of course the gentle- that this equipment was not obtainable to report as to what they proposed to do.
man from Pennsylvania says the Mary- within the fiscal year. Glancing over last year's hearings, I read
land and Virginia delegations should be Mr. YATES. Did you testify, did you know from page i79 when Mr. Rothschild says:
ignored here. I think it would be totally when you asked for the money for this "i am happy to report to you that the Air
improper for the Congress to ignore the equipment, whether or not is was obtainable Coordinating Committee which brings to-
complete delegation and the views of the during this fiscal year? gether all agencies interested in such mat-
delegation of the two States that are in- And Mr. Charles J. Lowen, Admin- ters yesterday agreed unanimously that VOR
and DME are still the nationally and inter-
volved in this thing. Certainly in Fair- istrator of the Civil Aeronautics Ad- nationally approved distance-navigation
fax` County if an airport is constructed ministration, said: - equipment for common system use and
it would be in a residential area. The Mr. LowEN. I testified to Mr. Bow's ques- while they may be superseded by TACAN
northern Virginia area is sometimes re- tion earlier. We said this was money, this it is too early to definitely estimate when
No. 118-17
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11366 Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 12
this may take place. For this reason, the tary and civil avlatlon, why shouldn't the constructed and what kind of road this
Department is of the opinion that the civilian airlines, glen, in order to make fly- is?
amounts requested for installations of new ing safer adopt DME-VOR?
distance-measuring equipments for mainte- Mr. ROTHSCHrLD. Because I don't think it Mr. BROYHILL. That is for the com-
nance and operation of existing facilities is a good expenditure. This is my own de- pletion of construction of the George
should be retained in the budget." cision. I don't think it Is a good expendl- Washington Memorial Parkway which
All throughout the testimony last year, ture of public funds to go out and Install starts at Mount Vernon, follows the
and I have had occasion to read It today more DME and operate more DME, not VOR Potomac River, and is ultimately due to
and yesterday, there was a driving impetus but DME, and spend the public money in go to Great Falls, This was authorized
on the part of the administration, even by that manner until there has been an lndi- by the Congress as far back as 1932.
Secretary Weeks who stated that as long cation that the In,iustry needs It more than By piecemeal method we have gradually
as-let me quote from what Secretary Weeks it has indicated up'until now.
said-I just want to make this comment- extended that boulevard up to just be-
on page 15. The decision against DME is Mr. yond Key Bridge. It is not fair to
"I just want to add this comment In re- Rothschild's? What about the CAA Ad- Central Intelligence Agency to charge
eponse to a question by Mr. Preston about ministrator? Is not his opinion im- them with $81z million for the parkway.
VOR-DME. If it will not be ready for 3 portant? It was the intent of the Congress to build
years and if VOR-DME will make flying safer Mr r.h h-,,,o,., T 4"_ 4, ____ +s,..+ _._ _
Has Mr. Weeks changed his mind on that? Istrator of the CAA was not given a free Mr. GROSS. -low many miles will be
Mr. ROTHSCHILD. No, air, and I don't find hand in the op?ration of his agency, built?
any fundamental conflict between what you that he was subject to the domination Mr. BROYHILL. I would say ap-
just read and what I just said. of the Under Secretary of Commerce proximately 4 or 5 miles.
Mr. YATES. May I point out your conflict? and the Secretary. After some study, Mr. GROSS. Four or five miles for
Mr. ROTHSCHILD. Yes, air. I have come to the conclusion that this $8' million?
Mr. YATES. Last year you asked funds for agency should be set up as an independ- Mr. BROYHILL. That is correct, It
DME. This year you are not stated for ent agency with the duties and responsi- traverses rough country and there are
funds for DME. Last year y
flying is made safer as a result of DME, as bilities vested in the Administrator and some pretty hilly banks there alongside
you thought it was when you were asking not scattered among many people in the of the Potomac River.
for funds for DME. Do you this year come Department of Commerce as It now is. Mr. GROSS. That is still a substan.
before us and say that flying is not made The interests of safety, of efficiency and tial figure for that mileage.
safer through DME equipment? of economy requL'e that the Department Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Mr. ROTHSCHILD. We are asking funds- of Commerce and the Civil Aeronautics Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. Are you going to answer my Administration ba separated. The CAA Mr. GROSS. I yield to my friend from
question? has a tremendous job to do and its
Mr. RomscHmi). I hope to-for the opera-
tion of some 241 Installed DME's. ivies should be established by the person Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I may
Mr. YATES. You are? I was under the im- responsible for its operation rather than say to the gentleman from Virginia, that
pression that somebody here testified a few by the Department of Commerce. up on those rocks by thePotomac there
moments ago that you were not asking such Mr. Chairman, we shall make progress are some very fine building sites being
funds. when we get rid of the confusion in the picked up.
Mr. ROTHSCHILD. We are not asking funds Department of Commerce, when we place Mr. BROYHILL. There are a few
to Install any new DME but we are asking the responsibiilty for a national airways building sites up there, but the boulevard
funds to continue to operate those which system efficiently and safely operated, in comes back away from the river and goes
are installed and operating. Now we will not
have total and complete coverage of the one person trained for the job. We shall up the stream bed after it gets to Chain
United States with those which we plan to not make progress, as long as there exists Bridge.
operate this year but- in the CAA a vacillation, weakness of Mr. GROSS. On page 9 of this bill I
Mr. YATES. May I ask why that is so? Is It purpose, a spirit of delay and postpone- find that there are to i;;50 housing units
because you are not as sure of DME this year ment. The Congress is willing to support built at a cost of $1,589,500, or an average
as you were last year? a worthy and progressive air safety pro- cost of $31,790 per unit, to
Mr. ROTHSCHILD. That is exactly right. peed with a
gram. It is up to the executive branch $75,000 house for the superintendent of
Yet barely 3 months later, before the to supply such a program. the Air Force Academy; $50,000 each for
Government Operations Committee, wit- Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 two units for the deans, and $30,000 each
nesses from the CAA testified that DME minutes to the j:entleman from Iowa for 44 units for department heads and
equipment would help unsnarl air traffic, [Mr. GRoss]. $31,500 for 3 units for the deputy chiefs
directly contrary to Mr. Rothschild's Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I take of naval operations to be constructed at
statement. Last year the Secretary of this time to ask a question or two. the United States Naval Observatory,
Commerce asked our subcommittee to Since I am going to offer an amendment Washington, D. C.
appropriate funds for additional DME to strike out the Jones Point Bridge Does not the gentleman in charge of
equipment upon the recommendation of proposition, I would like to ask the com- those items think that will be pretty
the Air Coordinating Committee-that mittee what under the language con- plush living for these people? The gen-
VOR and DME are still the internation- tained in the bill is the amount of the tleman from Kansas awhile ago said
ally approved distance navigation equip- unexpended balance to be added to the there are a good many of our servicemen
ment for common system use. This year, $14,325,000? What is the unexpended living in trailers.
Mr. Rothschild admitted in our hearings balance that is to be added to the $14,- Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, if the
that the Air Coordinating Committee is 325.000? gentleman will yield, years ago we started
still of the same opinion as to DME's im- Mr. PRESTON. It is a very small an academy for the Army at West Point
portance. The Department of Com- amount. This was left over from last and then later a Naval Academy. Now
merce changed its mind. year. The exact 'figures I have not at we are building an Air Force Academy.
Why did the agency change its mind? hand. Mr. GROSS. I understand that.
That is one of the mysteries of which Mr. GROSS. Maybe a half million Mr. MAHON. I opposed the building
the Congress has not been apprised. dollars? of that. I took the position we ought to
I read further from the hearings at Mr. PRESTON. It would not be that have a national defense academy, but
page 235: much, I am sure. A few thousand dol- the House did not sustain that position.
Mr. YATES. Why are you not emphsal ing lars. It is the customary procedure Now, if you are going to have an Air
DME to-the same extent that you did last when you make an additional appropria- Force Academy, which we can expect
year? tion to merge the funds, will be there as long as the Nation
Mr. ROTHSCHILD. Because VOR_DME Is not Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. stands, you want to have first-class con-
good enough to meet the tactical require- Now, under Central Intelligence struction. Of course, many live in
meets of the military, period. Agency there is an item providing homes, the extremely well-to-do, ran-
Mr. YATES. We also have the civil avia_ $49,000.000. There Is also provided. I ing from $50,000 to $100,000 in some
tion that we must worry about and until believe, $81z million for road building. areas. Well, the Superintendent of the
such time as the military can show the Am I correct in that? Will someone tell Air Force Academy ought to have a resi-
TACAN should be adopted by both the milt- me how many miles of roadway will be dence certainly reasonably adequate,
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 1956
Approve4or Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63TOO245R000100200006-2 11367,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
with all the entertaining he has to do,
and $75,000 for an Air Force Academy
Superintendent's home for the United
States of America I do not think is too
much.
Mr. GROSS. Wait a minute. There
Is no land acquisition cost, is there?
Mr. MAHON. Well, the land has al-
ready been bought.
Mr. GROSS. Of course it has.
Mr. MAHON. The land would not be
very much. It is a very small item inso-
far as the actual area is concerned where
the building would be built. We have
and this
I recall
,
there 17,000 acres, as
would occupy a very small part of the gentleman comes from Iowa. When the
land. gentleman refers to entertainment, what
Mr. GROSS. It just seems to me that kind of entertainment does the gentle-
you are providing pretty plush living man have in mind? Does the gentle-
quarters for a very few people. man know what kind of entertainment
Mr. MAHON. Why not do a fairly this is to be?
plush job for the Superintendent of the Mr. GROSS.. No.
Academy and make it one where the Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I think
construction cost originally will bear the gentleman ought to find out.
fruit in that the additional repairs dur- Mr. GROSS. I have had no intimate
ing the years will not be so great? Why experience either with the Export-Im-
not have a real first-class home for the port Bank or the State Department.
Superintendent so that when our own Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The
people go there they can say, "This is gentleman ought to find out what kind
the home of our Superintendent, and we of liquor they are drinking.
are proud of it." The armed services Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
asked for $90,000, and I supported them 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia
in that request, but the committee in its [Mr. BROYHILLI.
wisdom reduced it to $75,000. Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, in
Mr. GROSS. i understand the gen-i answer to the question of the gentleman
tleman's position, but I disagree'with from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] about the cost of
him. I do not think we have to appro- the parkway up to this CIA Building, I
priate $75,000 to build a house for the would like to state that the actual cost
Superintendant of the Academy nor do of the paving itself would amount to
we have to spend $31,500 to build houses $1,300,000. Incidentally, the parkway
for three deputy chiefs of naval opera- would extend 6 miles. The other costs
tions at the Naval Observatory. Some- were for the grading. As I said before,
thing tells me there is a limit to the en- it is very rough terrain. That amount
durance of the taxpayers of this coun- is $2,700,000. Then there are structural
try. costs, such as bridges over these little
On page 14 of the bill I find an item streams, and so forth, which would cost
that is recurring in appropriation bill $3,900,000. The cost of the land is $500,-
after appropriation bill. This is com-
paratively minor, $9,000 for entertain-
ment for the Export-Import Bank. I
wish you on the Committee on Appro-
priations and the Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee would stop this business of
$800,000 for entertainment, liquor and
whatever goes with it, for the State De-
partment. Now we have $9,000 for the
Export-Import Bank. I wish you would
give a little attention to putting the
brakes on these people. As I recall the
figures, there is another $45,000 or
$50,000 appropriated this year to some
29 representatives to NATO for, as they
call it, hospitality allowance. Let us get
down to earth with regard to this busi-
ness. We have some taxpayers to take
into consideration in this country.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
11Irr HCIFFM.AN of Michigan. Well, if
port Bank-what did you call it, Export man tell me if that $11 million has been purposes ofsthe- committee, as stated in
or import? earmarked for any particular plans, or my resolution, would be to investigate the
Mr. GROSS. Export-Import Bank. are those just general funds that may status of older people in our Nation and
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. If the be used in carrying out the committee to determine how the Federal Govern-
representatives of this bank, the officers recommendation to do more in the way ment can cooperate with State and local
acid these other fellows, would eat up of advance planning, for economy?
some of this surplus grain and wheat, Mr. SHEPPARD. No, those funds are governments and with private industry
that would be one thing, but they have not earmarked there. They are for the and voluntary agencies to provide better
to have that higher class entertainment,
I understand. What did the gentleman
mean when he said, "All that goes with
it"?
Mr. GROSS. Perhaps they have to
have this entertainment allowance to
make some of those so-called soft loans
to foreign countries, loans that may or
may not be repaid. Does the gentleman
suppose that that is the reason?
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The
gentleman means, to coax the people to
take the money?
Mr. GROSS. Yes, to spoon-feed them.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The
000. schedule various projects, but I believe
Incidentally, the State of Virginia and
the communities involved, I am very that this should not be necessary and
proud to say, are paying for half the that the Navy should. have some discre-
cost of the land. tion in the matter.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield I have in mind that at the Puget
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Sound Naval Shipyard there is a high
SHEPPARD] such time as he may require. priority project for a new drydock.
Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman, hav- Planning funds have been requested in
ing something to do on the Navy panel the amount of $1,300,000. These funds
to the extent of $400 million in this pub- must be made available or we will have
lie works program, I ask unanimous a serious weakness in. our defense on the
consent that my comments pertaining to west coast for years to come. The Bu-
the same be inserted in the RECORD fol- reau of Ships recognizes this and I trust
lowing the remarks made by the gentle- that when the legislation comes to con-
man from Texas [Mr. MAHON]. ference, the conferees will do likewise.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, THE PROBLEMS OF AMERICA'S OLDER PEOPLE
it is so ordered. DEMAND ATTENTION NOW-IT IS TRAGIC TO
There was no objection. PROCRASTINATE
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, in the
gentleman yield? first session of this Congress, I intro-
Mr. SHEFPARD. I yield. duced House Resolution 172 calling for
Mr. PELLY. On page 26 of the printed a Select Committee on Problems of the
report there is an item of $11 million Aging to be composed of seven Members
practical purpose of having adequate
and proper planning. Also we suggested
to the Department that they finalize
their plans for certain projects. They
have a perfect right to apply the funds
where they think it necessary.
Mr. PELLY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ex-
planation of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. SHEPPARD] in response to
my inquiry. However, I have been in-
formed, and I believe authoritatively,
that the advanced planning funds
amounting to $11 million included with
the military public works program under
yards and docks facilities cannot be used
for final plans and specifications-of one
or both of the west coast drydocks which
have been listed as essential projects and
given priority listing by the Navy.
This may be a very serious omisssion.
The committee recognizes the timelag
involved if planning funds are not in-
cluded this year. It-will take a minimum
of 6 years to get a drydock which will
accommodate the Forrestal-class carri-
ers in the event of needed repair of ex-
terior battle damage on their hulls. As
the committee knows, these modern car-
riers cannot pass through the Panama
Canal and must go around South Amer-
ica to get from one coast to the other.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this
lack of flexibility in the House bill which
would prevent projects from being in-
cluded at the discretion of the Navy was
discussed yesterday when similar legis-
lation was before the Appropriations
Committee in the other body. The pur-
pose of my making this statement is to
urge consideration of the House con-
ferees In due course to working out
greater flexibility. As I understand it,
sufficient funds are available. It is more
a matter of redtape. I am sure that un-
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
1Z
11368 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 12
conditions of living for this growing
element iri our population.
In my opinion, the need for a Commit-
tee on Problems of the Aging has be-
come immeasurably more important
than it was when I introduced my res-
olution. During the 15 months that have
elapsed, the older population of our
country has increased by almost half a
million persons and now stands at the
unprecedented figure of 141,z million 65
years of age and over.
The need for action is urgent now. Mr.
Chairman, but will become even more so.
The continuing increase amounting to
1,000 older persons each day will give us
a population of 21 million older people
within another scant 20 years. We are
in the midst of one of the greatest hu-
manitarian problems and social chal-
lenges our country has ever faced.
In my own small State of Rhode Island,
the population of older people has almost
doubled over the past 25 years, increas-
ing from about 40,000 in 1930 to 80,000
today.
And while the number of older people
increases their situations, their posi-
tion in our society continues to deterio-
rate. Over the past decade, for example,
we have listened to a great deal of talk
about jobs for older people. Yet, dur-
ing this same period the proportion of
older men in the labor force has con-
tinued to decline. Just this spring the
Census Bureau reported that the per-
centage of men 65 and over who are
working has reached its lowest point
since the depths of the depression.
Surely there is need to investigate the
factors in this deplorable situation.
The amount of income available to'
purchase the necessities of living and to
meet the costs of medical care which in-
crease with age is another matter that
requires continuous study. There has
been some improvement in the income
position of the aged over the past 5 or 6
years. The old-age and survivors insur-
ance program is now making payments
to 6.5 million older persons. Private
pensions, railroad retirement pensions,
and retirement programs of govern-
mental agencies are gradually reaching
more of our older people.
Yet, statistics collected by the Bureau
of the Census show that two-thirds of
our older people are having to get along
on less than $1,000 a year. A recent
study from the University of California
compares the amount of income received
by older persons with careful estimates
of the cost of living. The conclusion
reached by these California scientists, is
that almost one-half of our older couples
and about three-fourths of our older in-
dividuals do not have enough income to
live at a minimum standard of health
and decency.
With regard to the all-important mat-
ters of housing and medical care, the
situations of older people have continued
to deteriorate since I introduced my Res-
olution 172. The number of older
people continues to increase while the
present administration complacently in-
sists that there is no need for a public
housing program for them.
Three-fifths or more of our older peo-
ple are suffering from one or more long-
term illnesses and many of them are in
desperate need 3f medical care. What
does the administration do about it? It
proposes, Mr. Chairman, a reinsurance
program for surgery and hospital care.
It is difficult for me to see how low-in-
come older people could benefit from a
reinsurance program when they do not
have the money to pay the basic prem-
iums in the first place.
These are some of the major problems
confronting a growing number and pro-
portion of our population. They are
problems of greet urgency because they
are serious problems and because they
affect many of our older people and their
families who are so eager to help them
but who are primarily and necessarily
concerned with the welfare of their own
children. These circumstances compel
our attention: they are some of the rea-
sons underlying my action in introduc-
ing my resolution for a Select Commit-
tee on Aging to study the problems and
determine how they are to be met.
THE NEED FOR HOUSING
Let me be more specific, Mr. Chair-
man, with reference to some of these
matters. Let me take the matter of
housing as an example. In Rhode Is-
land, we made an intensive study of the
circumstances and needs of our older
population. In 1951, a Commission was
set up to study the problems of the aged.
Two years later this Commission pre-
sented the results of its study in a report
entitled "Old Age in Rhode Island."
One of the tragic conclusions reached
by the Commission is that 33 percent of
our older people are without central
heating in their homes and that 27 per-
cent are forced to live in housing that
is grossly substandard in other respects.
These are largely low-income people-
those for whom the administration says
no housing program is needed.
Among those who are trying to live
on public assistance, the situation is al-
most twice as bar for some 53 percent
of these were found in dilapidated hous-
ing or lacking the basic sanitary facili-
ties. And let me point out, Mr. Chair-
man, that we, as a society, are fostering
this kind of living. Every time a public
assistance grant is made to cover the
rent of an older person living in a di-
lapidated or unsanitary dwelling, we are
subsidizing the continued existence of
that dwelling. Surely our consciences
will drive us to do better than this by our
aged folks.
The picture I Nave been describing,
Mr. Chairman, is that of my own State
of Rhode Island. I wish that I could
assure my colleagues here in the House
that the older people in their own dis-
tricts are living more comfortably. But
I cannot do so. The figures that I have
cited for my own .State parallel those re-
ported by the Bureau of the Census for
the country as a whole. Decent housing
for our senior citizens is a nationwide
need.
Yet I have not presented the total
housing problem t?y any means. What
I have described is merely the physical
characteristics of the places our older
people are forced to call their homes. I
have said nothing about the tremendous
loneliness and isolation of large propor-
tions of our aged couples and particu.
larly of the millions of older people who
are widowed or who were never married.
It was because of these circumstances,
Mr. Chairman, that on February 24, 1955,
I introduced in the House of Representa-
tives a bill, H. R. 4368, which would au-
thorize the admission of elderly single
persons to housing projects. In the in-
terim. I have strongly supported all
legislation which would provide adequate
housing for our older people and give
them the encouragement and assistance
which they need so much.
In Rhode Island, I am glad to say we
have made a beginning in correcting this
situation. We have incorporated living
units for older people into two of our
public-housing projects in the city of
Providence. I can report that they are
proving to be a boon to the few older
people fortunate enough to find places
in them.
But, we also need more studies of the
housing problem. We need to know what
kinds of housing are best suited to older
people. We need to know where it should
be located with reference to other facili-
ties in the community. We need to
know how much special housing is
needed. And, perhaps, most of all, we
need to know what kinds of housing older
people themselves really want. Too
much of what we provide for older people
is what others think will be good for
them. Older people have a right, I sub-
mit, to speak for themselves and should
be encouraged to do so.
This whole matter of housing is one
of the things I had in mind, Mr. Chair-
man, when I introduced my resolution
for a Select Committee on Problems of
the Aging. I am sure you will agree that
the need is a critical one.
WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT EMPLOYMENT
One of the major financial problems of
our older people is, as I said earlier, that
of paying for medical care. Geriatri-
cians are in full agreement in their rec-
ommendation of annual or even semi-
annual medical checkups-and our Pres-
ident is setting the pattern for them-for
early diagnosis and treatment, and for
prompt restorative services when serious
illness does come. Yet thus far, Mr.
Chairman, the present administration
has been almost completely silent on the
subject of how our older citizens are to
pay for these services.
A few years ago, one of our colleagues
introduced a bill to provide comprehen-
sive medical insurance in connection
with the old-age and survivors insurance
program. A few months ago, this pro-
posal was revived. I am not sure, Mr.
Chairman, that this is the best way to
do it but I do know tht the very exciting
results of medical research may as well
be left undiscovered if they are not 'to
be translated into medical care for all
of our people.
We are living in a changing, dynamic
society. We can never assume that our
work is done. We must be striving al,_
ways to improve our programs for
financial security and for the mainte-
nance of health. And this is another
reason I am asking you to appoint a
t
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved or Release IONALREMfttgPfR 45R000100200006-2
1956
11369
making them and experience coming to
over Select Committee on the Problems of retirement without
meaningful country, to provide inform ti on and con-
Aging. sultation to the States and communities
THE HEALTH OF OUR` OLDER GITFZEN9 MUST years.
mti;d TRr rha;rma.n_ is the major un- trying to develop programs and services
BE MAiN'l'Aaa ....
I do not wish to explore the whole vast charted area in the field of aging. So-
and inac-
lonesomeness
ti
l
,
on,
a
field of health, Mr. Chairman, but I do cial iso
wish to point out that during the past 10 tivity lead to physical and mental deteri-
years we have stepped up the funds for oration and dependency as surely as
research, for rehabilitation, and for the night leads to day and day to night.
construction of medical facilities. We Gerontologists have reached this con-
have made a start and I am proud of clusion over and over again as they have
studied older people and their ills.
record. However, we still have a long
way to go.
There seems to be a rising opinion
among medical people and gerontologists
that much of the current disability and
deterioration among older people is
totally unnecessary.
This is another area, Mr. Chairman,
that well could be explored by the select
committee I have proposed. My em-
phasis thus far has been on the finan-
cial aspects of hospitalization and medi-
cal care but, beyond these, there are
very important hunmanitarian consider-
ations. Longer years of living will be
,nothing more than more years of misery,
Mr. Chairman, if they are to be spent
in sickness and in progressive decline
in a mental hospital. Our older citizens
want to be healthy and they want to
remain in their own homes and com-
munities. We cannot go on putting
them out of sight in any convenient
storage place.
MUST OUR OLDER PEOPLE FIGHT A LOSING
BATTLE?
Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one
more point before I come to my conclud-
ing recommendation. I spoke earlier
about more opportunities for employ-
ment and I believe they are of utmost
importance. On the other hand, we
must recognize that a great many, per-
haps the majority of our older people,
will have to look elsewhere for their
In Rhode island and in a number of
other places, important experiments have
been taking place in finding new occupa-
tions and new satisfactions for this part
of our older population. In Rhode Island,
the facilities of adult education are be-
ing opened to older people and they are
beginning to respond in sizable numbers.
In two of our Rhode Island communities,
we have established community centers
for older people; centers in which they
may spend their time with friends, work-
ing in the arts and crafts; taking courses
in citizenship, in nutrition, and in a score
of other things, or just enjoying them-
selves in games and sports. And, per-
ifaps even more hopeful is the initiative
older people themselves are taking in
looking for voluntary services they can
perform for the community. Thousands
of our older citizens have reported that
they are happiest when they are doing
something for other people.
These new ways of maintaining active
interest in life,,of continuing their .use-
fulness to the community, and of becom-
ing more informed and, hence, better
citizens, are perhaps forerunners of a new
life for older people. We must encourage
them and we must continue to experi-
ment. And above all, we must study
these programs to see what they mean
to our older citizens, to see their effect
on maintenance of health and zest for
living; to see, in brief, how we can bring
life to the added years. This, I suggest,
is another reason why there is need for a
of our older men and 90 percent or about NEED FOR ACTION IN THE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
7 million of our older women are not Mr. Chairman, last spring, at the time
working and are not likely. to work again of the budget hearings, I was very much is in unless it sform of part-time art-time disappointed that the Department of e age of These roplptodle, all and past large, the Health, Education, and Welfare, and the
age of family 5, have sprnsibteiliesdi e s 11 and ended nden million Department of Labor reflected very little
their onresponsibilities
their w work
careers. These awareness of the urgency of the matters men and women and a good many more I have just reviewed.
,.~... ..n aF represent the The problems of our aging and aged
___
the
lif
e; ,.. , w. r
achievement of lonnge
ple whose lives have been extended be- varied than the people in the administer- local groups. We must remember that
yond the period in which they made tion seem to realize. What we need is a shared responsibility even
dspontments seem
their principal contributions to society. concerted attack on a broad front. I we though have a some of our
It is they who helped build the society have directed the heads of these Depart- t lugs sight of it.
we have and we owe them a great deal. ments to present such a program when Its clear to me-indeed, recent events
The tragedy is that we have not formed they come up with their 1958 budget re- hforced ear the -Indeed, ume-
and ways in which they can be useful quests. a have that th important key conclusion upon po in get-
and enjoy the satisfactions of belonging In my opinion they will not be giving tint action for our older to progress
self-sufficiency. Our tendency has due recognition to the needs of our older proposal embodied in people in get-
and is
to
been to set them aside and to ignore them people until they develop special facili- proposal a bodiCommittee resolution to
when we should have been providing new ties in these two Departments to deal establish of the Aging. I hope there will be
through which they could with all of the probems of aging. An lems on on this r there will be le actio
o be useful and opportunities through office of services to older persons is long oado of the
boat our monons of esder people
which they can build new human con- overdue in the Department of Health, will have assurance of our deep concern
tacts and friendships after their children Education, and Welfare. Such an agen- for their welfare.
have gone from the home and particu- cy is badly needed to coordinate the pro- The CHAIRMAN. All time having
larly when widowhood comes. We have, grams scattered throughout the Depart-
in short, created longer life and more ment, to keep track of the new knowledge expired, the Clerk will read.
for oiuer pupic, p,,iu .1 .a..... ....._w_ -
with national organizations at work in
the field.
The problem of employment Is of spe-
cial significance. A job is the best guar-
antee of a satisfactory income in the
later years; it enables the older person
to maintain his status of independence
and usefulness, and is an important
factor in preventing physical and mental
deterioration. For all of these reasons, I
should like to see the Department of
Labor set up an office of older workers.
An office of older workers could bring
to bear more effectively the programs for
older workers now carried on within sev-
eral Bureaus, could step up its studies
of the, problems of older workers, and
play the leading role in a nationwide ef-
fort to provide more jobs for this im-
portant group in our population. To-
gether with the Civil Cervice Commis-
sion, an office of older workers could
work toward the more effective utiliza-
tion of older workers and toward the
development of improved personnel prac-
tices regarding older workers within the
Government.
ACTION IN THE STATES AND COMMUNITIES
There are important steps that should
be taken by the Federal Government to
meet the critical situation I have de-
scribed. However, I do not wish to
suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal
Government should bear the total re-
sponsibility. Quite the contrary, I be-
lieve that aging is the concern of every-
one, of all levels of Government and of
many other agencies in our national life.
I believe firmly that every 1 of the 48
States and all of our communities must
set up special programs and services for
older persons.
In my State of Rhode Island, we have
adopted this pattern. Five years ago
Gov. Dennis J. Roberts set up a study
commission on problems of the aged and
subsequently converted it into a perma-
nent Governor's committee on aging.
The legislature has provided it with a
paid staff. The result is that in Rhode
Island we are beginning to make prog-
ress.
In the Federal Government, Mr.
Chairman, we must make provision for
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11370
Approved For Ref IfESSIS> / 5 CIA-RRDRP63T0024 E000100200006-2
July 12
CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION to the Government or, over a period of to a low of 15 percent with a high of 17
Land acquisition, additional Washington 5 years. $152.500. percent. In addition, I note that there is
airport Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, now a minimum guaranty of revenue to
For an additional amount for "Land acqui- will the gentleman yield? the Government of $175,000 per contract
sition, additional Washington airport." for Mr. ANDREWS. I yield. year. Several other changes have been
payment of deficiency judgments rendered Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Maybe the rea- made in the previous contract all of
by United States district courts, $2.429, son they did nat want to award it to which, it seems to me, inure to the benefit
together with such amounts as may be nec- the gentleman you mentioned is that of the Government.
essary to pay interest as specified In such i I,,,,, ,,;,, ..._e _ __ . .
pany to handlt it. Certainly anyone my attention that the fees paid to the
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I who has used that facility knows the Government by Airport Transport have
offer an amendment. one who is handling it now is not very been and are today the highest paid by
The Clerk read as follows: competent. any similar operation in the Nation. It
Amendment offered by Mr. ANDREWS: Page Mr. ANDREWS. I have heard that. is estimated t!iat under the new arrange-
2, after line 24 insert the following center Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I insist on ment the Government will average ap-
head and new paragraph: my point of order that the amendment is proximately $200,000 a year in fees re-
"Contracts for services legislation on an appropriation bill. ceived from Airport Transport, based on
"Hereafter no contract for services at any The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is pre- present volume.
airport under the direct jurisdiction of the pared to rule. The Government controls the fares
Civil Aeronautics Administration shall he The gentleman from Alabama offers paid by the public, controls the standard
entered into without previously advertising an amendment which in substance would of service, maintains the right to audit
invitations for sealed bids based on speci-
fications sufficient to permit full and free require that in Connection with con- the books of the company, and thus competition in the letting of such con- tracts under the jurisdiction of the Civil regulates this company similar to a pub-
tracts." Aeronautics Administration sealed bids lic utility.
be required. I have further noted that where local
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I make the The amendment provides for new law; taxicab companies supply $5,000 to
point of order against the amendment it is not a limitation on the purpose for $10,000 public liability insurance, Air-
that it is legislation on an appropriation which funds may be used, and conse- port Transport protects its passengers by
bill. quently it is legislation on an appropria- providing $100,000 to $300,000 liabilit
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman tion bill. The joint of order Is sus- insurance. y
reserve his point of order? tamed. This company under its present man-
Mr. BOW. I will reserve the point (Mr. BOW asked and was given per- agement has operated at the airport for
of order, Mr. Chairman.
mission to extend his remarks at this 10 years and has increased its payments
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the point in the RECORD.) to the Government over that period of
purpose of this amendment is simply to Mr. BOW. M. Chairman, the Civil time by over 500 percent.
require the Civil Aeronautics Authority Aeronautics Administration and the Di- Upon investigation I learned that this
officials to award contracts to the high rector of the Washington National Air- company provides a training course and
bidders. I have in mind a recent con- port recently awarded a contract to Air- safety program for its drivers which is
tract that was let for a concession at the port Transport, Inc.. the incumbent con- unique and a model in the field. The
National Airport. The contract was let cessionaire for ground transportation at company employs 250 drivers, all of
by sealed bids. The company that bid the Washington National Airport for a whom are members of the International
the highest rate to the Government was period of 5 years. Brotherhood of Teamsters. They are
not awarded the contract. The Purpose This award was made through negotia- selected only after the most careful in-
of this amendment is to require the Civil tion, after invitations were offered and vestigation and physical examination.
Aeronautics Authority in the future to proposals submitted by competing firms. They are then put through rigid training
award contracts to the bidders who will I would like to offer my congratula- periods before they are permanently
return the highest rate to the Govern- tions to the Honorable Bennett Griffin, hired. The Driver's Manual, estab-
ment. director of the airport, and to those in lishing the standards of service-and op-
Mr. GREEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. the Civil Aeronautics Administration and eration has not only been copied and
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?, the Office of the Secretary of Commerce used throughout the automotive trans.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield. who were responsible for the awarding portation industry as a model, but has
Mr. GREEN of Pennsylvania. Why of the contract to this splendid organi- also been the subject of many articles in
was not the contract awarded to the zation.
the trade press,
highest bidder? I have personally examined letters Before the present company com-
Mr. ANDREWS. That is what I from every major airline in the Nation menced its operation, the airport was
would like to know. addressed to the Government authorities serviced by taxicabs with each driver
Mr. GREEN of Pennsylvania. Can- charged with the awarding of the con- owning his own cab or renting it on a
not the gentleman find out? tract. Uniformly these letters state that per diem basis. Normal employer-
Mr. ANDREWS. We are having the ground transportation service at the employee relationship did not exist.
General Accounting Office look into it Washington National Airport is a model The system was found unsatisfactory
at this time. for the rest of the Nation. These airline because it proved impossible to serve the
The contract I had in mind was the officials requested the director to pro- public on a 24-hour rain-or-shine basis.
concession for ground transportation vide a continuity of service and to treat To correct this situation the company
cone the aifor o the city Wash- this franchise not as an ordinary conces- has invested a substantial sum in its
f romn. I know a man who made a bid sion but as a public utility. These ofli- own fleet of vehicles and garage equip-
offering the Government 21 percent of dais properly wer?~ concerned with this went, hired its own driver employees
the gross receipts. That man was flnan- operation because It actually is an in- on a guaranteed salary basis, and main-
he gross
cially
able, and able every other an- tegral part dY the service which they pro- tains one of the finest fleet service units
perform the contract. Yet tCivil vide the air-traveling public. A safe, in this area. The drivers get such bene-
to perform e com that fine trip by air _,ould very easily be fits as 2 weeks vacation with pay and
contract within A24 uthority y hours awarded
the time marred by an uncomfortable trip from group life Insurance. Fifty percent of
the old contract expired to the bidder airport to town. them have been with the company over t who bid n percent. t after raising er Last year 1,330000 passengers were 5 years, 17 initial bid from c
15 e percent. transported by Airport Transport by In the year 1955 these drivers covered
limousine and taxicab to and from the approximately 6,500,000 miles without a
Based on the present amount of bust- Washington National Airport. chargeable accident resulting in a major
ness that is done at the airport, it is esti- I note that the e.irport director nego- personal injury to themselves or passen-
mated conservatively that the 21-per- tiated several changes In the existing gets. Their record in 1956 Is equally as
cent contract would have returned to contract, chief amcng which was the in- good. In the entire 10-year period dur-
the Government $30,500 a year more crease in the fee arrangement from a low ing which the present management has
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 1956
ApprovedsEor Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T0M5R000100200006-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 11371
operated the company there has been
only 1 major accident resulting in in-
jury to a passenger. During this period
approximately 10 million passengers
were carried over a distance of 45 mil-
lion miles.
I have also seen letters from the bank-
ing institutions. and the major supply
houses doing business with the com-
pany, all of which attest to the financial
responsibility and integrity of the com-
pany and its officers.
In conclusion, I again wish to con-
gratulate the Government officials
charged with the awarding of this con-
tract for having been so conscious of
the welfare of the airline passengers as
to have reawarded the contract to Air-
port Transport, Inc. The additional
revenue to the Government is an ad-
mirable accomplishment, particularly in
the light of the fact that the outstand-
ing service, the low fares, the excellent
equipment, and the impeccable char-
acter of the personnel has not been im-
paired. Obviously no other bidder could
have provided more revenue for the
Government without impairing in some
manner these qualities to which the air-
line officials, the Government authori-
ties, and the riding public so sincerely
attest.
The testimony given before the Sub-
committee on the Department of Com-
merce and Related Agencies, of which I
am a member, leads me. to the conclu-
sion, which I am happy to present to
the House of Representatives, that in
the awarding of this contract to Airport
Transliort the best interests of the
American public have been admirably
served,
MAY 22, 1956.
Hon. CHARLES J. LOWEN,
Administrator, Civil Aeronautics Ad-
ministration, United States Depart-
ment of Commerce, Washington,
D. C.
DEAR SIR: It has come to my attention
that the Department of Commerce is con-
sidering a change in the contractual speci-
fications regarding ground transportation
operation at National Airport. To be spe-
cific: A change from negotiation to bid
basis. Should such a, change become fac-
tual, there would be a strong possibility
that a new organization, lacking experience,
could be awarded a contract on the basis
of a lower bid,
In view of our recent entry into Wash-
ington as a domestic on-line carrier, I feel
it only fair to voice a supporting opinion
in favor of Air Transport, Inc., the present
operator at National Airport. I know of
no other ground transportation service, any-
where, that can better the service to pas-
sengers now provided by Air Transport, Inc.
The organization, from management down
to the last driver, is highly trained and en-
joys a well-deserved reputation as a quality
service performing in the public interest.
With the acquisition of three new car-
riers serving Washington, the added burden
on ground transportation becomes apparent.
Airport Transport, Inc., has met the chal-
lenge with alacrity and has provided the very
same excellent standard of service as always.
It is my sincere hope that the Govern-
ment will consider the many intangible, as
well as tangible, qualities of the present
operator prior to rendering such service to
the status of a bid operation.
Cordially yours,
STEVAN M. OLDS,
District Sales Manager.
NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC.,
Washington, D. C., February 10, 1956.
Mr. MOE LERNER,
Airport Transport,
Washington National Airport,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. LERNER: I have been in the air-
line industry for 11 years. During that period
I have flown into practically every major city
in the United States. I can make the un-
qualified statement that the service offered
by Airport Transport in Washington is the
most efficiently run and passenger-pleasing
operation that I have yet encountered.
The consideration for the airline passeng-
er's needs, and the lack of waiting time, the
courtesy and attitude of the employees, the
excellent and well-maintained equipment,
combined with reasonable fares, all are out-
standing features of your service.
I feel that any efforts to interfere with
the present business operation and set-up
at Washington National Airport could only
work to the disadvantage of our passengers.
I, therefore, offer my services in any way
necessary to maintain and support your or-
ganization's operation. I will be happy to
so advise in writing any party or parties in-
volved in current controversy over your fran-
chise.
Sincerely,
ROBERT A. ROE,
District Sales Manager.
APRIL 20, 1956.
Hon. CHARLES LOWEN,
Administrator, Civil Aeronautics
Administration, Washington, D. C.
DEAR CHUCK: I don't know whether you
know it or not, but long before our time
here in Washington the ground transpor-
tation service at the airport was horrible.
In fact, it was so bad that the industry
had to do something about it. That was
how the present service headed by Moe
Lerner came into being, as I understand it.
I am advised that there is a possibility
that the ground service will be open for bids.
I just want to say without being too pre-
sumptious that it would be one terrific mis-
take to in anyway impair the excellent
service we are receiving at the airport today.
Sincerely,
ALEXANDER G. HARDY,
Senior Vice President.
Mr. MOE LERNER,
President, Airport Transport, Inc.
Washington National Airport,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR MOE: I felt I could not let another
day of the new year go by without express-
ing to you the sincere thanks of Northwest
Orient Airlines for the fine service you are
providing our customers.
It is very rare that a person in my capacity
can experience a full year and a half-the
time I have been assigned to Washington-
without hearing anything but praise from
our passengers concerning the airport
limousine service. To me this recommends
quite an achievement on your part.
With beat wishes, and again our sincere
thanks to you for the admirable record you
have acheved for outstanding service to our
passengers.
Very truly yours,
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES,
RONALD MCVICKAR,
District Sales Manager.
Hon. CHARLES, LowEN,
Administrator of Civil Aeronautics,
Washington, D. C.:
Reference limousine service Washington
National Airport strongly recommend con-
tinuance of franchise for Airport Transport
Inc. based upon the excellent past service of
this company to our- customers.
J. C. ROBERTSON,
Director of Customer Service, North-
west Airlines.
UNITED AIR LINES,
March 12, 1956.
The Honorable CHARLES J. LOwEN,
Administrator, Civil Aeronautics Ad-
ministration, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: A number of days ago several of
our airline group were having a discussion re-
garding matters of mutual interest. It
came to my attention then that there is some
type of action pending which conceivably
could deprive our passengers of the superior
service rendered by the Airport Transport,
Inc.
In my capacity as district sales manager
for United, I have considerable interest in the
service offered by an airport ground service
operator. While actual administrative re-
sponsibility in the relationship between our
company and a ground service operator falls
under Mr. R. K. Kearns, our district passenger
service manager, I naturally must concern
myself with such a service in my responsibil-
ity for developing passenger sales in this
area. In developing passenger sales, we must
consider as part of our commodity how much
the passenger pays for ground transporta-
tion to and from the airport and the type of
service he receives. The air passenger nor-
mally originates and terminates his com-
plete trip far from the airport, so such ground
service as offered is of vital concern in offer-
ing our air service to the customer. I be-
lieve that Airport Transport, Inc. charges are
very resonable and that the service rendered
Is of superior quality. Their drivers are
courteous and efficient, their schedules are
prompt and expeditious. One thing that
particularly impresses me is the speedy dis-
patch of their limousines from the airport or
downtown terminals. In so many cities our
early passenger is required to wait for long
periods of time until the bus fills up. This
brings up the point that here in Washington
we have deluxe limousine service which will
even carry our passengers to or from their
homes at a . reasonable fare. I should
imagine that this represents an extremely
large capital investment on the part of Air-
port Transport, Inc.
I feel that the management of that com-
pany is dedicated to the service of our pas-
senger. I know from personal experience
that Mr. Moe Lerner has devoted more than
is required of his time and energy to assure
us of quality service to our passengers. Un-
doubtedly, in order to achieve the type of
service we receive, he has made a substantial
investment in his capital equipment and fa-
cilities. With the expansion in service that
we can anticipate this year and in the next
few years as we reach the jet age, he will have
to make additional and substantial capital
investment on which he is entitled to a fair
return, but which would not be reflected
without assurance of continued operation.
It has been my privilege to have served
United in several cities across our system
And, as well, to have traveled extensively
throughout the country. I can say un-
equivocally that in no other city is the air-
port ground transportation equal to that
which our passengers receive here in Wash-
ington. I am convinced that the service
rendered by Airport Transport, Inc., Is In the
best interest of our customer.
Very cordially yours,
M. W. STEVENSON,
District Sales Manager,
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11372
Approved For"~QSRA5EACRDP63002~4SE 000100200006-2
CAPITAL AIRLINES,
Washington, D. C, March 20, 1958.
Mr. CHARLES J. LOWEN,
Administrator, Civil Aeronautics Ad-
ministration, Department of Com-
merce, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. LowEN: Recently a rumor
reached me, although I hope Isn't true, com-
pels me to express my viewpoints. I've been
told there is a possibility that the contract
for limousine and taxi service at Washing-
ton National Airport may In the future be
offered on a bid basis. Although I'm not
entirely sure of the ramifications this pre-
sents, on the surface, it would mean to me
that a new organization without experience
could be awarded this contract on the basis
of a lower bid.
We have considered ourselves in Washing-
tlon to be In a very fortunate position having
ground services designed for convenience
and service to the passengers. The very
fact that this Is a heavily used service tells
us that the majority of our passengers re-
quire public transportation to reach their
home, hotel, or office. Actually, for this
majority we feel that their air trip doesn't
end until they reach their final destination.
We have always felt that the Airport Trans-
port, Inc., the present operator, has treated
air passengers with the same degree of
courtesy and service the airlines display.
If this contract Is to be put on a bid basis,
we feel that it would cause a great deal of
insecurity within the organizational struc-
ture of any company being awarded the
bid. This insecurity would of necessity re-
strict the company from investing in first-
class equipment which, of course, would
lower the standard of service. In addition,
with every succeeding award the experience
line would be broken. To properly operate
and schedule ground transportation service
is extremely involved and complicated. It
requires expert personnel who cannot be
trained in short periods of time.
We feel very complimentary toward the
present operator's organization. The per-
sonnel, management, and equipment com-
prise a closely knit Institution which we
have every right to be proud of.' In this
city which is a showcase of the world this
type service must be outstandingly dignified.
It would be most unfortunate to see this
service lowered to the level of many of the
major cities in the east.
Very truly yours,
O. E. WILLMAN,
District Sales Manager.
I certainly hope, Chuck, that nothing will
happen to disturb the excellent service our
Washington passengers have enjoyed ground-
wise, for certainly a good ground service
reflects greatly on the air service offered.
Hope to see you soon.
Sincerely,
JOHN P. BROCK.
District Sales Manager.
EASTERN AIR LreE4,
March 9, 1956.
Mr. CIrsRLEs LOWEa,
Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics
Administration,
Washington. D. C.
DEAR MR. Lowxse: E.tatern Air Lines has a
tremendous stake In Washington National
Airport and we continually review the as-
sociate facilities In relation to our own serv-
ice, especially the more dominant ones such
as ground transportation. With our heavy
commuter services :rom New York and Bos-
ton the importance of ground transporta-
tion efficiency is second only to our own
service and almost equally important In a
passenger's decision as to whether to use
Washington National Airport at all. These
decisions in favor of air travel are respon-
sible to us for almost 40,000 passengers per
month.
I have, therefore, been concerned recently
to learn that reconsideration mighirsbe given
to the system under which this facility so
successfully operates. I can state positively
In my 17 years in I.ir transportation, cover-
trig a number of cities and countries,'I have
never seen better standards of service than
those provided by Air Transport, Inc. More
particularly, having spent 12 years as East-
ern's manager In Washington, I have seen
two predecessor operations in action and
whereas before Airport Transport arrived the
ground transportation problem was a con-
tinuing and discouraging one, this has been
so completely chanf:ed that our other cities
now point to Washington's service as out-
standing, as do our passengers.
The lengthy delays and erratic service oc-
casioned in many o':her cities has been long
gone in Wasbingtcn and I can say un-
equivocally that any disruption to Airport
Transport's excellent program here would be
a major disservice to our passengers and to
the healthy growth of Washington as an air
center.
This letter is written only to emphasize my
long time feeling In relation to the superior-
Ity of Air Transport, Inc., and I would be
more than happy to supply any further
statements you mig:lt deem necessary.
Sincerely yours,
HARRISON KNAPP,
TraITfc and Sales Manager.
Administrator, Civil Aeronautics Admin-
istration, Washington, D. C.
DEAR CHUCK: As one of the oldest so-
called Washington airline officials in the
area, I feel I can drop you a personal note
on a subject pertaining to the welfare of our
airline passengers within range of the Wash-
ington National Airport.
Through the rumor factory, I have heard
that there is some talk of opening up ground
transportation facilities to bids from vari-
ous operators. Such word Is certainly dis-
turbing to one who has worked so closely
these many years with all concerned at the
airport and particularly with our many good
permanent customers. We have found that
the present operator, Airport Transport, Inc.,
has proved to be one of the finest ground
transportation companies in the United
States. I make the latter statement not
only as a personal observation but It is based
upon the comments and observations of pas-
sengers and other airline officials over a period
of several years.
Certainly Moe Lerner's outfit has demon-
strated the things we all strive for in the
airline category which are outstanding serv-
ice, equitable fares, and good, clean, well-
maintained equipment.
DELTA-C. & S. Ant LINES,
Atlanta. Ga., April 27, 1956.
Hon. CHARLES J. LOWSN,
Administrator, Civil Aeronautics
Administration,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR, Lowxs : It has been brought to
my attention that the contract of Airport
Transport. Inc.. at Washington National Air-
port will expire on June 30, 1956, and that
there Is thinking in some quarters that the
continuation of limousine service at Wash-
ington National should be the result of com-
petitive bidding.
Although Delta does not feel that the pro-
cedures whereby ground transportation is
contracted for Is a matter In which we should
Interject ourself, we do know that efficient,
adequate, and equl:,ably priced airport-to-
city limousine service for our passengers is
a matter of importance and direct concern
to us.
For this reason and Insofar as It may be
proper for us to do so I respectfully urge upon
July 12
you the continuation of arrangements with
the present operator, Airport Transport, Inc.,
if the same can be done without material or
serious prejudice to the Government. The
Air Traffic Conference has recognized that
ground transportation at airports is an es-
sential public service rather than a conces-
sion; that it can be beat provided by a single
operator as a result of contract negotiation
rather than competitive bidding; that, other
things being fairly equal, preference should
be given to the incumbent operator; and that
his contract should be of a continuing
nature.
We know from years of experience in pro-
viding air service to other cities that these
considerations work In the interest of good
public service. It is not unlikely that a
newcomer, lacking knowledge and experience
as to the complexities, magnitude, and qual-
ity of the job to be done, might submit a
lower (higher) bid, but this might well re-
sult in inadequate service, Inferior vehicles,
or higher charges to the public. Such would
certainly not be in the public Interest and
hence would not be in the interest of the
operator of the airport or of the airlines
serving that airport.
It has been my observation, since Delta
began serving Washington on February 1,
1956, that Airport Transport, Inc., has pro-
vided our customers with good, courteous,
and efficient service, and I trust that you will
not think it too gratuitous of me to direct
your attention to these considerations.
Very truly yours,
Oscoon P. Wu.Lrs,
District Sales Manager.
JUNE 15, 1956.
Col. B. H. GRrnt'rse,
Washington National Airport,
Washington, D. C.
DEAa Br-NNT: I recently addressed a letter
to Jim Pyle as Acting Administrator setting
forth the policies and views of American Air-
lines with respect to ground transportation
services and particularly the services at
Washington National Airport.
American. as that letter pointed out, has
found the services of Airport Transport, Inc.,
most satisfactory. We believe that the serv-
ices of this operator have been far superior
to any previously operated in Washington.
Sincerely yours,
MORRIS SHrPLLY,
Assistant Vice President.
THE RIGGS NATIONAL BANE,
May 28, 1956.
DIREOTOR. WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPoaT,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: This letter is written at the re-
quest of our valued client, Airport Trans-
port, Inc., in connection with their pro-
posal for a renewal of their contract for
oiler tlon of the ground transportation serv-
ice at the Washington National Airport. We
have been Informed by Mr. Moe Lerner, pres-
ident of the company that in the qualifics-
tion data to accompany the proposal there
is a question concerning the proposed meth-
od of financing such operation.
Airport Transport, Inc., has been a client
of this bank for the past 16 years and dur-
ing that period their relationship here has
been excellent. We have made them loans
on many occasions in substantial amounts,
the aggregate sum of which would approach
$1 million and every obligation has been met
promptly and satisfactorily.
The company has always demonstrated the
highest commercial integrity and its offi-
cials the highest personal integrity, and the
present management is in our opinion the
finest the company has enjoyed In Its long
and successful career. We are confident the
company is entirely capable of managing and
financing the continued operation of the
ground transportation service at the Wash-
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 1956 Approved g~~~25J?P68R000100200006-2 11373
ington National Airport, and I am pleased
to give them our highest endorsement.
Yours very truly,
ROLAND T. CARR,
Vice President.
ALEXANDRIA NATIONAL BANK,
Alexandria, Va., May 28, 1956.
DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR. This letter is being written in
connection with the proposal of Airport
Transport, Inc., regarding a renewal of its
contract for operation of the ground trans-
portation service at the Washington National
Airport. Mr. Moe Lerner, president of the
Airport Transport, advises us in the qualifi-
cation data to accompany this proposal there
is a question concerning the financial status
of the corporation.
We wish to advise you that Airport Trans-
port, Inc., has been a most valued customer
of this bank for the past 5 years, and during
that time our relationship has been excellent.
We consider them to be one of our best
accounts; and insofar as their methods of
audit and fiscal control are concerned, we
believe their methods are of the finest. We
have never been called upon to, do any
financing for them, but in analyzing their
financial statements we would not hesitate
to take care of any requests we would be able
to handle for them,.
A number of our personnel, including my-
self, have had occasion to use their service
from time to time and we have always found
the service to be most satisfactory and their
employees courteous and considerate. We
feel that this is a reflection of the competent
management of the company and believe
their operation adds immeasurably to the
comfort and satisfaction of the airline
traveler.
Very truly yours,
E. GUY RIDGELY,
Vice President.
MAY 28, 1956.
DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: It gives me much pleasure to
tell you that Mr. Moe Lerner, president,
Airport Transport, has been a customer of
the B. F. Goodrich Co., 433 I Street NW.,
Washington, D. C., for many years.
We consider Airport Transport one of our
most valued customers, and their purchases
from us have averaged between $25,000 and
$30,000 per year. Statements have always
been paid promptly, and all business trans-
actions between Airport Transport and The
B. F. Goodrich Co. have been handled with
the utmost dispatch. As regards their credit
standing, we feel that they are in an un-
limited position to finance their operations,
and, from our experience with this com-
pany, there should be no problems involved.
Mr. Lerner is a man of high integrity and
possesses excellent business ability.
Yours very truly,
Manager, B. F. Goodrich Co.
MAY 28, 1956.
Mr. BENNETT H. GRIFFIN,
.Director, Washington National Airport,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. GRIFFIN: The Airport Transport,
Inc., operating a limousine service at the Na-
tional Airport, has been doing business with
us for a period of several years in the nature
of purchasing parts, servicing their cars, and
purchasing Cadillac limousines.
Their annual purchase of limousines,
parts, and service has been averaging be-
tween $90,000 and $110,000 a year. At the
purchase of the new Cadillac limousines they
have paid for them at the time they were
invoiced by check. Their monthly account
has been paid for on or before the 10th of
every month, taking advantage of discounts
earned on parts purchased.
No. 118-18
The Airport Transport, Inc., enjoy one of
the highest credit ratings of any organiza-
tion doing business with our three compa-
nies, and we assure you it has been a most
satisfactory account in every respect.
Using Cadillac equipment, naturally, has
been of great concern with us, and it has
been our obligation to assist them in every
way to insure at all times prompt and effi-
cient Cadillac limousine operation.
Therefore, we have no hesitancy in recom-
mending Mr. Moe Lerner and his organiza-
tion to anyone from a financial standpoint,
as they have full and complete knowledge of
every phase of the transportation business.
Very truly yours,
CAPITAL CADILLAC-OLDSMOBILE CO.,
FLOYD D. AKERS, President.
MAY 29, 1956.
DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: It is our understanding that an
inquiry has been made concerning our busi-
ness dealings with the Airport Transport,
Inc.
We have had the great pleasure of selling
both cars and parts, amounting to approxi-
mately $150,000 a year in gross sales, to the
present management, over a period of many
years, with unlimited credit. The stability,
integrity, and financial standing of the or-
ganization has greatly enhanced our rela-
tions, and we are confident that the unusual
resourcefulness of Mr. Lerner has greatly
implemented the outstanding maintenance
record of our products in the service of the
company.
Again, we cannot speak too highly of the
Airport Transport, Inc., and Mr. Lerner, and
feel that the company's overall performance
is a great asset to our city.
Very truly yours,
L. P. STEUART,
President.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my
appreciation to the Subcommittee on
Agricultural Appropriations and the full
Appropriations Committee for the in-
terest shown in the very serious problem
in Florida- of the eradication of the
Mediterranean fruitfly. This is of great
importance, and is referred to on page
3 of the committee report under the
heading of "Agricultural Research
Service."
I express appreciation to the commit-
tee for its previous action in providing
$2,175,000 for the eradiction of the fruit-
fly and, in addition, $325,000 for the pur-
pose of fighting the burrowing nematode,
both of which principally affect the citrus
industry in the State of Florida and jeop-
ardize many other agricultural products.
But in addition to that, I want to ex-
press to the very fine chairman of the
Subcommittee on Agriculture the fact
that on page 580 of the report of the
hearings of the subcommittee it was
brought out that there was an area of
approximately 250,000 acres which was
expected to have to be fully treated under
this program. I regret to have to inform
the House and the chairman that this
acreage has substantially increased in
the few weeks since action was actually
taken on this matter under the Agri-
culture Appropriation Act for 1957. Ap-
proximately 100,000 acres requires full
treatment in my own home county of
Pinellas. In addition to that, 80,000 to
90,000 acres require treatment in Lee
County to the south, due to unantici-
pated additional heavy spread over
that expected at the time of the orig-
inal hearings. I have been in con-
ference, along with many members of
the Florida delegation, with the De-
partment of Agriculture on this problem
since that time. Since it has spread, I
have been assured, and as a matter of
fact I have been advised, that another
$2.5 million, and authority to transfer
contingency and other funds for this
fruitfly effort to assure adequate addi-
tional funds if needed, is going to be re-
quested, in that the Bureau of the Budget
and the . Department of Agriculture
recognize that there remains even a
greater need. That has been referred, I
believe today, by the Bureau of the
Budget to the White House for recom-
mendation to your committee and that
of the Senate. I just wish to advise
you of the increased and continuing
need in this particular field. I also wish
to advise you of the fact that the Florida
Legislature meets in special session. on
July 23. The governor himself and the
cabinet, in effect, have committed them-
selves to recommend to the legislature
that all Federal funds spent on this pro-
gram be matched with State funds. So,
we in Florida expect to do our part on
this. I again want to thank the com-
mittee and Congress for the great con-
sideration and effort put forth in this
matter, recognizing that this is a very
serious problem and at the same time to
express appreciation for the expeditious
and effective manner in which the De-
partment. of Agriculture and Bureau of
the Budget, under President Eisenhow-
er's leadership, have met this challenge.
I am confident the anticipated further
request will be fully considered-favor-
ably so-for the facts merit further all-
out Federal participation.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr..CRAMER. I yield.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I
am in favor of this bill, which provides
funds to meet some of the.most pressing
needs of our Defense Establishment, as
well as other Government agencies.
One sorely needed item is the sum of
$40,219,000 for the Continental Air Com-
mand, to finance construction at airports
and bases where vital reserve activities
are under way.
A great job has been done in the past
year in greatly stimulating and increas-
ing the defense, contribution of the Air
Force Reserve, which has an increasingly
important mission in the protection of
the United States.
I personally believe the most produc-
tive defense dollars that we spend are
invested in activities like the Air Force
Reserve and the Air National Guard, and
no activities have done more to make
our people defense conscious.
In the city of Muskogee, in the Second
Congressional District of Oklahoma, Z
have seen at first hand the operation of
this Air Force Reserve program, and the
almost phenomenal growth, on a virtual
shoe string, of the 713th Fighter-Bomber
Squadron at Davis Field.
The officers and men of this squadron,
at considerable personal sacrifice and
long hours of service beyond the call of
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11374 Approved Fors 5* 63f JR000100200006-2 July 12
duty, have been engaged in making an
outfit of which the entire Air Force is
proud-and which has added much-
needed muscle to our air defense, at low
cost to the Government.
Maj. Gen. Bill Hall, the hard-working
and able Deputy Chief of Staff in Charge
of Reserve Activities, has personally paid
tribute to the achievements of the Mus-
kogee squadron, and appropriately cited
it as an example of the great potential
in Reserve force development.
Maj. Gen. George Finch, the energetic
and forceful commander of the 14th Air
Force, has played a significant role in
the growth of the Muskogee squadron,
and has complimented its personnel on
squadron achievements.
The entire city of Muskogee, and many
cities and towns in the area, have joined
in magnificent support of the squadron.
Mayor Lyman Beard of Muskogee has
supplied tireless and resourceful civic
leadership for the activity, and Lt. Col.
Claude Sledd and Maj. Ray Oatley, the
squadron and base commanders, have
planned and worked long hours to make
an outstanding success of the undertak-
ing.
"The Muskogee Story," as the Air Force
dubbed it, is an inspiring story, and one
which I predict will grow in inspiration
and glory in the coming years.
I am glad to observe that this bill in-
cludes money to provide additional safety
and efficiency features for Davis Field,
home of the 713th, and I strongly urge
its passage by the House.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, I move to $triee out the last
word.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. HoFF-
MAN of Michigan was granted permission
to revise and extend his remarks and to
speak out of order.)
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, on June 6, 1956, the House
Committee on Government Operations
adopted and the following noon made
general distribution to the press-it had
more than 2 weeks previously been re-
leased to some reporters-a report of its
Public Works and Resources Subcom-
mittee, which, for 18 days-beginning
on July 19, and ending on October 19,
1955-held hearings concerning the
power policies of the Department of the
Interior.
The report as adopted and publicized
carried, among others, recommendation
No. 6, which will hereinafter be referred
to.
July 9, members of the subcommittee
received a letter reading:
MY DEAR COLLEAGUE: The Public Works
and Resources Subcommittee will resume
public hearings into the Department of In-
terior's Federal power policies starting at
10:30 a. m., Monday. July 16. 1956, in room
362. Old House Office Building.
It is expected that the hearings will be
conducted during morning and afternoon
sessions. Officials of the Department of the
Interior, as well as representatives of cer-
tain private electric utilities, will be heard
at that time, in connection with recommen-
dation No. 6 contained in the Committee on
Government Operations 18th Intermediate
Report, House Report 2279.
Cordially yours,
EARL CHUDOF#,
Member of Con press, Chairman, Pub-
lie Works and Resources Subcom-
mittee.
Accused by Mr. H. Vance Austin, on
leave from his employment with the
Colorado State A sociation of REA Co-
operatives, who, while directing the sub-
committee investigation and hearings,
was paid out of Federal funds allocated
to the committee, the private power com-
panies were tried- convicted and, from
a practical standl:oint, their liquidation
demanded by the subcommittee. They
are now apparently belatedly to be given
a hearing before the sentence is carried
out.
Before commenting on the report gen-
erally, let us look briefly at recommenda-
No. 6, which is to provide the basis of the
hearing about to be held:
16) Congress laur.ch a full-scale joint in-
vestigation by both Houma to determine
whether or not the?e is an organized effort
of the private power companies to influence
the Federal administration, the Congress. the
governments of the States, and the political
life of the Nation.
In spite of the tact that this investiga-
tion has not yet been made, the commit-
tee, in the report above referred to,
wrote-page 9:
The announced administration policy is
identical with that of the companies. It is
designated to destroy the Federal power pro-
gram and eliminate every ventage of opposi-
tion to the establishment of a complete pri-
vate power monopoly in the United States.
In carrying It out, the activities of the In-
terior Department aid the private companies
are completely coordinated In each regionof
the country.
The committee represented this con-
clusion as being based upon hearings. If
so. why stage another set of hearings to
find out what thel already claim to have
discovered? If not justified by the'pi'e-
vious hearings, the committee is guilty of
deliberate misrepresentation.
Since the committee, true to form, has
already prejudged the case with regard
to recommendaticn No. 6, the proposed
hearings can be designed only to produce
more political ki:owatts for the cam-
paign.
Apparently, the proposed hearings are
a belated attempt to justify a judgment
already handed cut by the committee.
Mr. Chairman, let us consider for a
moment the status of the report-the re-
port which contains recommendation No.
6. This report was committed to the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Unirn and ordered to be
printed on June 'I. 1956. To this date,
Mr. Chairman. more than 1 month later,
printed copies are still not available.
Why is the majority reluctant to re-
lease this report find why is the major-
ity resuming its hearings while holding
its report in abeyance?
Apparently, the suppressed printing of
a report of the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations, which is entitled "Ef-
fect of Department of Interior and REA
Policies on Public Power Preference Cus-
tomers," has not had the political effect
which the majority had hoped would fol-
low its release to the press. This lack
of effectiveness may be due to the fact
that not even the majority can agree
on it.
So, this being ar. election year, the sub-
committee is off on another witch hunt,
although knowing full well that, as usual,
during the last 2 or 3 weeks of the
session, there will be no opportunity to
write legislation based on these hearings.
The hearings will, however, serve po-
litical ends by keeping Members off the
floor, where from day to day important
bills are up for action.
Perhaps intrigued by the example set
by the Supreme Court of filing several
opinions giving diverse reasons for
affirming or reversing a lower court's de-
cision, 5 members of the majority, who
voted Apr the adoption of the report-2
of the1~ members of the subcommittee
which conducted the hearings-felt
themselves compelled to file additional
views which conflict with the majority
report which they had just voted to
adopt.
Upon one issue the majority members
were unanimous. They were apparently
in wholehearted accord with their Demo-
cratic colleagues who were reporting that
those who are exercising authority in the
Department of the Interior should be
kicked out of office and that at the next
election the present Republican admin-
istration and officeholders should be sup-
planted by Democrats.
The House committee voted 16 to 12-
strictly along party lines-to file this so-
called majority report. This being the
case, and since 5 of the 16 Democrats
actually do not agree with the report, is
It in fact a majority report? Five from
16 leaves a minority of 11.
Add the 5 dissenting majority mem-
bers to the 12 minority members who
condemned the hearings as being unfair,
and you have in effect a majority of 17
members of the committee who did not
subscribe to the majority report.
The report is a baldly political docu-
ment designed entirely to serve but two
purposes: To discredit the Eisenhower
administration and to crucify an in-
dustry vitally important to our national
life and well-being.
The only valid claim that it is a ma-
jority report lies in the fact that it was
adopted and reported out by the mem-
bers of the political party which happens,
at the moment, to have a slender voting
margin in the Congress-even though
five of those so voting apparently just
could not swallow and deep down the
obviously unfair methods followed by
the subcommittee nor the conclusions set
forth in the report.
Five times the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. FOUNTAIN], in his addi-
tional views, calls attention to the fact
that-see subsequent quotations-the
basic American principle that the
accused should not be convicted without
a hearing, was disregarded by the sub-
committee during its hearings.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
PORTER HARDY, JR., in his additional views,
simply stated :
I am in substantial agreement with Mr.
FOUNTAIN's additional views.
Another member of the committee, the
Honorable JOE M. KILGORE, wrote:
I voted to adopt the committee report so
that the report in Its entirety might be
brought to the attention of the Congress.
However, I do not subscribe to all the con-
clusions and recommendations contained
therein.
The Honorable DANTE B. FASCELL and
ROBERT H. MOLLOHAN submitted addi-
tional views to emphasize certain points
which they wrote "need emphasizing."
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved, or N Release ONAL/RE
1956 RDP 6 5R000100200006-2 11375
They pointed out that there were, In lessly. Not only were .representatives of
their opinion, defects in the present law private power companies denied the
governing the Interior Department, and right to be heard, but their industry was
in addition, frankly stated that because subjected to the basest sort of attack
of the present legislative situation they principally through innuendo and dis-
to criticize private utilities for not enter-
ing into wheeling arrangements."
These two members of the committee
apparently not only realised that the au-
thority of the subcommittee to. go into
the activities of the private power com-
panies was doubtful but that the com-
panics had been condemned without a
hearing.
They also criticized the subcommittee
because it charged private utilities with
improper conduct without giving them
an opportunity to be heard.
With one conclusion reached by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. FAscELL]
and by the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia [Mr. MOLLOHAN], I cannot agree.
They wrote:
We do not interpret the report and we do
not believe it can or should be interpreted
as a document expressing a philosophy for
the future development of the power re-
sources of this country solely by the Federal
Government or other public authorities.
(Conversely, it is equally clear that all power
development should not be undertaken ex-
clusively by private industry, particularly
with reference to those resources which are
and have been in the public domain.
As I listened to the hearings, as I read
the stenographic transcript, as I read
the report, I could reach but one con-
clusion, which was that the subcommit-
tee's sole effort was to bring about a
socialization of the electrical power
industry.
With the conclusion of those two gen-
tlemen who stated that "A study of the
history of the development of power,
both public and private, indicates clearly
that it is for the best interests of the
public to have two-way development," I
am in complete accord.
The very fact that the report travels
under the guise of a "majority" opinion
is completely in accord with the manner
in which this and other investigations of
this subcommittee have been handled-
beginning with the hit-and-run hearings
during which persons were accused of
misconduct or violations of the law, then
denied the right to be heard, followed by
As has just been pointed out, this was
underscored by Representatives DANTE 13.
FASCELL, of Florida, and ROBERT H. MoL-
LoHAN, of West Virginia, both members
of the investigating subcommittee. In
their additional views, Representatives
FASCELL and MOLLOHAN came to the de-
fense of private power companies and at
the same time recognized the difficult
position of the Federal Government in
negotiating wheeling contracts. Permit
me to quote from their statement:
In the case of a wheeling contract, it Is
necessary to bring together three parties into
agreement; the Federal Government (pro-
ducer), the private utility (transmission
agent), and the preference customer. This
must be done voluntarily. It is obviously
an arms-length transaction for the private
utility and the preference customer-with
the Government in all cartes being in the
middle attempting to satisfy both parties
and, at the same time, implement Federal
power policy as intended by Congress. Fur-
thermore, why should a private utility wheel
public power to its competitor preference
customer when the private utility is buying
the public power at dump rates because it
Is the only available user?
Because of this situation, we do not feel
it is proper to condemn and to criticize pri-
vate utilities for not entering into wheeling
arrangements. They are a private enterprise
engaged in making a profit and while it is
not unusual for a businessman to do busi-
ness with his competitors, it would be
ridiculous to assume that he would not try
to get the best possible deal for himself.
This is a duty that private management of
a utility has to itself and its stockholders.
They have no responsibility under the law
for imuplementing Federal power policy and
they have no responsibility under the law
for assisting the preference customers who
are in most cases their competitors or poten-
tial competitors for business. In fact, we are
surprised under conditions as they exist, that
any wheeling contracts have been entered
into by private utility companies. Ob-
viously, they have only been entered into
where the company felt the economic bene-_
fit and advantages to the company far out-
weighed any asistance which they might be
giving to their competitor, the preference
customers.
the filing of a report which prejudges Mr. Chairman, I interrupt the quota-
a case which never had been heard and tion to call particular attention to the
which, indeed, was not properly an issue, following paragraph written by Rep?re-
The stated purpose of the investiga- sentatives FASCELL and MOLLOHAN. I re-
tion was to ascertain "the effect of the sume quoting:
administrative acts and policies of the Since the extensive hearings held by this
present officials of the Department of subcommittee deal with the effect of pres-
the Interior and the Rural Electrifica- ent administrative action and policies of the
tion Administration on rural electric Department of the Interior and the Rural
cooperatives, public bodies, and munici- Electric Administration on the implementa-
pal electric systems." The intermediate tion of Federal power policy as it may affect
port supposedly dealt with the findings preference customers, we feel that any ref-
report
that investigation, erence as to the unwillingness of private
utilities to wheel or the strong terms sought
Nowhere in the stated purpose, as by them in their negotiations for wheeling
quoted above from the introductory contracts, should be considered in these
statement of the majority report, can i hearings only in the light of pointing out
find aiiy reference to the Investigation the position that the private utilities take
embracing policies and business prac- under existing law and administration, and
the tices of private utilities. - Yet through- difficulties stances s of the Implementation that exist atof these circum-
tices Federal
out the report this important segment power policy; but should not be considered
of our Nation's free-enterprise economic in the light of condemnation, if their actions
system is attacked viciously and ruth- and performances are that of an ordinary
businessman acting in a reasonable and
prudent manner in the operation of his
business.
The report presupposes the interest and
the desire of the private-utility companies
to change Federal power policy. Obviously
they have some. feeling on the matter and
take every opportunity, manner, and means
to express their feelings and thoughts on the
subject. What efforts, individually or in
concert, private power compaies are exerting
in attempting to change through adminis-
trative means the Federal power policy as
expressed by Congress, is not in my opinion
a subject matter of even indirect considera-
tion in the present report, and therefore, we
disagree with any references to that effect
which may be in the present report. We be-
lieve that the-subject matter of the influence
and interest that private-utility companies
have on the administration of Federal power
policy is certainly a proper one for congres-
sional interest. We further believe that
private utilities should be given every oppor-
tunity to be heard and to present their views
on the subject, and-we are hopeful that the
Congress will see fit at an early date to un-
dertake the consideration and study of the
part private-utility companies have played
and are playing in the implementation of
public power policy under the present ad-
ministration.
A study of the history of the development
of power, both public and private, indicates
clearly that it is for the best interests of the
public to have two-way development.
Permit me to call your attention to
this latter statement. It is a definitive-
though simplified-enunciation of the
basis for the partnership concept of the
Eisenhower administration. The Eisen-
hower administration. certainly believes
that it is in the best public interest to
have two-way development. Never, to
the best of my knowledge, have any ad-
ministration spokesmen argued other-
wise.
President Eisenhower himself, In his
first state of the Union message, said:
The best natural resource program will not
result from exclusive dependence on Federal
bureaucracy. It will involve a partnership
of the States and local communities, private
citizens, and the Federal Government, all
working together.
The statement Of Mr. FASCELL, with
which Mr. MOLLOHAN agreed, is a frank
admission that the policies pursued by
the Department of the Interior under
Secretary McKay and Under Secretary
Davis are sound, and should be followed.
It is a repudiation of the report itself.
The gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. FOUNTAIN] speaking of the majority
report, said he does not "necessarily fully
subscribe to all of its language, conclu-
sions, and recommendations."
That, permit me to comment, repre-
sents a classic in understatement. Rep-
resentative FOUNTAIN does not merely
decline to subscribe to the terms of the
so-called majority report. If my under-
standing is correct, he takes rather vio-
lent exception to it, as reflected by his
separate views in which the gentleman
from North Carolina noted the report's
context, and declared:
I seriously doubt the wisdom and the fair-
ness, however, of those conclusions and rec-
ommendations in the report which amount
to a blanket criticism of all private power
companies without any power company hav-
ing had an opportunity to be heard. Since
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2.
 11376
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE
private power companies were not being in- They cite chapter and verse from both
vestigated at this time, and since they were the majority report and the 1,686 pages
denied an opportunity to be heard. I believe of printed hearings in support of their
it is only fair play that the report should position.
not have contained such sweeping conclu-
sions regarding them. An extremely sober note is sounded by
For example, recommendation No. a of the the minority members when they say:
subcommittee was that "Congress launch a The majority report, which is purported to
full-scale joint investigation by both Houses be based on hearings, is more than just a
to determine whether or not there is an pamphlet of political bins; it is an attack of
organized effort of the private power com- calculated Insidiousness upon the American
panies to Influence the Federal administra- system of free enterprise.
tion. the Congress, the governments of the The venom with which the author of the
States, and the political life of the Nation." report attacks private enterprise and the
A
d
t
i
l
i
N
n
ye
,
n conc
us
on
o. 8 on page 9 of the
report the subcommittee said:
"The announced administration policy is
Identical with that of the companies. It is
designed to destroy the Federal power pro-
gram,and eliminate every vestige of opposi-
tion to the establishment of a complete pri-
vate power monopoly in the United States.
In carrying it out, the activities of the Inter-
ior Department and the private companies
are completely coordinated In each region of
the country."
Since the Investigation recommended has
not been made, it seems to me that conclu-
sion No. 8 and other blanket denunciations
of all power companies before the companies
have had a chance to be beard, should not
have been in this report.
The report indicates that two companies
in my own State were denied the privilege
of testifying during the hearings.
Let me pause here, Mr. Chairman, to
emphasize what the gentleman from
North Carolina, Representative Fovx-
TAIN, recognized when he chose to quote
those portions of his colleagues' report.
It is Incredible that a congressional
group would recommend undertaking an
investigation and, before the investiga-
tion had been held, announce its conclu-
sions which, by no stretch of the Imagin-
ation, could be arrived at before the com-
pletion of the investigation of the nature ,
they had just recommended.
In the concluding paragraph of his
additional views, Representative FoUN-
TAIN took note of the position of the pri-
vate power industry in the Nation's
economic fabric. He concluded:
I have frequently disagreed with policies
and activities of some of the power com-
panies and I have not resitated to publicly
express my disagreement. However, they are
an integral, necessary, essential, and signifi-
cant segment of our economy and private
enterprise system in America. Both private
and public utilities are essential to our way
of life and in the best interests of the gen-
eral public. Nevertheless, whether or not
we agree with the policies and'or activities
of private utilities, if their policies and ac-
tivities are to be investigated, before they
are judged. they should be afforded the op-
portunity to be heard and to present their
views, regardless of whether or not their what I know of the manner in which the
testimony would change the views of the hearings were conducted
the lack of
,
committee. They should receive a fair hear- orderly procedure which characterized
ing and careful consideration should be given the hearings, and the absence of evi-
to the evidence they present. After that Is Bence to sustain the findings, and the
done, let the chips fall where they may,
political philosophy which apparently
The Republican members of the Sub- motivated the conclusions expressed. In
committee on Public Works and Re- the report, it is obvious that the purpose
sources on the House side filed a minority was to discredit grivate enterprise and
report which should be read it the real the administration, lend support to the
duly 12
procedure was attacked, who were
charged with violations of Federal law,
until long after the charges were aired.
Private companies were pilloried, de-
nied a hearing, an opportunity for re-
buttal; unwarranted attacks were made
upon individuals to whom credit-not
discredit-is due.
The same subcommittee, on another
occasion when holding joint hearings on
timber with a Senate subcommittee, dis-
closed its determination to discourage
those charged with improper conduct
from presenting a defense and even from
hearing firsthand the charges made
against them. On one occasion, at Eu-
gene, Oreg., officials and employees of
the Department of the Interior were re-
quired to stand-be counted-and were
then charged with a neglect of duty be-
cause they were attending hearings
where they were numbered among the
defendants, castigated, misused, and
abused because they were not out in the
field attending to their duties, but were
listening, waiting an opportunity to be
heard.
All but 1 of the 13 employees who were
at the hearing were Interested as indi-
viduals, as American citizens, as em-
ployees who were being criticized and
who were on duty in the vicinity. The
only one from Washington who was pres-
ent was a representative sent out by the
Department to assist in ascertaining the
facts,
Mr. Chairman, the investigation, the
hearings, the report are a shameful ex-
hibition of misdirected congressional in-
vestigative activities-a reflection upon
the intelligence, the fairness of the Con-
gress. It is an insult to the intelligence
and sense of fair play of the American
people.
The investigations and the hearings
held by this subcommittee show a
studied, deliberate effort to lend sub-
stance to a groundless political attack
upon Secretary of the Interior McKay,
upon Under Secretary Davis, and back
of that, upon the administration's policy
of protecting enterprise, of checkmating
nationalization of the power industry.
That the whole proceeding from its
inception a year ago last February down
to the present date was an attmept to
create political propaganda, is shown by
the fact that when Secretary Seaton was
appointed by the President as Secretary
of the Interior, his appointment was
loudly praised by two Members of the
other body-Senator MossE, who is a
candidate for office; the other Senator
N?UBERr,ER, one of the arch opponents of
Secretary McKay-this, notwithstand-
ing the fact, and it is a fact, that both
the President and Secretary Seaton have
frankly stated that the policy which
guided former Secretary McKay and
Under Secretary Davis, insofar as it af-
fects hydroelectric power, will be con-
tinued and carried out.
Mr. DORN of South Carolina. Mr.
The minority report, signed by all mi- defeat the reelection of others. -- v word, and I ask unanimous consent to
nority members of the subcommittee and The record is replete with facts indi- proceed out of order.
concurred in by all the minority members eating the witnesses were recruited with The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
of the full committee, calls attention to but one purpose .n mind. They were There was no objection,
grievous mishandling of the whole sub- biased. The record shows that the sub- Mr. DORN of South Carolina. Mr.
ject at Issue, as reflected by the majority committee refused to hear representa- Chairman, it is my pleasure to announce
report and the conduct of the hearings. tives of the exec'itive agencies whose to you that the delicious peaches now in
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
administration alike seems symptomatic of
something more baneful than political par-
tisanship.
The undersigned (minority members)
would be derelict In their responsibility to
the American people if they failed to expose
this advocacy of nationalization by those
who. In the guise Df defenders of the rural
electrification program, have managed to
have their manife::to cloaked with the au-
thority of a congressional committee.
To the extent that the majority report
attacks economic freedom, It attacks an in-
tegral part of our liberty and Independence.
At other points in the minority report,
the Republican members of the House
group completely disassociated them-
selves from the unjust criticism heaped
upon the Department of the Interior and
the REA, and. in fact, take the position
that officials of those agencies should be
commended rather than condemned.
I subscribe wholeheartedly to this view.
Officials of the Department of the In-
terior and the REA in the present ad-
ministration in these matters have acted
In accordance with both the letter and
the spirit of the law as they found it.
They have surmounted great obstacles
and successfully resolved difficult situa-
tions in many instances.
Like other Members of both House of
Congress, I recognize the value of main-
taining congressional security of execu-
tive branch activities. It is one of our
duties to keep a watchful eye on their
planning and spending and doing-an
integral part of the governmental sys-
tem of checks and balances envisioned
by our Nation's Founding Fathers.
In discharging this duty, however, It
behooves us to approach the task fairly
and seriously, and-may I add-with
courtesy, common sense, and having al-
ways in mind the Golden Rule, We do
not hold a mandate to stage a political
circus. Nor are we authorized nor does
common decency permit us to institute
and carry on an Inquisition or a persecu-
tion of those with whom we disagree.
In my opinion, based upon what has
been learned of the investigations, upon
 Approved- Release 2004/08/25: CIA-RDP63T0O 5R000100200006-2
1956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 11377,
the cloakroom were sent with the com-
pliments of L. D. Holmes & Sons, of
Stately Oaks Plantation, near Johnston,
S. C. These peaches were on the tree at
noon Tuesday. They were gathered by
Mr. Holmes and sent directly to the
United States Congress.
Mr. Holmes and sons are owners of one
of the most modern and up-to-date
peach orchards in South Carolina. It is
located in the heart of the famous sand
ridge section. Mr. Holmes has been one
of the outstanding pioneer and diversi-
fied farmers In the history of the South-
east. He was named Master Farmer of
South Carolina some years ago and is
looked upon by many of us as the dean
emeritus of South Carolina agriculture.
Mr. Holmes has two fine sons who are
also tremendously interested in agricul-
ture and are following in the footsteps
of their father.
Mr. Holmes is not only noted for his
success in growing peaches but has been
successful in the raising of cattle, cotton,
truck, and corn. For a number of years
he has urged the South to keep its fields
green in the wintertime and not to de-
pend on one crop.
Johnston is located In historic old
Edgefleld County. Edgefleld County for
a century and a half has been noted for
its governors, senators, generals, and
statesmen. Edgefield County now ranks
high in the production of peaches, cattle,
and pine trees, and I might add, Mr.
Chairman, is still producing great Amer-
icans.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to add
that L. D. Holmes is a strong believer in
our American form of representative
government. He is a States righter and
for a number of years has opposed social-
ism and centralization of government in
Washington. I hope all of you will enjoy
these fine peaches sent to you by a great
American who Is proud of his Congress
and proud of his country. If any of you
are visiting South Carolina, Mr. Holmes
would be happy to have you drop by and
see his beautiful home and splendid
farm.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DORN of South Carolina. I yield.
Mr. GROSS. It is not necessary to
sign a Southern manifesto in order to get
one, is it?
Mr. DORN of South Carolina. There
is no partisanship involved in this at all.
This is from a great American to the
Congress of the United States. However,
I would like to see the gentleman from
Iowa sign the manifesto.
(Mr. DORN of South Carolina asked
and was granted permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word, and I ask
unanimous consent to proceed out of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, to
answer the gentleman's question about
signing the Southern manifesto, I think
it would help a lot in the distribution Of
Mr. DORN's peaches, but as the gentleman
from South Carolina has said, it is not
necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I rose because appar-
entiy something I said -on yesterday
offended my good friend, the very genial
and lovable minority leader, whom I
would not offend for the world, the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MAR-
Tm]. He made a statement on the floor
that I want to ask him to correct, and I
am sure he will. He said, "While we are
talking about inaccuracies, I want to say
that the gentleman from Georgia made
a false statement when he said that
Robert Montgomery was training me or
anyone else!'
I did not make that statement. The
gentleman was not on the floor, and I am
sure he was misinformed about what I
said. What I said was that I had heard
that he had been under the tutelage of
Robert Montgomery, and I thought
maybe that accounted for the blooper he
made on Monday, when he referred to
General Motors.
I have stricken my entire statement
about him from the RECORD, and upon
mature consideration I am sure that the
rumor was not true, and that the gen-
tleman has not had any training in pub-
lic speaking by Mr. Robert Montgomery,
"or anyone else" as he says.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, although my district is
not directly affected, we who represent
the great State of Florida are jointly
concerned with the gravity of the threat
of the Mediterranean fruitfly. We are
seeking jointly to insure adequate funds
from Federal appropriations to match
State funds with which to carry on the
struggle for eradication. This is indeed
a serious matter which no person should
take lightly. I now yield to one whose
district is very directly affected, and who
with the other members of our delega-
tion has been active in seeking adequate
funds.
. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I will be glad to yield to
my colleague from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. The Florida
delegation wishes to express to the Ap-
propriations Committee and in particu-
lar the Agricultural Subcommittee of the
House Appropriations Committee, its
profound gratitude and thanks from the
people of Florida for its considerate un-
derstanding and help in setting up a pro-
gram for the eradication of the Mediter-
ranean fruitfly in Florida. When this
emergency was brought to the attention
of the Agricultural Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee, hearings
which had been closed were again
opened so that we might present neces-
sary testimony to show the need for an
appropriation to start a quick eradica-
tion program. The Appropriations Com-
mittee was sympathetic and as a result
funds were appropriated in the amount
of $2,500,000 of which $2,175,000 was al-
located for the Mediterranean fruitfly
and the remainder for the fight on
spreading decline.
Since this action of the Congress In
approving the money, the Mediterra-
nean fruitfly has spread from the first
areas located until It is now In many
parts of Florida, including the heart of
the citrus industry. At the time we
presented our problem to the Appropria-
tions Committee we stated that if there
was a spread of the Mediterranean fruit-
fly that more funds would be needed.
The Department of Agriculture in recog-
nition of this statement and under the
conditions that now exist in Florida is
requesting an additional $2,500,000 which
is being approved by the Bureau of the
Budget to be. submitted to the Congress
to carry on this very important program.
It has been stated by Senator HOLLAND
that he is making a request for the in-
clusion of this additional amount in the
Senate bill and we are hopeful and urg-
ing that the Members of the House will
approve the appropriation of these funds
until the program has been successful
in eradicating the Mediterranean fruit-
fly. I am sure that the Members of the
House know that the entire southern
one-third of the United States could be
infested with this insect and cause un-
told damage.
The Florida delegation thanks the Ap-
propriations Committee and the Mem-
bers of this House for the fine help we
have received and in closing would like
to urge that you help us to bring this
fight to a proper conclusion. Governor
Collins advised me only yesterday that
the State will do its share in matching
these funds on a 50-59 basis.
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. CHUDOFF. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the pro forma
amendment and ask unanimous consent
to speak out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHUDOFF. Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry that a long distance call from
Philadelphia made it necessary for me
to be called off the floor when the gen-
tleman from Michigan started to tear
apart the majority of the Public Works
and Resources Subcommittee of the
Committee on Government Operations
in his usual manner. He has done it on
numerous occasions during the session.
I have no quarrel with him for it, because
he has not agreed with the majority
since we started out on the investiga-
tions during the past 2 years. How-
ever, I walked into the tail end of the
complaint made by the gentleman from
Michigan. So far as I could ascertain
he was complaining bitterly that private
power companies had not had an oppor-
tunity to be heard.
For the benefit of the Members of the
House, although I do not know that they
will have time to attend our hearings,
let me say that on Monday we are going
to give the private power companits of
the Rocky Mountain States a chance to
tell everything to the subcommitte, to
tell us how they tried to influence and
have influenced the interior Department
to wipe out the previous public power
policy of the Government of the United
States; and we are going to show by
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11378
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 12
competent evidence and testimony that
they did just that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time merely
to say that we have before us today a
rather important appropriation mea-
sure, and much as I dislike to do so, I
shall have to object to any further re-
quests to speak out of order.
The Clerk read as follows:
nUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS
Jones Point Bridge
For expenses necessary for the construc-
tion of a bridge over the Potomac River
pursuant to the provisions of the act of
August 30. 1954 (68 Stat. 983. 984), as
amended, $14,325.000. to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the unex-
pended balance of the appropriation granted
under this head In the Second Supplemental
Appropriation Act. 1955. Is hereby merged
with this appropriation: Provided further,
That this paragraph shall be effective only
upon the final consummation of agreements
for the maintenance and operation of the
bridge and approaches by the States of Vlr-
glnla and Maryland.
Mr. GROSS. Mr, Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GROSS: Page 4.
strike out all of lines 1 through 13.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment would stop the construction
of a free bridge across the Potomac River
from Alexandria, Va., to Maryland at
the expense of $15 million to all the
taxpayers of the country. I repeat that
what is proposed here is to build a bridge
from Alexandria, Va., to an unspecified
point in Maryland, with the taxpayers
of the country paying for it.
A few days ago enabling legislation
passed the House of Representatives to
construct a bridge from Constitution
Avenue across into Virginia. That will
entail the expenditure of $22 million to
$24 million. I did not oppose that legis-
lation because that. will directly relieve
traffic congestion, or I hope it will re-
lieve congestion, in the District of Co-
lumbia.
This Alexandria bridge has nothing
but an indirect connection with traffic
in the District of Columbia. Let me read
to you what the official report of the
Appropriations Committee says in con-
nection with it:
Insofar as the committee is advised, this
Is the first time Federal funds have been
appropriated to cover the full coat of con-
structing a bridge between two States with
neither end touching the District of Co-
lumbia.
It goes on to say it does not feel that
approval of this appropriation estab-
lishes any precedent. Certainly it will
establish a precedent if this appropria-
tion is approved. It will be an open in-
vitation to every Member of Congress
to seek an Interstate bridge, with the
taxpayers of the entire country paying
the freight.
To those who contend It will relieve
the traffic congestion in the District of
Columbia by build-rig a bridge at Jones
Point at Alexandria, Va., across over into
Maryland, I ask how long it will be be-
fore someone comes in and seeks to jus-
tify the building of a bridge, at the ex-
pense of all the taxpayers of this coun-
try, somewhere aong Route 301 that
runs from Baltimore south to Richmond,
or west of Norfolk crossing the Potomac
River somewhere in between. Why
should these people come in and ask the
taxpayers of the entire country to build
frce bridges across other streams on that
route in order to allegedly relieve the
traffic congestion in the District of
Columbia?
Mr. Chairman, only a few weeks ago
a bridge was completed across the river
on Highway 30 between Illinois and Iowa.
That bridge was built out of private
funds. When I go back to Iowa I will
pay a toll to cross that bridge. I do not
get across the Mississippi River into
Iowa without paying a toll. A short time
ago the bridge across the Mississippi
River near Muscatine, Iowa, collapsed
and my colleagte from Iowa LMr.
SCHWENGELI obtained legislative au-
thorization for the construction of a new
toll bridge with )rivate money, mind
you, I suggested to him at that time
that he probably ojght to wait until this
bill came to the House floor, then he
could probably justify asking for a free
bridge, the cost of which would be sad-
dled on all the taxpayers. I labor under
no delusion about the support this will
undoubtedly have on the floor of the
House this afternoon, and so I wish my
colleague from Iowa [Mr. SCI3WENGELI
had waited until this appropriation
passed so that he could offer a bill and
then see if you are willing to underwrite
the cost of bridges all over the Nation,
Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I am glad to yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HAYS of Ohio. There is a lot of
congestion on Route 40 at Wheeling, W.
Va. If they are going to hand out these
free bridges I would like to put in a bid
for one over there.
. Mr. GROSS. I think the members
should also know that the State of Mary-
land is not even building the approach
to the bridge on that side of the river.
You are being called upon to spend a
halt million dollars for the Maryland
approach to this bridge. These two
States of Virginia and Maryland can
build this bridge. Make it a toll bridge
if you like. There are automatic devices
today for the collection of tolls.
We have heard a great deal recently
about private enterprise. It will be in-
teresting to see how some members vote,
for this Is certainty a clear-cut issue as
between private enterprise and a $15
million gravy train of Federal paternal-
ism.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my amendment
will be adopted.
Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debates on
the pending amendment and all amend-
ments thereto close in 15 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from Virginia
LMr. BROYHMLI.
Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In opposition to the -pending amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, this subject has been
thoroughly debated in this Congress and
in the preceding Congresses. In fact for
the last 4 years or more. The bridge
was authorized in the 83d Congress.
Then we came back during this Congress
and amended the Bridge Authorization
Act to improve the original legislation.
It was considered, I believe, on two pre-
vious occasions by the Appropriations
Committee. That committee delayed ap-
propriations until we could get this per-
fecting legislation through the Congress.
Last year the Congress appropriated
$600.000 to start planning of the bridge.
Those plans are pretty well under way at
the present time.
Mr. Chairman, this bridge Is primarily
for the benefit of the Nation's Capital.
We have the greatest amount of river
crossing here in the metropolitan area
of Washington across the Potomac River
than in any other section of the en-
tire world, and this Includes the Hud-
son River between New York and New
Jersey. The construction of this bridge
at Jones Point is to relieve some of this
intolerable congestion of traffic here in
the center of Washington. It is to pull
the traffic around and get the majority
of the truck traffic and some of this
through traffic to by-pass the congested
streets of Washington. Many of the
Members of this body who live in Vir-
ginia have to use the 14th Street and
the Memorial Bridges, and they know
what I am talking about. And, I guess
all the Members know about the conges-
tion on Independence Avenue, 40 per-
cent of which we can eliminate if we
can get the construction of this bridge to
by-pass Washington. As far as it not
being in the District is concerned, it is
technically a matter of feet. The bridge
actually crosses the District in the Po-
tomac River. If it was shifted 150 feet
upstream, it would begin in Virginia and
come into the District of Columbia, the
same as the Central area bridge which
was approved the other day.
Mr. Chairman, I hope there will be no
further delay in the approval of these
funds so that we can go on and proceed
with construction. It is urgently needed,
Any further delay will just further ag-
gravate an already intolerable situation
in the Nation's Capital. This is a met-
ropolitan area problem, a National Capi-
tal problem, and not a situation to suit
the people of Virginia or Maryland. The
taxpayers of Virginia and Maryland are
spending millions of dollars for the ap-
proaches to this bridge, so it is not that
the Federal Government is paying 100
percent of it, except just the cost of the
bridge itself. And, the States of Vir-
ginia and Maryland are going to share
in the maintenance of the bridge.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROYHILL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Can the gentleman tell
me how many millions of dollars the tax-
payers have paid for the bridges that
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved,Eor Release 2004/08/25: CIA-RDP63T 45R000100200006-2
1956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE -
span the Potomac and now serve his
district?
Mr. BROYHILL. Do you mean in the
metropolitan area?
Mr. GROSS. Jones Point is not in the
metropolitan area.
Mr. BROYHILL. It most certainly is.
In fact, every major plan for a solution
of the traffic problem here in Washing-
ton calls for a circumferential belt bou-
levard around Washington, D. C., in or-
der to alleviate the traffic right here in
the Nation's Capital. It is not for the
benefit of the people of Maryland and
Virginia alone but also for all the people
of the country that travel to the Nation's
Capital.
I urge that this amendment be de-
feated.
(Mr. BROYHILL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
HAYS].
Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this amendment, and
I want to point out to you some things
that I think you might be overlooking.
A good many Members of this House
reside temporarily in northern Virginia,
and I submit to you if there is any place
in the United States that takes more
away from the people and gives them
less than that area, I would like to know
where it is.
Now, this Is a realistic proposition, and
if we tax the taxpayers of the United
States to build a bridge primarily to
benefit this area of northern Virginia, it
only means that the government down
at Richmond would milk the taxpayers
over in northern Virginia even more to
build things down in southern Virginia.
It is a known fact that they do not take
care of northern Virginia. It is a known
fact that the Federal Government has
gone over there and built highways. If
you want to get any highways out
through those counties, the Federal Gov-
ernment has to build them. The States
of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey
have built turnpikes, and they are chan-
neling traffic into the city of Chicago by
thousands and thousands of cars. Is the
city of Chicago coming in and asking the
Federal Government to do something
about it? No. They are going to spend
$80 million of their own money to pro-
vide exits from these turnpikes. I think
it is high time that we call on the States
of Virginia and Maryland to meet their
obligations and build this bridge. There
is just as much justification for building
a bridge across the Potomac from Vir-
ginia to Maryland as there is for build-
ing a bridge in every State of the Union
where a river is the State boundary line.
if the taxpayers build this bridge across
from Maryland to Virginia, I do not see
any- reason why they should not build
11379
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- fornia [Mr. Moss] that the District offi-
nizes the gentleman from Maryland cials have always supported the con-
[Mr. DEVEREUx] for 3 minutes. struction of this bridge and have always
Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman, I pleaded for the construction of the
rise in opposition to the amendment bridge because it was necessary to alle-
is
th D' -
principally to set the record straight.
The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS]
In offering his amendment suggested
that perhaps this would lead to building
a bridge over the lower Potomac connect-
ing Maryland and Virginia on Route 301.
I am happy to announce to the House
that we do have a bridge over the river
at route 301. So far as giving something
to the State of Maryland is concerned,
to set the record straight, actually the
whole of the District of Columbia, as it
now stands, was given to the Federal
Government by the State of Maryland.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. LANxFORD] for 3 minutes.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman,
there seems to be a little misunderstand-
ing about the Jones Point Bridge. The
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] and
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HAYS]
spoke of the benefits to the State of
Maryland and the State of Virginia.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HAYS]
spoke primarily of benefiting northern
Virginia. I cannot speak for the State
of Virginia, but I can speak for my own
State, the State of Maryland. We are
happy to cooperate with the District of
Columbia In building a bridge across the
Potomac to relieve the traffic congestion
in the District of Columbia. We will
derive no appreciable benefit from the
Jones Point Bridge other than that the
citizens of Maryland will not have to
cross the already crowded bridges across
the Potomac in this area.
Concerning the fact that the bridge
Is not In the District of Columbia, I
think if the gentleman from Iowa were
to go up and down the Potomac River
he would find that the shoreline of the
District of Columbia is limited and that
you can get only just so many bridges
across. They had to go to the next best
place to put it, since it could not be in
the District of Columbia. So they put
it between Jones Point and Alexandria.
This bridge is designed to take truck
traffic through the Capital, off the
streets of the Federal city of Washing-
ton and benefit all the millions of peo-
ple who visit our Capital every year.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
viate the traffic congestion 1n
trict of Columbia.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, would the
gentleman yield further at that point?
Mr. LANKFORD. I yield.
Mr. MOSS. My statement was not
that they have opposed the bridge but
that they oppose underwriting any of
the cost of maintaining it because of
lack of benefit to the District.
Mr. BROYHILL. The District Com-
missioners oppose sharing the cost of
maintenance. The highway department
agreed to share the cost of main-
tenance, not because it did not help the
District of Columbia but under the same
technicality on which the gentleman
from Iowa is opposing the construction
of the bridge.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
PRESTON] to close debate.
Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to direct my opening re-
marks to the gentleman from Iowa who
propounded a question to me a few
moments ago. At that time the answer
I gave the gentleman was that there
were several hundred thousand dollars
unobligated with which this appropria-
tion would be merged. I want to correct
that. I have had a check made on that.
The figure the gentleman used is cor-
rect. Five hundred thousand dollars is
correct. While the money is not obli-
gated, It is programed as planning
money. So I want to get the record
straight about the answer I gave the
gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
'Mr. PRESTON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. That makes the bridge
then, approximately $15 million for the
taxpayers to pay for.
Mr. PRESTON. The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield for one more observation, I am not
opposing this bill on the basis of a tech-
nicality, as the gentleman from Virginia
said. I am opposed to the bridge, period.
Mr. PRESTON. May I say this as to
the attitude of the subcommittee: The
House has worked its will on this item
ice
- -
the
e
i
ld t
RD
I
.-
..- - ?
g
.
y
e
o
MVlr. LAN14rh-V
tleman from California. that was sufficient evidence of the senti-
Mr. MOSS. If my information is cor- ment of the House and approved the item
rect, I believe the officials of the Dis- in the bill.
trict of Columbia protested underwrit- The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
ing any of the maintenance costs of the amendment offered by the gentleman
the bridge because they contended that from Iowa.
it would not materially aid in the traffic The question was taken; and on a di-
problem of the District of Columbia. vision (demanded by Mr. GROSS) there
Mr. LANKFORD. I am not familiar were-ayes 36, noes 65.
So the amendment was rejected.
I might say to the gentleman
ith that
,
,
w
across the Hudson or between West Vir- but i do know that the States of Mary- The Clerk read as follows:
ginia and Ohio across the Ohio and so land and Virginia will take care of the DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
on and on. I can see building a bridge maintenance costs. Military construction, Air Force
from the District of Columbia into Vir- Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, will For acquisition, construction, installation,
ginia, and I voted for that, and I will the gentleman yield? and equipment of temporary or permanent
continue to vote for it, but, members of Mr. LANKFORD. I yield to the gen- public works, military installations, and fa-
the committee, you are setting a dan- from Virginia. cilities for the Air Force as authorized by
gerous precedent when you put the Fed- tleman the act of September 11, 1950 (Public Law
eral Government in the business of build- Mr. BROYHILL. I will like to say 783) by section 505 of the act of September
ing bridges between States. in answer to the gentleman from Cali- 28, 1951 (Public Law 155), the act of July
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11380 Approved For - op~4iC~`.~RD63TQJOUSE 00100200006-2 July 12
14, 1952 (Public Law 534). the act of August
7, 1953 (Public Law 209). the act of April 1.
1954 (Public Law 325). the act of July 27,
1954 (Public Law 534), the act of September
1, 1954 (Public Law 765), the act of July 15,
1955 (Public Law 161), and of the Act of
-, 1956 (Public Law -), without re-
gard to sections 1136 and 3734. Revised
Statutes, as amended, including hire of pas-
senger motor vehicles, to remain available
until expended, $1,228,000,000.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows,
Amendment offered by Mr. Scxsrarx' On
page 7, line 16, after the sum "$1.228.000.-
000" strike out the period and insert a semi-
colon and add "Provided, however. That
no part of the appropriation contained here-
in may be used to construct a new building
at Andrews Air Force Base for use as the
headquarters building of the Air Research
and Development Command."
(Mr. SCHENCK asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks, and to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Chairman, my
amendment is. I believe, of great im-
portance from many points of view.
It is practically impossible to over em-
phasize the importance of Research and
Development, because this work deter-
mines the kind and effectiveness of our
United States Air Force now and in the
future.
The Air Research and Development
Command has a twofold responsibility.
It must carry on all the scientific re-
search, development, and testing. It
must also manage these projects so that
they are properly put into production
and use at the earliest practicable date.
Hence, the saving of time in getting
weapon systems into actual production
and use is of very vital concern to every
man, woman, and child in this Nation.
If we are to believe all we hear about the
great strides in developing and produc-
ing great new aircraft by our potential
enemies then the work, responsibilities,
and expeditious handling of these vital
matters by the Air Research and De-
velopment Command become of prime
importance to the safety and welfare of
this Nation.
The actual scientific research, develop-
ment, and testing of our air weapons is
done by 10 Air Research and Develop-
ment Command posts located a various
sections of our country, each under a
commanding general, who has been
selected, with special care, and they are
doing a superb job for all of us. The
administrative and management func-
tions, correlating all this work and coop-
erating closely with the Air Materiel
Command to place the plans into produc-
tion and use is the responsibiity of the
Air Research and Development Com-
mand Headquarters which is now located
in Baltimore in inadequate rented quar-
ters.
Lieutenant General Power, Com-
mander of ARDC, former Assistant Sec-
retary of the Air Force for Research and
Development, the Hon. Trevor Gardner,
and others testified last year unequivo-
cally and at considerable length in ex-
tensive hearings before a special sub-
committee of the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations and the Committee on
Armed Services as to the most efficient
and best location for this command
headquarters. They pointed out that
there is only one best location and that
after the most thorough and careful con-
sideration of a board of officers including
the 10 commanding generals of the vari-
ous posts, that their unanimous decision
was to locate the ARDC Headquarters
on Wright Patterson Air Force Base near
Dayton, Ohio. All of these recommen-
dations were further urged and approved
by the R. A. Lasley Corp. of New York.
This well known firm of industrial en-
gineers made an extensive study of this
problem over a long period of time. If
anything need be said as to the qualiil-
cations of Lieutenant General Power,
permit me to point out that he was
personally selected by General Twining
as one of the very small group of officers
who recently vi,ited Russia.
The House Committee on Armed Serv-
ices. following a careful study of all this
testimony, unanimously recommended
that a new building be constructed for
the ARDC headquarters on WPAFB. and
the House approved their recommenda-
tions by the overwhelming rollcall vote
of 316 to 2.
Permit me to say at this point, Mr.
Chairman, that while I am very proud
and happy with that action, I am most
firmly convincec. that this headquarters
must be located at that one Air Force
base which is in the best interest of the
Air Force, the national defense, and the
public interest, and that any special eco-
nomic advantage which might be of
benefit to a local community should re-
ceive no consideration of any kind.
The other bDdy, for reasons best
known to its Members, struck out the
words, "Wright Patterson Air Force
Base" and inserted "at a location to be
determined."
Secretary of the Air Force, Donald
Quarles, announced on May 17 of this
year, that he had decided to move this
headquarters to Andrews Air Force Base
just outside the city of Washington. I
was deeply shocked by this completely
unwarranted action and told him so
over the telephone. I told Secretary
Quarles I felt he was completely wrong-
that he had corr..pletely disregarded the
testimony of his own officers who were
best able to testify expertly on this mat-
ter-that he had also completely disre-
garded the action taken by the House
Committee on Armed Services and by
the Members of this House. Secretary
Quarles gave me reasons which cannot
be sustained by good judgment and said
that his action was based on the approval
of his air staff. t asked him if Lieuten-
ant General P'swer, the man most
directly respons0le and concerned and
the one who knows most about this
problem, was a member of his air staff
and joined in this approval, and he said
"No."
Mr. Chairman. that this great Sub-
committee on Appropriations recognizes
the wrongness of this decision is amply
shown in their report. I quote from page
34 of their report. "The committee still
has some doubt that the immediate
vicinity of the Nation's Capital is the
best location for command headquarters
of this type. The committee would have
preferred that another location had been
selected. However, since the decision
was obviously made after considerable
study had been given to the problem,
the project has been approved some-
what reluctantly." Since the Committee
on Appropriations feels this way, Mr.
Chairman, they should accept my
amendment.
Permit me to say further, Mr. Chair-
man, that I am reliably informed that
the senior commanders of organizations
charged with a major portion of the
Air Force mission, such as TAC, SAC,
ADC, ARDC, or AMC, have frequently
expressed opposition to being located
near Washington. They feel the farther
away they are the better they are for the
very simple reason that being located
near here creates confusion rather than
coordination. The personnel of the air
staff are inclined to enter with the oper-
ating functions of the separate com-
mands and the management of these
separate commands are inclined to take
over part of the responsibilities of the
air staff.
I am also told, Mr. Chairman, that
moving ARDC headquarters to Andrews
will set off an unusual chain of events
that will cost many more millions. I
am told that a majority of the present
training command will be transferred
from Scott to Randolph; that head-
quarters of the training command will
be transferred to Scott Field; that MATS
headquarters will be moved from An-
drews to Scott Field; and that ARDC
headquarters will be moved into the
present MATS headquarters until an-
other new building can be constructed.
The net effect of this series of pro-
posals is the increase in the number of
organizations into the Washington area.
Many of us believe, Mr. Chairman, that
this is undesirable from the standpoint
of vulnerability, concentration of more
people and functions in this area, and
the added millions of cost.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, for all these
and many other reasons which will occur
to you, I urge the adoption of my amend-
ment. I also urge that Secretary Quarles
be required to personally appear before
the Committee on Armed Services-
justify any recommendations he may
want to make to the satisfaction of the
committee and obtain their approval
before any appropriation is made for
the moving of ARDC headquarters or
for the construction of a new building
at any location for their use.
Mr. Chairman, the point has been
made that perhaps the matter of tim-
ing is important. General Power testi-
fied to that at some length on this phase
of this matter and said that the matter
of timing in the creation and develop-
ment of a new headquarters building was
of great importance. However, because
of the situation which has developed,
this has been unavoidably delayed. It
will not help this situation now to move
our research and development command
headquarters to Andrews Air Force Base.
If, however, the Secretary of the Air
Force is required to appear before the
Committee on Armed Services, and if he
is able to prove to them that the location
he selects is the proper location, and if
he can gain the approval of the Com-
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved Fo .Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63TO02W000100200006-2
1956 3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 11381
mittee on Armed Services, I will support
such decision whether or not that loca-
tion is in the district I have the honor to
represent.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] has
expired.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to seek an agreement limiting the time.
I ask unanimous consent that all de-
bate on this amendment and all amend-
ments thereto close in 12 minutes, and
that I be permitted to have the con-
cluding 4 minutes to speak.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. BOW. Reserving the right to ob-
ject, how much time will that allow?
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I mod-
ify the request to make it 15 minutes.
Mr. BOW. That is only 3 minutes to
discuss a very important amendment. I
object.
Mr. MAHON. Will the gentleman
agree to 18 minutes?
Mr. BOW. Make it 20, and I will agree
to it.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 20 minutes, the last 5 to
be assigned to me.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
DEVEREUX].
(Mr. DEVEREUX asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman,
this, of course, has been a very contro-.
versial subject. The gentleman from'
Ohio, I think, would like to have the
Air Research and Development Com-
mand located at Dayton. We of Mary-
land fought for having it remain in its
present location in the city of Balti-
more. Last year, however, when the
matter was under consideration this
body agreed to having the Air Research
and Development Command moved out
to Ohio. The other body disagreed. We
then agreed in this body to the action
taken by the other body that there
would be further study made of the
entire subject.
Further study has been made, made
by people who came in with a fresh look,
and the recommendation has been made
that the Air Research and Development
Command would not remain in Balti-
more where I had desired it to remain
but would be removed to Andrews Air
Force Base.
So far as costs are concerned I must
agree that the cost of establishing the
Air Research and Development Com-
mand at Andrews would be much less
than it would be to create an entirely
new establishment in the city of Balti-
more or close thereto.
One thing we must remember very
thoroughly so far as the moving of this
huge command is concerned is that if
we move it just a short distance away,
from Baltimore to Andrews, we will have
those civilian employees following their
employment. If we move it any great
distance away there is no doubt in my
mind whatsoever that we will lose many
of those very highly skilled personnel
who operate the Air Research and De-
velopment Command.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman indicate the number of
employees involved?
Mr. DEVEREUX. I do not have the
number of employees at my fingertips.
Mr. SCHENCK. I think it is about
1,800.
Mr. DEVEREUX. 1,800 key people,
I am certain.
The gentleman from Ohio has sug-
gested that if the present Secretary of
the Air Force can come back to the
Armed Services Committee and justify
his location that then it would be agree-
able to him; I will go along with him
on that; I will support that position.
But that position is in direct opposition
to the one the gentleman from Ohio is
now taking which simply precludes lo-
cation of the Air Research and Develop-
ment Command at Andrews Air Force
Base.
If the gentleman will withdraw his
amendment and offer an . amendment
carrying out his latest proposition I will
then go along with it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. HAYS] is recognized.
Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I
had intended to ask permission to speak
out of order on another matter, but it
occurred to me in the course of debate
on this amendment that perhaps I ought
to point out the inconsistency of the gen-
tleman who just preceded me, who was
down here a few moments ago asking the
taxpayers to spend a considerable sum
of money to relieve congestion in the
Washington metropolitan area while he
is now down here trying to get you to
move a facility in here which will in-
crease the congestion. Then, of course, if
they get enough of those in here in this
prime target area they will be asking
for more money to build bridges to relieve
the congestion here and you will have a
vicious circle.
I would support the position of my
colleague from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK]. It
means nothing to me personally, it means
nothing to my district because my dis-
trict is almost as far away from Dayton,
Ohio, as it is from Washington, D. C.
There is not too much difference in the
distance. So I have no personal interest
in the matter.
Mr. Chairman, if there is any logical
place in the United States for the loca-
tion of this particular operation it cer-
tainly is at Wright Field, in Dayton,
Ohio, because that is where all of the
best brains on matters pertaining to air
research, are located. They have a tre-
mendous investment there. It runs into
the millions of dollars, I daresay into the
billions. I believe this facility could be
fitted in out there without too much
trouble and it would be that much far-
ther from the east coast which is a prime
target area. You read the newspapers
about dispersing industry and other
things. As a matter of fact in this bill
there is some money to take one of these
facilities away from Washington. Now,
to show how inconsistent we can get,
they put money in the bill to bring an-
other one back into Washington. It just
does not make much sense to me.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr,
MILLER].
Mr. MILLER of Maryland. Mr. Chair-
man, this particular item illustrates the
unfortunate situation that comes up in
connection with some of these supple-
mental bills where we are considering
nearly a ' billion and a half dollars in
one chapter involving hundreds of proj-
ects all over the world which have re-
quired long hours of study by the com-
mitteees concerned. It is unfortunate
that time is limited on so many of these
matters that are of really outstanding
importance.
Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say
briefly with respect to this particular
item that there is no question in anyone's
mind but what air research and devel-
opment is one of the Most urgent pro-
grams before us. Only recently in other
legislation hundreds of millions of dol-
lars were allocated and there was much
discussion of the urgency of keeping
abreast and ahead in the field of research
and development, particularly as it af-
fects airpower.
Any further delay after this matter
has finally been determined by the Sec-
retary of the Air Force, it would seem to
me, is kicking the ball around. Local.
interests should not be considered, in my
opinion, in a matter of such national im-
portance. While I come from Mary-
land, it would have no impact whatever
on my district. I am speaking merely as
a member of the subcommittee that has
formulated this particular chapter.
There is no more dedicated, no more
able and qualified member of our Cabi-
net than Secretary Quarles. I am sure
he is not influenced by sectional inter-
ests. He is only concerned in getting
ahead with the job and doing it accord-
ing the the best judgment of himself
and his advisers.
It would be a very great mistake to
amend this section of the bill at this
time. We have enough criticism as it
is from Members of this body of attempts
to legislate in appropriation bills. We
have a situation where a decision has
been made. Let us go on with the work.
It is important to our national defense.
The gentleman from Ohio spoke about
so many brains in Ohio. To add to them
might make it a more vulnerable tar-
get. Perhaps it might put too many
brains in one basket and that may be
a good reason for keeping some of those
brains nearby.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
BOW].
(Mr. BOW asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, as has been
stated, the House at one time did work
its will and say that this facility should
be located at Dayton, Ohio, which is the
headquarters of the Materiel Command.
All ,of the purchases of materiel for the
Air Force are worked out at Dayton, at,
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 12
Wright-Patterson Field. This facility
of air development works out the devel-
opment of materiel. It would seem logi-
cal and proper that it should be located
at the headquarters of the Materiel
Command at Wright-Patterson, which
is some miles away from my area and
from my district in Ohio. However,
may I also point out that by this act the
$6 million going into the Andrews Air
Force Field here in Washington is a
further foreclosure against the possibil-
ity of the use of Andrews Air Force Base
for another airport or for civilian use
in the city of Washington. We have
discussed the Burke airport and other
airports. It would seem to me much
wiser that we should move on to the
Andrews Field, perhaps, the aircraft
that are now flying out of Bolling Field,
those that are now flying out of the air-
ports here in Washington. You have a
lot of military aircraft using these fields
right adjacent to. the National Airport
and creating thereby a dangerous and
crowded situation. Now, if we move the
military onto Andrews Field, and these
facilities where they would be close to
the Air Materiel Command, it would
seem to me it would make more sense.
As I say, if we build this $6 million build-
ing at Andrews Field, we will be further
foreclosing the possibility of the use of
the field for which it was built. There-
fore, I suggest that it is very important
that this amendment be adopted and
further consideration be given as to
whether or not we will later on build this
type of installation at Andrews Field.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOW. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. SCHENCK. I would like to quote
from General Powers' testimony last
year before the Committee on Armed
Services. He said, in specific reference
to Andrews Air Force Base:
Although Andrews is close to the major
sources of policy and programming guid-
ance, it does not permit, as Wright-Patterson
does, the close supervision of the weapons
systems and engineering standard functions
that desire close cooperation with the Air
Materiel Command nor a reduction in the
communication and travel requirements.
Mr. BOW. I thank the gentleman.
I submit to you that air research should
be with the Materiel Command at
Wright-Patterson Field in Ohio, and to
accomplish that, that this amendment
should be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. LANKFORD].
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, at
the outset I want to announce that An-
drews Air Force Base is in my district.
I also want to make it perfectly clear
that while I suggested Andrews to the
Secretary, I was led to believe that it
would not be considered. No one could
have been more surprised than I when
Secretary Quarles announced that ARDC
was to be moved to Andrews Field.
Now, ARDC is a peculiar sort of air
command. It may be true, as the gen-
tleman from Ohio [Mr. HAYS) said, that
the best military brains are at Wright-
Patterson Field, but ARDC deals In a
great measure with civilian scientists,
and it has been brought out time and
again that the civilian scientists prefer
to be in this area so that they can work
with the universities in this area and
with the laboratories in this area. Now,
ARDC is dependent a great deal on
these civilian scientists. and I believe
they would have difficulty in transport-
ing them from here to Ohio. There
were at least four studies taken as to
where ARDC should be located, and
each time they came up with a slightly
different answer. It Is true that Wright-
Patterson was recommended, but for
some reason or other the recommenda-
tion was never actively pursued. How-
ever, when Secretary Quarles announced
his final decision that ARDC was to be
based at Andrews Air Force Base, I
heard no criticism of it at all until the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. ScHPNcKl of-
fered his amendment today. Certainly,
the Secretary has had the benefit of these
studies. He has had the benefit of ex-
pert advice of his staff and he made up
his mind, taking all things into consid-
eration, that Andrews Air Force Base
was the place to locate ARDC. I feel
that now is the time to settle the issue
once and for all. Let us put it at An-
drews and get it over with.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANKFORD. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. SCHENCK. May I say to the
gentleman from Maryland that the Sec-
retary of the Air Force. Donald Quarles,
knew exactly how I felt about it when
he told me he was j oing to move this
Air Research and Development Com-
mand headquarters to Andrews Air
Force Base. I told him that his deci-
sion was completely wrong, because It
completely disregarded the testimony of
his own expert witnesses who know the
most about this matter and it disre-
garded the action tt.ken by the Com-
mittee on Armed Serrices of this House
and the Members of the House.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that for these
reasons the decision of Secretary
Quarles is completely and entirely wrong
and that the Secretary should be re-
quired to obtain the approval of the
Committee on Armed Services before the
final action is taken.
Mri LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman,
may I remind the gentleman that what
I said was that I heard no criticism of
it. It may be perfectly true that the
gentleman voiced his objection to the
Secretary of the Air Force; but I heard
no criticism of his firal decision.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
MAHON] for 5 minutes, on behalf of the
committee, to close debate.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, If the
Members have the hearings before them.
they can turn to pages 331 and 332 and
read the letter which Secretary Quarles
wrote on May 17 to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. CANNON], the chairman
of the Committee cn Appropriations,
stating the reasons why he felt that this
research and development headquarters
should be at Andreas Field. Andrews
Field was rejected at one time because
it was so close to the Washington area
and an attempt was being made not to
bring additional important facilities into
the Washington area. But the Secretary
of Defense considered this matter of
such vital importance that an exception
was made and Andrews Field was recom-
mended.
A quick look at the picture reveals that
in the 82d Congress we authorized the
Headquarters for the Baltimore area.
We thought at that time that it would be
at Friendship. But negotiations broke
down and the personnel went into a
series of rented buildings where they
have not been able to do a sufficiently
effective job. Research and Develop-
ment Is the most important activity, in
many ways, of the Air Force. It is a very
sensitive activity and yet officials of the
Air Force do not have the physical setup
in Baltimore to enable them to do the
job that ought to be done.
At one time the Armed Services Com-
mittee recommended Wright-Patterson
In Dayton, Ohio. The bill went to the
Senate and apparently the Committee
on Armed Services decided to take a neu-
tral attitude. There were two sides to
this picture. So it was suggetsed that
funds be made available but that no site
be specifically named, that it be left to
the Department of the Air Force to
select a site. That is what has happened.
I do not think any Member of Con-
gress from Ohio or from Maryland has
had the slightest effect on the decision
reached by the Department of the Air
Force. I do not believe that Secretary
Quarles, the very able Secretary of the
Air Force, has been motivated by any
political considerations in making this
determination. I think he made a good
determination when he selected the loca-
tion at Andrews.
These people do not have vast labora-
tories and machines. This is-a head-
quarters. In this headquarters they co-
ordinate the research and development
activities all over the country, down at
Patrick Field In Florida, the guided mis-
sile testing area, the facility up in Rome,
N. Y., and the work at Wright-Patter-
son Field In Ohio, at Holloman Air Force
Bare In New Mexico, and at Edwards
Air Force Base at Muroc, Calif. In the
bill we provide for the headquarters at
Andrews Field $6 million. That is the
amount they requested.
I might agree if Wright-Patterson
Field had been neglected and did not
have adequate facilities and it was just a
matter of going one place or the other,
with no special difference, you might say,
"Well, let's give Dayton some sort of
facility," but that is not the case at all.
The Government has at Wright-Patter-
son Field in facilities an investment of
nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. In
addition we have In this bill $21 million
for Wright-Patterson Field. It has noth-
ing to do with this research center. We
already have that in the bill. We have
a payroll at Wright-Patterson Field of in
excess of $130 million a year. It is a
prime atom bomb target. Certainly it
almost ranks with the Capital as an
atom bomb target. But there Is no dis-
position on the part of anyone to sell
Wright-Patterson Field short. At An-
drews Air Force Base we have a $63-mil-
lion investment, and we have all the nec-
essary support activities at both places.
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved For,.6telease 2004/08 63?T 000100200006-2
1956 CONGRESSIO - 11383
The proposed amendment would pre-
vent building this headquarters facility
at Andrews, and delay further the ac-
complishment 'of something that every-
one has agreed is necessary. I urge re-
jection of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. Sc1rENCK) there
were-ayes 38, noes 45.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand
tellers.
Tellers were refused.
So the amendment was rejected.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEc.309. No funds appropriated for mili-
tary construction shall be made available to
the respective military departments in a
manner so as to restrict the application of
funds to any specific project or installation.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment,
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BROOKS of Loui-
siana: On page 10, line 7, after the,word "in-
stallation", insert "Provided, That no reserve
military appropriations-herein shall be used
for purposes other than for reserve purposes."
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, the purpose of my amend-
ment is simply to require the funds
which the committee has generously pro-
vided for reserve purposes to be used for
those purposes. I think this committee
has done an excellent job. I have noth-
ing but praise for the work that they
have done. I have talked with them in-
dividually, and they have treated the
matter of the reserve activity seriously
and earnestly and have done a grand
job. I compliment everybody from the
chairman, my good and distinguished
friend the gentleman from Texas, to the
other Members from California, Florida,
and the other States. op this side of the
aisle for the work they have done. But
here is the situation, Mr. Chairman. We
have had hearings on the reserve activi-
ties. Last year in the Air Force, for in-
stance, this committee provided $32 mil-
lion in funds for the construction of re-
serve installations. I see my good friend
the gentleman from Maryland, who is a
member of the Reserve Subcommittee of
the Armed Services Committee. He re-
calls the testimony. That money in-
stead of being spent for reserve installa-
tions was spent for other purposes due
to the pressure for funds from the Air
Force. As a result of that, instead of the
Air Force Reserve installations receiving
$32 million last year in funds, the re-
serve installations of the Air Force only
received $6 million in construction funds.
That is putting our construction pro-
gram far behind what it should be. Mr..
Chairman, next year, beginning next Au-
gust, the men coming out of the armed
services are required by law to engage in
active Reserve training. Unless we have
facilities for them to train, we are" going
to have men coming out by the tens of
thousands with no installations in which
they can train. I am told that the Air
Force is under pressure for funds, for
combat funds, but we are going to wreck
our Reserve program unless the money
which this committee generously pro-
vided for Reserve is used for that
activity.
I yield to my distinguished friend from
the State of Texas.
Mr. MAHON. I am looking at pages
31 and 32 of the report and observe there
that the committee provided in this bill
for the Continental Air Command Re-
serve the sum of $40,219,000. The com-
mittee, in approving that money, ex-
pected it to be used for the Air Force
Reserve program and for no other pur-
pose. The committee feels that the
Reserve program should not be neglected
and that these funds should not be ap-
plied to other purposes even though they
are integrated with other funds. While
I cannot speak for the committee, the
gentleman's amendment would tend to
accomplish precisely what the commit-
tee understands will be done and should
be done with these funds. As I under-
stand it, you are merely saying that the
funds we provided for the Reserve of the
Air Force shall' be used for that purpose
and for no other purpose.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. That is
correct. Our difficulties are largely in
the Air Force. We want Reserve money
used for Reserve purposes.
Mr. MAHON. I have no objection to
that although, as I say, I cannot speak
for the committee.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I thank
the distinguished gentleman from Texas
for his valuable contribution to this dis-
cussion.
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman has dis-
cussed this matter with me and with
members of the committee. I have dis-
cussed it with some of the officials of the
Department of Defense. I see no reason
why it should not be adopted. It merely
clarifies the intent of the Congress.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. It will
not hurt a soul, but it will clarify the sit-
uation and it will guarantee that this
money will be used the way it was in-
tended to be used.
Mr. MILLER of Maryland. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I yield.
Mr. MILLER of Maryland. The pur-
pose of the gentleman's amendment is
very commendable, I think, and whether
or not it is necessary as our distinguished
chairman has said, I am not sure, but
there is certainly no objection to the
amendment on this side of the aisle.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I can
assure the gentleman that those who be-
lieve the Reserve activities should con-
tinue will feel much better if it is placed
in the bill.
Mr. MILLER of Maryland. I agree
with the gentleman. I think it spells
it out.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Thank
you kindly.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I yield to
my distinguished colleague from Florida.
Mr. SIKES. I think my distinguished
friend from Louisiana is to be commend-
ed for his zeal in this matter. He has
always been keenly interested in the
Reserve program and has contributed a
great deal toward a sound Reserve pro-
gram. What the gentleman is attempt-
ing to do is to make doubly sure, in fact,
to insure that the intent of the commit-
tee is to be carried out.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. That is
exactly right. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I yield.
Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman, I
have been honored. to serve, on the sub-
committee headed by the gentleman
from Louisiana. I must say that we are
pretty intimately and well informed on
the Reserve program. I think the
amendment the gentleman has offered is
very, very worthwhile, and I recommend
its adoption.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for the adoption
of the amendment.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this subject applies
equally to the operation and mainte-
nance funds as to the capital outlay
funds, under discussion. Particularly at
reserve air bases where the upkeep of
the equipment has a direct bearing, not
only upon the safety of the Reserves, the
weekend fliers, but upon the safety of
the people whose homes are in the Vi-
cinity of these bases.
I hope the Department of the Air Force
will continue its caution along on the
operation and maintenance problem, as
well as the commendable capital outlay
problem which the gentleman's amend-
ment seeks to solve.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. TA13ER: On
page 10, line 7, strike out the period, insert
a semicolon "Provided further, That nothing
herein shall be so construed as to prohibit
withholding or withdrawing funds for spe-
cific projects or installations when such
projects or installations can be eliminated
or deferred without adverse effect on the
national interest."
Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman, I re-
serve a point of order on the amendment.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I have
offered this amendment to follow the
language and the word "installation" on
line 7. I have offered it because, al-
though it is not as good as what I had
in mind myself, it would permit the
armed services to stop the use of funds
upon projects that had gone sour or had
been dropped because they were not
needed any longer.
The way the language in section 309
reads they would not have the power to
do that. No one else would have the
power to do it, and it would be a menace
to our whole military situation.
I am in hopes that the gentleman on
the other side of the aisle will agree to
accept this amendment. It is in the na-
ture of a compromise. Frankly, it can
be drawn so that it will not in the
slightest degree be subject to a point of
order, but I thought perhaps those who
misconstrue the language that they have
brought in here might be willing to ac-
cept this. I do not think it would be
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11384 Approved F4eG 1 A(L8/ tSWDRDP J45R000100200006-2 July 12
safe for us to pass this kind of a provi-
sion. For that reason I have offered
this amendment and I hope it will be
adopted.
Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman, due
to the fact that as far as I know the only
complaint comes from Assistant Secre-
tary McNeil and not from either of the
three services, I insist upon my point of
order.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I do not
think this is subject to a point of order.
It does not call for additional duties. It
is simply a limitation upon a restriction
that is set up in the language. It is
clearly germane to the language.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Californif} desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. SHEPPARD. I merely wish to
call the Chair's attention to the fact that
it imposes additional duties and that it
also is legislation on an appropriation
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from New York has offered an amend-
ment to which the gentleman from Cali-
fornia has interposed the point of order
that the amendment imposes additional
duties and is legislation on an appro-
priation bill.
The Chair Is prepared to rule.
In the opinion of the Chair the amend-
ment proposed by the gentleman from
New York does impose an additional
burden upon the person administering
the funds, and, therefore, constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill.
The point of order is sustained.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. TABER: Page 10,
line 7, before the period insert ". but this
proviso shall not deprive the Department
of Defense or its Comptroller or the Bureau
of the Budget of any authority which they
now have."
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment will accomplish the same
thing as the one I first offered. It will
leave the proviso In such shape that the
Department of Defense will not be help-
less in its effort to stop the waste of
money on projects that are not needed or
that have gone sour because of situa-
tions outside of the country or which
because of some change or some new
invention have become entirely obsolete.
The language presently in the bill
would require the Department of De-
fense to go right down the line and con-
tinue with a project that was not needed
and was not desirable.
I ask that the amendment be agreed
to.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. TABER. I yield.
Mr. SIKES. My friend knows I have
great respect for him, but would he not
tell me if his amendment does not com-
pletely nullify the section so as to leave
it meaningless?
Mr. TABER. No, It does not, if the
statements that are made by the mem-
bers of the committee are true that it
does not mean anything at all and if
they are trying to bring about the situa-
tion I have described and which the
committee report said you wanted to
accomplish, this would carry out just
exactly that.
Also the gentleman from Texas when
I had the floor previcusly indicated that
he did not want to fix It so that such
things as this could not be corrected.
If you want to hf-.ve things in such
shape that there is no control and no
chance to save anything anywhere, you
would object to the language I have
suggested.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is very rare that I
find myself holding a viewpoint opposite
from that of the -gentleman from New
York, but in this instance I have not been
advised by Mr. McNeil to the degree that
some other members of the committee
appear to have been. However, I can say
that no member of the three services I
am referring to has expressed any objec-
tion to section 309.
The complaints of Assistant Secretary
McNeil as to the effect of section 309 of
the supplemental appropriation bill take
two forms as set forth in his letter of
July 7, 1956. In one instance, he says
that this section would "appear to take
away from the Department of Defense
and the Bureau of the Budget every
vestige of a possibility of controlling the
manner in which the vast sums made
available to the Department for military
construction could b? used." Secondly,
he cites in an example, "when It is deter-
mined by the Bureau of the Budget and
the Department of Defense that a pro-
posed project is no longer required due to
changes in the program, that most as-
suredly the committee does not want
such funds to be wasted, and moreover,
the Department should have the tools to
prevent such waste when circumstances
indicate that definite direct controls are
necessary. The apportionment proce-
dures as authorized by law have-provided
this tool in the past."
Let us examine these two complaints.
First of all, as to the taking away of
every vestige of possit-llity of controlling
the manner in which the vast sums made
available for military construction can
be used. Section 3679 of the Revised
Statutes provides the apportionment and
authority for the Bureau of the Budget
and the Department of Defense. The
particular section relating to apportion-
ment is incorporated in section 1211 of
the General Appropriation Act, 1951.
This section provides merely that "all
appropriation of funds not limited to a
definite period of time and all authori-
zations to create obligations by contract
in advance of appropriations shall be so
apportioned as to achieve the most effec-
tive and economical use thereof." The
section provides thf:t apportionment
shall be distributed as the apportioning
officers shall see fit, and shall be re-
viewed at least four times each year. As
evidenced by thecommittee in its report,
section 309 does not obviate this review
authority. The committee states "that
It is firmly convinced that the recom-
mendations contained in both the bill
and this report will result in substantial
savings without in any way diminishing
the needed administrative controls."
These so-called needed administrative
controls are the review authority which
the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau
of the Budget have and which the com-
mittee does not disturb in any way with
section 309. Section 309 is primarily
negatory legislation. It provides merely
that in making apportionments to the
several services, no apportionment can
be made so as to limit the use of funds
to a single project or installation. The
committee has stated this quite clearly
in the report, where it states "The com-
mittee believes that a proper and sensi-
ble approach to this matter would be a
lump-sum apportionment for each serv-
ice. Under this procedure, the individ-
ual services would prepare a specific list
of items of construction which would be
limited to projects authorized by law,
approved for funding by the Congress,
and determined by that military service
to be currently valid requirements. A
provision effectuating the procedure
above outlined is included in the accom-
panying bill as section 309." In other
words, Congress is merely asking that the
Department of Defense make available
funds to the several military services for
their construction program in the same
manner in which the Department of De-
fense and the Bureau of the Budget and
the President request appropriations and
program approvals of the Congress.
Section 309 does not jeopardize or
change in any way the review authority
contained in section 3679 of the Revised
Statutes.
The Secretary of Defense and the Bu-
reau of the Budget have complete au-
thority to deny the apportionment of
funds to any project or installation as
they see fit or to withdraw funds from
any project for vjlich they have previ-
ously apportioned funds as they might
deem necessary. Section 309 merely ef-
fectuates the implementation of the con-
struction program of the several services
in exactly the same manner as these
programs are recommended to the Con-
gress.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has expired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. SHEPPARD
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SHEPPARD. I will be very happy
to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. TABER. Has the gentleman read
the language in section 309, which states:
No funds appropriated for military con-
struction shall be madeavailable to the re-
spective military departments in a manner
so as to restrict the application of funds to
any specific project or installation.
That would completely wipe out those
provisions.
Mr. SHEPPARD. I have said to the
gentleman, for whom I have a great deal
of admiration, that his interpretation has
not always been along the same lines that
he is expressing here today. However,
that Is his privilege.
I would like to add this. Insofar as one
member of the Committee on Appropria-
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved For=Re tC MNID@?d&W0100200006-2 11385
tions is concerned, I am sick and tired
of having a presidential message come up
and gentlemen representing the Depart-
ment of Defense make presentations to
the Committee on Appropriations for
specific requirements in support thereof,
and then within 30 days changing their
minds. That sort of operation is. quite
odoriferous, and I want no part of it.
Mr. MILLER of Maryland. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHEPPARD. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Maryland.
Mr. MILLER of Maryland. There
seems to be doubt in the mind of the
gentleman from New York, but is there
any doubt in the gentleman's mind that
in the course of carrying out the func-
tions in regard to one of the items here
the Secretary of a department could
withhold funds from any project that be-
comes obsolete or undesirable?
Mr. SHEPPARD. Not under the act I
refer to; certainly not.
Mr. MILLER of Maryland. Or under
the language in 309?
Mr. SHEPPARD. That is correct.
Mr. MILLER of Maryland. And that
was the intent of the committee when it
approved the language?
Mr. SHEPPARD. It was, and it was
unanimous on the part of the committee-
for its approval.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman .yield?
Mr. SHEPPARD. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. TABER. When you pass language
subsequent to that, the other sections to
which you refer, you wipe out the pro-
visions of that section, provided they are
different from the ones that existed be-
fore, and this language would control,
and you would absolutely destroy the
powers that exist.
Mr. SHEPPARD. I am very sorry I
do not agree with the gentleman. I cer-
tainly have not taken this completely
unto myself. I have faith in the wisdom
of those with whom I discussed this
matter and on some of whom the gentle-
man has relied fora good many years.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to
the members of the committee that the
effort of the Committee on Appropria-
tions is to protect the integrity and the
dignity of the Congress. We are in a
very delicate situation, particularly with
respect to the 'first amendment which
was offered by the gentleman from New
York, Mr. TABER. So far as I know, he
is the only member of the Committee on
Appropriations who shares the view
which he has expressed. He makes an
interpretation that is not the same as
the interpretation made, insofar as I
know, by other members of the com-
mittee.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. TABER. Well, how can the lan-
guage of section 309 mean anything
except that when an item is apportioned
to a certain project it stays there? It
must stay there. The previous laws
would all be wiped out by this pro-
vision.
Mr. MAHON. Well, if Congress wants
to preserve its integrity with respect to
the judicial and executive branches, it
must treat very lightly when it comes
to this business of saying to the executive
branch we appropriate money, we pass
laws, but you ignore them if you wish.
We have provided additional funds for
B-52 bombers and other Air Force"pur-
poses above the President's budget in our
regular military appropriation bill. Well
the President may withhold those funds,
he may not expend them, but that is a
highly controversial point. But, I will
not vote for an amendment surrender-
ing the appropriations authority of the
Congress and say, "we appropriate the
money, but if you decide differently,
why, just do not use it or ' use it for
other purposes."
Now, here is what we are getting at, if
you will read the report. It makes it
clearer than I probably will make it here.
What the Defense Department has been
doing has been unfair to the Congress,
and we are trying to improve the situa-
tion and make both the Congress and the
executive more effective. Officials come
up here with their budget and they say
"Gentlemen of the Committee on Appro-
priations, gentlemen of the Congress, we
desperately need this money; we need it
now; we need it forthwith." That is
what they say. And, they supposedly
know what they are talking about. But,
we find that perhaps there has been a
tongue-in-cheek operation, because after
we give them this money which they say
they so desperately need, they at times
go back and review these same projects
for months, maybe a year, before they
take action, and they delay the program.
The whole point is this, and what we
are trying to compel them to do is this:
Do not come up to Congress and ask us
for any more" money unless you need it,
unless you know how you are going to
spend it, unless you have sifted and re-
sifted, considered and reconsidered it,
unless you know that you need the proj-
ect. Then present it. But they have not
been doing that with us. They have
come up here and said, "We want this
blank check." They have not said that
to us exactly that way, but that is what
they have said in effect. Then they go
back to the departments, and delay
interminably. They delay the defense
program. Then maybe Congress gets
the blame for the delay when officials sit
on these projects and do not use the
funds which they have requested and
which they said needed immediate action
and about which they are doing nothing.
This provision I think will put them
on the spot where they deserve to be. If
they ask for the money and say they
need it, they should use it unless the
circumstances are very exceptional.
They do not have to ask for it, if they
do not want it. But they come in and
tell us they want it. Then if we give it
to them, let them move expeditiously
and do what should be done. Of course,
if the executive in his wisdom does not
spend" the money, that is up to him.
But I do not want to put my approval or
the approval of Congress on a process of
agreeing that we surrender the appro-
priation power to the Executive.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. TABER. I have no objection to
having accomplished what the commit-
tee in the report. says it wants to accom-
plish. But I am satisfied that this pro-
vision goes way beyond that and abso-
lutely destroys the control which we have
for our protection.
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is satis-
fled with his own view, but I do not think
his view is shared by others on either
side of the aisle.
Mr. TABER. I am inclined to think
it would be by anyone who would study
the language, read it carefully, The
language is just as plain as it can be. It
represents an absolute restriction. The
money cannot be withdrawn; it must be
spent.
Mr. MAHON. This does not repeal
authority given in other acts.
Mr. TABER. Oh, yes, it does.
Mr. MAHON. It says that when they
get the money for a project it shall be
turned over to the service for expendi-
ture on a lump sum basis. It does not
say it in those words, but that is the
intent.
Mr. TABER. It cannot be that way
under any circumstances. That is not
the interpretation you can put on the
language. If we are not going to pay
attention to what the language means,
then I cannot do anything about it.
Mr. MAHON. If the members of the
executive branch of the Government do
not want to spend money on a project,
they will not do it. That has been dem-
onstrated before in both Democratic and
Republican administrations.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, apparently more con-
fusion exists about this section than I
had thought would exist. I, thought I
understood what we were trying to do
when the. language for section 309 was
written.
As much as I dislike to make this sug-
gestion, in view of the high regard I
have for the gentleman from New York,
.[Mr. TABER], I would suggest that his
amendment be rejected and that the
present language in 309 remain as it is,
with an admonition to the conferees
that between now and the time we con-
fer with the representatives of the other
body, we rewrite section 309 so it will
mean exactly what we intended it to
mean.
Let. us assume that the Department
of Defense comes to us for military con-
struction funds relating to Air Force
Base X. On their justification sheets
which they started to prepare perhaps
18 months before they finally get to us,
they set out a list of items, and the esti-
mated cost, providing, perhaps for a
chapel, some barracks, maintenance
shops, for a fueling system-any num-
ber of things which we refer to as line
items. It is quite true that later on,
after a period of 12 or 15 or 18 months,
the need is changed; perhaps the mis-
sion of the base has been changed, so
that the line items first asked for are
no longer needed or some item is needed
more urgently. So Air Force, for ex-
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11386 Approved ff F
~ ff 15+C b-RDIM 9245R000100200006-2 July 12
ample will very properly say, "The line
items we requested during the hearings
are no longer needed and instead of
those line items we did ask you for, we
would like to provide some other items."
The big objection we found was that
there was waste of time and money in-
volved in some of the procedure. Before
coming to us the Army, Navy, and Air
Force Departments have justified to the
Department of Defense that they have
need of certain line items, the Defense
Department has justified before the
Bureau certain line items, and the Bu-
reau of the Budget has approved them,
then these items come up to us for ap-
propriations. These items have been
previously cleared through the Commit-
tees on Armed Services. After they clear
our committee, they are screened again
in the Senate. Then we find that be-
fore the Bureau of the Budget and the
Defense Department will release the
construction funds for the Army, Navy,
and Air Force they must again justify
each one of these line items which have
already been previously justified many
times. We feel that that is too time-
consuming and too much money is
wasted in that. We felt that if the
original screening had been properly
done before presentation to Congress,
these items should not need so much
further screening. We felt that some of
those steps should be eliminated and
that once these items had been approved
by the Department of Defense, and the
committees of Congress, the money
should be allocated to the Army. Navy,
and Air Force in quarterly lump sums
and then they should proceed from
there with their construction without
the above-mentioned repeated postcon-
gressional reviews.
I have explained this subject, at least
as I see it, and as indicated by the lan-
guage in the report on page 12: there-
fore, I would suggest, much as I regret
to do so, that the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York be de-
feated, and that the language be rewrit-
ten and returned to us in conference.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a limitation of time
on this amendment?
Mr. TABER. I yield to the gentle-
man from-Texas.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 6 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I went
before the Rules Committee. This pro-
vision in S. 309 unquestionably was sub-
ject to a point of order. Upon the
agreement of the gentleman from Texas
before the committee it was understood
that he and I were to get together and
we would try to work out some language
that might be acceptable. We tried to
do that. I contacted the clerk of the
committee, I contacted the gentleman
from Texas, and I have been unable to
get any satisfaction whatever. For that
reason I have offered this amendment
as I drew it myself. I feel that the only
thing we can do at this time is just to
try to protect the Ticasury as far as
we can from language that I regard as a
very serious menace.
Mr. MAIION. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. TABER. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman, feeling
as he does. I certainly believe that it is
his bounden duty to offer the amend-
ment, I feel that way about it. I think
the gentleman will ag_?ee that he and I
worked together in an effort to come
to some meeting of the minds. Various
suggestions were submitted but we were
not able to conic to an agreement with
members of the subccmmittee and the
full committee. It was just one of those
things where the gentleman's interpre-
tation is contrary to the interpretation
of everyone else on the committee.
Mr. TABER. I hope the committee
will adopt this amendment I have of-
fered. because I feel it will protect the
country and protect tae appropriations
we are making here. For that reason. I
ask that the committee approve my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN.
nizes the gentleman
MAHON 1.
which does not exist under present
statute.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, to what page does
the gentleman's amendment apply?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Page 15, on
line 18.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, that is the purpose of the amend-
ment as I have explained it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I am glad to
yield to my colleague.
Mr. ANDREWS. The gentleman from
Alabama has discussed this amendment
with me and with other members of our
committee, and I understand with the
ranking Republican members, and we
have agreed to accept his amendment.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I thank the
gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Alabama,
The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUDITORIUM
COMMISSION
The Chair recog- Salaries and expenses
'rom Texas [Mr. - For necessary expenses to carry out the
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I re-
spectfully suggest that the recommenda-
tion of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
SCRIVNER] be followed. and that the
amendment be voted down at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. TABER].
The question was taken: and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. TABER) there
were-ayes 36, noes 56.
So the amendment was rejected.
The Clerk read as follows:
COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENT SECURITY
Salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Commission
on Government Security, including expenses
of attendance at meetings concerned with
the purpose of this appiopriat.ion. $600,000.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man. I offer an amendment, which is at
the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JONES of Ala-
bama: On page 15, after line 18, insert:
"PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMISSION ON PRESI-
DENTIAL OFFICE SPACE
"Salaries and expenses
"For expenses necessary for the President's
Advisory Commission on Presidential Office
Space. $50.000: Provided. That this para-
graph shall be effective orly upon enactment
Into law of H. R. 12025, 84th Congress, or
similar legislation."
Mr. JONES of AlabF.ma. Mr. Chair-
man, this amendment is offered in order
to cure a point of ordei which would oc-
cur in the bill H. R. 1'025 now pending
in the Committee on Public Works.
which would provide for a President's
Advisory Commission o-t the Presidential
Office Space. This commission would
be financed out of the President's appro-
priated fund. It would. not increase the
appropriation item. I; simply author-
izes the President to tse from existing
appropriated funds money for an activity
provisions of the act of July 1, 1955 (Public
Law 128). as amended by the act of April 27,
1956 (Public Law 491), to be available from
October 25, 1955. and to be expended on the
authority or approval of the Chairman of the
District of Columbia Auditorium Commis-
sion, $150,000.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GROSS: On page
19, line 9, strike out "$150,000."
(Mr. GROSS asked and was granted
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment would strike out $150,000 for
the planning of an auditorium in the
District of Columbia.
A few days ago the Committee on the
District of Columbia brought in a bill,
which I opposed, providing a foot-in-the-
door for construction of an athletic
stadium, also in the District of Colum-
bia. I have no doubt, and I imagine most
of the Members of the House will agree,
that in the end the Federal Government,
in other words the taxpayers of the Na-
tion, will build both the stadium and
auditorium. It seems to me we must
draw the line somewhere. I am not
going to belabor this amendment, for I
have no doubt as to what will happen to
the amendment, but am convinced there
is enough private capital in the District
of Columbia to finance the building of
both a stadium and an auditorium. I
am opposed to the taxpayers of the coun-
try being called upon to build this audi-
torium. I know of no auditorium being
built with funds from the Federal Treas-
ury in any other municipality in this
country. Let this one be built as are
others in Iowa and elsewhere through
bond issues or other means of local
financing.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman. I rise in opposition to the
amendment. I shall not take the 5 min-
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved F;Q,i?Release CONGRESSIO2004/08/N AL 2255 RE(; CC~~8963TW 00100200006-2 1157
PD
1956
utes, but I rise in opposition to this and all appropriation acts prior thereto, re- Recently, a subcommittee of the Congres-
appointed by maining unobligated on June 30, 1956, are sional Joint Atomic Energy committee re-
amendment as a Member hereby rescinded and ordered to be covered ported it had found that the Soviet Union
the Speaker to the Auditorium Commis- Into the Treasury immediately upon approval already had more scientists and engineers
Sion. The other Members of this House of this act; funds appropriated under this available than the United States. Moreover,
are the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. head in the Department of Health, Educa- Russia was graduating more than twice as
MORRISON], the gentleman from Pennsyl- tion, and Welfare Appropriation Act, 1956, many additional ones each year as the United
vanid [Mr. KEARNS], the gentleman from remaining unobligated on June 30, 1957, are States, the report said.
Virginia [Mr. BROYHILL), the gentleman hereby rescinded and ordered to be covered time now many
have appeared by many
from New York [Mr. KLEIN]. Members into the Treasury as of that date; and funds For a magazine articles considerable
of the Senate appointed by the Vice appropriated in the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare Appropriation Act, nent writers deploring the situation and
1957, remaining unobligated on June 30, emphasizing the need for action. The
President, and others appointed by the emi-
President. The Commission has pro- 1958, are hereby rescinded and ordered to be Commissioner of Education, Dr.
ceeded and has accomplished a prodi- covered into the Treasury as of that date. Brownell, presented a good case for this
gious amount of work. We have had the Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appropriation of $300,000 for the work
services the- in the United Satees, on a voluntar firms offer an amendment. of the President's Committee in fiscal
y basis The Clerk read as follows: 1957.
except for their r actual a stsl costs only. . This Amendment offered by Mr. FERNANDEZ: Unfortunately our committee was con-
is not he strict of to Colube an auditorium be for On page 21, at the end of line 6, add a new fronted with the fact that there was no a con-
t
the District t umfor the It is to bt the paragraph as follows: authorizing legislation.
United l auditorium for or people of to ..PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION BE- I think the administration in all this
be the States. If the this our Capital is to YOND THE HIGH SCHOOL, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF time has been derelict in failing to send
and the quite prof the free world, I think, THE PRESIDENT to the Congress legislation to authorize
aquite properly I feel, it should be "For necessary expenses of the President's the appropriation for this committee
the cultural center of the world. Committee on Education Beyond the High which as I say was appointed since last
This is not a new idea. It goes back to School, including services authorized by March. Perhaps the Congress has been
the days of President Grant. It has been section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 derelict, but I for one assumed that,
a long and difficult fight to convince the U. S. C. 55a), at rates not to exceed $50 when he ahis assumed that,
Members of Congress of the need for per diem for individuals; expenses of attend- wChenre a that announced
would his me such a ed with
the recognition of the great culture which ance at IthetCommittee;nand act al t ans- committee, the. President had the neces-
ims Nation has. I feel it is of by extreme poses of
expenses and an allowance of not sary authority to provide the funds for it,
majority on the to exceed $12 per diem in lieu of subsistence or to have them provided. Certainly the
importance.
y and nd It is minority Membb supported e both the p
while away from their homes s Or or regular regular Bureau of the Budget, which passes on
hill. BY the President, by former Presi- places of business, for persons attending these requests for appropriation before
dent Truman, and so many other peo- conferences called by the Committee: they are submitted, should have realized
pie that I would not impose on your $soo,ooo.? the predicament this situation puts us in.
time to name them all. Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I re- Frankly, I do not know who is to blame.
I urge the defeat of the amendment.
asked serve a point of order against the amend- The fact remains there is no author-
(Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey ment. izing legislation and consequently our
end was granted permission to revise e and and Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the committee could not put that item in the
Mr. his Wmarks.) ur ose of my amendment is to add to bill.
extend
. Mr. Chairman, I ask purpose the $300,000 which the President While we were interrogating witnesses
unanimous us consent that t all l debate on requested for his Committee on Educa- in the committee, the committee made
thT amendment Nose in 5 minutes. tion Beyond the High School. When he inquiry as to whether or not this appro-
heCHAIRMA. Is there objection2 submitted his request our subcommittee
There was no objection. on June 6 that the priation could be made under the general
Mr. KIRWAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise found at the hearings law setting up the Office of Education,
in opposition to the amendment. This President had appointed his Committee and whether then the funds could be
request is for $150,000 for planning an last March, had allocated $50,000 from used in connection with this committee
auditorium in this city. In the second his emergency fund to initiate the work, of eminent citizens which the President
supplemental appropriation bill, 1956, but that no legislation had even been re- has appointed. It was found, however,
there was a request for $25,000 to cover quested or submitted to authorize the ap- that no matter how we put the language
expenses to date which was turned down. propriation of funds for its continuance. in the bill it would still be subject to a
The people on the Commission apolo- Without indicating that legislation was so
gized to the Congress at that time for needed or desired, the President said in point int o of order. . This is inquiry that particularly so
old nd on spending money they never had to spend. his message to Congress on the 12th of because
use we loud back in r and sold stat The reason it was turned down was that last January: on the statute books prohibits the use
they bypassed the House last year and Our vision would be limited If we failed at of any funds for the payment of any such
went to the Senate. When they were this time to give special thought to education commission unless authorization is made
informed that such proceedings started beyond the high school. Certain problems therefor. That statute reads as fol-
exist now in this field, and already we can
in the House, they were sorry they did foresee other needs and problems shaping up lows:
it. The project authorization has been in the future. Higher education is and must No part of the public moneys, or of any
amended and they have submitted a new remain the responsibility of the States, lo- appropriation made by Congress, shall be
estimate based on a good plan. calities, and private groups and institutions. used for the payment of compensation or
We spent about $2,500,000 to get plans But to lay before us all the problems of expenses of any commission, council, board,
for the new Smithsonian Building. This education beyond high school, and to en- or other similar body, or any members there-
courage active and systematic attack on of, or for expenses in connection with any
auditorium is going to cost practically them, I shall appoint a distinguished group work or the results of any work or action of
the same amount as the new Smithso- this of educators and citizens to develop this year, any commission, council, board, or other
nian, but the people connected with this through studies and conferences, proposals similar body, unless the creation of the same
auditorium are contributing their serv- in this educational .field. shall be or shall have been authorized by law,
ices free and the planning will cost us Through the leadership and counsel of this nor shall there be employed by detail, here-
only $150,000. group, beneficial results can be expected to after or heretofore made, or otherwise per-
I ; hope the amendment will not be flow to education and to the Nation in the sonal services from any executive department
years ahead. or other Government establishment in con-
agreed to. nection with any such commission, council,
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on In his very excellent message the Press- board, or other similar body. (Mar. 4, 1909,
the amendment offered by the gentleman dent was echoing the concern of the en- ch. 299, sec. 9, 35 Stat. 1027.)
from Iowa. - tire country for the dearth of college
The amendment was rejected. graduates in science, engineering, and Mr. Chairman, I think I express the
The Clerk read as follows: other skilled professions, and this con- feeling of the members of the subcom-
Grants for hospital construction cern about the problem is continuing and mittee when I say that we regretted there
Funds appropriated under this head In increasing to this date. On April 12 the was no way by which we could put in
the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1955,- New York Times said in a news item: this appropriation without its being leg-
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11388 Approved F f7~f-R
~ 2004/08/25 RECORD IA-RDP63TOO245ROO0100200006-2
SI July 12
islation on an appropriation bill; we re- dent, President's Special International me here, and it shows an item of royalties
gretted we could not honor this request Program." This request was in the of $23,000. If I am not mistaken, that item
by the President. It is unfortunate and, amount by $9 million. The committee has subsequently been taken out of the
as I say, there has been dereliction in not reduced this amount by $4,312,600. The cost.
presenting to the proper committee and amount allowed will continue the Presi- Mr. ROONEY. I should hope so.
to Congress for consideration legislation dent's Special International Program of budg
Mr. et figures that were presented here orige
which would authorize this item. artistic and athletic presentations abroad finally. Actually, I do not believe the cost
I hope sincerely that the gentleman and participation in international trade items that we have received on this show
from Rhode Island will withdraw his fairs. The amount contained in this bill any payment for royalties.
point of order, and that other gentlemen $4,687,400 is the sam3 amount as appro- Mr. RooNSY. Did anyone in the Depart-
in the House will not make the point of priated for fiscal year 1955 and also for merit of State agree at one time to pay
order, so that we can have this appropri- fiscal year 1956, lets the amount re- in
$2 of a,o n ec Government money for royals in
ation included in the pending bill. quested for the United States Informs- ~n connection With these performances in
Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman. I in- tion Agency. The committee was told Mr. BATSON~No, sir; we did not.
sist on the point of order that this is not that from $1,240.003 to $1,700,000 of Mr. ROONEY. How did it get on this sheet?
authorized by law and that the gentle- previously appropriated funds for this Mr. BATSON. In this particular case, no, sir,
man's amendment is legislation on an program would be unexpended as of June but It would have in others. It is possible
appropriation bill. 30, 1956. we would include that in our budget. You
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman The sum of $312,600 was requested for see. we are underwriting the losses of the
from New Mexico [Mr. FERNANDFZ I has the United States Information Agency to take tlons that are going abroad. We have
offered an amendment which has been ` to take principally that into account in deciding how
for promoting and publiciz- much support they will get from the Govern-
reported by the Clerk. The gentleman ing this program. The committee is of ment. and we take into account all of their
from Rhode Island I Mr. FOGARTY I has the opinion that this Agency should be expenses.
made the point of order that this appro- able to carry on th.s work within its Mr. ROONEY. In connection with that, did
priation is not authorized. regular annual appropriation which is you approve paying at least a share of the
The gentleman from New Mexico in in the amount of $113 million for the $23.000 for royalties?
his remarks on his amendment stated fiscal year 1957, and therefore, directs Mr. BATSON. No, sir.
sheet . Then how did that figure get
that authorization had not been had, that no part of the funds recommended r Mr. vour ROONEY
and that it was not authorized by law. herein be allocated tc the United States is r. BATSON. We assume In figuring up the
Therefore the Chair sustains the point Information Agency. total cost of the project in order for us to
of order. The testimony before the committee determine how much underwriting we will
The Clerk read as follows: reveals that of the $229,738 available to give that we will have to take into account
EXTENSION AND REMODELING. STATE DEPARTMENT the United States Information Agency all of the expenses no matter what they are
DOILDING from this fund for fiscal year 1956, the of this group so we will know how much we
For expenses necessary for planning, and sum of $120,615, or over 52 percent, was would put in it.
the extension and remodeling, under the expended for entertainment. Large DIFFICULTY IN GETTING FACTS
supervision of the General Services Adminis- amounts of the USIA funds were used Mr. ROONEY. Before the company started
tration, of the State Department Building, for the purchase of tickets which were for South America, you had to have an a -
p
Washington, D. C., and for expenses necessary giV n away to people to attend the per- proval of the Department; did you not? .
for providing temporary office space, lnclud-
forniances. If the pt rformers or tom- mr. BATSON. Yes, sir.
ing payment of rent In the District of Co- Itifr. .In arriving at this approval,
lumbia, alterations, purchase, and installs- ponies sent abroad were of such conse- was there ere submitted to you an item of $23,000
tion of air-conditioning equipment, to remain quence that free tickets had to be given for royalties?
available until expended, $44,920,000, to be away at Government expense for them Mr. BATSON. There certainly was, yes; but
transferred to the General Services Adminis- to have an audience they should not We did not agree to pay it.
tration. have been sent in the first place. For Mr. ROONEY. You did not agree to pay that?
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, the example, the Agency expended $3,000 of To pay exactly $23,000? Do I understand you
second item in chapter IX of this bill for the taxpayers' money to purchase tickets correctly?
LO present to people free of charge to Mr. BATSON. The point is that the figures
the Department of State, International listen a the Los A 7 which I read to you were those on which we
Fisheries Commission, appropriates the geles Symphony based our original approval of f certain
amount $620,000, the full amount re- Orchestra in Tokyo. amount of money to underwrite the losses.
quested by the Bureau of the Budget, to It is inconceivable that a Government Mr. ROONEY. How much did you approve?
continue and expand on a joint intern a- agency would even consider a payment Mr. BATSON. We have not approved-
tional basis with Canada, the sea lam- of $23.000 for royalties in connection Mr. ROONEY. Just a minute, now. How
prey control and research activities con- with a touring play, in addition to all much did you approve insofar as ANTA was
ducted since 1947 by the Fish and Wild- the other costs of an overseas tour. concerned?
Nevertheless, such is the case, as an ex- Mr. BATSON. I do not understand.
life Service of the Department of the x.rr n,.,,..-9 , --- . .
now. because the company 1s on the
The committee expects that all agen- an
Over the past several years the pars- roes now.
sitic sea lamprey has all but destroyed program cies in any will way correct t:con_lected with this Mr. project We approved $151,000 to get
the trout population in Lake Huron and le loose financial the project started.
Lake Michigan, wine the to Huron operations pointed out in the report of Mr. RooN!Y. What was the total cost? Will
tiro is presently foff rin the General Accounting Office and the you please repeat that figure?
Lakes Superior spread investigative report of this committee, Mr. BATSON. $268.000.
lamprey eier . due falling l The loss the to the ad rapidly this in
United and take the necessary action to prevent M2 8,0 0 there arriving at the total cfor
their reoccurrence in the future. of $268.000 there was included $23,000 for
States and Canada in trout and other royalties?
valuable fish is presently estimated to be It might be appropriate if the atten- Mr. BATSON. That 1s correct.
$5 million annually. The committee tiro of the house were called to certain Mr. RroNEY, You certainly can play with
unanimously felt that ample justifica- parts of the printed hearings with regard words.
tion was made for the allowance of this to how this program has been function- Mr. BATSON. However, sir, the estimates
$620,000. Ing under President Eisenhower. The coming in and the amounts going to It do
Included under chapter IX, at page 22 following are excerpts from the hearings not include Items for royalties. As I under-
of this bill is an item of $964,000 for before the subcommittee: stand it, the royalty payment has been
PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES Mi. TEAHOUSE OF THS waived, but I will find out about that. and
claims of the Vatican City, to be trans- submit a statement for the record on it.
ferred to the Secretary of the Treasury AUGUST MOON
for payment as authorized b recent law, Mr. ROONEY. What was the figure you gave "In statement referred to follows: )
by In estimating the total costs for this included
These claims are for damages to a while ago with regard t3 Teahouse of the cut, an item covering royalties was Included
proper- August Moon for royaltier,?
ties of the Vatican City which occurred in figures considered. The author claims 10
during World War City BATSON. This is an estimate. The percent of the box rice receipts. On the
only information which I have is contained basis of anticipated Income for the tour, it
The final item at line 5, page 22 Is en- on this little piece of paper which I have was estimated that total royalties would
titled, "Funds Appropriated to the Presi- here, which is simply a memorandum to help amount to approximately $23,000. Royalties
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved Fgielease 2004(08/25: CIA-RDP63T00 000100200006-2
1956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - H E 1138
actually due from box office receipts amount
to $1,805.91 for the first 6 weeks of this tour."
* q M Y i
FUNDS REQUESTED FOR ORCHESTRAS
Mr. ROONEY. There is not much sense in
talking about a budget presentation such
as is outlined at page 8 of the justifications,
where we find such buckshot approaches as
for "orchestras" in the amount of $421,000.
Are you not able to tell us the breakdown
of that figure?
Mr. BATSON. No, Sir.
Mr. ROONEY. Wait a minute. I believe
that figure was for 1955. Let us get to 1957.
Let us change the amount to $548,000. You
cannot give, us any breakdown of that?
Mr. BATSON. No, sir, because we do not
know what orchestras would be willing and
able to undertake overseas tours next year.
Mr. RooxEy. How did you arrive at the
figure of $546,000? Why is it not $546,000?
Mr. BATSON. We simply try, based upon the
best information we have at hand, to esti-
mate in a general way what we would like to
do, and I cannot say that the cost will be
exactly this figure. It probably will not be.
It may be probably a little more or less or
may be considerably more or less, depending
upon what we are able to get.
As an example of orchestras, we sent the
New Orleans Symphony Orchestra on a tour
of Latin America. There were several or-
chestras under consideration for that tour
that would have liked to have made the trip,
but the New Orleans Orchestra, however,
came up with a budget which showed that
the citizens of New Orleans were putting
$20,000 into this tour. So, this made it much
more financially feasible to use them, and
we selected them at a considerable savings.
DRAMA AND MUSICAL COMEDY GROUPS
Mr. ROONEY. With regard to the $609,000
for the drama and musical comedy groups, do
you have any breakdown as to that?
Mr. BATSON, No, sir.
Mr. ROONEY. How many groups are in-
volved?
Mr. BATSON. We do not know, sir.
Mr. ROONEY. You do not know anything
about the size of the companies?
Mr. BATSON. No, sir; we do not know what
will be available and what the cost will be.
Mr. ROONEY. You do not know how much
the impresarios would get out of it?
Mr. BATSON. We certainly do not; no, sir;
we could not predict that at this time.
Mr. ROONEY. You do not know how much
the royalties would be?
Mr. BATSON. NO, sir; it would vary.
Mr. ROONEY. With regard to "musical
groups" in the amount of $558,000, the same
answer would apply?
Mr. BATSON. Yes, sir.
DANCE GROUPS
Mr. ROONEY. And as to the $444,800 for
"dance groups" would the same answer
apply?
Mr. BATSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROONEY. That amount, intrigues me.
Why is it not $444,700 instead of $444,800?
Mr. BATSON, I cannot answer that, Sir.
INDIVIDUAL ARTISTS
Mr. ROONEY. For individual artists you
have the figure of $202,200, Does the same
answer apply to that request?
Mr. BATSON. Yes, sir.
SPORTS ACTIVITIES
Mr. ROONEY. For the sports activities you
have a nicely rounded figure of $200,000.
Would the same answer apply?
Mr. BATSON. Yes, Sir.
AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURE
Mr. ROONEY. I am sure you will pardon my
cultural ignorance, but exactly who is "Tom
Two Arrows" on Whom you would spend
$1,800 in entertainment money?
Mr. SEEBACH. He is an Indian who with his
wife puts on demonstrations of the American
Indian culture, dances, songs, legends, stories,
history, religion, and all the rest of it. He
has been enormously successful. He has
drawn huge crowds at comparatively little
cost and in an area where the missions are
practically nonexistent.
Also, because of the nature of his act and
his personality, he has been able to go out
into the smaller cities and even in some cases
villages to entertain and bring an entirely
different picture to these people in the rela-
tionship of the American people and Indians.
Mr. ROONEY. Have you seen his act?
Mr. SEEBACH. No, Sir.
Mr. ROONEY. Have you seen it?
Mr. STREIBERT. I have read post reports on
it and they are very enthusiastic about the
act. As you know, there is a great interest
abroad in the American Indian.
Mr. ROONEY. Is this one act?
Mr. STREIBERT. He is a whole show.
Mr. ROONEY. Is it a sight act? Do you
understand what I mean? Does anybody
here know what a sight act is?
Mr. SEEBACH. You mean it has to be seen?
He does that, too.
Mr. ROONEY. I thought that was a common
term in the theatrical business.
Mr. SEEBACH. It is.
Mr. ROONEY. It appeared you had never
heard it before.
Mr. SEEBACH. I have heard it before, yes,
but I didn't quite understand what you
meant by it. A sight act generally speaking
in the vaudeville sense can be one which is
even a dumb act as far as that is concerned.
Mr. ROONEY. Of course, they are per-
formers who can work in any country in the
world.
Mr. SEEBACH. That is right. He is not, in
that sense, because he sings. A lot of it is
sight-dancing, and, of course, music goes
along with this, too.
Mr. ROONEY. Does he speak any language
other than English, do you know?
Mr. SEERBACH. I don't know.
Mr. ROONEY. Where did you have him per-
forming?
Mr. SEEBACH. All over India and Pakistan.
Mr. ROONEY. What is the percentage of the
people who speak or understand English in
India?
Mr. STREIBERT. It is the principal language.
Mr. ROONEY. English is the principal lan-
guage in India?
Mr. STREIBERT. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROONEY. It would appear that Tom
Two Arrows performed in New Delhi, Karachi,
and Rangoon according to the allocation
chart; is that correct?
Mr. STREIBERT. Yes, sir
Mr. SIVARD. And many other places.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN INDIA
Mr. ROONEY. I am surprised to your an-
swer, Mr. Streibert, in regard to English
being the principal language in India. I had
occasion recently to request some sesearch
from the Library of Congress. The latest
population figure they have for India is 377
million. They refer me-when I say "they"
I mean the Library of Congress-to an article
in the New York Times of, September 24,
1955, entitled "English Tongue Declines in
India."
The article states:
"English has always been the language of
the tiny elite group in India. Only about 2
percent of the people understand it."
Mr. STREIBERT. That is correct.
Mr. ROONEY. I am at at loss to jibe your
previous statement with the New York Times
quotation.
Mr. STREIBERT. Well, the 2 percent are
those who can pay admission prices, and who
are in positions of authority. They say the
tiny elite is 2 percent, and that sounds like
a tiny percentage, but when applied to 360
million people, it represents a large number
of people to reach.
FUNDS SPENT IN INDIA FOR ENGLISH-LANGUAG$
BROADCASTS AND ENGLISH MEDIUMS
Mr. ROONEY. How much is the USIA ex-
pending in taxpayers' funds in India for
English-language broadcasts and English
mediums?
Mr. STREIBERT. There are no English-lan-
guage broadcasts directed at India.
Mr. RooNEY. Is it not unusual, if most of
the people understand or speak English, that
you would not have broadcasts directed
there?
Mr, STREIBERT. I did not say that most of
them were. You just testified yourself that
only 2 percent spoke it.
Mr. ROONEY. What did you say?
Mr. STREIBERT. I said they were the impor-
tant people, but I did not say they were the
most of the people.
Mr. ROONEY. What was your original
statement?
Mr. STREIBERT. I said it was the leading
language there. It is the language of the
government. They are trying to substitute
another language and they are having some
riots. I believe, in Bombay as a result of im-
posing another language on the public.
Mr. ROONEY. Do you have the answer to
that, Mr. Posner?
Mr. POSNER. No, Sir.
Mr. ROONEY. Will you insert that infdI'ma-
tion at this point in the record?
Mr. POSNER. Yes, sir.
(The matter referred to may be found
on p. 7$9.)
COSTS OF PROPAGANDA, IN THE ENGLISH LAN-
GUAGE, IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES
Mr. ROONEY. At the same time, you might
insert a statement with regard to the extent
in dollar costs of propaganda, including
broadcasts, if any, in the English language,
and all the other phases of the program in
English, dircted to Egypt, Iran, Pakistan;
and India.
We shall insert it at this point with regard
to these four countries rather than at the
point where I referred to India particularly.
Mr. POSNER. Yes, sir.
(The matter referred to follows:)
"Estimated costs of media products prepared
in the English language for certain coun-
tries-Estimated obligations, fiscal year
1956
"Egypt:
"Produced in the country--------
$10,034
"Radio broadcasts (VOA) --------
4, 700
"Supplied from Washington or re-
gional press centers----------
68,932
"Iran : .
"Produced in the country--------
3,185
"Radio broadcasts (VOA) --------
2,798
"Supplied from Washington or re-
gional press centers ----------
25, 394
"Pakistan:
"Produced in the country-------
51,215
"Radio broadcasts (VOA) --------
918
"Supplied from Washington or re-
gional press centers----------
01,228
"Total----------------------
143,361
"India:
"Produced in the country -------- 118,673
"Radio broadcasts (VOA) ------- 8, 659
"Supplied from Washington or re-
gional press centers---------- 328,941
"Total---------------------- 456,273
"COMMITTEE NOTE.-The Library of Con-
gress Legislative Reference Service reported
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
11390 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 12
estimate of percentage of population under-
standing the English language: Egypt. 3 per-
cent of the population; Iran, less than 1 per-
cent of the population; Pakistan, 2 percent
of the population; and India, 2 percent of
the population.
ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSED, JOSE LIMON TROUPE
Mr. ROONEY. How much did you expend in
connection with entertainment for the Jose
Limon Troupe on a visit to South America?
Mr. STREIBERT. $8428.
Mr. RooNEY. Go ahead. What Is that fig-
ure down In the right-hand corner?
Mr. STRZIBERT. $2,084.71.
Mr. ROONEY. What was that for?
Mr. STREIBERT. There was $2.000.43 for free
tickets In 3 cities. This was the first project
out of-the President's funds, occurring In No-
vember 1954, when it was sent down to two
cities in South America where the Interne-
tional Conference was going on at the time,
and I assume that that large sum for free
tickets was in connection with the delegates
to the International Conference, which was
one of the main reasons for sending the
troop down there.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask
a question or two concerning this appro-
priation of almost $45 million for the
State Department. What are you pro-
posing to do, recondition the old build-
ing?
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, in an-
swer to the gentleman's question, I
should say that it is the committtee's in-
tention to extend the present building
at 21st Street and Virginia Avenue so as
to complete a full block.
Mr. GROSS. This has nothing to do
with reconditioning the old building?
Mr. ROONEY, No. The State De-
partment at the present time Is located
in 29 different places and buildings in
the District of Columbia. This would
bring that Department and the Interna-
tional Cooperation Administration all
together under one roof and should re-
sult in substantial savings to the tax-
payer, not only with regard to rents
which they are now required to pay, but
also in maintenance and efficiency.
Mr. GROSS. I wonder if the gentle-
man can tell me how many of the new
offices will be equipped with $27 waste
baskets?
Mr. ROONEY. We have not gotten
to that point. I may say to the gentle-
man I raised that question myself dur-
ing the course of the hearings.
Mr. GROSS. I know the gentleman
did.
Mr. ROONEY. Money for furnish-
ings Is not included in the Instant ap-
propriation at page 21 of this bill.
Mr. GROSS. Can we hope then that
the wastepaper baskets will only cost
perhaps 5 or 10 dollars?
Mr. ROONEY. I would hesitate to
venture an opinion at this time. I would
like to see what sort of wastepaper bas-
ket they will claim they need, then
appraise the request as of that moment,
and base the allowance on the then cur-
rent purchase price.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman, as
chairman of the subcommittee, would
ask the State Department to bring one
ever to the hearings, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. ROONEY. I may have one
brought to the gentleman's office. He
may have great neat for it over there.
They might be able to make him a pres-
ent of it.
Mr. GROSS. I would very much ap-
preciate it if the gentleman would let
me know when he has one on display,
because I would like to see one.
Mr. SIEMINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that In the
plans of the new State Department
building that the fxchitects consider
somewhat the sense of the American
people in that the building be not de-
signed to look like an office building
such as we have in several places; that
it contain a little of the conventional
and less of the monolithic type of struc-
tures that have been ,ut up in the world
during the thirties.
The Clerk read as follows:
TREASURY DIpART.MMENT
BUREAU OF l,000UNT1
Salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for "Salaries
and expenses", $82,000.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SIKES: On page
22, line 23, insert a new paragraph:
"BUREAU OF THE MINT
"Salaries and expenses
"For an additional amount for salaries and
expanses, $3,500: Prouiccd. That this para-
graph shall be effective only upon enactment
into law of lfou-e Joint Resolution 509, 84th
Congress, or similar legislation."
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I think a
very few minutes wil: suffice to explain
the purpose and the propriety of this
amendment.
As my colleagues well know, 95 years
ago this great land of ours was split
asunder by a terrible conflict. That con-
flict raged for 4 years and left much of
our country ravaged and destroyed.
But, from the bitterness which brought
on that conflict and from the ashes of
Its destruction, we haiie built together a
new, united, and powerful nation; a na-
tion in which we all stand together and
face resolutely forward; a nation which
Is the pride and the hope of the world.
Of the hundreds of thousands of men
who fought in that great conflict, only
four are alive today. Time is running
out and in a little while they, too, will be
gone. Then the stillness of that once
mighty but tragic conflict will be com-
plete.
I believe that you my colleagues join
me in a heartfelt desire to accord some
measure of recognition to these valiant
few. I recall to your attention the fact
that House Joint Resolution 569, which
passed the House stvcral weeks ago,
would provide for a medal to be struck
and presented to each surviving veteran
of the War Between the States. I am
advised that it has just been passed
unanimously by the Senate. However,
no further action can be taken toward
carrying out the provisions of House
Joint Resolution 569, which I introduced,
unless funds are provided.
I have here a letter from the Acting
Secretary of the Treasury, the Honor-
able David W. Kendall, which states this.
The Treasury Department would have no
difficulty In carrying out the provisions of
this bill If the necessary appropriations were
provided for that purpose. It Is estimated
that the dies for a suitable medal could be
manufactured for $1,500, and that the gold
and manufacturing charges on each medal
manufactured would be $500, based upon a
weight of approximately 12 troy ounces.
The Department has been advised by the
Bureau of the Budget that there is no objec-
tion to the submission of this report to your
committee.
Therefore, I have submitted my
amendment to provide the funds which
are required. I am assured by the Bu-
reau of the Mint that action will speedily
be taken to provide the medals for pres-
entation if it is adopted.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that it would
be in the orderly procedure to submit
this matter at a later date; but, Mr.
Chairman, we may not have time to wait.
The youngest of these 4 veterans is
108. If we intend to honor these fine old
gentlemen who survived that great strug-
gle, let us do it now.
Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I heartily endorse the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. S11cEs].
The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Salaries and expenses, Division of
Disbursement
For an additional amount for "Salaries
and expenses," $175,000.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for "Salaries
and expenses," $750,000.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. O'HARA of
Illinois: Page 23, after line 10, insert the
following:
"STRIKING OF GOLD MEDAL FOR GUSTAT Z.
LAMBERT
"For striking a gold medal for Gustaf E.
Lambert in recognition of his service in
the interest of humanity and science in con-
nection with the yellow fever Investigations
in Cuba. as authorized by the act of Febru-
ary 28, 1929 (45 Stat. 1409), as amended by
the act of July 2, 1955 (Public Law 044),
not to exceed $350."
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, this is a small item in the measure
of money, but it is rich in sentiment. It
seems appropriate that it should be taken
up at the time when we have given con-
sideration and adoption to an amend-
ment according recognition of our affec-
tion to the surviving veterans of the War.
Between the States.
It was the Spanish-American War that
brought together as servitors in the
Army of our country again the North
and the South.
In the Spani.?h-American War, again
fighting together under the Stars and
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 1956
Approved Felease 2004/08/25: CIA-RDP63T 000100200006-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
11391
Stripes, were veterans of the Armies of Is' worth $35 an ounce. There will be and wno are compe1Ib .u -,,.a= _ _
the Union and of the Confederacy. some small expense, I imagine, for work. funds are in the service within the conti-
The uniform, that the Spanish War The amendment I have offered appro- nental limits of the United States of
America?
veterans wore after the war-and we priates not to exceed $350. The actual 2. (b) Approximately 1,602,000 military
were proud of it-combines in its colors - expense I am sure, will be less. personnel. This figure excludes trainees
the blue and the gray. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will with less than 4 months' service, seriously
In the Spanish-American War period the gentleman yield? hospitalized personnel, female military per-
down in Cuba Maj. Walter Reed was Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I yield to the sonnel, and conscientious objectors.
3. What is the approximate cost of the
experimenting with the dread disease of gentleman from New Jersey. civilian employees who are supporting those
yellow fever. They were volunteers, in- Mr. CANFIELD. I think the gentle- named under section 2 (a) and (b) ?
oculated, who took the risk of death in man's amendment is very timely and 3. Approximately $4,530,276,000 per annum.
order that yellow fever, as a plague, very meritorious. I believe it quite ap- This figure excludes costs for an average
might be crushed out. The experiments propriate that it be proposed by the only of approximately 25,000 employees of the
were successful, and one of the. most gentleman in this body who served in Corps of Engineers and excludes costs in
dreadful of contagious diseases was con- our Armed Forces in the War with Spain. re atio(bto t ; a124 b 000 Germareans referred
from e who paid
quered by the science of medicine. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I thank the deutschemarks.
In 1929 the Congress passed a law gentleman from New Jersey. He has 4. What is the approximate (a) volume in
honoring Maj. Walter Reed and those been a friend indeed. long tons and (b) value in dollars of the
who had been associated with him in Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, will the supplies, both military and nonmilitary,
those experiments, providing that they gentleman yield? needed per year to maintain those named
should be placed on the honor roll and Mr. O'HARA'of Illinois. I yield to the in section i (a) and (b) and in section 2 (a)
should be given gold medals and should gentleman from Virginia. and (b) Approximately 4,100,000 long tons.
receive a pension of $125 a month. Mr. GARY. I concur in the gentle- 4 (b) Approximately 4,10 000,
But one name was omitted, the name man's O'HARA of amendment. Illinois. I thank the The foregoing, of course, is in addition
of Gustaf Lambert. A soldier r nurse lon
,
Gustaf Lambert had volunteered. He gentleman and very greatly appreciate to our foreign aid program into which
was not inoculated because of Reed's in- the fine lift he has given to the effort to we have already poured over $50 billion.
sistance that Lambert's services as a make possible this long-delayed recogni- presumably future expenditures for the
nurse were indispensable to the success tion of one of the real heroes of our coun- purposes indicated in the above answers
of the experiments. Not a single patient try in a day now long past. may be included in the thirty-odd-billion
under Lambert's care died from yellow The CHAIRMAN. The question is on dollar defense bill.
fever. He took a tremendously perilous the amendment offered by the gentleman Sure, we are a rich, great, and power-
risk. He performed an outstanding from Illinois. ful Nation. But is it not just possible
service. He was a hero in every sense The amendment- *as agreed to. that we are overextending ourselves?
of the word. ARE WE INDESTRUCTIBLE?-IS THE FUTURE of That we will, by our attempt to police
Col. James Hamilton Lewis, himself a OUR NATION SECURE? and educate the whole world, lose our
veteran of the Spanish-American War, Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. freedom and our prosperity just as effec-
and then a Member of the other body Chairman, I move to strike out the last tively as we might by armed conflict?
from Illinois, introduced a bill to put word. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
Gustaf Lambert's name on the honor In the hope that facts which would move to strike out the last word.
roll. It passed the other body,. but assist me to vote more intelligently (Mr. CANFIELD asked and was given
reached the House at a time similar to might be obtained, on February 7, 1955, I permission to revise and extend his
now, when adjournment was near at introduced a privileged resolution seek- remarks.)
hand, and so was lost in the scramble. ing information. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, when
For 27 years Gustaf Lambert carried The resolution went to the Armed the Treasury Department-Post Office
on his fight for recognition. But time Services Committee which reported un- Department appropriations bill was be-
was marching on, there was so much in favorably thereon but quoted a letter fore the House on February 7, last, I
the present to demand attention, and the from Richard A. Buddeke, director of made the following statement with refer-
records of the Spanish War period were legislative programs, Department of De- ence to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics:
few and scattered. Lambert did a pro- fense. I desire now to say a few words about a
digious amount of work in gathering the The questions asked and the answers small bureau in the Treasury Department
records. In the early months of 1956 from the Department read as follows: currently operating under an annual appro-
he was stricken with a serious illness. 1. (a) Approximately how many military priation of about $3 million and doing an
He was 82, frail, and at the time desper- installations employing five or more individ- heroic job to prevent the flow into our coun-
ately ill. I want to thank, from the uals who receive compensation or mainte- with of f illicit narcotics Stand ate to and stamp out
au-
Committees bottom of my heart, the members of the nance from Federal funds are now main-
Committees on Armed Services of both tained by the Department of Defense outside thorities drug addiction in the United States
the continental limits of the United States which unfortunately is now increasing
bodies who Cooperated so magnificently
of
in bringing out H. R. 5590 and engi- America? monthly.
1. (a) Approximately 950 military instal- The Federal Bureau of Narcotics has ap-
neering its enactment into law. H. R. lations. proximately 250 enforcement agents. A re-
5590, which on July 2, 1956 became Pub- 1. (b) (1) Approximately how many In. port recently filed by Senator DANIEL on be-
lic Law 644, at long last placed the name dividuals are employed in such installations half of a Senate committee states that New
of Gustav Lambert on the honor roll and (2) at approximately what cost? York City alone has more full-time narcotics
where it should have been when the law 1. (b) (1) Approximately 167,000 civilian agents than-the Federal Government. This
of 1929 was enacted. I wish especially employees outside the United States, plus ap- report holds that a minimum of 50 addi-
proximately 218,000 civilians who are em- tional agents should be provided at the
to thank the great American now pre- ployees of foreign governments engaged un- earliest possible moment.
siding as Chairman of the Committee der contracts with the United States. The Two years ago I called to my office here on
of the Whole, Mr. KILDAY, who was 218,000 does not include 124,000 Germans Capitol Hill, Mr. Chapman Rose, Assistant
chairman of the subcommittee having paid from deutschemarks. Secretary of the Treasury, having jurisdic-
H. R. 5590 under consideration, also 1. (b) (2) Approximately $601,699,000 per tion over this Bureau, fora discussion of the
John Blandford of the professional staff, annum, national narcotics problem and I then sug-
and Maj. Vernon McKenzie, of the Office 2. (a) Approximately how many Individ. gested that he take up with the President
of the Surgeon General of the Army. uals eligible to be assigned to combat service the formation of an interdepartmental com-
and Public Law 644 Lambert was to and who are compensated from Federal funds mittee to review all phases. This was done.
are in the service outside of the continental While our committee has allowed in this
receive the special gold medal voted in limits of the United States of America? bill all the funds requested by the Bureau
1929. I had contacted the mint and had 2. (a) Approximately 1,370,000 military of Narcotics for the new fiscal year, we did
been informed that the old die for the personnel. This figures excludes female mil- not have before us during the hearings or
medal had been located. But to make itary personnel. at the time of our markup, the first report
the medal 7 ounces of gold were required, 2. (b) Approximately how many Individ- of this interdepartmental committee. This,
and there was no appropriation, Gold uals eligible to be assigned to combat service report was publicized only yesterday.
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11392 Approved FcIcUFeMQ025: CIA~-RDP H?USE5R000100200006-2
L July 12
The committee, consisting of members of chairman GARY, of our subcommittee on to the House with sundry amendments,
the President's Cabinet, recommends stiffer appropriations for the Treasury and with the recommendation that the
prison terms, more enforcement agents, and
a greater coordination of Federal-State Post Office Departments, and he indi- amendments be agreed to and that the
drives to combat illicit traffic in narcotics. sated his immediate readiness to hold bill as amended do pass.
In releasing the report, President Eisenhower hearings on any supplemental request Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move
urged early and effective action on all fronts from the Treasury Department for such the previous question on the bill and all
to stamp out this awful menace. Personnel. He emphasized that the full amendments there to to final passage.
Commissioner Harry Anslinger, who heads budgeted request of the Department for The previous question was ordered.
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and who, fiscal year, 1957, wis allowed and re- The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote
all students of the problem agree. Is the peated assurances given in the past that demanded on any amendment? If not,
world's greatest authority on narcotics ad-
and he did so again this year, that there are
too many courts prone to mete out low sen-
tences. He emphasizes that where stiff sen-
tences are imposed the traffic usually moves
to areas where sentences are not so severe.
The Commissioner feels that It is definitely
the responsibility of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics to help foreign police break up
international gangs sending this stuff to our
shores and to do everything possible to pre-
vent Its entry, also to get the interstate
trafficker, leaving local enforcement to State
and municipal authorities. Our committee
has said reneatedly in its reports that unless
there is real honest-to-goodness enforcement
on the State and local level we are never
going to win this Important battle.
In the 32 years I have been living and
working in the Nation's Capital City, I have
never been shocked more than when it was
developed about 2 years ago that the officer
in charge of the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment's narcotics squad was charged with
being part and parcel of a dope racket. It
pleases me now to hear of the dedication of
the present chief of police and his officers
and men to meet this challenge and do a
good job. It pleases me also that the courts
of the District of Columbia have in recent
years taken a more realistic approach and
are handing out stiffer sentences.
it Is my hope that on the basis of the rec-
ommendations made by the President's In-
terdepartmental Committee and the Daniel's
committee in the Senate the Treasury De-
partment will without delay make recom-
mendations to the Congress for stiffer prison
terms for violators of the narcotics laws and
will come before our committee with a re-
quest for funds for an increased number of
enforcement agents. Meanwhile, Federal au-
thorities should exercise the proper leader-
ship in obtaining stronger Federal-State and
local cooperation. Commissioner Anslinger
tells us that he is receiving reports of 1,000
additional addicts each month. That is 1,000
too many, and the Congress must do its part
In meeting this challenge.
Mr. Chairman, since I made that
statement, the Congress has passed and
sent to the President a bill providing
improved enforcement procedures and
more severe penalties. Furthermore,
tli Boggs Subcommittee of the House
Ways and Means Committee has re-
ceived the unanimous approval of the
full committee of its recommendation
that there be a buildup in the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics of 75 additional
would receive our subcommittee's favor-
able consideration.
Because of the Interdenartmental
Committee's own appraisal of the situa-
tion and its finding that more agents
are necc:isary, I find myself at a loss to
understand why the Department, with
the support of the Bureau of the Budget,
has not submitted a request to the House
Appropriations Committee for these
needed agents and as one member of
the committee extremely anxious that
our country step u,,3 its fight against
illicit narcotics and reduce drug addic-
tion, I trust that these executive agen-
cies of our Government will not delay
further appropriate i_ction on their part.
It has disturbed rlc no end to learn
from budget sources in recent days that
the efforts of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics to obtain 50 additional agents
for fiscal year, 1957. were rebuffed and
the final request for appropriate funds
permitted additional employment of only
16 men.
One of the first approaches to the
problem of illicit supply is the ferreting
out and jailing of foreign gangs operat-
ing in Europe and the Near East. Cur-
rently, for this purpose, the Bureau
under existing appropriations finds it-
self able only to send 4 men abroad to
cooperate with foreign police, 2 in the
Near East and 2 in Europe, while the
number could easily be many times this
figure.
The narcotics situation in the New
York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Texas
areas now requires additional agents and
I believe it is time fo the Treasury and
the Bureau of the Budget to send to the
Senate the proper recucst for additional
funds which can be inserted in the sec-
ond supplemental api:ropriation bill now
before us. If such is done, I am sure
that the Gary committee of which I am
privileged to be the ranking minority
member will do its part in conference
with the Senate.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the
bill.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise and re-
port the bill back to the House with
agents during the new fiscal year and 75 sundry amendments, with the recom-
additional agents thereafter. The dis- mendation that the amendments be
tinguished gentleman from Trnneseoe agreed to and that the bill as amended
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. GROSS. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
qualifies.
The Clerk will report the motion to re-
commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gaoss moves that the bill H. it. 12138
be recommitted to the House Comittee on
Appropriations with instructions to the com-
mittee that the appropriation of $14,325,000
for the Jones Point Bridge be stricken out
and the bill be reported back to the House
forthwith,
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is do
the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the noes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant-at-Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 24, nays 370, not voting 38,
as follows:
[Roll No. 100]
YEAS--24
Budge Jones, Mo. Scherer
Coudert Kilburn Scrivuer
Dies LeCompte Short
Grvas McVey Smith, Wis.
Haley Mason Taber
Hays, Ohio O'Konski Taylor
Hoilman. Mich. Rogerg, Tex. Westland
Jonas Schenck Williams, N. Y.
NAYS-370
Abbitt
Abernethy
Adair
Addonizio
Chairman COOPER of the full committee, do pass. Albert
has directed a letter to the distinguished The motion was agreed to. Algeandcr
Alger
gentleman from Missouri, Chairman Accordingly the Committee rose; and Allen, Calif.
CANNON, of the Appropriations Commit- the Speaker having resumed the chair, Allen, 111.
tee, urging that necessary funds be pro- Mr. KILDAY, Chairman of the Committee Andersen,
A. Carl
vided. A like letter was forwarded by of the Whole House on the State of the Andresen,
the distinguished gentleman from New Union, reported that that Committee, August H.
York [Mr. Rsiml, ranking member of having had under consideration the bill Andrews
the House Committee on Ways and (H. R. 12138) making supplemental ap- Ashley
Means. propriations for the :dscal year ending Ashmore
I have discussed the situation with the June 30, 1957, and for other purposes, Asplnall
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, had directed him to report the bill back Averhy'ncloss
Ayres
Bailey
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass, N. H.
Bates
Baumhart
Eeamer
Eecker
Bolling
Bolton,
Frances P.
Bolton,
Oliver P.
Bonner
Bosch
Bow
Bowler
Boykin
Belcher Boyle
Bennett, Fla. Bray
Bennett, Mich. Brooks, La.
Bentley Brown, Ga.
Berry Brown, Ohio
Betts Brownson
Blatnik Broyhill
Bliteh Burdick
Bc--rs Burnside
Boland Bush
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 Byrd Healey Patterson Young
Byrne, Pa. Hebert Pelly Younger
Byrnes, Wis. Henderson Perkins
Canfield Herlong VMS
Cannon Heseltoa Philbin Anfuso Eberharter O'Hara, Minn.
Carlyle Hess Phillips Barden Engle Passman
Carrigg Hiestand Filcher Bass, Tenn. Hoffman, Ill. Patman
Cederberg Hill Pillion Bell Kearney Priest
Celler Hillings Poage Brooks, Tex. Kelley, Pa. Scudder
Chase Hinshaw Poff? Buckley Keogh Simpson, Pa.
Chatham Hoeven Polk Burleson Kluczynski Thompson, La.
C'helf Holifleld Powell Carnahan Lane Thornberry
Chenoweth Holland Preston Cretella Lovre Velde
Chiperfleld Holmes Price Davis, Tenn. McConnell Walter
Christopher Holt Prouty Davis, Wis. Morgan Wharton
Chudoff Holtzman Quigley Dingell Murray, Tenn. Wickersham
Church Hope Rabaut Dolliver Nelson
Clark Horan Radwau So the motion to recommit was re-
Clevenger Hosmer Rains
Cole Huddleston Ray jetted.
Colmer Hull Reece, Tenn. The Clerk announced the following
Cooley Hyde Reed, N. Y.
Coon Ikard Rees, Kans. pairs:
Cooper Jackson Reuss On this vote'
Corbett James Rhodes, Ariz. Mr. Dolliver for, with
Cramer Jarman Rhodes, Pa.
Approved Fo, Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T0024OR000100200006-2 11393
CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD - HOUSE
Crumpacker Jenkins Richards
Cunningham Jennings Riehlman
Curtis, Mass. Jensen Riley
Curtis, Mo. Johansen Rivers
Dague Johnson, Calif. Roberts
Davidson Johnson, Wis. Robeson, Va,
Davis, Ga. Jones, Ala. Robsion, Ky.
Dawson, Ill. Jones, N. C. Rodin
Dawson, Utah Judd Rogers, Colo.
Delaney
Dempsey
Denton
Derounian
Devereux
Diggs
Dixon
Dodd
Dellinger
Dondero
Donohue
Donovan
Dorn, N. Y.
Dorn, S. C.
Dowdy
Doyle
Durham
Edmondson
Elliott
Ellsworth
Evins
Fallon
Fascell
Feighan
Fenton
Fernandez
Fine
Fisher
Flare
Flood
Flynt
Fogarty
Forand
Ford
Forrester
Kearns
Keating
Kee
Kelly, N. Y.
Kilday
Kilgore
King, Calif.
King, Pa.
Kirwan
Klein
Knox
Knutson
Krueger
Laird
Landrum
Lanham
Lankford
Latham
Leslnski
Lipscomb
Long
McCarthy
McCormack
McCulloch
McDonough
McDowell
McGregor
McIntire
McMillan
Macdonald
Machrowicz
Mack, Ill.
Mack, Wash.
Madden
Rogers, Mass.
Rooney
Roosevelt
Rutherford
Sadlak
at. George
Saylor
Schwengel
Scott
Seely-Brown
Selden
Sheehan
Shelley
Sheppard
Shuford
Sieminski
Sikes
Stier
Simpson, Ill.
Sisk -
Smith, Kans.
Smith, Miss.
Smith, Va.
Spence
Springer
Staggers
Frazier Mahon
Frelinghuysen Mailliard
Friedel Marshall
Fulton
Gamble
Garmatz
Gary
Gathings
Gavin -
Gentry
George
Gordon
Grant
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Gregory
Griffiths
Gubser
Gwinn
Hagen
Hale
Halleck
Hand
Harden
Matthews
Meader
Merrow
Metcalf
Miller, Calif.
Miller, Md.
Miller, Nebr.
Miller, N. Y.
Mills
Minshall
Mollohan
Morano
Morrison
Moss
IA
ou e
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That (a) all monthly
wartime rates of compensation payable under
public laws administered by the Veterans'
Administration for disability less than total
(not including special awards and allow-
ances, dependency allowances, or subsistence
allowances), are hereby increased by 10
percent.
(b) All rates of compensation, increased by
subsection (a) shall be further adjusted up-
ward or downward to the nearest dollar,
counting 50 cents and over as a whole dollar.
"(j) If and whole the disability is rated
as total the monthly compensation shall be
$225."
(e) The maximum rates of compensation
set forth in paragraph R (k), II (o), and
II (p) of such part I are increased to $450
per month.
(f) The rate of compensation payable
under paragraph II (1) of such part I is in-
creased to $309.
(g) The rate of compensation payable
under paragraph It (m) of such part I is
increased to $359.
(h) The rate of compensation payable
under paragraph II (n) of such part I is
increased to $401.
SEC. 2. (a) The basic rate of compensation
provided by section 202, of the World War
Veterans' Act,01924, as amended, for any
disability rated as total is hereby increased
to $225 per month.
(b) The rate of compensation payable
under section 202 (3) of the World War Vet-
erans' Act, 1924, as amended, for the loss of
the use of both eyes is hereby increased to
$309; the rate payable under that section
for the loss of use of both eyes and one or
more limbs is hereby increased to $401; the
rate payable under that section for double
total permanent disability is hereby increased
to $401: Provided, That in no event shall the
rate of compensation received hereunder plus
the amounts payable under any other pro-
vision of the World. War Veterans' Act, 1924,
as amended, exceed $450 per month in any
case.
SEC. S. (a) The act entitled "An act to
provide increases of compensation for cer-
tain veterans with service-connected disa-
bilities who have dependents", approved
July 2, 1948 (Public Law 877, 80th Cong.),
is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
"SEC. 6. All rates of additional compensa-
tion established by this act are hereby in-
creased by 10 percent."
(b) Such act is further amended by strik-
ing out "60 percent" wherever it occurs and
inserting "50 percent."
SEC. 4. This act shall take effect on the first
day of the second calendar month which be-
gins after the date of its enactment.
The SPEAKER.. Is a second de-
manded?
- Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, I demand a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection.
a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that all Mem-
bers may have 5 legislative days in
which to extend their remarks in the
RECORD on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
the bill which we are considering today
relates entirely and exclusively to com-
pensation for service-connected disabled
veterans. It is, in effect, the substitute
which was ruled out on a point of order
at the conclusion of the debate on H. R.
7886 on June 27.
The bill generally increases all rates of
compensation below 100 percent by 10
percent, rounded to the nearest dollar.
For example, the present 10 percent dis-
ability is paid at the rate of $17 per
month. The bill would increase this to
$19.
In the case of a man totally disabled,
the rate is increased from $181 to $225.
r
Multer Wier (c) In adjusting the rates of peacetime
Mumma Wigglesworth disability compensation under part II of
Murray, Ill. Williams, Miss. Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a) because of
Natcher Williams, N. J. the increases provided in subsection (a) and
Hardy Norrell Wilson, Ind.
Harris O'Brien, Ill. Winstead
Harrison, Nebr. O'Brien, N. Y. Withrow
Harrison, Va. O'Hara,-Ill. Wolcott
Harvey O'Neill Wolverton
Hays, Ark. Osmers Wright
Hayworth Ostertag Yates
Nicholson Wil lis
the adjustments provided in subsection (b),
Norblad Wilson, Calif. th d +ed u ward
a jus
f
b
Until further notice:
Mr. Walter with Mr. Kearney.
Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Lovre.
Mr. Anfuso with Mr. McConnell.
Mr. Morgan with Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr.
O'Hara of Minnesota.
Mr. Dingell with Mr. Scudder.
Mr. Passman with Mr. Simpson of Penn-
sylvania.
Mr. Patman with Mr. Velde.
Mr. Priest with Mr. Wharton.
Mr. Engle with Mr. Cretella.
Mr. Barden with Mr. Davis of Wisconsin.
Mr. Bell With Mr. Hoffman of Illinois.
Mr. BONNER, Mr. MACK of Illinois,
Mr. ABERNETHY, and Mr. CANFIELD
changed their votes from "yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Steed
Sullivan INCREASING RATES OF COMPEN-
Talle SATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED
Teague, Calif. DISABILITIES
Teague, Tex.
Thomas Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
Thompson, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Mich.
Thompson, bill (H. R. 12038) to provide increases in
N. J. service-connected disability compensa-
Thompson, Tex. tion and to increase dependency allow-
Thomson, wyo.
Tollefsort antes, as amended.
Trimble
Tuck
Tumulty
Udall
Utt
Vanik
Van Pelt
Van Zandt
Vinson
Vorys
Vursell
Wainwright
Watts
Weaver
Whitten
p
ur er
e
such rates all
or downward to the nearest dollar, counting
50 cents and over as a whole dollar.
(d) Paragraph II (j) of part I of Veterans
Regulation No. 1 (a) is amended to read as
follows:
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
 11394
1-11 -A.
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 12
This was done because the Bradley Com-
mission found that the men totally dis-
abled constituted the one group which
was not receiving as much compensation
as they should be receiving based on the
amount other veterans, suffering from
service-connected disabilities, were re-
ceiving. The bill also increases the rates
for the more severely disabled by $30 in
each different category to make the ceil-
Ing on all disability compensation $450 a
month rather than $420 as exists today.
The so-called statutory award rate of
$47, which are in addition to the rates of
percentage disability, are not increased,
nor is the minimum rate for arrested
tuberculosis of $67. All those veterans
receiving a percentage disability pay-
ment today would receive an increase
under this bill.
Section 2 of the bill applies this same
sort of increase to World War I veterans
who are rated on the 1925 schedule for
rating disability and involve so-called
protected award cases. This is a limited
group of veterans who are unable to meet
the criteria set forth in the 1945 rating
schodule.
Section 3 Increases the rates provided
In Public Law 877 of the 80th Congress,
which authorized additional compensa-
tion for veterans 50 percent or more dis-
abled and who have dependents. For
example, a veteran today rated 100 per-
cent disabled receives $181 monthly. If
he has a wife, she would receive $21 addi-
tional. Under this bill that amount
would be increased by 10 percent to make
It $23.10. If the veteran is rated 50
percent disabled, for example, he would
receive 50 percent of $23.10. This pro-
vision does not apply to those rated less
than 50 percent disabled.
The first year's cost of this bill is esti-
mated to be $172,750,000 and would de-
crease slightly in the fifth year to $170,-
325,000. Unlike the pension estimates,
compensation cost generally will de-
crease as the years advance.
Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
vision In this bill for widows of Spanish-
American War veterans?
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. There is no
provision for a widow of a Spanish-
American War veteran. The reason that
no widows or children are considered in
this bill is that last year the House passed
the bill H. R. 7089, which has also passed
the Senate and is now In conference, and
which gives widows and children of
service-connected disabled a very sub-
stantial raise. For example, the widow
of a Spanish-American War veteran
with service-connected disability would
get an Increase from $87 to $122.
Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I yield to the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. JUDD. Was that just for Span-
ish-American War widows, or all?
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. No; the
widows of service-connected disabled
veterans of all wars.
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, there will not be a vote cast
against this bill, I am sure. It was a
tragedy that this compensation bill was
stricken from the pension bill on a point
of order 2 weeks age.
My understanding is that service-
connected Spanish-American War wid-
ows will come in for an increase, as will
the widows of all seivice-connected dis-
abled veterans. Unfortunately non-
service-connected widows will not receive
anything.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I think I ex-
plained that all widows of service-con-
nected disabled vete_ans are covered in
H. R. 7039.
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I
was not sure that thl gentleman asking
the question underst3od that.
The following is a description of the
bill:
INCREASING Rsres os Sts'TivicE-CoNN141Ci'n
COMPENSATION rOR VETERANS
H. R. 12038
Title: To provide Increases in service-con-
nected disability compensation and to In-
crease denendencv allowances.
Mr. TEAOuE of Texas. Introduced and re-
ferred dune 28, 1956.
Analysis:
Rates of compensation for wartime service-
connected disabilities under Public Law 2,
73d Cong., as amended, and Veterans Reg-
ulations
Rates of compensation for wartime service-
connected disabilities under Public Law 2,
73d Cong., as amended, and Veterans Reg-
ulations-continued
A natonlteai loss, or less o f use of
a creative crean, or 1 foot, or
1 hand, or blindness of I eye,
having only light perception,
In addition to requirement for
any of rates In (1) to (n), rate
increased monthly for each
loss or loss of use by______--_
0) Anatomical loss, or loss of use of
both hands, or both feet, or I
band and 1 foot, or blind both
eyes with 5/200 visual acttit
or less, or is permanently bed-
ridden or so helpless as to be
In need of regular aid and at-
tendance, monthly compen-
sation.
(m) Anatomical loss, or loss of use of
2 extremities at a ]eve), or
with complications, prevent-
Ing natural elbow or knee
action with prosthesis in
place, or suffered blindness
in both eyes, rendering him
so helpless as to be in need of
regular aid and attendance,
monthly compensation-------
(n) Anatomical loss of 2 extremities
so near shoulder or hip as to
prevent use of Prosthetic ap-
pliance, or suffered anatomt.
cal loss of both eyes, monthly
compensation .__________-
(o uffered disability under condt-
lIons which would entitle
hint to 2 or more rates In (1)
to (n), no condition being
considered twice, or suffered
total deafness in combination
with total blindness with
6/.200 visual acuity or less,
monthly compensation-__-__-
(P) In event disabled Person's serv-
tee-incurred disabilities ex-
ceed requirements for any of
rates presented, Administra-
tor, In his discretion, may
allow nest higher rate, or
Intermediate rate, but in no
event In excess of_____________
(q) Minimum rate for arrested
tuberculosis- - - -- - - -- - - - ------
war
service-
connected
rates,
veterans
Regula-
tion I
(a), as
amended,
pt. I
war
service-
connected
rates,
Veterans
IteAtda-
FF. R.
L20M
tFon 1
(a), as
amended,
pt. I
(a) 10 percent disability..-.-_._.--.
$17.00
119.00
Rrl 20 percent dfsablllty_--_-_---...
33.00
59.00
Cr) 30 percent dLsahillt7.___--_-___.
60.00
65.00
(d) 40 percent it Lsa bility-____._____.
60.00
73.00
(r?) 50 percent disability -.-.-._....
91.00
100.017
1O GO parcent disability -----.-_.-._
109.00
120.00
(K) 70 Percent
127.00
140.00
(h) 90 percent disablllty_-.-.-----._
145.00
160.00
ti) 00 percent disability --._..--..._
1 r3. is)
179.00
O) Total disability-
181.00
#25.00
(t) Anatomical lore, or lossof une of
n creative er:an, or I tcot, or
1 haul, or blindness of I eye,
having only light scree )it, n
rates (a) to (1) (ncteaseJ
monthly by------------------
Additional disability compensation because of dependents I
420.00
67. 00
H. It,
12038
460.00
67.00
Wife,
no
child
Wife. 1
child
w)fe,2
chd-
drrn
Wffr,3
ormore
chic-
dren
wife.
wife, 1
child
No
wile, 2
chi
dren
NO
w more
mare
ch11-
dren
Dependent
parent or
parents
rvim on or alter June 27, 195).__..-...._
world war II--------------------
--
-
----
WCorld War I-_______________. __-___-_-_I
Sla iiioh-Auterlcan War, I'hiiippine Insur-
$17. 50(I)
'
$21
00
rer(ion, Rox,?r Rcbellion____----
--
-
(K)
:55
$
$45.0
$56. 00
$14. 40
$24.50
$3
.00
19.25
_.
-
--t
M.
10
war -- --^------------?---?------
3
50
8.
8
6v. 06
61.60
15.40
t6. 94
8
38.60
35.00(2)
Indian
wars
58.60
i'tnerthae s'rvicc (Ird,'r combat ar
extrahuzarduus conditions) ______________
14. 0" 1)
16.50
Regular peacetime service .
-
23.00
Sri. 40
44.
11.21)
19.60
26.00
16 40
.40
.
-----------.'-
L 18.48
30.80
4~). 04
48 18
. f8
12.32
21.56
#8.6'0
23.00(2)
I
#6.90
I Above rates are fur 100-percent disability. It and while rat .A partially disabled, but not less than 50 percent,
additional conipensatlon Is nut.lorired In an amount having the same ratio to the amount specified In the applicable
table, above, -,s the h-rree of -lisahility bears to the total disablIlLy, C. g., war service-connected disability of 50
percent, comlensatlun rate, $10). If veteran bass wife, his comprnmtionlaluereased as follows $10U}$l l.Sb=$111.55.
No'rr..-Rates in Italics are ar reported In H. R. 12038.
Digest of report (Vercrans' Adminfetra-
tIon) : "The general purpose of the bill is
to provide an increase In the -rates of com-
pensation payable to veterans for service-
connected disabilities and in the rates of
additional allowances for dependents which
are payable to veterans whose disabilities
are rated 50 percent or riore. ? ? R
"All of the disability compensation basic
and statutory rates for which increases are
proposed under the bill were last increased
5 percent by Public Law 695, 83d Congress,
August 28, 1954. As you are aware, the Vet-
erans' Administration submitted a report
to your committee under date of May 31,
1958, on H. R. 11510, 84th Congress, which
Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100200006-2