AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2014
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: August 20, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
-?
1964 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 19949
? It Is not disputed. that an error was
made in the filing of original return; but
the claim for a refund was filed after the
expiration of the statutory period. The
original executor of the estate died 3
days before the expiration of the statu-
tory period; and the special administra-
tor promptly filed a claim for a refund.
This bill would authorize a claim for a
refund to be filed at any time within 1
year after the date of its enactment.
Any refund would inure to the benefit
of St. John's McNamara Hospital, of
Rapid City, S. Dak., the residuary legatee
of the Mary McNamara estate.
, The bill has been reported favorably
by the Committee on the Judiciary, with
a recommendation that it pass without
amendment.
The Senator from Iowa rMr. MILLER]
has delayed the passage of the bill until
he could check on its merits; but he has
advised me today that he will not object
to it passage. ?
I feel certain that the Senate will act
without further delay on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there
be no amendment to be proposed, the
question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill (S. 83) was ordered to be en-
grossed for a third reading, read the third
time, and passed, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That, not-
withstanding any period of limitations or
lapse of time, claim for credit or refund of
overpayment of income tax for the taxable
year ending October 31, 1956, by the estate
of Mary L. McNamara, of Rapid City, South
Dakota, may be filed at any time within one
year after the date of the enactment of this
Act. The Provisions of sections 6511(b) and
6514 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
shall not apply to the refund or credit of
any overpayment of tax for which a claim
for credit or refund is filed under the au-
thority of this Act within such one-year
period.
SAVERY-POT HOOK, BOSTWICK
PARK, AND FRUITLAND MESA
RECLAMATION PROJECTS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar
No. 1416, House bill 3672.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R.
3672) to provide for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the
Savery-Pot Hook, Bostwick Park, and
Fruitland Mesa participating reclama-
tion projects under the Colorado River
Storage Project Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill, which had
been reported from the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, with an
amendment on page 5, after line 15, to
insert a new section, as follows:
SEC. 5. For a period of ten years from the
date of enactment of this Act, no water from
the projects authorized by this Act shall be
delivered to any water user for the produc-
tion of newly irrigated lands of any basic
agricultural commodity, as defined in the
Agricultural Act of 1949, or any amendment
thereof, if the total supply of such com-
modity for the marketing year in which the
bulk of the crop would normally be marketed
is in excess of the normal supply as defined
in section 301(b) (10) of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, unless
the Secretary of Agrieulture calls for an
Increase in production of such commodity
in the interest of national security.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for
a third reading, was read the third time,
and passed.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I would
like to compliment this body on its action
in passing this legislation which will be
of real benefit to the States of Wyoming
and Colorado. As reclamation projects
go, these three are not large, but they
will bring an economic stability to the
areas in which they are located that will
mean great improvements for the area
residents.
In the Little Snake River Basin on
the Wyoming-Colorado border the farm-
ers and stockmen have been plagued by
a constant shortage of late season water.
With the passage of this bill and its pro-
vision for the construction of two reser-
voirs there will be water to finish off the
crops and to keep the animals until the
most advantageous marketing situation.
Mr. President, the direct .benefits of
projects such as these are obvious but
the indirect benefits sometimes go un-
noticed. For this project will provide
not only much greater stability and eco-
nomic growth but will raise standards
through the entire area. The water pro-
vided by this project will not only grow
crops it will increase land values and tax
receipts on the local level. More tax re-
ceipts mean better schools, better roads
and more incentive to people to stay in
the area or move into it because of the
new advantages it offers.
Speaking for the people of Wyoming
I would again express my congratula-
tions for the farsighted action ta
here today.
of what the Court had in mind for ap-
portionment of State legislative bodies.
Since June 15, some of the States have
been subjected to decisions by three-
judge Federal district courts, directing
them to comply with this very-recent de-
cision posthaste. These decisions have
varied in several States.
Appeals can be taken from these lower
court orders, but an appeal without a stay
will be meaningless. The right which is
at stake is the right of the citizens of
the various States to have an opportunity
to comply by means of their own choos-
ing with the June 15 U.S. Supreme Court
? edict.
Without a stay being assured, the ex-
perience and previously accepted legal-
ity under our Constitution, going back
to the States admittance to the Union,
is in danger of being swept away. With-
out a stay, the very considerable efforts
that have been made in some States to
enact new apportionment laws, and elec-
tions that have been held under new
laws, will be voided.
In several States, as in Oklahoma, the
State legislatures and the State supreme
courts had acted to provide reapportion-
ment plans which they believed to be
acceptable to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There was no precise formula, until June
15, by which they could accurately deter-
mine just what was expected of them.
By sweeping decisions, varying in sev-
eral States, no opportunity for an orderly
transition to meet the newly prescribed
formula has been given. In many other
States with grossly disproportionate
population ratios among the various dis-
tricts, no action at all has been taken or
yet ordered by the local Federal courts.
In several others, steps have been
underway to try to arrive at what the
legislatures or the State supreme courts
or State commissions have believed to be
a fMr apportionment. These, it is true,
have varied. It is virtually impossible
to determine an exactly equal apportion-
ment for every district without actually
suming 'the tedious task of drawing
lines through every neighborhood.
One accepted unit of government for
more than a century in legislative dis-
tricting has been the county. In many
cases, to effect exact mathematical re-
apportionment, it is necessary to throw
two or more counties together or in more
populous counties to draw the lines down
certain streets or alleys in the cities.
Simple elemental justice requires that
redrafting or redesigning of election dis-
tricts be undertaken cautiously and
judiciously. Citizens should not be ex-
pected to adapt to new districting by
sudden action. Hasty and ill-advised
redistricting formulas promulgated by
the courts instead of by the people them-
selves can result in confusion and in-
equities. Good local self-government
cannot be imposed from above. It must
be generated by the people themselves.
Even if the results of new apportion-
ment cause drastic revisions of election
districts, the fact that it was done by
local authority rather than Federal
court order makes it far more accepta-
ble to the State involved. The fact that
time was given for this consideration to
AMENDMENT OF FOR GN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (HR. 11380) to amend further
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that when the
Senator from Pennsylvania resumes the
speech he was making it not be counted
as a second speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, be-
fore the Senate talks to death the Dirk-
sen-Mansfield amendment regarding re-
apportionment of State legislatures, it-is
time for us to stop, look, and listen. It
is high time that the historic relation-
ships between the Federal and State Gov-
ernments not be destroyed because of
haste and misunderstanding.
The far-reaching decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court was handed down on
June 15 of this year. It was the first
definitive decision giving a clear course-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
19950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August 20
meet the new guidelines also adds to bet-
ter acceptance and lessens Federal dic-
tation over local affairs.
I cannot agree with my colleagues
who interpret this amendment_ as a
means to preserve the "rotten borough"
system or to preserve unequal districts
to protect individual officeholders. It is
nothing of the kind. These county
units, whether we like it or not, form a
basis for governmental units of local
administration of all kinds. Even more,
their economic interests and their op-
portunity to participate in State or even
Federal programs are governed sub-
stantially by their geographic designa-
tion as local governmental entities.
It is traditional in all of our States
that the people in the smaller political
subdivisions exercise their strength
? competitively in their State legislatures
seeking to insure the progress and pros-
perity of their separate localities. The
formulation by the courts of new local
governmental units leads too often to
something worse than malapportion-
ment To mix a large county with a
small county in the same legislative dis-
trict will inevitably eliminate the smaller
county from any representation what-
ever. Because of the larger county's
loyalty to its candidates, the larger and
more populous counties will dominate
their smaller neighbors who are com-
bined with them. It is a sorry state of
affairs when a new wrong is committed
in a mistaken and ill-conceived attempt
to right an old wrong. Where this must
be done, local authority leads to better
acceptance of this disagreeable task.
Because of the threatened upheaval of
\ what has for scores of years been an ac-
cepted right of the States to determine
these election districts under State con-
stitutions providing for various types of
population and even area formulas,
there is great fear and resentment evi-
dent throughout most of our States over
Federal direction of methods by which
better apportionment in election dis-
tricts will take place.
I think it is fundamental to a continu-
ance of State determination, long con-
sidered to be controlling in the composi-
tion of these legislative assemblies, to be
allowed two fundamental things:
First, and foremost, is time to make
adjustment to the new formula so re-
cently pronounced by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The order came down after-elec-
tions in several States were already un-
derway. Time to adjust their elections?
including file time, campaigns, and first
and second primaries?was not available
with the election schedule they had to
meet.
Second, the right of the State legisla-
tive bodies, their supreme courts or ap-
portionment commissions, to have ample
opportunity to apportion within the
framework of the. June 15 decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court. We should block
an unwarranted and unnecessary dicta-
tion by Federal authority to remove pre-
cipitously from State authority another
chance to meet the Court's requirements.
The? Dirksen-Mansfield compromise
would leave the courts free to declare ex-
isting districts unconstitutional. But ac-
tion would then be stayed for a year or
so to let the legislature or State appor-
tionment commission act. If it did not
act, the compromise would affirm the
power of the courts to do the job.
This is not a compromise, as some have
argued, to strip the Spreme Court of
its power over apportionment. It is an
effort to prevent a chaotic condition on
elections already underway and to give
the local authorities an opportunity to
meet the new guidelines laid down by the
U.S. Supreme Court so very recently.
The relationship _between the Federal
and State governments already has, been
strained. Any unnecessary jamming of
the gears of our State election processes
can be avoided by the extra year or so
provided in the compromise amendment.
No State in the Union has a legislative
reapportionment crisis more immediate,
more perplexing, or more severe than the
situation which now confronts the citi-
zens of Oklahoma.
On Friday, August 7?just 13 days
ago?a three-judge Federal court in
Oklahoma City vacated the primary and
runoff primary elections for State legis-
lative nominations. These elections were
held on May 5 and on May 26 of this
year. These elections were held before
the U.S. Supreme Court issued its defini-
tive one-man, one-vote order of June 15.
The lower court order vacating our
Oklahoma primaries was issued in spite
of the High Tribunal's opinion of June
15, which cautioned and admonished the
lower courts against disruption of the
election process in these words:
In awarding or withholding immediate re-
lief, a court is entitled to and should con-
sider the proximity of a forthcoming elec-
tion and the ma,chanics and complexities of
State election laws and should act and rely
upon general equitable principles. With
respect to the timing of relief, a court can
reasonably endeavor to avoid a disruption of
the election process which might result from
requiring precipitate changes.
If I can read and under the English
language, it appears to me to mean just
what it says in recognizing the danger of
unnecessary haste. Even if the High
Court had failed to express it, I do not
believe the lower Federal tribunal was
justified in canceling two primary elec-
tions in Oklahoma until the people of
Oklahoma themselves had had an oppor-
tunity to adjust and comply with the
Supreme Court's latest order.
The compromise proposal now before
the Senate seeks to provide that oppor-
tunity and I will support it as plain,
simple justice.
The lower court order of August 7 is
being appealed to the 'US. Supreme
Court. However, the Governor of Okla-
homa, acting on the court's order of
August 7, has proclaimed a special elec-
tion for September 29, and the filing
\
period for the special election starts at
the end of this month._ If the lower court
order is to be reviewed by the Supreme
Court before the court-ordered special
election is held, a stay must be obtained
immediately.
Because of the importance of this case,
coming as it.-does as one of the first
tests on appeal from a three-judge Fed-
eral court to the U.S. Supreme Court on
its latest apportionment decision, a stay
is desperately needed if confusion is to
be avoided. Surely a State which has
made progress toward better apportion-
ment should not be thrown into such
straits until the full Supreme Court has
reviewed the case.
The statutory right of an appeal from
a three-judge Federal court provides
that one justice can grant or deny such
a stay. Thus, the order, if such -a stay
is denied, could take from the State the
authority over its election processes al-
ready in- motion and substitute a new
set of legislative elections under elec-
tion districts prescribed, not by State
authorities, but by the Federal district
court.
The Dirksen-Mansfield compromise
amendment if passed in time will pre-
vent this disruption and give the State
another chance to meet the formula of
the Supreme Court.
A full review by the U.S. Supreme
Court, sitting in regular session, will, I
am confident, bring into focus the fact
that Oklahomans have made real prog-
ress toward compliance with the U.S.
Supreme Court reapportionment rulings
and are now in a position to conform in
an orderly and reasonable manner with
the latest order issued only 2 months ago.
Oklahoma recognized the malappor-
tionment of our State legislature and en-
deavored to correct it. For example, the
old apportionment of the State senate al-
lowed 24.5 percent of the State popula-
tion to be represented by a majority in
the upper house.
By act of the legislature, in its 1963 ses-
'sion?modified by the State supreme
court?this ratio increased to 44.5 per-
cent for majority of the State legisla-
ture.
The same act brought the percentage
of the house up from its former 29.5 per-
cent to better than 35.6 percent.
It was under this combined State su-
preme court and legislative apportion-
ment that _ the primary elections were
held until the Federal district court
acted.
It is interesting to note that the
apportionment plan for the upper house
which the Court invalidated was only
4.7 percent below the Federal court-dic-
tated plan.
It is 13.1 percent below the Court's?
proposal for representation in the house
of representatives. However, in com-
parison with other States, the 44.5 per-
cent figure for the Oklahoma State Sen-
ate would put the State among the lead-
ers of the Nation in population balance.
It would rank 13th among all States.
It would hardly seem to me that this
failure by a margin of 4.7 percent to
measure up to the Court-dictated pro-
gram for the State senate would be suf-
ficient excuse to justify the invalidation
of the primary elections.
Oklahoma has made other efforts to
reapportion. On May 26 the people of
Oklahoma by a convincing majority
adopted an amendment to the State
constitution relating to reapportionment
of the legislature. Many who are not
versed in the legal technicalities thought
this amendment was in compliance with
the Federal Constitution.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 19951
In fact, the three-judge Federal court
order of August 7, while rejecting the
numerical apportionment, accepted parts
.of the May 26 amendment to the Okla-
homa State constitution. The amend-
ment provided for a commission which
could rectify any legislative enactment
failing to comply with proper apportion-
ment requirements.
I again repeat that the State of Okla-
homa has made a reasonable effort to-
ward reapportionment.
One of the apparent reasons for the
lower Federal court's extreme action in
voiding the elections and assuming the
power to prescribe its own reaportion-
ment instead of giving the State an op-
portunity to work out an acceptable for-
mula was that the history of the case
showed lack of action. The three judge-
Federal court specifically mentioned that
the litigation went back to a case 9 years
ago.
I might point out that at that time
there had been no apportionment deci-
sions whatsoever by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the direction a one-man, one-
vote principle. It was not until 1962
that appCrtionment was determined to
be within the jurisdiction of Federal
courts. Then the Supreme Court failed
to spell out its definitive position. It
was not until June 15 that this was forth-
coming from the Highest Tribunal.
In addition to drawing up election dis-
trict lines and scrambling various dis-
tricts only a short time 'before the legis-
lative elections were to be completed, the
local three-judge Federal court also ter-
minated the remaining 2-year terms of
State senators elected for a 4-year term
in 1962.
This court order effectively destroyed
the holdover continuity which is basic to
the Oklahoma State Senate and is com-
mon in a majority of our States.
In summary: the three-judge Federal
court, failing to give the State of Okla-
homa any reasonable time to meet the
June 15 definitive order of the U.S. Su-
preme Court under its own machinery,
improved by the establishment by the
State of a reapportionment commission
that court correct any malapportion-
merit that the existing legislature might
propose, acted in such haste and as-
sumed such powers as to substitute Fed-
eral judicial authority for the rights of
the people of Oklahoma to rearrange
their own legislative districts in accord-
ance with the June 15 decision.
It further voided the nominations of
candidates already chosen in two pri-
mary elections and halted the election
now in progress.
Further, it terminated the existing re-
maining 2-year terms of half of the
members of the State senate.
I have cited at some length the effects
of this summary action by the court in
my own State. Surely the efforts of the
Federal courts to correct what they have
determined to be one malapportionment
does not warrant riding roughshod over
the rights of the State to be given all
reasonable time and opportunity to de-
velop its own constitutional apportion-
ment.
This story of the problems of Okla-
homa will not be unique as the sweep
of the decision is felt across our Nation.
The need here is time. Not time for un-
due delay nor indefinite postponement,
but time for a careful and thoughtful
approach to a problem that would give
the States the maximum right to decide
the intimate details pertaining to the ar-
rangement of balanced election districts.
The right of each citizen to have an
equal voice in the conduct of its State
affairs is not at issue in the Dirksen-
Mansfield amendment. At issue is the
fundamental right to put before the
proper State authorities the first re-
sponsibility for making the decisions af-
fecting that State.
Under the terms of the amendment be-
for the Senate, ,this would be done. It is
not an effort to suspend or to withdraw
from the U.S. Supreme Court its power,
but to provide for some time in which
the local governments can have a reason-
able chance to read, understand, and con-
sider their course in the light of' a deci-
sion which finally provided the formula
on June 15 of this year.
In some States the local Federal courts
have ordered the States within a very
limited time to adopt new apportion-
ment systems. In others, action has not
been imminent. In still others, the action
by the Federal courts has not yet been
started.
The amendment by its very terms ap-
plies only to legislatures elected before
January 1, 1966, scarcely 17 months off.
It further provides that-if action is not
taken to properly apportion the legisla-
tive bodies the courts then may prescribe
the redistricting themselves.
This would mean that only the legis-
lature elected in November would not be
thrown out, because of its alleged mal-
apportionment.
I fail to see any compelling reason for
creating the havoc and confusion that
hasty and ill-considered action will
bring. After all, systems under which
the State legislatures are malappor-
tioned are not greatly different from
those existing in the U.S. House of Rep-
resentatives. This year the U.S. Su-
preme Court has determined the right to
order reapportionment of congressional
districts on a more balanced basis. But
it has not required the voiding of any
elections now in progress. It has not
declared any Member of any Congress
elected by this unequal representation
illegally elected and thus ended their
terms of office. It apparently is giving
the State legislatures, which are respon-
sible for the unequal apportionment now
existing, the time necessary to draw the
district lines for seats in the lower House
of the Congress.
What applies to the House of Repre-
sentatives in the need for time to make
well-considered judgments on the rear-
rangement of congressional districts cer-
tainly applies with equal force to the
State legislatures.
We are dealing with long-established
customs and traditions, recognized and
understood areas of representation. It
is true that the apportionment of both
the Federal and State legislatures has
not kept pace with shifting populations.
The plain, simple fact is that there will
always be some degree of malapportion-
ment. The census figures are usually 1
or 2 -years old by the time they are used.
The ability to find an exact mathemati-
cal balance for clear dividing lines of
legislative districts, whether State or
Federal, will defy our best computers.
Somehow I feel that the answer to bet-
ter and more representative government
at the State or even Federal level is not
necessarily computerized' accuracy in
drawing up election districts, as desir-
able as some equalization can be.
Government has strong human factors
woven through its fabric and one of
these is a desire of all parts of this Na-
tion, big and little, grassroots and met-
ropolitan centers, to have a sense s of
participation and of membership in oUr
democratic system.
This amendment as I read it asks for
time to make this adjustment which is a
major one in State and Federal relation-
ships. To adjust this best to the con-
sent of all the governed requires as much
reliance on the people of the affected
State as is possible. This short period
of time provided by the Dirksen-Mans-
field amendment provides a period to
secure orderly and thoughtful adjust-
ment. It recognizes human as well as
mathematical factors.
Mr. President, because of the limited
time and because of the urgency, par-
ticularly as it affects my State of Okla-
homa, which is approaching an election,
I deeply regret that the liberal Members
of this great body have chosen to filibus-
ter on this important measure, thus fore-
stalling an opportunity for relief by the
legislative route, which, at best, could
only give us time in which the local au-
thorities could devise methods of meet-
ing the reapportionment problem that
would meet the June 15 mandate of the
Supreme Court.
This mandate was not available when
the election/processes were started. It is
a disservice for Federal judges to stop in
midcourse, or even beyond midcourse,
an election that is due to be completed
in only a couple of months, and to force
a special election to be held under a com-
pletely new 'redistricting system that
badly scrambles the districts. Candi-
dates already have spent their money and
time in order to win the nomination, not
only in the first primary, but in the run-
off primary. They will now have to go
into a "sudden death" primary in dis-
tricts that will "be completely foreign, in
part, not only to themselves, but also to
the constituencies they seek to represent.
I hope that before it is too late we may
have action on this vital amendment.
I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania
for his courtesy in yielding.
Mr. CLARK. In a moment, I shall
yield, by arrangement, to the distin-
guished Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
STENNIS], to enable him to call up a con-
ference report which he tells me can be
disposed of quickly.
I would hope that the Senator from
Oklahoma would find it possible to re-
main in the Chamber because, first, it
is never a privilege, it is always a source
of some dismay to me, to find myself in
disagreement with my very close friend;
second, I feel that it would be helpful to
an understanding of the serious problem
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
19952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
which confronts us to have some discus-
sion of the situation in Oklahoma. The
Senator from Oklahoma obviously is far
better versed in conditions in his own
State than I.
However, we have a mass of material
furnished us by those who strongly op-
pose delay in the action, and I should
like to discuss with the Senator from
Oklahoma the purport of this informa-
tion, which is to the effect that Okla-
homa has had since the early days of
1962, when the decision of Baker against
Carr came down, to put its house in
order.
This material would indicate that the
court has been most solicitous of the
rights of the legislature of Oklahoma to
reapportion in accordance with the gen-
eral principles set forth in Baker against
Carr; that the very able assistance of the
University of Oklahoma's- Bureau of
State Research was called upon for as-
sistance; that a plan was submitted
which was considered by many to be
equitable, and that, generally speaking,
the situation in Oklahoma is- far from
being in the best condition, as the
,-Senator from Oklahoma has indicated.
But I shall postpone that discussion be-
cause I promised the Senator from Mis-
sissippi that I would yield to him first.
Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the Sen-
ator from Pennsylvania. I shall be pres-
ent when he reaches that part of the
discussion.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I yield,
without losing my right to the floor, to
the Senator from Mississippi.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPRO-
PRIATIONS, 1965-CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
from Pennsylvania for yielding to me.
Mr. President, I submit a report of the
committee of conference on the disagree-
ing votes of the- two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 11369) making appropriations for
military construction for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1965, and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent for the present
consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SAL-
INGER in the chair). The report will be
read for the information of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House pro-
ceedings of Aug. 19, 1964, p. 19570,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration
of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall
make only a brief statement in connec-
tion with the submission of the confer-
ence report on H.R. 11369, the military
construction appropriation bill for fiscal
year 1965. The total of the bill, which
includes both military construction and
family housing is $1,570,968,000. This
is an amount $28,046,500 under the House
bill and $12,001,000 under the Senate
bill.
For the military construction portion
of the bill, the conferees agreed to pro-
vide $939,817,000. This is an amount
$8,839,000 under the House bill and $25,-
501,000 under the Senate bill.
For the family housing portion of the
bill, the conferees agreed to provide
$631,151,000. ? This is $19,207,500 under
the House bill and $13,500,000 over the
Senate bill. In reaching this decision,
the conferees agreed to provide 8,250 new
housing units rather than the 7,500 pro-
posed by the Senate and the 9,590 pro-
posed by the House.
I ask unanimous consent that a tabu-
lation showing the action of the Congress
on the budget request be printed in the
RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, when
the bill was originally presented on the
floor of the Senate, I described in a great
deal of detail the items which were in-
August 20
eluded and the action which the Senate
was taking. I shall confine my present
remarks to the items in conference.
For the Department of the Army, the
action taken by the conferees is detailed
on page 3 of the conference report. The
items for the Navy and the Air Force are
detailed on the pages following.
I might mention specifically a couple of
items which were in conference. One of
them was the problem of relocating the
5th Army Headquarters from Chicago.
Although no funds have been provided by
the conference for the relocation, the
conferees agreed that it should be clearly
understood that they have no objection
to such relocation from Chicago;but that
the Secretary of Defense shall be expect-
ed to study the proposed relocation site
giving consideration to the requirement
for family housing and to other available
sites in the area.
The Senate prevailed in its position of
appropriating $10,800,000 for the Army
National Guard construction program
rather than the $6 million as proposed by
the House. The total will enable the Na-
tional Guard to accomplish 40 armory
and 24 nonarmory projects and will per-
mit a speedup in project construction.
I have already spoken of the agree-
ment on new family housing projects. I
would only add that the conferees agreed
that the housing projects added by the
Senate for the naval shipyard at Bremer-
ton, Wash., and for Off utt Air Force Base,
Nebr., shall receive the same considera-
tion in the construction program as other
approved items.
It is true that not all of the items which
the Senate had approved and which the
Senate conferees strove to maintain in
the bill were so treated. However, it was
a full and fair conference, and I believe
that the report which you have before
you generally reflects a wise course of
action.
I wish to thank the Senate conferees
for their excellent cooperation and as-
sistance. If there are any questions, I
shall be happy to attempt to answer
them.
EXHIBIT 1.-Military construction appropriation bill, 1965
Item
1964
appropriation
1965 budget
estimate
Passed
House
Passed
Senate
Conference
action
Conference action compared with-
1964
appropriation
_ Budget
estimate
House
Senate
Military construction, Army
Military construction, Navy
Military construction, Air Force
Military constniction, Defense agencies
Military construction, Army Reserve_
Military construction, Naval Reserve
Military construction, Air Force Reserve_
Military construction, Army National
Guard
Military construction, Air National
Guard
Loran station
Total, military construction
FAMILY 550051340
Family housing, Army:
Construction
Operation, maintenance, and debt
payment
Family housing; Navy and Marine
Corps:
Construction
Operation, maintenance, and debt
Payment
$200, 646, 000
198, 853, 000
468, 275, 000
24, 000, 000
4, 500, 000
6,000, 000
4, 000, 000
5, 700,000
16, WO, 000
20,500, 000
$408. 000, 000
278, 000, 000
406, op% 000
34, 000, GOO
5, 000, 000
7, 000, 000
5, 000, 000
6, 000, 000
14, 000, 000
5, 000, 000
$301, 000, 000
247. 000, 000
346, 000, 000
12, 656, 000
5, 000, 000
7,000, 000
5, 000, 000
6, 000, 000
14, 000, 000
5,000, 000
$311, 977, 000
250, 899, 000
342, 986, 000
12, 656, 000
5, 000, 000
7. 000, 000.
5, 000, 000
10, 800, 000
14, 000, 000
5, 000, 000
$300, 393, 000
247, 867, 000
332, 101, 000
12, 656, 000
5, 000, 000
7, 000, 000
5, 000, 000
-
10, 800,000
14, 000, 000
5, 000, 000
+$99, 747, 000
+49,014, 000
-136, 174, 000
-11,344. 000
+500,000
+1,000,000
+1,000, 000
+5, 100, 000
-2,000,000
-15,500,000
-$107,607, 000
-30, 133, 000
-73,899,000
-21,344,000
+4,800,000
-$607, 000
+867,000
-13,899, 000
+4, 800, 000
-$11,184, 000
-3,032,000
-10,885, 000
948, 474, 000
1, 168, 000, 000
948, 656,000
965, 318, 000
939, 817, 000
-8,657,000
-228, 183,000
-8,889,000
-25, 501, 000
34, 081,000
183, 396, 000
68, 248, 000
93. 944. 000
52, 728,000
173, 328, 000
96,219, 090
97. 739. 000
40, 446,000
173, 328, 000
72, 481,000
97. 739. 000
32, 216,000
173, 328, 000
59, 144,000
97.739. 000
35, 600, 000
173, 328, 000
64, 544,000
97. 739. WO
+919,000
-10, 068, 000
, -3, 704, 000
-1-3. 795.000
-17, 128, 000
-31,675,000
-4,846, 000
-7,937, 000
+3,364,000
+5, 400, 000
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 19953
EXHIBIT 1.-Military construction appropriation bill, /965-Continued
Item
-
1964
appropriation
1965 budget
estimate
Passed
House
Passed
Senate
Conference
action
Conference action compared with-
1964
appropriation
Budget
estimate
House
Senate
Family housing, Air Force:
Construction
$61,
027,000
$88,
635,000
$64,
013,500
$52, 873, 000
$57,
589, 000
-$3, 438, 000
-$31, 046, 000
-$6, 424, 600
+64,716,000
Operation, maintenance, and debt
payment
193,
514,000
198,
859, 000
198,
859,000
198, 859, 000
198,
859, 000
+5,345,960
Family housing, Defense agencies:
Construction
50,000
981,000
981,000
981,000
981,000
+931,000
' Operation, maintenance, and debt
payment
2,
596, 000
2,
511, 000
2,
511, 000
2, 511, 000
2,
511, 000
-35,000
Total, family housing
637,
406, 000
711,
000, boo
650,
358, 500
617, 651, OW
631,
151, 000
-6,251,000
-79,649,000
-19,207,500
+13,500,000
Total
_
1, 585,
880, 000
1, 879,
000, 000
1, 599,
014, 500
1, 582, 969, 000
1, 570,
968, 000
-14,912,000
-305,032,000
-28,046,500
-12, 001, 000
? Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD. There was a $510,-
000 item, I believe, for the Malmstrom
Air Force Base. Could the Senator from
Mississippi, the chairman of the com-
mittee which handled the military con-
struction appropriation bill, tell me if it
was retained in conference?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes. I am glad to re-
port to the Senator from Montana, who
was helpful himself in having the bill
presented, that this item is included in
the final bill, and the money is being
provided. It is somewhat less than the
sum originally planned-$450,000 is in-
cluded in the bill for that item, which it
was found would supply the needs by re-
ducing somewhat the ground planned,
but it serves the same purpose.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Sena-
tor for that encouraging, statement. I
understand it is somewhere in the vicin-
ity of $450,000.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The distinguished
Senator knows that there is a certain
amount of money included for the Min-
uteman missile installation to be built in
the vicinity of the Malmstrom Air Force
Base-approximately $60 million. This
money is to build an additional wing of
Minuteman missles to round out the 150
Minuteman missile complex now in ex-
istence, thereby raising the complex as
a whole to 200. Is that money, in the
amount of $60 million, in this appropria-
tion for that purpose?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.
That amount is very definitely included
in the appropriation bill. It is enough, I
am sure, to construct this highly impor-
tant and, to me, really much-needed mis-
sile installation.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
for his interest in that item, as well as
the first item which he mentioned. I
believe that the development fund of the
missile program including the Minute-
man-and this will be a Minuteman
base-is timely. We are moving more
and more into that kind of missile and
away from using liquid fuel missiles.
Mr. President, this report was con-
curred in by all the conferees on both
sides of the aisle.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from
Mississippi has performed what I believe
to be one of the really outstanding tasks
in Congress on this appropriation bill.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
for his comments.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I know the Senator
has worked many hours and weeks. He
has patiently heard witnesses, has gone
into the greatest detail, and has been ex-
tremely meticulous; and as a result, I be-
lieve, of his expertness, his fairness, and
his great experience in this field, we were
able to come forward with an appropria-
tion bill which I believe not only the mili-
tary can applaud, because it gives them
what they need, but also the taxpayers
can applaud with great enthusiasm.
This is an appropriation bill in cost
far below what the administration rec-
ommended. We all recognize that we
have an expert administration which is
conscious of costs in the defense area;
and yet the Senator from Mississippi was
able to save taxpayers millions of
dollars and was able to go well under
the House figure. I believe that the
chairman of the subcommittee is a model
for all of us to emulate.
I pay this tribute to. the Senator from
Mississippi because I feel so strongly
about it. I am a new member of the Ap-
propriations Committee, and I would like
him? to know 'how greatly impressed I,
have been with the very fine example he-
has set for all of us.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
for his kind and generous words. I thank
him on behalf of each member of the subr
committee. Credit goes to all alike. We
worked together on both sides of the
aisle. We worked out the problems to-
gether. The chairman does no more than
any of the other members.
There was a reduction from the budget
request originally in the authorization of
around $300 million. We feel that that
was done without taking any bone or
muscle out of the military program. We
did not leave out anything that we
thought was near the line of safety. I
believe that it is a rather firm and hard
bill. A few projects were merely de-
ferred until next year, when they will
take their place in the line of priority.
The House subcommittee has done a
very fine job in connection with the bill.
The chairman of the subcommittee for
many years has been Hon. HARRY SHEP-
PARD, Representative from the 33d district
of California. He is retiring this year; he
is not offering himself for reelection. As
he leaves, he will leave a record hard to
equal, and it will not be exceeded. As
I said the other day when we closed our
conference, through his fine knowledge
of construction and the engineering pro-
fession, as well as military matters, he
literally saved hundreds of millions of
dollars over the course of the years, and
has helped to build a fine, strong, and.
effective military organization.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. KEATING. The Senator will re-
member the amendment which I offered,
which was taken to conference. I know
that it has been eliminated. I should
like to have a review by the distin-
guished Senator.
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to give the
Senator a report. I comment him again
for his vigilance and his assistance in
the matter which affects his State.
The attitude of the conference on that
matter was that it was considered and
settled in the authorization bill at the
conference, and we could not get any-
thing done in this bill. We- are not
averse to the Senator's position as a
general proposition. I believe that I can
assure him his State will have as much
protection as any other State. I do not
believe that anything particularly ad-
verse is going to happen because of the
situation in his State. We all have
problems relating to these bases, some of
which are totally eliminated, and some
of which are transferred; but we could
not get any legislation that would carry
out the Senator's wishes.
Mr. KEATING.. The amendment was
directed to the use of Federal funds for
the construction of new facilities when
there were existing facilities which could
do the, same job. It seemed reasonable
to say that the taxpayers' money should
not be spent in that way. I hope that
at least we can have the assurance of
the subcommittee which the Senator so
ably heads that it will keep an eye on
this situation. I hope that when the
services come in with requests for funds
for the construction of a new facility,
the subcommittee will be sure that a
thorough canvass is made of existing fa-
cilities-not merely in New York-which
can do the job which they are seeking
to do by the new building. I hope that
now the subcommittee will he unusually
alert to the possibilities of saving addi-
tional funds for the taxpayers.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from New
York [Mr. KEATING] can have that dou-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4
19954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE " August 20
ble assurance. He can also state that
he has further alerted us to the situa-
tion on the items of money that are left
out of the bill for the very reasons that
the Senator from New York has given.
The items were left out where there has
not been a sufficient study to justify the
expenditure of this new money. They
were deleted from the bill. We are alert
to those matters.
Mr. KEATING. I am grateful to the
committee for theft consideration of the
matter. I am sure the Senator was con-
scientiously endeavoring to support the
position of the Senate. His assurances
that the subcommittee will follow this
matter very carefully in the future is
reassuring.
Mr. STENNIS. We want to be helpful
to the Senator in his position, as well as
to save money where we can.
Mr. KEATING. I thank the Senator.
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I am sure that this mat-
ter has been well covered in the colloquy,
concerning the amendment of Senator
KEATING, in which I had the privilege of
joining.
As I understand it, the committee pur-
ports to deal directly with the substance
of the matter that is involved.
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct.
Mr. JAVITS. I, too, wish to express
my appreciation. We all live in this
same house all the time. We should be
vigilant, as the Senate is expected to be.
I am very grateful to the Senator from
Mississippi and to the committee for the
statement that they will keep a close rein
on this money.
Mr. STENNIS. We intend to. I thank
the Senator for his interest in the meas-
ure, and his fine attitude. It is not some-
thing that can be put into strict law, as
the Medes and the Persians of old did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The report was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before
the Senate a message from the House of
Representatives announcing its action on
certain amendments of the Senate to
House bill 11369, which was read as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 1 to the bill (HR. 11369) en-
titled "An Act making appropriations for
military construction for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1965, and for other purposes", .and concur
therein with an amendment, as follows: In
lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment,
insert "$300,393,000".
Resolved; That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 3, and concur therein with an
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum
proposed by said amendment, insert "$332,-
101,000".
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate concur in the amend-
ments of the House to Senate amend-
ments Nos. 1 and 3.
The motion was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend fur-
ther the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, somewhat
earlier when I yielded to the Senator
from Mississippi so that he might pre-
sent a conference report, the Senator
from Oklahoma [Mr. M0Na0NEy] had
graciously agreed that we might engage
in a colloquy with reference to some of
the aspects of apportionment in Okla-
homa.
There are other conference reports
coining up. I have an engagement out of
the city. The Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. MONRONEY] ,has another engage-
ment. Neither is running out on the -
other. We shall return to this subject
when the Senate convenes after the
Democratic Convention.
I yield the floor.
THE MONTANA CENTENNIAL BAND
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, be-
fore we turn to the next order of busi-
ness, I should like to make a few re-
marks which I hope will not be con-
sidered a violation of the rules of the
Senate. I will not seek to achieve un-
due recognition for any one individual
or group.
This is a proud day for the Treasure
State. The State of Montana has, in
the Nation's Capital, one of the best
bands that it has ever been my pleasure
to listen to and watch in Pasadena,
Calif., in various parts of the State of
Montana, and here in Washington, D.C.
This band is called the Montana Cen-
tennial Band. The band is named in rec-
ognition of the fact that we are cele-
brating the 100th anniversary of Mon-
tana becOming a territory.
The band has already performed in
- the rotunda of the Old Senate Office
Building. It will perform this evening
at 7 o'clock on the steps of the Senate
wing of the Capitol.
This extraordinary group, brought to-
gether with little preparation and no
consideration as to where they come
from, has really turned out to be the
shining light in the celebration of Mon-
tana's anniversary.
These youngsters, both boys and girls,
come from the mining camps and the
big cities, such as Great Falls and
Billings?each city with a population of
approximately 55,000. They come from
the ranches, and they come from the
small towns. They have contributed
greatly to publicizing the State of Mon-
tana and what it stands for. By their
attitude and deportment in general, they
have brought great credit upon our State
and our country as well.
I wish to pay special commendation
to the directors of the band, James
Tibbs, of Missoula County High School,
and Roger Heath, of Great Falls High
School. The band inCludes, as ma-
jorettes, Paulette Forsythe, of Great
Falls, State champion; Gwen Loyd, of
Great Falls; and Sherry Humber, of
Butte. This group is extremely tal-
ented; intellectually talented as well as
musically.
I am delighted as the Senator from
the State of Montana, and as the ma-
jority leader of this body, to pay my
respects to them publicly and to tell
them personally how much I have en-
joyed what they have done for our State.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the
majority leader yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
'Mr. DIRKSEN. I believe it is highly
fitting and proper that the majority
leader should call attention to this great
musical organization from Montana. I
am delighted on my own score, particu-
larly in view of the fact that long ago
when I was in grade school and high
school, we knew nothing about school
bands. In the first place, I do not believe
that anyone could afford the instruments
in those days. Second, there were no
instructors that I know of. Third, one
had to work so much of the time to stay
in school that he did not have time to
tootle an instrument.
That all changed when I had a young-
ster of my own. I have forgotten whether
she played a flute or a piccolo. I vowed
that when I got around to it and was not
incumbered with public duty I would find
a piccolo instructor and start playing the
piccolo. Even at my age, there is some-
thing entrancing and stimulating about
music. The whole country is filled with
school bands. It is a wonderful thing
in our generation. It gives them the op-
portunity to learn music. It makes them
better citizens. I have an idea that if
we find a youngster who is playing a slide
trombone, a piccolo, or a French horn,
we do not have to bother too much about
the question of juvenile delinquency. So,
hail to Montana's Centennial Band, and
may they wave long and proudly.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
there is nothing I can add to that, be-
cause everything has now been said. I
thank the distinguished minority leader
for the kind words about a band that, I
repeat, in my opinion, is one of the out-
standing musical organizations in the
whole Nation.
FOOD FOR PEACE
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Com-
mittee on Agriculture and Forestry be
discharged from further consideration of
H.R. 11846, and that it be laid before
the Senate for present consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (HR.
11846) to amend the act of August 19,
1958, to permit purchase of processed
food grain products in addition to pur-
chase of flour and cornmeal and donat-
ing the same for certain domestic and
foreign purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the committee is discharged
from further consideration of the bill.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/05/20: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300080017-4