MAKING IN ORDER THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5171, USE OF DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 24
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 6, 2014
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: July 18, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release
2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
ST
g?
UNCLASSIFIED
CONFIDENTIAL
SECRET
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
, OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
1
DCI
2
.
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks:Attached is an excerpt from the Congress-
ional Record of 18 July containing floor debate
in the House on a bill authorizing the Administrator
of GSA to coordinate the activities of Federal
departments and agencies in the field of automatic
data processing. In offering an amendment to the
bill concerning GSA control over the activities of
other agencies, Representative Gary made a
specific reference to the Agency. While Gary's
amendment was adopted, we had already discussed
with GSA part of the problem with which he was
concerned. Mr. Houston's memo for the record
on this is attached.
4T
NDER
DATE
Aisistaa Legislative Co), 7D01
19 July
I I 1lVeT A CCIFTVT1 I I f`IMNIVITIVIV'TT A I I
CFC412 VT'
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release (40)
2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3 NO OFFICE 1961 0-587262
'
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1963
11.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
ments problem. Toward the end of that
message you will find this statement:
As yet, this Government is not prepared to
recommend any specific prescription for long-
term improvement of the international
monetary system. But we are studying the
matter closely.
Then we go back to October 31, 1960,
when Candidate Kennedy made a speech'
in Philadelphia, Pa., on the balance-of -
payments problem and I recommend it
to you for your reading, With much of
which I agree.
On page 825 of the report that carries
these speeches of Candidate Kennedy, he
says this:
The President himself echoes this alarm.
Yet despite these warnings, and the clear
trend of the preceding years, we failed to
take prompt and vigorous action, and the
balance of payments continued to go against
us.
What then must we do, what would a new
_Democratic administration do to reverse the
present downward trend in our balance of
payments?
And he lists a few.
First. It says, and it is strangely miss-
ing from President Kennedy's message
today.
Quoting Candidate Kennedy he asks:
What will a new Democratic administra-
tion's policy include?
First, we are _pledged to maintain a bal-
anced budget except in times of national
emergency or severe _recession.
This fact is missing in today's speech.
I respectfully suggest that President
Kennedy read Candidate Kennedy's
speech on balance of payments. I sub-
mit that the deficits of the administra-
tion contribute greatly to the balance-
of-payments problem. ?
The SPEAKER. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
CODE OF ETHICS -
(Mr. BOB WILSON asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, it
has been 5 years since the Congress ap-
proved the concurrent resolution which
has become known as the code of ethics"
for Government employees.. Since it was
introduced by our distinguished col-
league on the other side of the aisle, the
gentleman from Florida, the Honorable
CHARLES E. BENNETT, it has become a
standard of conduct for public servants,
elected and otherwise, in all three
branches of our Government.
So often, however, Mr. Speaker, the
public forgets the codes by which men
serve, and for this reason, I consider it
appropriate for the Members of this body
to reernphasize and reaffirm their con-
currence in the principles set forth by
this resolution. Although the earlier res-
olution adopted by the Congress covered
all Government ernployees, it was gen-
erally believed to apply chiefly to em--
' ployees of the executive branch of the
Government. I want' to particularly
stress in this new resolution the appli-
cation- of this code of ethics to members
of the legislative branch as well.
I therefore am introducing legislation
reaffirming that the code of ethics does
apply to all Government employees.
CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERN-
MENT EMPLOYEES
(Mr. BENNETT of Florida asked and
was given permission to address the'
House for 1 minute and to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr.
Speaker, I wish to congratulate our be-
loved colleague for his insistence upon
the maintenance of the highest possible
standards in Government and that these
principles apply in the Halls of Congress.
He sets a good example in this himself.
The "Code of- Ethics for Government
Service," by its very terms applies to
any person in Government service and
to Members of the House and Senate.
Its legislative history also shows this.
It would, however, serve a very useful
purpose to pass another resolution to
emphasize this, as our colleague has pro-
posed.
Although the code does have some
teeth to it, because people can be hired
and fired for ethical default and this
code is considered in stroll and other dis-
ciplinary matters, it is my opinion that
much ethical progress can be achieved
in our Government if Congress passes a
measure providing for a tribunal of
some sort to hear and decide ethical
questions and specific cases. I have been
sponsoring legislation which would do
this, House Joint Resolution 76. I have
also introduced House Resolution 322
which provides a grievance committee in
the House to handle specific problems,
which arise here. The public is impa-
tient with Congress for its nonaction in
this field and I hope that an increased
sensitivity on the part of the Members
of Congress may lead to early enactment
of more progressive legislation in this
field. It is long overdue. '
CORRECTION OF VOTE
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
call No. 97 I am recorded as not voting.
I was present and voted "aye."
I ask unanimous consent that the
Permanent RECORD and Journal be cor-
rected accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
MAKING IN ORDER THE CONSIDER-
ATION OF H.R. 5171, USE OF DATA
PROCESSING EQUIPMENT BY
FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker,
by direction of the Committee on Rules
I call up House Res. 432 and ask for its
immediate consideration.,
The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows: _-
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House' resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
12255
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
5171) to authorize the Administrator of the
General Services Administration to coordi-
nate and otherwise provide for the economic
and efficient purchase, lease, maintenance,
operation, and utilization of electronic data
processing _equipment by Federal depart-
ments -ind agencies. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill and shall
continue not to exceed one hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chair-
man and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Government Operations, the
bill shall be read for amendment under the
five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the
consideration of the bill for amendment,
the Committee shall rise and report the bill
to the House with such amendments as may
have been adopted, and the previous ques-
tion shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and -amendments thereto to final pas-
sage without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit.
?
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I
yield the usual 30 minutes to the distin-
guished gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
BROWN], pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 432
provides for consideration of H.R. 5171,
a bill to authorize the Administrator of
the General Services Administration to
coordinate and otherwise provide for the
economic and efficient purchase, lease,
maintenance, operation, and utilization
of electronic data processing equipment
by Federal departments and agencies.
The resolution provides an open rule with
1 hour of general debate.
The provisions of H.R. 5171 stem from
a report of the Comptroller General and
the continuing concern that a full dol-
lars worth of efficient, responsive Gov-
ernment be obtained for every tax dollar.
In a report submitted to Congress on
March 6, 1963, the Comptroller General
emphasized the need for centralized
management as a means of obtaining
maximum utilization and economical ac-
quisition of electronic data processing
equipment, which is costly but highly
useful. .
Savings the Comptroller General au-
thoritatively estimates as substantially
in excess of $100 million a yeaT can be
realized through effective and efficient
centralized management of the auto-
matic data processing equipment. H.R.
5171 provides the centralized manage-
ment that the Comptroller General rec-
ommends. ?
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 432.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
this bill comes to us by unanimous vote
of the Committee on Government Oper-
ations of the House and is for the pur-
pose of authorizing. the Administrator
of the General Services Administration
to coordinate and otherwise provide for
the economic and efficient purchase,
lease, maintenance, operation, and utili-
zation of electronic data processing
equipment by Federal departments and
agencies.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3 I
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12256 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
Mr. Speaker, this bill actually results
in the saving of money, which is rather
unusual in this day and age. This rule
which passed by unanimous vote, of the
committee brings the bill before us at
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this op-
portunity to say that this morning I
had the unusual privilege and one
which I consider a very high honor; to
be permitted to participate in bringing
to the floor of this House a rule spon-
sored by a U.S. Federal judge, my dis-
tinguished colleague on the Miles Com-
mittee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
THORNBERRY], who has been named by
the President to become a U.S. district
judge. His nomination has been con-
fined unanimously by action of the U.S.
Senate.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
THORNBERRY] has served with great dis-
tinction and great honor as a member of
the Committee on Rules of the House.
He is a man we do not like to lose from
the Rules Committee of the House. We
have found him to be always fair in his
judgment. He is a man of great ability
and of good nature. We have not al-
ways agreed across the table as to what
should be done and what action should
be taken in the Rules Committee on
every matter that has come before it.
But any disagreement that has come
has been in an agreeable manner.
I am sure I speak for the minority
members of the Rules Committee, and
I am certain for all minority members
of the House itself, when we pay our
respects this morning and give honor to
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THORN-
BERRY] who is soon to leave us to be-
come a U.S. district judge. We wish
him well and many years of happiness
on the bench, where I am sure he will
render the same splendid service to his
country that he has rendered to the
-House as a member of the Committee
on Rules.
Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. ROBERTS].
Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama. Mr.'
Speaker, I would like to associate my-
self with the remarks of the distin-
guished gentleman from Ohio in paying
tribute to one of the leaders in the House
of Representatives, the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. THORN-
BERRY] who is going back to his first
love, the field of law. Certainly I would
feel that his going back to bar is a gain
for that profession and a distinct loss to
the House.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my re-
marks with an expression of deep grati-
tude to you personally for your splendid
cooperation in making possible the proj-
ect I am about to describe. And, in ex-
pressing that appreciation I am confi-
dent you will join me in thanking Dr,
George W. Calver, the official physician
to Congress and Mr. George Stewart,
Architect for our Nation's Capitol, for
? their valuable assistance. Without such
generous support the project would not
be possible. And, without it, other and
less effective means would have to be
sought to bring to the attenion of legis-
lators and the public a subject most im-
portant to the health of our Nation. My
colleagues from Alabama have also given
the effort every possible support. So, to
all of them, Dr. Calver, Mr. Stewart, and
you personally, Mr. Speaker, my sincerest
thanks.
These remarks, of course; make it ob-
vious, Mr. Speaker, that you are fully
aware of the project of which I speak.
And I appreciate this opportunity to in-
form. ,the other Members of this distin-
guished body about it and urge them to
lend it their fullest support and coopera-
tion.
Mr.-Speaker, something new will make
a temporary appearance on Capitol Hill
next Monday, July 22. And, while it will
remain here only a week, I trust it will
help write a permanent chapter in the
already proud history of the health of our
people.
This something new is a mobile unit
created to detect emphysema in human
beings.
The unit was designed and developed
jointly by the Alabama Tuberculosis As-
sociation, the public health service and
welfare agencies, the Alabama Medical
Center, and 31 county TB associations in
Alabama.
Of course, as a native Alabamian, and
as chairman of the Subcommittee on
Health and Safety I have watched the
development of this unit with excep-
tional interest and its trial use with ex-
cusable pride.
However, there are millions of people
in this country?indeed, some -of them
may be in this very room?who are,?by
now, asking "What in the world is
emphysema?" Therefore, Mr. Speaker,
I ask your indulgence and the indulgence
of those who do know 'what emphysema
is while I briefly describe it. For, believe
me, ignorance about emphysema is not
to be considered a sign of stupidity.
The word is' almost as strange in to-
day's vocabulary as was tuberculosis 75
years ago. This, in itself, is odd because
emphysema was known to our fore-
fathers. Not, however, as it affected
them. Rather it was how it affected
their chief source of transportation and
power?the horse. A common vexation
of the day was to apparently be cheated
in the purchase of a seemingly healthy
animal which proved to be wind broken.
Upon the slightest exertion the horse be-
came helpless and useless.
Only in our own time has it been real-
ized that a similar condition is wide-
spread among men. All over the world
men in increasing numbers are falling
into the most frightening of all dis-
abilities?the inability to breathe. And
that is emphysema. But, you may ask,
is not there more to it than that? How
do you explain it?
Well, "emphysema" is the Greek word
for "elasticity." As a disease it may be
defined as the enlargement of the whole
or a part of the lung due to loss of the
lung's inherent stretch--or elasticity.
Normally the lungs are very much like
elastic balloons inside the hollow cavity
of the chest. An individual inhales sim-
ply by expanding his chest. The lungs
July 18'
expand to fill up the extra space and
thereby draw in air. Breathing out is
accomplished by relaxing the muscles of
the chest. The air is forced out of the
lungs, not by the pressure of the chest
wall but by the elastic recoil of every
part of the lungs themselves. The
patient with emphysema is still able to
inhale normally, although perhaps with
some effort. However, when he exhales,
the air is not forced out as completely
as it should be due to the loss of stretch.
It must be pushed out by compressing
the chest through muscular force. This
is difficult and inefficient, as can be
demonstrated by trying to squeeze the
air out of a plastic bag with a small
opening.
Emphysema usually begins in the
middle or even early adult years. Its
course is relentlessly progressive in the
absence of treatment, And, there is no
known treatment that will put the
stretch back into the lungs -once it is
lost?any more, for instance, than can
stretch be put back into /a rubberband.
One of the earliest symptoms of the
disease is wheezing when exerting any
effort. But, here is the insidious part
of the ailment. This wheezing is some-
times interpreted as a sign of asthma?
or heart trouble?and accepted treat-
ment for either of these conditions meets
with no success. As the .disease pro-
gresses and more lung tissue becomes
involved the symptoms become more
severe and are brought on by less and
less exertion. And, the final stage is
the development of respiratory acidosis,
right heart failure?and death.
Now, the logical questions at this point
of my discussion are: "What is the cause
of emphysema?" and "What are the pos-
sibilities for treatment?"
As for the cause, Mr. Speaker; I am
sorry to report that no one really knows.
Many possibilities suggest themselves, of
course, such as?air pollution, gasoline
engine exhausts, smoking, allergies, and
others.
With regard to possibilities for treat-
ment I have the optimism to Predict, Mr.
Speaker, that these are unlimited. For,
while treatment at the present time is
very primitive by modern standards it is
still possible to do much more for em-
physema victims than could be done 75
years ago for' tuberculosis victims when
the campaign against that disease was
begun.
These two answers, Mr. Speaker, be-
cause of their inconclusive nature, bring
me to the main point of this discussion.
It is vital to the future health of our
Nation that further research be done
into the causes, early detection, and
treatment of emphysema. This will re-
quire the fullest cooperation and sup-
port of every citizen. And we, in the
Congress, have it within our power to
lead the way.
Starting next Monday morning and
remaining all week the mobile unit de-
signed to detect emphysema in its early
stage will be parked on the House side
of the east front of the Capitol. Going
through it to determine whether one has
emphysema takes only a few minutes of
well spent time.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there will, no
doubt, be some -Who say that a Congress-
man could not possibly have emphysema
since he's so long-winded anyway.
But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I invite
you and my colleagues to visit the em-
physema mobile unit some time next
week?the 'earlier the better.
The device in itself is a milestone in
medical research. From it strides of un-
known length can be made, the least of
which will be the adding of many fruit-
ful and productive years to the lives of
millions who now are not even aware
that an insidious killer may slowly be
sapping their strength. Even in its early
stage emphysema can seriously impair
the ability to work and take much of
the joy out of living.
So, I urge every Member of Congress
to visit the mobile unit next week.. To
repeat?it will be parked on the House
side of the east front of the Capitol. It
will reqUire only a few minutes for the
actual test and the few minutes each of
us spend in it will be well worth our time
personally and will set a fine example for
everyone to follow in future years. I
might add that the reports on the tests
will be forwarded to Dr. Calver or whom-
ever you designate to receive them.
They will be personal records, not to be
made a matter of public record.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
\ Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I make
,the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
\The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
Is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move
a call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The blerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
Abernethy
Ashbrook
Belcher
Blatnik
Bolton,
Frances P.
Bonner
Buckley
Byrnes, Wis.
Celler
Clancy
Clausen,
Don H.
Clawson, Del
Conte
Daddario
Dague
Davis, Tenn.
Diggs Martin, Mass.
Donohue Mathias
Edmondson Miller, N.Y.
Forrester Morrison
? Frelinghuysen Moss
Garmatz Nelsen
Giaimo O'Brien, Ill.
Gill O'Brien, N.Y.
Goodell Pepper
[Roll No. 991
Grabowski
Gray
Hagen, Calif.
Hawkins
Healey
Hemphill
Hoffman
Jarman
Johnson, Calif.
Keith \
Kilburn\
Landrum
Latta
Leggett
Lesinski
Long, La.
McCulloch
Philbin
Pillion
Pirnie
Powell
Rhodes, Ariz.
Riehlman
Roosevelt
Rostenkowski
Roybal
St. Onge
Schwengel
Scott
Benner
Shelley
Sheppard
Smith, Va.
Staebler
Stephens
Taft
Teague, Tex.
Thompson, La.
Thompson, N.J.
Trimble
Ullman
Wharton
White
The SPEAKER. On this Ian 350
Members have answered to their?names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, furthepro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
No. 109 19
MAKING IN ORDER THE CONSID-
ERATION OF H.R. S 5171, USE OF
DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES .
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. CuRris].
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I yield.
COMMyrihr, ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, AD HOC
SI7BCOMMIITEE ON RESEARCH DATA PROCESS-
ING AND INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER
- Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Sub-
committee on Research Data Processing
and Information Retrieval Center of the
Committee on Education and Labor may
be permitted to sit during general debate
this afternoon.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illi-
nois?
There was no objection.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to
commend the Committee on Government
Operations for bringing out this measure
which covers a very Important part of
our budget, a part which is going to be-
come increasingly costly. We are talk-
ing about an item now that probably runs
over $500 million a year. A decade ago
probably there was nothing in the budg-
et in this area, or very little. This
amount can mushroom under proper and
efficient development to where the bill
of the Federal Government is $1 billion.
If there is any way in which at this
relatively early stage of the game we can
produce some efficiencies in the method
of procuring this automatic data proc-
essing equipment,' it behooves us to do
so. The big areas, of course, of utiliza-
tion are Defense, Space, and Atomic
Energy. Incidentally, the Joint Econom-
ic Committee on which I serve became
aware of this problem Coming in through
the area of our concern for economic
statistics, which is an important pur-
pose of these data processing machines,
but very definitely those agencies com-
piling these data are minor users in
comparison with the other governmental
agencies.
The only other point I would like to
make on the rule itself, and again ex-
pressing my commendation to both of
these committees for bringing this mat-
ter to the floor of the House is to call
attention to a very important aspect:
Whether or not we are going to have
the money to buy or to lease the addi-
tional data processing equipment we
-need, because we are talking again, I
want to point out, in terms of hundreds
of millions of dollars. We certainly will
have these funds if we will do what is
being done in the private sector of our
economy. This is something of a harsh
thing. These are the kinds of machines
that are removing thousands of jobs.
The efficiency that one obtains in the
private sector from the use of these
machines is due to the fact that the
12257
payrolls are reduced. I have seen little
evidence of any understanding of this
point on the part-of the executive branch
of the Government that the savings have
to be reflected in cuts in personnel.
Fortunately I am able to end on a
happy note. If we will only look at this
business nf automation we will realize
it creates more jobs than it displaces,
-but the newly created jobs are frequently
.100 or 1,000 miles away from where the
jobs that have been made obsolete exist.
They are frequently, and in fact usually,
in different fields of endeavor and ?un-
der different jurisdictions of the unions
who have carved out in the past their
particular areas of jurisdiction. Hence
a very difficult human, political, and so-
cial problem arises in adjusting in this
amazing era of automation. The Fed-
eral Government must start dealing in
terms of economic efficiencies if -we are
going to be able to pay for these gains
in efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time. ,
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Fosa]
Mr. FORD. , Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the people handling the bill on
the floor a question or two about the dis-
cretionary authority.. I turn to page 2
of the bill under the proviso that begins
on line 17 which reads as follows:
Provided, That the Administrator, in his
discretion, may delegate authority to lease,
purchase, maintain, or operate individual
automatic data processing systems or specific
units of equipment when such action is
necessary for the economy and efficiency of
operations, or when such action is essential
to defense or security.
May I ask the gentleman from Texas
or the gentleman from New Jersey this
question: Who makes this decision as to
whether or not an exception is war-
ranted which is essential to defense or
security? Who makes that decision un-
der the legislation as reported?
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, may I
answer, the distinguished gentleman
from Michigan who has done such an pj?...
effective job in military matters in the
great Committee on Appropriations? ...A
His question is, as I understand, who
would make the decision when some- Is
thing is essential to defense or security
that some other agency would lease,
purchase, buy, or otherwise utilize a
given data computer?
Mr. FORD. That is correct.
Mr. BROOKS. Under this legislation
it would be the Administrator of the
Gra777.-Ir igiraffiTiZ17?eli ntrefree-1-
gni ed to him that a delegation of au-
thority is justified for security or de-
fense or for efficiency or economy. It is
expected that a decision would be forth-
coming promptly from the Administra-
tor. In the discussions with the GSA
and the Comptroller General there was
no question about the simple justifica-
? tion of a large number of scientific and
technical data computers that would ob-
viously be for unique defense and secu-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12258
rity purposes, and which were really be-
yond the ken of the average computer
expert and, can justifiably be classified
as sPecialized equipment. This is in
keeping with the-purpoSe of this legisla-
tion.
Mr. FORD. I can see considerable
merit to the overall desire of those who
want to achieve greater efficiency and
economy in the utilization of this very
expensive equipment. On the other
hand, there are areas where automatic
data processing systems are highly spe-
cialized for a specific program and,which
could not' be adapted to broad utiliza-
tion. Some such equipment is set up for
intelligence evaluation, and for a num-
ber of other highly classified operations.
I should certainly hope that the Admin-
istrator of General Services would under-
stand such unique circumstances and
would not preempt the utilization of this
kind of equipment for various nonre-
lated jobs.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
. Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I con-
cur in the expression of hope of the gen-
tleman, but I remind him that the lan-
guage of the bill, and even the answer
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Moms], are unequivocally that the
power and the control and the discretion
are vested in the Administrator -of GSA.
And there is not any explanation that is
going to obviate that plain intent and
meaning of the law.
Mr. FORD. The only answer I can
see, and I have read some of the testi-
mony before the committee, is that the
final authority would rest in the Ex-
ecutive Office of the President. In this
case I suspect that would be the Direc-
tor of the Bureau of the Budget. Is
that understanding correct?
Mr. BROOKS. Of course, the Ad-
ministrator of FSA is appointed by the
President and the Bureau of the Budget
works with him on any such decision. I
think without question anybody would
understand that it would be, as the gen-
tleman has explained, quite essential
and obvious that certain of the installa-
tions in this country would be used on a
part-time basis. This in itself should not,
indicate that they are not being utilized
as fully as circumstances demand.
As the gentleman from Michigan has
indicated, certainly nobody would at-
tempt to say that this is a waste of
money. It might be totally standby
equipment vital to certain agencies.
Mr. FORD. On page 26 of the hear-
ings there appears a statement that the
Comptroller ?General suggests there
ought to be a minim= of exemptions
passed on by the Administrator. I do
not want more exemptions than are
necessary, but I do not want to ham-
string the Department of Defense, the
CIA, or any other agency that is in-
volved with defense or security just be-
cause the head of the GSA wants to use
an iron fist on this matter. So I hope
from the comments of the gentleman
from Texas and others some guidelines
may be given to the head of the GSA so
that he understands the needs and the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE July 18
problems 'of these most important
agencies.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Ktirczynsicil.
(Mr. KLUCZYNSKI asked and was
given permission to proceed out of
order.)
A RECORD OF GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT AND
LOYALTY
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, I
rise to express to you and to every Mem-
ber of the House, sentiments which are
particularly close to your heart, Mr.
Speaker, and are shared by every Mem-
ber of the House of Representatives.
I refer to and call attention to the
fact that on July 18 of this year Eugene
T. (Gene) Kinnaly will have completed
45 years of service as secretary and ad-
ministrative assistant to two distin-
guished Members of this body, and par-
ticularly that he has served as the first
assistant and good right hand to our
beloved Speaker since 1928, when
Speaker McCoamAcit first arrived in
Washington, as Congressman represent-
ing the 12th Massachusetts District.
Forty-five years of continuous and
loyal service to his country, his Congress-
man, to all Members of this House and
the citizens of the 12th Massachusetts
District is an outstanding and unique
record and contribution of which every
man who greatly admires him, rejoice
with us in spirit that Gene continues to
serve. I am sure he will as long as he
is physically able.
Today's testimonial merely-marks the
passage of time in a long life of great
usefullness to his fellow man. We are
happy to know it will continue indefi-
nitely.
" Those of us who have known Gene
Kinnaly intimately, have always been
impressed with his loyalty to his chief,
the thoroughness and reliability he con-
stantly demonstrates in every task he
undertakes, and in striking manner the
warm and friendly personality, which
he shares with everyone who calls at the
Speaker's office.
Every one from the most humble to
the most prominent, is immediately
struck by his sincerity, his desire to help
everyone, and the easy, quiet and effici-
ent manner in which he accomplishes
every responsibility.
Gene Kinnaly probably knows more
about how to get things done properly
through Federal departments and agen-
cies, has developed through the years
probably more friends in these depart-
ments than any congressional staff mem-
ber. He is undoubtedly better and more
favorably known to Members of this
body than any other person serving in
a similar capacity.
I know I am speaking for hundreds
of Members and former Members of this
House when in their behalf I offer our
warmest congratulations for the splen-
did service Gene has rendered to us all,
our most sincere best wishes and hopes
that he will continue in his present du-
ties for the Speaker for many years to
come, and how pleased we all are to
count him as a valued friend.
Mr. Speaker, 'I 'ask ,unanimous con-
sent that the following gentlemen may
extend their ? remarks in the REcoan at
this point?the gentleman from Okla-
homa, the distinguished majority leader
[Mr. ALBERT], the gentleman from Indi-
ana [Mr. HALLECK], the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. MARTIN], the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. KEOGH], the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Boum], the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. MURPHY], and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. BATES].
The SPEAKER. ?Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to join the gentleman from. Illi-
nois in this word of tribute to a great
American, my friend, Eugene Kinnaly,.
After 45 years on Capitol Hill, there is
little about its operations, past or pres-
ent, or its history, that is unknown to
Eugene Kinnaly. He has served as our
great Speaker's right-hand man for 35
years, and for 10 years before that he
served as assistant to the late Honor-
able James Gallivan, of Massachusetts.
The fund of knowledge he has acquired
over more than four decades has made
him an indispensable aid to the Speak-
er and a great servant of the House.
Gene has a stupendous acquaintance
with everything that has to do with the
House of Representatives, ranging from
parliamentary procedure to personnel.
He is also a fine lawyer and a fine gen-
tleman.
The House of Representatives has un-
dergone some drastic changes during the
momentous years Gene has been here.
As its duties became heavier, its respon-
sibilities more wide ranging and com-
plex, Gene has continued to learn, to
sharpen his talents, and to dispense his
skilled services unstintingly to his own
Members, to other Members of CongresS,
and to staff and committee employees.
Forty-five years is only the beginning
in the career of a man of Gene's energy
and ability.
He is one of the institutions of the
House. I hope we may have the benefit
of his talents for many years to come.
I wish him health and happiness and
many more years of satisfaction in doing
the work I know he loves.
Mr: HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I want
to associate myself with this tribute that
is being paid here today to a grand per-
son, Gene Kinnaly. During the many
years I have known him, no one could
have been more accommodating and
helpful to me than he has been. We all
realize the importance of good staff work,
especially in these days when the Con-
gress is facing increasingly heavy re-
sponsibilities to the country.
Certainly Gene Kinnaly has proved
his worth to the Speaker and to all of
us who have occasion, from time to time,
to call on him for information.
His long record of service represents
a career of outstanding loyalty and dedi-
cation to the Congress. I congratulate
him and wish him many more useful and
happy years.
Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to join those of my
npHassifien in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
colleagues paying tribute to one of the
most remarkable public servants in tthe
history of this Congress, Eugene T. Kin-
naly.
Gene completes 45 years of congres-
sional service today, which makes him
the dean of the present staff here on
Capitol Hill and which must be very
close to an alltime record of service to
the House of Representatives.
My own administrative assistant,
James N. Milne, recently completed 38
years of service with me, a long and won-
derful association; but Speaker McColl.-
MACK'S assistant surpasses our record.
Gene Kinnaly today completes 35 years
with the Speaker, but he preceded the
Speaker to Washington with his prior
service to Congressman James Gallivan.
I wish for Gene and the Speaker many
more years of good health and great
service to the Congress and to the people
of our country.
Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, I find it
gratifying that ?the Members of this
House are taking the time to give this
public recognition to one of its most able
and likable employees, Eugene T. Kin-
naly. I am personally pleased to join
with my colleagues in this unusual
tribute.
His long service of 35 years with our
beloved Speaker, after earlier service
with the late Representative James A.
Gallivan, of Massachusetts, has brought
him to the favorable attention of almost
every Member of the House and has'
gained for him their high respect. His
gracious response to every request for
assistance is a characteristic of his
gentlemanly nature.
It has been my pleasure to have known
Gene Kinnaly for many years. I fer-
vently hope that, now having completed
45 years of honorable and effective serv-
ice, he will choose to remain with us for
years to come and that during those
years he will have the blessing of good
health and everything he desires. I
heartily congratulate him today.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I con-
sider it an honor to pay tribute to a de-
voted public servant and our good friend,
Eugene T. Kinnaly. His tireless work in
the House of Representatives has con-
tinued for 45 years. The citizens of
Massachusetts are proud to call him a
native son.
Gene Kinnaly has been a part of the
Congress of the United States through
the administrations of eight Presidents.
He has served this House through 20-
some Congresses. He arrived here to
work as secretary to the late Congress-
man James A. Gallivan, of Massachu-
setts, with whom he was associated for
10 years. In the 35 years since then, he
has been the confidant and administra-
tive assistant to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the Honorable JOHN W.
MCCORIvIACK, our present Speaker of the
House.
We are reminded of the 'remarkable
record of Gene; Kinnaly in length of
service, but we cannot forget the more
remarkable part of that record, which
embraces the enduring character of his
accomplishments. He meets each day,
each person, and each task with friendli-
ness, unhurried assurance, and open
honesty. Few are endowed with his
spirit of helpfulness.
Pressures do not bring a distraught
atmosphere to Mr. Kinnaly's being.
Many have praised him for his courteous
disposition and the retentive memory
that works best when under pressure.
His knowledge of the intricate network
of government makes him a valued as-
sistant. His diplomacy is exemplary.
His calm disposition is a joy.
Gene has always been devoted to his
job, but not in a narrow sense which
excludes the bigness of the problems to
be met. 'Members of Congress ?have
sought his advice and always carry away
a lasting impression of a warm and true
friend. He understands the workings of
a democracy.
It is with genuine pride that I extend
to Eugene Kinnaly my congratulations
and wish for him many years of con-
tinued success. We are glad to have him
in our midst.
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Speak- --
er, there are few occasions, I think, that
have given me greater pleasure or more
satisfaction than this particular one.
Mr. Eugene Kinnaly, the distinguished
gentleman to whom I am about to pay
tribute, has been with us in this great
House for 45 years on this day. For
35 of those years, he has been the able
and devoted right hand of the Man who
is now our Speaker, the honorable and
distinguished Representative from Mas-?
sachusetts, JOHN McCoamAcx.
Gene Kinnaly, as he is so well known
to most of us, has served our House and
our Speaker for nearly half a century
with a devotion and a vitality that have
made him a credit to both. I am sure
that My colleagues will take it as no
slight when I say that I know of few
in these chambers who are held in high-
er esteem by all than Gene Kinnaly.
And so, Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege
and an honor of the highest order for
me to join in the plaudits of my fellow
Representatives today and pay tribute
to a gentleman who has served this
House so well for so long. With our
recognition, I want him to know that he
has gained the highest regard and re-
spect of the Members of the House, and
we all hope he will be with us at least
45 more years.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Speaker, when I first
came to Capitol Hill, as a secretary, 23
Years ago, I knew the employees much
better than I know the Members of Con-
gress. These were my first friends and
my longest and the memories of them
I deeply cherish. It was from the ac-
tions of these people that I recognized
the truth and significance of that old
phase, "the power behind the throne."
There was John Andrews, of Salem,
Mass., later to become the Clerk of the
House of Representatives. John's desire
to serve was too great for the stamina
required and more than his body could
endure.
There was Ivan Hedin, secretary to
our former colleague, Dick Wigglesworth,
of Massachusetts, and who was rich in
wit and service, and whom we sorely miss
around these Halls.
There was Jimmy Milne, until recently
secretary to our beloved former Speaker,
12259
JOE MARTIN, of Massachusetts, and who
helped JOE in his long years as Repub-
lican leader.
Massachusetts has another son, for
years a close friend of the triumvirate
from Massachusetts referred to above.
I refer, of course, to Gene Kinnaly, for
45 years a secretary on Capitol Hill and
for many years 'assistant to our esteemed
Speaker, the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. McCortmAcx]
Gene is a quiet man but ever ready
with a gentle smile and kind word. My
association with him is something I al-
ways will treasure. He is a deeply re-
ligious man and ofttimes I note, at noon-
time, that he and his friend, Jim Guinea
of Congressman KLUCZYNSKI'S staff,
wind their way to St. Peter's Church
near the Capitol for a few moments of
meditation.
Gene has long been one of the most
effective behind-the-scenes worker I
have ever known. I am sure that his
counsel, experience and judgment have
been invaluable to our Speaker in the
many trying problems of his office.
He is all of this and more but most
Important of all to me is that I am
privileged to call him my friend.
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I am
most pleased to join my colleagues in
commending the longtime, invaluable aid
of our distinguished Speaker, Eugene T.
Kinnaly, who is completing 45 years of
outstanding and devoted service on Capi-
tol Hill.
Always friendly, helpful, considerate of
others, he enjoys the high esteem and
affection of Members of the House, his
fellow staff members, and all who know
him.
In expressing my great pride in the
tremendous, memorable record which
Gene Kinnaly has accomplished as a
congressional secretary and administra-
tive assistant, I take great pleasure in
extending to him and his family my
heartiest congratulations with my good
wishes for many more happy anniver-
saries and choicest blessings for many
more years of success, happiness, and
accomplishment.
As secretary to the late, colorful, and
highly esteemed Congressman James A.
Gallivan, Gene Kinnaly came to Wash-
ington as a young man to carve out an
enviable career of effective and devoted
service to his district, State, and Nation.
Ten years quickly sped by and then
began Gene Kinnaly's long, illustrious
career as administrative aid to our dis-
tinguished and beloved Speaker, JOHN W.
McCoiuvrAcx, taking on new and most im-
portant tasks and duties through all the
vicissitudes and changing currents of na-
tional politics and world events.
As aid to the Speaker, he stands at the
very top of his great profession, making
invaluable contributions to the Congress
and to the Nation. Capable,. loyal, com-
pletely devoted to his job, Gene Kinnaly
is a skilled professional who has gained
tremendous knowledge of Federal affairs,
a sure, competent grasp of affairs in his
district and the country, a flair for get-
ting things done easily and quickly that
stamp him as one of the most outstand-
ing in his field.
All of us in Congress who have come
to know Gene Kinnaly are aware of the
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12260 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
great contributions he has made during
the many years of his service on Capitol
Hill. He has won a legion of friends in
and out of public life and enjoys the re-
spect and esteem of his associates, the
constituency he serves, a wide range of
publid officials, employees of the House of
every rank and station, and people in all
walks of life who have come to know him
and who cherish his friendship.
I rejoice with the.many friends of this
able, 'zealous, and dedicated worker on
this happy occasion and join with very
many officials, associates,' and people in
wishing for Gene Kinnaly all the bless-
ings and graces of good health, success,
and happiness that the good Lord may
bestow.
?Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, it is a
particular personal pleasure for me to
join with my colleagues in this special
tribute to Mr. Eugene T. Kinnaly, ad-
ministrative assistant to our beloved
Speaker, who is today beginning his
46th year of congressional service.
"Gene," as he is affectionately known
to all of us, personifies the highest tra-
dition and ideal of an examplary con-
gressional assistant. He is supremely
capable, intensely loyal, and devotedly
patriotic in his service to the country
in his congressional assistant capacity.
Despite the tremendous workload
that we know is his responsibility, he
always has time to guide the newer and
lesser experienced secretaries in the dis-
charge of their particular duties, and he
has given counseling words of wisdom to
untold Members here whenever called
upon. ?
Gene's superior and developed talents
shine through his modest personality,
and his kindly nature and disposition
are a byword on Capitol Hill.
Here is a man who has dedicated him-
self to patriotic service for his country
for 45 years, and there are few indeed
who can match his unique and inspiring
record.
We are happy to salute you today,
Gene, and join in our most earnest wish-
es that the good Lord will keep you with
us, in continuing good health, for many
more years of your fruitful work.
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to add my few ivords to the many
that are being paid in sincere tribute
today to Gene Kinnaly on the 45th an-
niversary of his service to the Congress
of the United States.
Gene has an unrivaled record, I be-
lieve, as a congressional secretary.
Those of us from Massachusetts, of
course, are proud that many of his years
on the Hill have been spent as the chief
aid to our esteemed Speaker of the
House.
I know that I speak not only for my-
self, but for literally hundreds of Mem-
bers of Congress and staff assistants
when I say on this significant occasion
"thanks, Gene," for the many times
you have given freely of your good coun-
sel and effective talents.
Men of such character and devotion
to public service are rare and the Con-
gress, indeed the Nation, is indebted to
Eugene Kinnaly.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend their remarks on the service of
Eugene T. Kinnaly.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. HEC,HLEIl]
Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Baomo] whether the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
was consulted as to the advisability of
this legislation and whether that agency
was asked for its opinion.
Mr. BROOKS. The answer to the
gentleman's question would be that they
have not been. However, the Comp-
troller General of the United States who
is the chief accounting officer of the
Congress investigated this complex prob-
lem with reference to all of the Govern-
ment agencies, including the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
So, while it has not been directly con-
sulted, the ADP utilization problems and
practices of that agency were taken into
consideration by the Comptroller Gen-
eral of the United States and were re-
flected in the recommendations con-
tained in his March 6, 1963, report.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
-Mr. HECHLER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. As I understand the
question of the gentleman from West
Virginia, he asked whether this matter
went to the space agency? \
Mr. HECHLER. That is correct. I am
merely interested in whether the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration was given the chance to express
its views on the pending legislation.
Mr. JOHANSEN. The witness for the
space agency testified before the Census
and Statistics Subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service
and he expressed his views in response
to a direct question on this matter and
was in total opposition to this type of
approach.
Mr. HECHLER. I thank the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, we
have no further requests for time on this
side.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I
move the 'previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the .bill (H.R. 5171) to authorize the
Administrator of the General Services
Administration to coordinate and other-
July 18.."
wise provide for the economic and ef-
ficient purchase, lease, maintenance,
operation, and utilization of electronic
data processing equipment by Federal
departments and agencies.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill, H.R. 5171, with
Mr. ASHLEY in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BRooKs]
is recognized for " 30 minutes and the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WALL-
HAUSER] will be recognized for 30 min-
utes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. BROOKS].
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. BROOKS asked and was given
Permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, this
measure which was unanimously ap-
proved by the Committee on Government
Operations on June 19, 1963, and re-
ported to the House on the same day, has
a direct and specific purpose. The en-
actment of this measure will provide the
necessary organization and authority for
effective, centralized and coordinated
acquisition and utilization of costly auto-
matic data processing equipment on a
Government-wide basis.
Mr. Chairman, according to authorita-
tive evaluations of the Comptroller Gen-
eral, the centralized management as pro-
vided for in H.R. 5171 will result in
sound, accountable and direct savings
substantially in excess of $100 million a
year. The Comptroller General in his
report and in his testimony before the
committee states that these savings can
be realized through centralized, coordi-
nated management which, in turn, will
make possible, first, higher utilization of
equipment now on hand and, second,
more economical acquisition of equip-
ment in the future. -
Mr. Chairman, efficient and economic
utilization of this costly equipment re-
quires that it be used on a maximum
round-the-clock, three-shift basis.
Equipment now used by the Government
is utilized only a little more than one
shift a day, on an average.
Mr. Chairman, enactment of this bill
will almost immediately result in an in-
crease in utilization and, therefore,
result almost immediately in substantial
savings to the taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5171 will also
make it possible to develop an econom-
ical Government-wide acquisition pro-
gram. At this time, today about ? 85?
percent of this equipment is leased. The
Comptroller General has indicated in
the most recent of a series of audit re-
ports submitted to Congress on March 6,
1963, and in testimony before the com-
mittee that there are significant benefits
to the Government in the selective Pur-
chase of many automatic data processing
systems and components.
nRclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
' 1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
The Administrator of the General
Services Administration would carry out
this centralized management program
which is comparable in many respects
to other property management and
centralized procurement responsibilities
previously delegated to him by the Con-
gress. Agencies would state their auto-
matic data processing requirements to
him and make payments to a revolving
fund created under this bill. With the
funds so deposited the Administrator
would then either purchase -or rent nec-
essary equipment to fulfill individual
agency needs.
Mr. Chairman, among the amend-
ments adopted by the committee is one
which would include automatic along
with electronic equipment. Also the
program was amended to cover equip-
ment used for and at the expense of the
Government in the execution of con-
tracts and other agreements. These
amendments were recommended by the
Comptroller General.
The committee also' added provisions
for an annual report to the Bureau of
the Budget and to the Congress relating
to expenditures from the GSA-admin-
istered revolving fund created under this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, there is without any
doubt, based upon the extended reports
made by the Comptroller General, who
is the chief accounting officer of this
legislative body, that hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars can and should be saved
if we pass this bill. The Comptroller
General stated without equivocation
that We could save $148 million in the
first 5 years of this program and $100
million each year thereafter. I asked
him if this was a sound statement. He
said Without equivocation, that he
thought it was a very conservative esti-
mate of savings that could be achieved
through the passage of this legislation.
The March 6, 1963, report of the Comp-
troller General is the latest comprehen-
sive evaluation of Government automatic
data processing utilization submitted to
Congress. It is not the first, however.
His recommendations for centralized
management of automatic data process-
ing equipment go back to 1958 when he
originally made a general recommenda-
tion of this kind. Following 2 years of
inaction by the executive branch, he re-
iterated his recommendations in strong-
er terms in 1960. Following 3 further
years during which there was no sig-
nificant improvement, he restated his
recommendations in March of this. year.
This March 6, 1963, report is one of the
strongest and most forceful reports the
Comptroller General has ever issued con-
cerning a problem so simply and ob-
viously subject to solution. According
to the authoritative figures contained in
the Comptroller General's report, and
his testimony, the taxpayers of this coun-
try are losing approximately $10 million
every month a centralized, coordinated
program applicable to all Government
agencies is delayed in implementation.
It is essential that Congress act swiftly
and decisively to provide the administra-
tive machinery by which these significant
sums can be saved.
Under provisions of H.R. 5171, the Ad-
ministrator of General Services is au-
thorized and directed to provide central
management of Government automatic
data processing equipment. The General
Services Administration, which is under
the direction of the Administrator, is an
operating agency of the executive branch
especially created by Congress to per-
form centralized procurement and prop-
erty management functions. H.R. 5171,
which is an amendment to title I of the
Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended, there-
fore constitutes a logical extension of
duties comparable to those which this
Agency performs.
Under this centralized management
program, legislative review and control
of Government automatic data process-
ing operations can also be greatly im-
proved. The Comptroller General has
predicted an ever increasing rate of
growth in the use of this equipment in
Government. He has suggested:
We are discussing here a fixed charge on
the Government. This is very much like the
fixed charge on the debt. What we are seeing
here is growing into what * * * will be a
major fixed charge which cannot be reduced
and which will probably grow and ? properly
so if we are going to control- what goes
on in the Government.
Use of automatic data processing sys-
tems in Government has increased from
414 in 1959 to 1,169 in 1963, and it is
estimated that this figure will increase
to 1,600 by the end of 1964. Further-
more, the Comptroller General testified
that use of automatic data processing
equipment in Government will increase
more in geometric rather than arithmetic
progression and that he does not expect
that utilization will reach a plateau in
the near future. At this time, budgetary
appropriation requests for hundreds of
millions of dollars spent each year by
Federal agencies and other users for such
equipment are scattered throughout the
Federal budget, making it difficult for
Congress and the Executive Office of the
President to maintain effective budgetary
control. Following approval of H.R.
5171, comprehensive information from
one source will be available to the Bureau
of the Budget, to the substantive com-
mittees of Congress, to the Appropria-
tions Committees, and to the Committees
on Government Operations, as well as
to the Comptroller General. The utiliza-
tion of this information will assure both
the executive and the legislative branches
of proper policy and fiscal control over
this ever increasing expenditure of tax-
payers' funds.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
(Mr. WALLHAUSER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of HR. 5171, which has
been explained to you, in general, by the
distinguished gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Brooxsl . It seems to me that we
have an obligation to the people we rep-
resent not only to refuse to appropriate
money for projects that we do not con-
12261
sider to be in the public interest but also
to attempt to save some money. This bill
gives us one grand opportunity to do just
that.
The title of the bill really is the key to
the whole program, and I would like to
read it to you, because it sums up in one
sentence the purpose and why we should
all support it:
A bill to authorize the Administrator of
the General Services Administration to co-
ordinate and otherwise provide for the eco-
nomic and efficient purchase, lease, mainte-
nance, operation, and utilization of elec-
tronic data processing equipment by Federal
departments and agencies.
This is not a new proposal. The Gen-
eral Accounting Office has been making
studies and recommendations since 1958.
On March 6, 1963, it made a very strong
recommendation that a centralized pur-
chasing and management agency should
be set up. The General Services Admin-
istration is exactly this.
Under the act of 1949, on the recom-
mendation of the Hoover Commission
and by act of Congress, it was designed
to procure and manage real and per-
sonal property. It seems to me this falls
within that category. We have the
statement of the Administrator that no
huge staff will be added. He claimed he
had sufficient technicians in his own de-
partment and could utilize technicians
from other agencies now employed by
them and, with the help of representa-
tives of private industry, he could come
up with the answers required for the
various agencies without adding a great
deal to the staff. Individual studies
would have to be made to determine if
it would be financially advantageous to
the Government to purchase or to con-
tinue to lease if no purchases were made.
Even if we continued as we are the utili-
zation of the equipment we now have on
a 24-hour basis, or as nearly to that as
possible, it would be a big step forward
and, as the gentleman from Texas em-
phasized, studies made on about half of
the present equipment indicated a sub-
stantial saving of $140 million would be
made in the first 5 years of its operation
and more than $100 million a year after
that.
Most of the equipment used by the
agencies is general-purpose equipment,
something like a typewriter or adding
machine. It should be set up in such a
manner that any other agency can come
in and utilize the equipment the same as
any other recording apparatus.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, this bill
has great merit.
I would like to say the Comptroller'
General in his studies has emphasized
the need for it, but up until now no
definite program has come out of these
recommendations. He regarded them as
essential.
If you will read the March 6, 1963, re-
port by him, it would seem quite evi-
dent that we should pass this type of
legislation.
I would like to close by 'reading one
answer to a question. During the hear-
ings the Comptroller General was asked
the following question:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12262 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. Campbell, in light of this, do you feel
that these poor utilization conditions, in-
cluding the question of lease versus pur-
chase, could be improved by having the kind
of central coordination that is provided in
this bill, H.R. 5171?
Mr. Campbell, the Comptroller Gen-
eral of the General Accounting Office, an
arm of the Congress, responded in this
way:
We are convinced of it. We hope that this
will be done. This is one of the most
serious problems the Government is facing
in this area.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that
this measure will be supported and that
this very worthy bill will be passed
unanimously. I would hope that the
Members give it careful consideration,
because, as I said at the outset, we do
have an obligation to attempt to save
money in the operations of the Govern-
ment as well as in not appropriating
that for which there is no need.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALLHAUSER. I yield to the
distinguished gentleman from New
York.
Mr. HORTON. I would like to rise
in support of this bill and to commend
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
WALLHAITSERL and other members of this
committee, for bringing this bill to the
attention of the House. I think we
should be very aware of any efforts that
this House can exert to effect substan-
tial savings in the operation of Govern-
ment. This seems to me to be one of
those areas in which we can be most
effective. Therefore I rise in support of
the bill and commend the committee for
the work it has done in this respect. ?
Mr. Chairman, the bill, H.R. 5171, now
before us has my full support. I believe
its passage will reflect the interest in this
body of maintaining effective and effi-
cient management over the utilization of
automatic data processing equipment by
the Federal Government. Further, a
direct consequence of this improved
managerial function will be a substantial
saving of taxpayer funds.
This bill vests authority in the Admin-
istrator of the General Services Admin-
istration to coordinate and otherwise
provide for the economic and efficient
purchase, lease, maintenance, operation,
arid utilization of automatic data proc-
essing equipment by Federal depart-
ments and agencies. The centralized
management provided by this bill is
authoritatively estimated by the Comp-
troller General of the United States as
realizing a saving substantially in excess
of $100 million a year.
Just as private industry has made in-
creasing use of automatic data process-
ing systems in recent years, so has the
Federal Government benefited from the
advantages these systems possess. Use
of automatic data processing systems in
Government has increased from 414 in
1959 to 1,169 in 1963. It is estimated
that by the end of fiscal year 1964, ap-
proximately 1,600 systems will be in use.
The Comptroller General has reported
that 85 percent of these systems are
leased without comprehensive evalua-
tion as to the benefits to the taxpayers
which might be gained through pur-
chase. As no statutary requirement now
exists to maintain effective budgetary
control over the hundreds of millions of
dollars spent each year by Federal
agencies and other users for the equip-
ment, legislative review and control of
Government automatic data processing
operations obviously suffers.
Another problem inherent in the pres-
ent absence of centralized management
is that Government agencies are not
fully utilizing automatic data processing
equipment at this time. An inventory
report of the Bureau of the Budget made
in August of 1962 reveals numerous ex-
amples of extremely low use of this
equipment. Central coordination, as
provided by the instant bill, can almost
immediately begin to achieve savings by
increasing the utilization of automatic
data processing equipment the Govern-
ment now has on hand.
It is noteworthy that the Administra-
tor of General Services has testified the
coordinated program provided by H.R.
5171 should not require a large increase
in his agency's management staff. Ad-
ditionally, implementation of this pro-
gram is expected to result in a lessening
of personnel requirements of user
agencies.
For the economy and efficiency which
would result from this measure, I urge
its favorable consideration.
I also commend my colleagues on the
Government Operations Committee for
the of their work in prepar-
ing this bill and reporting it to the
House.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. I thank the gen-
tleman very much.
(Mr. HORTON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WALLHAUSER. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. SNYDER. I was just curious as
to the definition of "data processing
equipment." What does it constitute?
Mr. WALLHAUSER. It includes more
than electronic equipment. It includes
equipment other than electronic equip-
ment.
Mr. SNYDER. It does not get into the
office electric typewriters, and things of
that nature, does it?
Mr. WALLHAUSER. No, sir.
Mr. SNYDER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Yes, I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. I am one of
those who served on the committee at
the time the General Services Adminis-
tration Act was enacted, which goes back
to 1949. I followed with a great deal of
interest during the years the progress
of this agency. I would like to ask the
gentleman if he in his opinion feels that
the projected savings that this proposal
will make are really genuine or not.
Mr, WALLHAUSER. I firmly believe
they are genuine, yes.
Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. I thank the
gentleman very much.
. July 18...*
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from New Jersey has consumed 8 min-
utes.
(Mr. RIEHLMAN (at the request of
Mr. WALLHAUSER) was given permission
to extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD.)
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Chairman, the
bill we are considering today offers us
an opportunity to gain more effective
control over an area of Federal expendi-
ture that is already quite significant and
becoming more so every day.
There are nearly 1,200 different auto-
matic data processing systems in use in
the Government this year and there will
be 1,600 by the end of 1964. The annual
cost to the Government of renting and
purchasing this equipment runs well into
the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Decisions as to the type of equipment
to be acquired, the manner of acquisi-
tion, the degree of utilization, and the
time and nature of disposition are now
made, for the most part, by the individ-
ual using agencies. There is a minimum
of coordination among them.
The Comptroller General of the United
States conducted a study of this growing
problem, and, as a result, expressed the
belief to the committee that substantial
savings would be possible if these deci-
sions were made, from the standpoint
of the needs of the Government as a
whole, by a centralized management
agency, rather than by the individual
using agencies.
The Comptroller General informed the
committee that by purchasing more of
this equipment rather than leasing it,
for instance, the Government could effect
potential savings in excess of $148 million
over the next 5 years, with possible sav-
ings of $100 million a year after that.
He also indicated that additional savings
could be made by more effective utiliza-
tion of this equipment within the Gov-
ernment once it has been acquired.
In other words, there is a pressing
need for more effective Government-wide
coordination of the acquisition and utili-
zation of this equipment. The commit-
tee concurs in the belief that this can
best be accomplished by centralized con-
trol of these functions, and that is pre-
cisely what this bill will accomplish.
There is one aspect of this proposal
that will bear careful watching in the
future. That is the impact of this bill
on the tactical and classified operations
of the Defense Establishment. The com-
mittee determined, and I think wisely
so, that the fewer the exceptions to
GSA's authority the better. But the
committee does recognize the problem
that could arise by removing control of
equipment that is an integral part of a
vital defense system from the Secretary
of Defense and placing it in an outside
agency. The bill does not except the
Defense Department specifically, but it
authorizes the Administrator of GSA to
delegate his authority when such action
would be essential to defense or security.
I think it is reasonable to assume that
any irreconcilable conflict between De-
fense and GSA over the control of the
former's use of automatic data process-
ing equipment would be resolved ade-
quately at higher levels. Nevertheless,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1963
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOuSE
I do want to point this potential problem
area out to my colleagues as one that
will bear careful watching.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman fiorn Texas [Mr.
BitooKs].
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Mon-
tana [Mr.
(Mr. OLSEN of Montana asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank the distinguished chair-
man of this Subcommittee on Govern-
ment Activities, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Baoms], for his courtesy in
extending me this time to speak in op-
position to this bill. It is with regret I
must take this position, for I have the
highest regard for my dear friend from
Texas.
I am against H.R. 5171 for the reason
that though its intention is the best in-
tention, it is too sweeping and would tend
to retard the development of a growing
and developing science. That is what
computers are. This is not a case of
adding machines, or typewriters, but this
is a growing science that has not been
standardized at all. To place a lid on it
in the form of an agency that is not as-
sociated, let us say, with the specific
duties of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration is, in effect, taking
the very duties of the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration and trans-
ferring them to the General Services
Administration. That is how sweeping,
I think, this legislation is.
This bill would authorize the Admin-
istrator of the General Services Admin-
istration to coordinate and control the
purchase, lease, maintenance, and use
of automatic data processing equipment
by or at the expense of the Federal agen-
cies, and to operate or provide for the
operation by delegation of authority or
otherwise of such equipment. Some of
the Members of Congress are very famil-
iar with this legislation and some are not.
Therefore, I shall furnish a little back-
ground. We are talking about electronic
data processing systems which frequently
are referred to as giant brains, robots,
monsters, or just plain computers. We
are talking as well about conventional
punched-card machines. The main em-
phasis, however, is on the larger gear;
that is, on the electronic data processing
systems. You may have heard them re-
ferred to as Univac's, Ramac's, Edvac's,
Maniac's, Lark's, Stretch'es, 7090's, 301's,
and a host of other names and numbers
assigned by the manufacturers.
The Bureau of the Census was the
first Federal Government agency to use
one of these systems for a business-type
application. That was in 1951. This has
grown, however, to where in 1963 there
were 1,248 such systems in use in the
Federal Government with a total cost
annually of $704 million. The range of
the rental cost of one of these systems
per month is from $1,000 to over $100,000.
The purchase price range is from $25,000
to $7 million and up.
At one time all of the systems could
be purchased or rented except IBM.
Presently and for the past several years
IBM systems also Can be purchased or
rented. The purchase-option method
can be used in all cases. ,
The argument is and has been: Is it
more economical to purchase or to rent
these electronic data processing systems?
This is what the Brooks bill is all about.
In an effort to solve the purchase versus
rental problem; it would centralize in
GSA the control of the procurement and
Utilization of electronic data processing
systems throughout Federal Government.
I am opposed to the bill and would like
to take a few minutes to tell you why.
I am hopeful that my remarks will ade-
quately describe the shortcomings of the
bill and that for these reasons you will
join in opposing it. As you know, .the
House Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee's Subcommittee on Census and
Government Statistics, of which I am
chairman and of which the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. HENDERSON]
was chairman in the 87th Congress, has
some jurisdiction in the electronic data
processing equipment field in the Federal
Government. We have carried out our
responsibilities diligently. We have had
hearings on this subject for a total of 5
days. Consequently, I believe that we
are in a fair position to know what should
be done and what should not be done in
regard to electronic data processing
systems.
At the outset, I should like to point
out to you that I do not object to the
intention of the bill, but I do object to
the basic elements of the bill and its
sweeping misassignment of responsibili-
ties. The bill authorizes the General
Services Administration, in effect, to run
the electronic data processing activities
of the Federal Government, a job-the
General Services Administration cannot
do. The bill simply overguns and over-
kills the electronic data processing prob-
lem and could easily make matters worse
instead of better. There are problems
enough with the experts throughout
Government trying to manage electronic
data processing, and I cannot see how
one -Service agency could do it.
Let me get down to specifics. H.R.
5171 is intended to take action on the
recommendations made in the March 6,
1963, report of the Comptroller General
of the United States to the Congress
titled "Study of Financial Advantages
of Purchasing Over Leasing of Electronic
Data Processing Equipment in the Fed-
eral Government." The report indi-
cated that the Federal Government
potentially could save $148 million over
a 5-year period if it were to purchase
rather than lease more of its electronic
data processing equipment. The report
estimated an additional annual savings
of $100 million if the machines were used
more than 5 years.
The Comptroller General recom-
mended also the means of accomplishing
the savings. I quote from the letter to
the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives
which accompanied his report:
We believe that, to fully realize savings
of such magnitude, basic changes in the
Government's overall management system
will be necessary. Decisions as to the finan-
cial advantages of purchasing will have to
12263
be made from the 'stai-klid.oint of tbe Gov-
ernment as a whole, and not primarily froth
the standpoint of individual using agencies
as has been. the practice in the past. In
addition, more attention heeds to be given
to obtaining more complete utilization of
the equipment acquired. 'We believe that
the only practicable way in which the kind
of coordinated management can be prac-
ticed to achieve the possible financial savings
cited is through the establishment of a small,
highly placed central management office in
the executive branch of the Government.
Accordingly, we are recommending to the
President of the United States that he
establish such an office in his organization.
I supported the Comptroller General's
recommendation in my remarks on the
Floor of the House on March 18, 1963.
Now, on the other hand, the report of
the House Committee on Government
Operations?No. 428?states and I quote:
H.R. 5171 provides the centralized manage-
ment that the Comptroller General recom-
mends.
I want to assure you that it does not.
Page 3 of the report goes on to say:
This authority would be exercised under
the overall authority of the Executive Office
of the President and, the Bureau of the
Budget in the exercise of traditional budge-
tary and policy control.
In my opinion, this is a complete dilu-
tion of what the Comptroller General
had in mind.
Still, strangely enough, General Camp-
bell favors the Brooks bill, but he seems
to consider it as assigning only house-
keeping functions to GSA and still wants
the policy guidance in an office in the
President's organization. This is cov-
ered in General Campbell's testimony
before our subcommittee. General Camp-
bell, in his enthusiasm to save money,
and each of us wants to do that, some-
how overlooks the sweeping provisions
of the bill which go far beyond house-
keeping functions. This is the great
danger in this bill. Some seem to think
that it provides for a few essential func-
tions, whereas in actuality the bill gives
sweeping authority to the GSA.
For my part, based upon the facts,
I submit to the Congress that the Comp-
troller General's recommendation of a
central management office in the Presi-
dent's organization and Brooks bill
which places the authority in GSA are
two different things. Not only are they
different per se, but they are different
as a matter of practical application.
A central management office in the
President's organization would be in a
Position to carry out the functions that
the Comptroller General has in mind.
The President's office is the place to
make decisions which affect departments
and agencies across the Federal Govern-
ment. I think you will agree with me
that it is to inconceivable to think of
the Administrator of the General Serv-
ices Administration telling the Secretary
of Defense, the Postmaster General, the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman
of the Atomic Energy Commission, the
Administrator of the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration, and
others how they can or cannot operate
their departments. Automatic and elec-
tronic data processing is a rapidly grow-
ing science not presently capable of
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12264 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
standardization. Each executive agency
has a different problem and develops a
different computer for that different
problem. '
It is quite likely that the proponents
of the Brooks bill would tell you that the-
Administrator of GSA would not attempt
to tell General Day, for example, about
automating the Post Office Department,
but I want to point out to you that such
authority for the GSA Administrator is
'specified in the bill where it gives him
the control of the utilization of elec-
tronic data processing systems.
Similarly, I am certain that the gentle-
man from Texas [Mr. Bitooxs] , in his
bill, does not intend that GSA take over
the operation of all of the electronic data
processing systems in the Federal Gov-
ernment. Still, H.R. 5171 states that
the Administrator of GSA is authorized
and directed, among other things, and I
quote:
To operate or provide for the operation
by delegation of authority or otherwise, of
such equipment.
Now, our Subcommittee on Census and
Government Statistics has held five
hearings during the course of the last
month on the subject of the use of elec-
tronic data processing equipment in the
Federal Government. You will recall
also the hearings the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. HENDERSON] held
on the subject in October 1962. After
listening to the testimony in these hear-
ings, I can report to you that there is a
lot more to the electronic data processing
problem than the Brooks bill covers.
Mind you, I am not saying that utiliza-
tion and acquisition of electronic data
? processing systems are unimportant, but
I am saying that the Brooks bill goes
about the task in the wrong way and
deals with only one of the many problems
involved. This is what we have faced in
the electronic data processing area time
and again. Someone seizes upon a prob-
lem here and seizes upon a problem there
and never considers the whole picture.
The Brooks bill is a case in point. It
, deals only with the computer hardware.
People in the industry are becoming more
and more aware that we have been over-
concentrating on computer hardware
and that we should start paying some
attention to the people who make it go.
According to figures supplied by the De-
partment of Defense, for example, we
spend just as much money for the per-
sonal services in computer work as we
do for the machinery.
So, when and if we legislate on the
electronic data processing problem, we
Avant to consider the human element,
the standardization of this equipment,
and improved management in general
and not just selected areas.
Some of the other subjects that should
be included in action taken on electronic
data processing are: A study of pricing
to find out why certain relationships
exist between purchasing and leasing,
improved progress in the use of auto-
matic programing languages, attention
? to assignment of full responsibility for
electronic data processing matters in
departments and agencies, attention to
the level at which the electronic data
processing activity is placed in the
-agency's organizational framework, the
establishment of indexes for telling us
what we are saving by using electronic
data processing, and improvement in
general of the- reporting and statistics
relating to electronic data processing
equipment.
? In opposing the Brooks bill and in
asking you to join me in this opposition,
I do not mean to ask you to oppose some-
thing with nothing. At the next meeting
of the House Post Office and Civil Service
Committee which is to be held on August
1, as chairman of the Census and Gov-
ernment Statistics Subcommittee, I will
have a proposal to present ,for the com-
mittee's approval. I can tell you now
that at this point in time we do not see
the need for legislation. This does not
mean that eventually some legislation
will not be required, but at the present
time we see the need for a high level
Presidentially appointed group?includ-
ing Members of Congress, Federal execu-
tive agencies, industry, and general pub-
lic?to place all of these matters under
study and to report back to the President
and to Congress with their findings. We
? have already been in touch .with repre-
sentatives of the Budget Bureau con-
cerning this proposal, and I have been
informed that Special Projects Funds of
the President's office are available for
this study. At our August 1 meeting I
plan to present for full committee ap-
proval a draft of a letter which our
chairman?and I hope?with the sup-
port of the full committee will send to
President Kennedy. I can asure you that
these electronic data processing prob-
lems require advice and counsel of un-
questioned competence and authority?
the very best brains that this country can
bring to what is now called the electronic
revolution.
? Mr. Chairman, I think you will agree
? with me that it is unreasonable to think
of the Administrator of General Serv-
ices telling the Secretary of Defense, the
Postmaster General, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Chairman of the Atomic
Energy Commission, the Administrator
of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and others how they can
or cannot operate their departments.
Automatic and electronic data process-
ing is a rapidly growing science, not
presently capable of standardization.
Each executive agency has a different
problem and develops a different com-
puter for that different problem.
I submit that we should have a longer
study of this problem before we impose
any restrictions or limitations on the de-
velopment of this wonderful new science.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington [Mr. STIN-
SON] a member of the committee.
Mr. STINSON. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to point out to the distin-
guished gentleman from Montana [Mr.
OLSEN] that the purpose of this bill is
economy and efficiency and to save the
American taxpayers some money. There
is no intention in the bill to retard the
growth of science in the particular field
of data processing equipment.
The Federal Government is not in-
'volved to any great extent in the devel-
July 18'
? opment of data-processing equipment.
The more sophisticated equipment that
was referred to by the gentleman from
Montana could be easily exempted un-
der this bill, as provided on the bottom
of page 2. So I do not think the ad-
vance of science in this field is going to
be hampered in any respect if we enact
this legislation. The end result is that
we are going to save a large quantity of
money. If there is a special instance
involved, a particular piece of equipment
can be provided for the agency, con-
.cerned.
Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield
Mr. STINSON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Virginia.
Mr. GARY. Would the gentleman be
in favor of the General Services Admin-
istration operating the equipment for
the Defense Department and the Space
Agency?
Mr. STINSON. Did I understand cor-
rectly that the gentleman asked if the
GSA shoud operate the equipment?
Mr. GARY. Yes. The bill says so.
That is the objection I have to the bill.
It says it shall control and operate the
equipment. How about operating equip-
ment designed for the Defense Depart-
ment for specific purposes of defense?
Mr. STINSON. The legislative intent
is not to accomplish that purpose but
merely to coordinate the operations of
the various pieces of equipment that are
scattered throughout the Government
and to get full utilization of the equip-
ment.
Mr. GARY. If that is made plain in
the bill, I would have no objection to it
personally, but I would have to oppose
it otherwise.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STINSON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I will say to the
gentleman it is not plain in .the bill. It
cannot be made plain without rewriting
the bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, I have requested this time in order
to give to the membership of this com-
mittee the benefit of such special knowl-
edge of this question as I have gained
by virtue of my activity on the Commit-
tee on Science and Astronautics.
A few weeks ago the chairman of my
subcommittee, the gentleman from West
Virginia,. the Honorable KEN HECHLER,
referred to me for my attention a certain
report to the Congress of the United
States by the Comptroller General.
This report had been sent to the chair-
man of my committee by the Comptroller
General by a letter of transmittal dated
June _11, 1963, and went to considerable
length to point out that in the opinion
of the General Accounting Office, the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration had, during a period of over
2 years, made overpayments in excess of
a million dollars for rentals on auto-
matic data processing equipment.
In fulfillment of the request of my
subcommittee chairman to look into this
matter, I conferred for the better part of
an afternoon with Mr. D. T. Spaulding,
president of the Federal Systems Divi-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06 : CIA-RDP66600403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1963'
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
sion of the International Business Ma-
chines Corp., and another officer of his
company, during which time he was kind
enough to acquaint me with the nature
of the problem and many of the diffi-
culties involved in an accurate determi-
nation of the problem of automatic data
processing rental charges.
A few days after our conference, I re-
ceived a letter from Mr. Spaulding stat-
ing that although there were no adequate
records in existence upon which to make
an accurate assessment in the matter,
the IBM Corp. had nevertheless agreed
to adjust the matter by paying the sum
of $1,100,000 to the Government.
My discussion of the problem with
Mr. Spaulding very soon led me to the
conclusion that the matter was far more
complex than it seems when it first meets
the eye. In the first place, you heard
the word "system" used during the dis-
cussion on the floor today in the talk
about automatic data processing equip-
ment. "System" is really the word for
it. I do not have time to go into this
fully, but I want to make a slight stab
at drawing a parallel. .
Let us say we have the mission of giv-
ing photographic coverage to a series of
events here in Washington. We order
movie cameras, flashbulbs, tripods, all
sorts of film, miniature cameras, press
cameras, many types of lenses, and ac-
cessory equipment of various kinds and
description.
. If we had a particular mission to ful-
fill, let us say to photograph a parade, we
might decide we needed a movie camera
but no floodlights and no flashbulbs, a
tripod to hold the camera steady and a
telephoto lens. We would put those
things together and we would have
brought into existence a particular cam-
era system which would appropriately
serve our mission of photographing a
parade. ?
Every agency of the Government has
its own particular mission to perform.
To perform that mission they need not
only many different kinds of automatic
data processing equipment?they. need to
put together widely variant automatic
data processing systems, composed of
various combinations of the components
?that go to make up such systems.
Examples of such components are
computers, memory, units, power units,
multiplexers, and tape drives, 'many of
which are identical. Also there are
card punches and card readers, not to
mention such items as consoles and mag-
netic tape.
I serve on the Committee on Astro-
nautics which has to do with NASA and
that is why I have come in contact with
this problem. But, NASA has no
monopoly in this field and neither does
any agency. An IBM official was quite
frank to say that his company is con-
stantly encountering new problems with
reference to the leasing and selling of
this equipment to private industry. It
is virgin territory. There is much
ground that has not been covered, and
such difficulties are no reflection upon
anyone. But there is a pressing and
urgent need for some agency in Gov-
ernment to develop specialized knowl-
No. 109 20
edge in this field, and to bring about
economic use of these machines. Great
waste is possible and I dare say great
waste is going on in every department
that uses this automatic data process-
ing equipment. I think this bill will en-
able one agency to develop a competence
that will enable it to decide what system
may be necessary to perform a given
job. The taxpayers stand to benefit
greatly by such an arrangement.
I want to ask the chairman of this
subcommittee one question. Is it your
view that this bill, as now drawn, would
enable the General Accounting Office to
ride herd upon the mission of any
agency in Government?
Mr. BROOKS. May I say in reply
to my distinguished colleague, the gen-
tleman from Georgia, that certainly the
General Accounting Office as the ac-
counting arm of this Congress has the
authority to investigate any agency of
Government.
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Let me re-
state the question. I really did not
mean the General Accounting Office, I
meant the GSA, the General Services
Administration. Is it the opinion of the
chairman of this subcommittee that this
bill would grant the General Services
Administration the power to ride herd
on NASA?
Mr. BROOKS. No, not in any way.
Actually, to be quite candid about it,
the bill would provide the authority to
have the General Services Administra-
tion act as purchasing agent for the
various agencies on the basis of the needs
of those agencies and their requirements
for these automatic data processing
machines, and they would buy the
equipment and supply the equipment.
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The ? CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count. [After counting.] Eighty-three
Members are present, not a quorum.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
? [Roll No. 100]
Abernethy Grabowski O'Brien, Ill.
Ashbrook Gray r" Philbin
Auchincloss Griffin Pillion
Hagen, Calif. Powell
Hansen Rains
Harding Rooney
Harsha Roosevelt
Healey Rostenkowski
Byrnes, Wis. Hemphill Roybal
Clancy Hoffman St. Onge
Clark Johnson, Calif. Schwengel
Clausen, Jones, Ala. Scott
Don H. Kilburn Shelley
Clawson, Del Knox Sheppard
Conte Landrum Shipley
Daddario Latta Smith, Calif.
Leggett Staebler
Lesinski Stephens
Long, La. Taft
Mailliard Teague, Calif.
Martin, Mass. Teague, Tex.
Mathias Thompson, La.
Miller, N.Y. Thompson, N.J.
Morris Trimble
Morrison Utt
Wharton
White
Bass
Belcher
Bonner
Broomfield
Buckley
Dague
Derwinski
Diggs
Donohue
Edmondson
Evins
Farbstein
Foreman
Forrester
Giaimo Mosher
Gibbons Moss
Gonzalez Nelsen
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
12265
Mr. ASHLEY, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
?(H.R. 5171) to authorize the Administra-
tor of the General Servioes Administra-
tion to coordinate and otherwise provide
for the economic and efficient purchase,
lease, maintenance, operation, and util-
ization of automatic data processing
equipment by Federal departments and
agencies, and finding itself without a
quorum, he had directed the roll to be
called,' when 350 Members responded to
their names, a quorum, and he submitted
herewith the names of the absentees to
be spread upon the Journal.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. JOHANSEN].
(Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
-Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, as
? ranking minority member of the Sub-
committee on Census and Government
Statistics of the Committee on.Post Office
and Civil Service, I rise in opposition to
MR. 5171.
It is never my intention to be disre-
spectful of either the prerogatives or the
performance of any other committee.
In this instant matter, however, I must
be very blunt.
In terms of both legislative procedure
and the content of this bill, we have a
situation reminiscent on two counts of
the patent medicine salesman at the
carnival.
Procedurewise, we have his "hurry,
hurry, hurry" tactic.
One single day's hearing was held by
the Government Operations Subcommit-
tee on this bill. Two witnesses were
heard?the Comptroller General of the
United States and the Administrator of ,
General Services Administration. I
should point out that the latter was very
much a party of interest, since his
agency would acquire the enormous
power delegated in this bill.
What is even more to the point and
even more shocking in this "hurry, hurry,
hurry" tactic is that not a single one of
the Government agencies nor any repre-
sentative of private industry who are
principal users and suppliers of auto-
matic dka processing equipment?in-
cluding enormously complex and sophis-
ticated automatic data processing sys-
tems?was called or heard.
Now the bill comes to the floor of the
House under a 1-hour rule.
Furthermore, no real effort was made
to correlate the Government Operations
Subcommittee action with the very in-
tensive and extensive hearings con-
ducted by the Census and Statistics Sub-
committee. While this latter subcom-
mittee has been carrying on hearings
and issuing reports on the broad subject
of automatic data processing since the
86th Congress, in recent weeks, since the
issuance of the Comptroller General's
March 6, 1963, report, it has been focus-
ing attention on questions q0 lease versus
purchase and questions of strengthened
Government-wide policy for acquisition
and utilitization of this equipment. This
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12266' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?'HOUSE
latter series of hearings was completed
only Monday of this week, and the report
now is in preparation. Yet, for all prac-
tical purposes, the Government Opera-
tions Subcommittee has acted as if this
subcommittee and its labors had never
existed. I know as a matter of fact that
it has not even seen the transcripts of
hearings in which these' matters were
fully discussed.
I think it goes considerably beyond
any question of jurisdiction to suggest
that the Census and Statistics Subcom-
mittee May have some information and
judgments in this matter worthy of the
consideration of this House. I think it
is obvious that this consideration cannot
possibly be given under the limitation of
time and the cavalier treatment of this
complex and costly matter involved in
these "Hurry, hurry, hurry" tactics.
I said ?A the outset that this was remi-
niscent of the carnival medicine man on
.two counts. I come now to the second
point.
There is not the slightest evidence,
either in the 1-day hearings or the com-
mittee report of the Government Op-
erations Subcommittee, that the nos-
trum they are peddling will really cure
the ailment.
On the contrary, there are good rea-
sons for believing that it will aggravate
rather than alleviate the condition.
Let us take a close look at the patent
medicine we are being asked to buy on
a "hurry, hurry, hurry" basis.
Let Me point out first of all the enor-
mous grant of power which this bill dele-
gates to General Services Administra-
tion.
The Administrator is authorized and di-
rected to coordinate and control the pur-
chase, lease; maintenance, and use of auto-
matic data processing equipment by, or at
the expense of, Federal agencies,. and to
operate or provide for the operation by dele-
gation of authority or otherwise, of such
equipment.
The committee report comments, ap-
ropos of written objections generously
.incorpoiated in the committee's printed
hearings, from various agencies, but
otherwise totally ignored.:
Opposition to H.R. 5171 may center upon
misintrepretation as to the extent of the
Administrator's authority.
I see no basis for misintrepretation of
the language I read. It is a total grant
of?authority. Indeed the addition in
committee of the words, "or at the ex-
pense of" means that GSA authority
would extend to automatic data process-
ing equipment in the hands of private
contractors doing Government business.
Now let us consider this encirmous
grant of power in the light of two or three
facts:
Tinder existing laws and regulations
GSA already has authority to process
Federal supply schedule contracts- for
lease of ADP equipment. This means
it does the routine work necessary to
implement equipment requirements of
the reepective agencies. What has been
the GSA rWord on this score? I read
from' the June, 1962, report of the Comp-
troller General:
In the 'past, several months have elapsed
between the expiration of 1 year's schedule
contracts for the rental of electronic auto-
matic data processing equipment and award
of the next year's contract. During these
months, no contract terms were in effect.
When the new contracts were awarded, the
terms were made retroactive to the effective
date. These time lapses have caused difficul-
ties such as, (1) unnecessary administrative
expense for GSA and the Agencies using the
contracts and (2) problems in the areas, of
budgeting, purchasing, paying, and main-
taining machine utilization records in the
Agencies using the contracts.
I am informed that such delay cost
one important supplier $500,000.
This is the record of GSA in handling
the paperwork. I submit that it does
not recommend transfer of vastly_ broad-
er, substantive authority to GSA.
Consider another aspect of the mat-
ter. During the one day hearing con-
ducted by the Government Operations
Subcommittee, Mr. Boutin, the GSA Ad-
ministrator, was asked by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORHEAD], this
pertinent .question:
Do you have in GSA at the present time
personnel who are capable of analyzing these
tremendously difficult machines and these
difficult processes and the varying needs of
this department or that department?
Mr. Boutin replied:
We do have substantial in-house capability
right now ? how many additional peo-
ple would be required, I could not tell you.
It would be minimal.
The facts are that Mr. Boutin further
testified that GSA now has 481 persons
in the agency for its own automatic data
processing operations. Let me say right
now that this agency which is going to
save the Government millions of dollars
by purchasing these computers has never
purchased one itself. In fact, the 10
computers it has on hand at the present
time are 'all leased. To suggest that the
vast functions involved in exercise of
the Government-wide control of automa-
tic data processing called for in this bill
would involve only a minimal increase in
GSA personnel is too preposterous to
even argue. Either this bill means noth-
ing, or Mr. Boutin fails to comprehend
the responsibility he would acquire, or
he was something less than frank with
the committee.
One further point. The Comptroller
General, in recommending "overall pol-
icy guidance and direction" of auto-
matic data processing, proposed that it be
directed from the Office of the President.
? This led to the following colloquy be-
tween Mr. Boutin and the chairman of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. BitooKs], as follows:
Mr. BOTJTIN. We have a close and everyday
liaison with the President and his Office.
Mr. Bitoox.s. You do not think he would
be reluctant to call you and say, "Bernie,
we have got to get together on this now."
You would be there.
Mr. Bouniv. It is not unusual to have the
telephone ring and have the voice come on
and say, "This is the President" and go
right into what he has in mind. ,He is not
bashful.
. Time does not permit further comment
on this exchange.
The heart of this issue goes to the dis-
tinction between overall policy guid-
ance?which I may say, understhe prod-
July 18.
dings of the Census and Statistics Sub-
committee, the Comptroller General, and
the Bureau of the Budget, is presently,
being provided and constantly im-
proved?and actual planning, acquisi-
tion, and operation of this equipment by
a central agency.
Remember we are talking not just
about simple punchcard machines. We
are, talking about complex automatic
data processing systems used by the
Atomic Energy Commission, by the De-
partment of Defense for defense against
nuclear attack, and also by NASA.
With this fact in mind, it Seems to me
obvious that the views of departments
and agencies responsible for scientific
and technical use of this equipment are
not only highly relevant but absolutely
essential. It seems to me that their
views need to be explored in depth and
not handled in the perfunctory fashion
of routine letters introduced into the
appendix 'of the hearings record. Evi-
dently, the Government Operations
Subcommittee does not share this view.
The Census? Subcommittee does hold,
this view, however, and I include a few
excerpts of testimony which have been
given before the subcommittee.
One statement was made on June 24
by Mr. John P. Abbadessa, the Controller
of the Atomic Energy Commission:
Implementation of a program should rest
with the agency that has responsibility for
the program. In the AEC, a large percentage
of our computer work is done in the scien-
tific area. These are very complicated ma-
chines and complex applications. We can-
not conceive that a central group elsewhefe
in the Government could discharge this
responsibility efficiently.
As to control of contractors by such a
central group he added that he felt it
would result in administrative costs that
could outweigh 'any economies that would
pe gained.
On July 15 in response to my question-
ing on the proposal incorporated in this
bill, Mr. John D. Young, the Director of
Administration for NASA, voiced his em-
phatic opposition. He said that he be-
lieved the effect would be to diffuse re-
sponsibility and accountability. He
urged further clarification of guidelines
by the Budget Bureau, and continuation
of the work that GAO is doing. -
And then Mr. Young added this sig-
nificant comment:
I think that if tight control were given to
the GSA or to the Bureau of the Budget in
terms of our use of computers, there is a
real question, in fact there would be no
question that we could not meet flight sched-
ules at the rate that we are trying to meet
flight schedules today.
Here are just a few more comments
taken from testimony by department and
agency representatives before the Cen-
sus and Statistics Subcommittee.
Mr. Harold Seidman, Acting Assistant
Director, Office of Management and Or-
ganization, Bureau of the Budget:
. I would strongly object to any arrange-
ment whereby the control of .automatic data
processing equipment was put in some
agency other than the one responsible for
its operations.
Mr. A. T. Bishop, staff director, Data
Systems Division, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000306330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1963 .0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
We are aware of certain proposals which
would greatly centralize control over the ac-
quisition, management, utilization, mainte-
nance and operation of all automatic data
processing equipment in the Federal Govern-
ment. Performance of these responsibilities
Is a prerequisite to effective control over op-
erating Defense programs. The Department
opposes such proposals which would vest
these responsibilities in another agency and
interfere with vital command relationships.
Mr. 0. Glenn Stahl, Director, Bureau
of Programs .and Standards, Civil Serv-
ice Commission:
In view of the very size. and complexity
of Government operations, I personally Would
tend to shy away from any heavy emphasis
on centralization of such processes.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe my
record in this House will justify any sus-
picion that I am hostile to economy or
that I favor bureaucratic proliferation,
expansionism, or empire building.
We are getting a fast sell on this bill
on the alleged grounds that it will pre-
vent waste and improve efficiency of au-
tomatic data processing operations.
I think we had better take a second
look. I think we need to remember we
,are dealing with something a little more
complex than procurement of paper
clips.
Otherwise, we may find to our sorrow
that we are compounding instead of cur-
ing the evils which concern us all.
There is an old warning about rush-
ing in where angels fear to tread.
I think that warning is appropriate
this afternoon. Again, I urge defeat of
H.R. 5171.
Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I shall be happy to
yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. JENSEN. I want to say to the
gentleman that I agree completely with
the position taken by the gentleman.
And, is it not a fact that the General
Services Administration will have com-
plete control over the operation of these
machines and the purchase of these ma-
chines, whatever department is involved?
Mr. JOHANSEN. That is precisely
what the bill says, and there cannot be
anything else under this bill.
. Mr. JENSEN. And further than that,
thea General Services Administration
charges 10 percent commission on every-
thing they purchase for any other
agency. They then take that money,
put it into their own fund and spend it
at will without asking Congress. So, to
that degree you have back-door spending
In this bill.
Mr. JOHANSEN. There is a great
deal involved from the financing angle
in this bill that needs to see the light of
day before we vote on it.
Mr. JENSEN. And, if the gentleman
will yield further, to my memory every
time in the past any agency asks to re-
organize and buy such machinery, they
say it will save personnel. However, the
record shows that the very next year
they ask for more people.
Mr. JOHANSEN. The gentleman is
right.
Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas. ?
Mr. ALGER. Will the gentleman tell
us how many departments of Govern-
ment are opposed to the bill? I have
found some here, but I am wondering if
the gentleman would list them for us.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I can tell the gen-
tleman from Texas from my own knowl-
edge that these include the Department
of Defense, the Post Office Department,
the Atomic Energy Commission, and
NASA, among others. I know about that
many.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORHEAD].
(Mr. MOORHEAD asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this bill, and also to
commend its author, the chairman of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. BROOKS].
Mr. Chairman, the ' gentleman' from
Texas has a nose like a bloodhound for
searching out waste and inefficiency in
Government. And when he ?finds waste
he expresses himself in a salty way which
does not always endear him to the bu-
reaucrats who are more interested in
preserving their particular petty empires
than they are in rendering serVice to the
taxpayers at the least cost.
Mr. Chairman, the ,gentleman from
Texas [Mr. BRooKs] . is a member of a
subcommittee, the members of which, on
both sides of the aisle, are dedicated to
the proposition that it is sinful if the
taxpayer does not receive a dollar's -worth
csf service for each dollar of tax he pays.
You or I might disagree about whether
the Federal Government should embark
upon a particular new program, but we
can all agree that any program which
-the Government does carry on should be
carried out as efficiently as humanely
possible. We can all agree to support a
savings Of dollars which does not reduce
any essential Government service. That
is the purpose of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this is an economy vote.
But it does not involve any-philosophical
concept other than the concept of effi-
ciency in Government. This bill repre-
sents a $100 million a year savings. As
soon as this program becomes fully effec-
tive it will mean a savings of $100 million
per year.
Mr. Chairman, I have said that I
thought it was sinful if the taxpayer does
not receive a dollar's worth of Govern-
ment service for every dollar's worth of
tax he pays. If this expensive equip-
ment is not used on a three-shift basis,
the taxpayer does not receive 100 cents
on his dollar. But what are the facts?
Twenty-four percent of this equipment
is used only on a two-shift basis. The
taxpayer-is getting only 67 cents worth
of Government out of each dollar of
taxes. But even worse than that, 70 per-
cent of this equipment is only used on a
one-shift basis, one-third of the time
which it should economically be used.
Therefore the taxpayer is getting only
33 cents worth of services out of his tax
dollar.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a sinful
waste of the taxpayer's money, and I be-
1.2267
lieve that H.R. 5171 should be enacted in
order to eliminate this sin.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MCCLoRY].
Mr. McCLORY, Mr. Chairman, it was
suggested a few moments ago that this
was a hurry, hurry, hurry bill. The in-
vestigation in regard to electronic data
processing equipment in executive agen-
cies was begun back in 1958 and a report
was delivered to the Congress in 1960. I
carry here to the well of the House with
me four reports that we have received
on the Government Operations Commit-
tee from the General Accounting Office
with respect to the use of this equipment
by executive agencies for the purposes of
effecting savings. I would not be stand-
ing here: you can believe me, Mr. Chair-
man, if I did not firmly believe that this
would effect savings of not less than $100
million.
Are we going to concede that private
industry can have electronic data proc-
essing centers and utilize these ma-
chines full time, but the Federal Govern-
ment is not capable of that action? That
is essentially what we are deciding here
today. Certainly, the individual agen-
cies do not want to surrender the control
they have over this equipment, the
spending of the money which goes into
automatic data processing equipment
and the employees who operate it. But
is that efficiency? Efficiency means for
us to provide the maximum for the dol-
lar paid by the taxpayers, and the maxi-
mum use of this equipment by the fewest
number of employees.
GAO made one investigation in the
Chicago area with regard to the distribu-
tion of VA checks. When they put in
the electronic data processing equipment
they consolidated six regional offices.
Now they have one office instead of six.
What else, happened? They lost 76 em-
ployees. That is too bad. But this ex-
ample shows how coordinating use of
automatic data processing equipment
can result in an-efficient operation, and
that is what we are trying to accomplish
here today.
I do not know how long we must study
these problems in order to come up with
an answer, but it seems to me that 3, 4,
or 5 years ought to be enough. We have
received reports from the General
Ac--
counting Office which we have had an
opportunity to study and read. There-
after, the General Accounting Office
recommendations have been put it in the
form of a bill which we have here to-
day and which we should be able to act
on and we should act favorably on this
bill.
Another objection has been made to
certain language in this bill with regard
to delegating authority. That is an es-
sehtkal part of the bill and should re-
magi. If the GSA were not permitted to
delegate authority to the Department of
Defense with respect to its own specific
automatic data processing equipment,
we would be shortchanging the Depart-
ment of Defense. Also, we have provided
that GSA may operate such equipment
just as all the other agencies can operate
it. The GSA may operate such equip-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12268 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
-
ment for itself or for other Agencies.
These are the essential parts. of the bill.
Now, these are essentially the objec-,
tions that have been cited. , The coni-
mittee has considered all of these objec-
tions, and we adopted- this bill as a full
committee. - We are now recommending
the bill to the Congress for enactment
for the purpose of saving not less than
$100 million,
We should he interested in that.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. May I ask the
gentleman if he is not aware that GSA
is already operating some 10 units of its
. own and this allocation of authority to
-operate is on a Government-wide basis,
not with respect only to GSA?
Mr. McCLORY. This is in a proviso
which applies to GSA. There would not
be any harm in GSA operating the equip-
ment, if it could do it, for other agencies
of the Government.
The Space Agency uses electronic data
processing equipment. The use of ADP
equipment by all Federal agencies was
investigated and reported to the Con-
gress in 1960.
According to that report the Depart-
ment of Defense had most of these ma-
chines or systems. They had 626 out of
1,006. Now that total has gone up to
1,200 systems, as they say. But there is
no reason why the Department of De-
fense cannot keep theirs. That is why
the authority is given in the bill to dele-
gate to the Department of Defense? and
all other agencies to lease, purchase,
maintain, and operate automatic data
processing equipment. This is essential
under a clear interpretation of the bill.
This is a good bill, and it should be
passed.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Does this saving of $100
million presuppose the use of this equip-
ment by the various centers working on
a round-the-clock basis?
Mr. McCLORY. On a much fuller
basis. That is the recommendation of
GAO. If we are not going to accept the
recommendation of GAO to effect sav-
ings, then we better find some other
agency to look to. This amount of $100
million is the figure given us by GAO.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman has not
come close to answering my question.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Dintsla]
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to H.R. 5171.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on
Postal Operations, House Post Office and
Civil Service Committee, I am intensRly
interested in anything that affe`cts
___ the Post Office Department. It ap-
pears to me that this bill, giving author-
ity to the Administrator of the General
Services Administration over automatic
data processing equipment, places au-
thority outside of the Post Office Depart-
ment to make decisions about and to
generally interfere with postal opera-
tions. I could not possibly agree with,
such an arrangement. -
I should like to read a letter dated May
9, 1963, to the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget from Frederick C. Belen,
Acting Postmaster General, in which Mr.
Beleri 'comments on H.R. 5171.
OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., May 9, 1963.
Hon. IKERsarr GORDON,
Director, Bureau of the Budget,
Washington, D.C.
DEsa MR. GORDON: This is in reply to the
request of the Assistant Director, Legislative
Reference, for the views of this Department
with respect tci H.R. 5171, "to authorize the
Administrator of the General -Services Ad-
ministration to coordinate and otherwise
provide for the economic and efficient pur-
chase, lease, maintenance, operation, and
utilization of electronic data processing
equipment by Federal departments and
agencies."
The use of electronic data processing
the establishment of a central control or-
ganization for the procurement or manage-
ment of electronic data processing equip-
ment for all Federal agencies.
The use of electronic data processing
equipment is'-vital to the day-to-day conduct
of the Post Office Department business and
is considered to be an essential administra-
tive sanction of the Department.
While the bill would permit the Adminis-
trator of General Services Administration, in
his discretion, to delegate the control of elec-
tronic data processing-equipment in certain
cases, we believe that because an exception-
ally high degree of responsiveness to the
data processing needs of the Department is
required, it is imperative that all phases of
administrative management of the equip-
ment, personnel, job schedules, and contact
with vendors remain under the 'direct con-
trol of the Postmaster General or his
designated representative.
This Department is currently participating
In the experimental regional sharing plan for
electronid computers sponsored by the Bu-
reau of the Budget. The Department in-
tends to continue in this effort in order
to help secure maXimum utilization of data
processing equipment. However, it is not
considered advisable to relinquish authority
,over the management of this function since
data processing services are fundamental re-
sponsibilities of the Postmaster General.
This Department would not be opposed
to the establishment of an electronic data
processing fund provided such fund is avail-
able for the purchase of electronic data
processing equipment if an economic evalua-
tion of the relative costs of lease against
purchase indicates that it is to the best ad-
vantages of the Government to purchase
equipment and further, that the fund is
available to support extraordinary one-time
expenses for data processing services which
may from time to time occur.
Sincerely yours,
FREDERICK C. BELEN,
Acting Postmaster General.
I fully support Mr. Belen's remarks
and I daresay this bill would have a
similar unfavorable effect on most of
the executive departments and inde-
pendent agencies. Letters of the type of
Mr. Belen's from the various depart-
ments and agencies bear me out on this.
Mr. Chairman, we would do great
damage to the automatic data processing'
program of the Federal Government by
Passing this bill. HR. 5171 certainly
should not pass the House.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I have no more requests for time.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
July 18'
4 minutes to the distinguished member .
Of the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
GARY].
Mr. GARY. Mr. -Chairman, I am
deeply, concerned about this, bill. As
most of you probably know, the Treasury
Department has been a leader in the use
of electronic data processing equipment.
As chairman of the subcommittee that
handles the appropriations for the Trea-
sury Department and the Post Office
Department, I have been working on the
problem of data processing equipment
for a long, long time.
By the use of data processing equip-
ment in the Treasury Department we
have saved millions of dollars; and I
mean literally millions of dollars. With-
out the use of electronic equipment in
the Post Office Department the vastly
increased volume of mail could not be
handled today. About 2 years agp we
, gave to the Bureau of the Budget, whose
appropriations are also handled by our
subcommittee, $50,000 to study the very
questions covered by this bill. ? '
Frankly, I am thoroughly in sympathy
with the purposes of the bill, but I think
it goes too far. i think we need a cen-
tral agency to coordinate the purchase,
ease, and maintenance of this equip-
ment, because as it is now, with each
department making its own contracts
with the manufacturers, they cannot
secure as favorable contracts ,as a cen-
tral agency, could negotiate.
But this bill says, and I read:
The Administrator is authorized and di-
rected to coIrcilnate?
That is all right?
and control?
What??
the purchase, lease, maintenance, and use
of automatic data processing equipment by,
or at the expense of, Federal agencies, and
to operate or provide for the operation by
delegation of authority or otherwise, of such
equipment.
Now, to give the General Services
Administration the right to use and oper-
ate this equipment in the Department of
Defense, in the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, in NASA, in the Treasury Depart-
ment, in my judgment is absolutely*all
wrong. What do they know about oper-
ating this machinery in the Defense De-
partment? Instead of saving money
they would have to have technicians
who are familiar with the technical as-
pects of every department of the
GoVernment.
This machinery is scattered all over
the United States. We are not dealing
with just a few machines here in the city
of Washington. They are broadly scat-
tered. Right now the Internal Revenue
Service is establishing data processing
machinery in their seven regional centers
for processing income tax returns. They
requested nine but our subcommittee rec-
ommended reducing the number to seven,
which will save several million dollars.
This equipment will be set up in each of
those seven regions. Now, is the General
Services Administration going to have
people in each of those regions to con-
trol the operation- of that machinery?
If so, they will havelo employ numerous.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
technicians. If the words "control" and
"use" and "operate" are stricken from
the bill I will vote for it. I think we
need some central agency to coordinate
the purchase, leasing, and maintenance.
But unless some amendment is adopted
to strike out the control, use, and opera-
tion by the General Service Administra-
tion I shall be compelled to vote against
it. I think it is fantastic to talk about
giving the General Services Administra-
tion control over the use of this ma-
chinery in the Department of? Defense
or in the Central Intelligence Agency,
and other sensitive agencies of the Gov-
ernment.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
?such time as he may recluire to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. FAscELL]
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I think
my distinguished colleague who just pre-
ceded me made an eloquent case for the
legislation. There is very little I can
add to that case except to say this: that
the question of central purchasing and
the question of standardization has been
a problem which has plagued all levels
of the government starting with the mu-
nicipality, to the Federal Government.
When you get to a budget the size of
the one which we must consider here,
the problem of, central purchasing and
standardization is so gigantic as to shake
your imagination.
In our Committee on Government Op-
erations we have been dealing with this
problem, as have other 'committees of
this ?body, for a considerable time. I
forget the exact number of item S used
by the Federal Government, but as I
recall it is over 3 million. The problem
of standardization is so complex that
by the time you standardize? you have so
many new items of inflow into the pipe-
line that you cannot keep up with the
standardization.
In an effort to save money everyone is
in agreement on the desirability and ne-
cessity of central purchasing. True,
these machines are not of the same cate-
gory as screwdrivers, yet it has been ad-
mitted here that you-can within the limit
of a single agency make more efficient
and more economical use of these ma-
chines by proper programing and
otherwise. It makes good business sense
to adopt these practices within the ag-
ency itself. Why is it not good business,
good sense, and good logic to do so on a
Government-wide basis where appli-
cable, where necessary, and where
feasible? That is what we seek to do
with this legislation.
Certainly the equipment suppliers
would love to have the competition that
exists now among all the agencies of
Government. Certainly every agency of
Government would like to have the best
and the newest of equipment, whatever it
is, no matter how little they utilize it in
space or time. But this is not economic.
I do not mean by that that we ought
to eliminate the right of the agency to
Riave its own requirements. The bill
specifically provides that they submit
their requirements and the purchasing
will be done to meet those requirements.
But that does not mean that where
practicable and possible, if there is a
common use or machines can be put to a
common use, the General Services Ad-
ministration should not have the au-
thority at least to try to make this kind
of common-use purchase, this kind of
common-use leasing, and this kind of
common-use management.
No one anticipates that in cases of
special military requirements men are
going to be taken out of uniform and
civilians from the General Services Ad-
ministration will be sent down to the
various stations and posts to operate the
machines. That is not the intent of the
legislation.
Therefore, I would submit that the
theory of central purchasing which the
Hoover Commission tried so hard for
so many years to get into Government,
and that our own committee has fought
for so diligently, should be put into effect.
Here is a brand new area, expanding like
a mushroom, where the bureaus and
agencies themselves, the General Ac-
counting Office and others, have recog-
nized that we must do something now
before it gets out of hand, before all of
these new systems get into the agencies
and are fixed to the point where you will
never have the opportunity to achieve
standardization or common use. The
time is now to get some action on this
problem. That is all we seek to do.
I have cosponsored this legislation by
my bill H.R. 7559 and I urge the passage
of it by this House.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. Chairman, in con-
sidering the various proposals contained
in H.R. 5171, it is important that we
recognize the significance of placing the
coordination and control of all federal
electronic data processing' equipment
under the General Services Administra-
tion. In addition we must recognize the
far-ranging effects of this bill on the
executive agencies and private industry
as well as the projected saving indicated
by the General Accounting Office.
The General Services Administration
has a difficult time controlling and ad-
'ministering its own internal data pro-
cessing system now. Should we burden
it further with the task of coordinating
the programs of other agencies? It is
beyond estimation at this time how large
a staff will be required by GSA to admin-
ister the program proposed here. Fur-
thermore, the agencies using the equip-
ment would completely lose their prerog-
ative to select the equipment which will
best perform a particular job. This is
particularly important-when the Nation's
security is involved as it is in the defense
and space efforts.
This bill will also have a detrimental
effect on the competitive spirit which is
only now developing in the computer
industry. Contrary to the point of view
of the Comptroller General in the hear-
ings on this bill, it is not always to the
best advantage of the Government to
purchase automatic data processing
equipment, nor is it always wise to use
the equipment 24 hours a day. There
are many situations in which it will be
to our advantage to reexamine the cOm-
petitive equipment available and select
new computer hardware instead of pur-
chasing existing equipment. The Gov-
ernment must examine the feasibility of
purchase in each individual case.
The enactment of this legislation
would bring about a huge windfall to
12269
the company which 'presently is the
largest supplier of systems. This would
discourage competition in the industry
and lock that company in for an indefi-
nite period of time.
Finally, the legislation would, I think,
discourage technological advancements.
The purchase of existing equipment
would prevent for some time Federal
Government participation in the fruits
of the imaginative and productive re-
search now carried on by all companies
in the computer field.
I must therefore, Mr. Chairman, op-
pose this measure. It will not bring
about in the long run the savings claimed
for it and it may instead set back
cause of progress in this vital contem-
porary industry.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex-
pired.
The Clerk will read the bill for
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and Muse
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That title I
of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), as
amended, is hereby amended by adding a
new section to read as follows:
"SEc. 111. (a) The Administrator is au-
thorized and directed to coordinate and
control ,the purchase, lease, maintenance,
and use of electronic data processing equip-
ment by Federal agencies, and to operate or
provide for the operation by delegation of
authority or otherwise, of such equipment.
Electronic data processing equipment suit-
able for efficient and effective use by Fed-
eral agencies shall be provided by the Ad-
ministrator through purchase, lease, trans-
fer of equipment from other Federal
agencies, or otherwise and the Adminis-
trator is authorized and directed to provide
by contract or otherwise for the mainte-
nance and repair of such equipment. In
carrying out his responsibilities under this
section the Administrator is authorized to
transfer electronic data processing equip-
ment between Federal agencies, to require
joint utilization of such equipment by two
or more Federal agencies, and to establish
equipment pools anthdata processing centers
for such joint use when necessary for its
most efficient and effective utilization:
Provided, That the Administrator, in his dis-
cretion, may delegate authority to lease,
purchase, maintain, or operate (1) ,general
classes of equipment, (2) equipment of spa?
cial design needed to fulfill some unique
requirement or special Purpose of a par-
ticular Federal agency, and (3) equipment
necessary for national defense and security.
"There is hereby, authorized to be estab-
lished on the books of the Treasury, an
electronic data processing fund, which shall
be available without fiscal year limitation
for expenses, including personal services,
other costs, and the procurement by lease,
purchase, transfer, or otherwise of equip-
ment, maintenance and- repair of such
equipment by contract or otherwise, neces-
sary for the efficient coordination, operation,
utilization of such equipment by and for
Federal agencies.
"There are authorized to be appropriated
to said fund such sums as may be required
,which, together with the value, as deter-
mined by the Administrator, of supplies and
equipment from time to time tra:nsferred
to the Administrator, less any liabilities as-
sumed, shall constitute the capital of the
fund: Provided, That said fund shall be
credited with (1) advances and reimburse-
ments from available appropriations and
funds of any agency (including the General
Services Administration), organization, or
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12270 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
persons utilizing such equipment and serv-
ices rendered them, at rates determined by
the Administrator to approximate the costs
thereof met by the fund (including depreci-
ation of equipment, provision for accrued
leave, and where appropriate, for terminal
liability charges and for amortization of in-
stallation costs, but excluding, in the
determination of rates prior to the fiscal
year 1966,- such direct operating expenses as
may be directly appropriated for, which ex-
penses May be charged to the fund and
covered by advances or reimbursements from
such direct appropriations) and (2) refunds
or recoveries resulting from operations of
the fund, including the net proceeds of dis-
posal of excess or surplus personal property
and receipts from carriers and others for loss
of or damage to property: Provided further,
-That following the close of each fiscal year
any net income, after making provisions for
prior year losses, if any, shall be transferred
to the Treasury of the United States as
miscellaneous receipts."
Mr. BROOKS (interrupting the read-
ing of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be con-
sidered as read and be open to amend-
ment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN, The Clerk will re-
port the first committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 1, line 6, after "SEc. 111." insert
(a)".
The committee amendment was
-.agreed to.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, so that there may be
no misunderstanding about' these com-
mittee amendments, I should like to ex-
plain what they are, and then I intend
to ask that the committee amendments
be considered en bloc.
Other than -changing subsection des-
ignations and other minor typographi-
cal changes, the basic changes made by
the committee are these. ?
We changed the word "electronic" to
"automatic" to include punchcard and
other nonelectronic equipment as well
as electronic data processing compon-
ents in the coverage. -
Second, it is made specifically clear
in the bill that reports on the funding,
with reference to those matters involv-
ing the revolving fund, would go to the
Bureau of the Budget and to the Con-
gress and any excess of funds that is not
used would be returned to the Treasury.
The other basic' change in the legis-
lation which was included at the sug-
gestion of the Comptroller General is
that coverage under the bill would in-
clude that equipment which the U.S.
Government buys and pays for incident
to execution' of contracts and agree-
ments.
Mr. Chairman, basically that is what
the committee amendments d6.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the com-
mittee amendments be considered en
bloc and, following that, I would say to
the membership I hope to see an amend-
ment offered, possibly by my distin-
guished friend, the gentleman from Vir-
ginia, to remove the word "control" and
the word "use" from page 1 of the bill
because that has apparently upset many
of the people who otherwise are as dedi-
cated as I am to save that $100 million
a year -and thereby increase the effi-
ciency of the Government.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, re-
serving the right to object, then is my
understanding correct that the amend.
ment relating to the deletion of the
word "control" and the word "use" is to
come later on?
Mr. BROOKS. I understand that
such an amendment will be offered and
I would be delighted to discuss the
amendment at that time.
Mr. LAIRD. ,Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, I would like to direct
a question to the gentleman from Texas
in regard to his explanation of these
amendments.
Do I understand that the individual
agencies will have to justify their request
under the terms of these amendments on
a yearly basis for new, equipment? Let
us take, for example, the Social Security
Administration where we have had a
large outlay each year from the social
security trust fund for data processing
equipment. I think the gentleman from
Texas is familiar with the operation we
have in Baltimore and the additions at
the Baltimore center for the Social Secu-
rity Administration. This is equipment
that has been worked many, many hours
and the Bureau of the Budget in their
reports and the Comptroller General has
found this to be one of the best Govern-
ment equipment operations in the coun-
try. Presently, the Social Security Ad-
ministration has to come in and justify
on a yearly basis any new additions to
this equipment complex. Does the
amendment that you ask to be con-
sidered en bloc with the other committee
amendments provide that the Social
Security Administration will have to
come in on a yearly basis and justify in
their appropriation requests any addi-
tions to this computer equipment?
Mr. BROOKS. I want to thank the
gentleman for that question because the
answer is, of course, "Yes." Under this
bill a given agency if they wanted an
additional computer, capacity .would
have to get authorization and appropria-
tions through the appropriate commit-
tees of the Congress to cover the cost of-
the additional ADP capacity required
during the fiscal year. With an author-
ization and an appropriation from the
Congress the agency would then put in a
request to the GSA for the automatic
data computing equipment which would
give them the required capacity to meet
their "needs. So the answer to the gen-
tleman's question is, "Yes, every dollar
would be approved by the appropriations '
committee."
I might add with reference to, this
revolving fund in the General Services
Administration, reports would be made
to the Committee on Appropriations.
Also, any excess of funds resulting from
savings from the operation within the
July 18
agencies would revert back to the Treas-
ury of the 'United States on an annual
basis.
Mr. LAIRD. The GSA cannot tap the
revolving fund unless the individwl
agency has saved the money in thefr
annual appropriation bill; is that cor-
rect?
Mr. BROOKS. That is correct. They
-would be operating under the Committee
on Appropriations as they are now.
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I with-
draw My reservation of objection.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. BROOKS. I would be pleased to
yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. On the. bottom of
page 2, the committee amendment in
italics, do I understand that this is based
on the premise and the presupposition
that under this bill the authority to dele-
gate authority will be vested in GSA; is
that correct?
Is that the premise of this amend-
- ment?
Mr. BROOKS. That is correct; on the
basis of the justification which is laid out
in the succeeding line. Let me see if I
can be of some further assistance to my
friend, the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. JOHANSEN].
Line. 23 goes on to explain that they
could eliminate from the performance of
this bill, in the discretion of GSA author-
ity, any individual automatic' data proc-
essing systems or specific units of equip-
ment when such action is necessary for
the economy and efficiency of operations,
or for the security or defense of this
country.
Mr. JOHAN?EN. May I ask the gen-
tleman a further question: If it is pro-
posed and if it should be voted by this
House?and I will oppose the amend-
ment when it is offered to strike out the
words "control" and "use"?how can you
then preserve to GSA power and author-
ity which has been delegated?
Mr. BROOKS. We would only be
changing slightly the delegation?the
authority and power?that is authorized
in the bill. ?
Mr. JOHANSEN. If the gentleman
will yield further, what will this power
and authority amount to if you are going
to eliminate the key words "use" and
"control"?
Mr. BROOKS. The gentleman under-
stands that we are trying in this legisla-
tion?this is the concept of it?to have
the different agencies and the Govern-
ment to work together in an effort to
achieve both efficiency and economy. I
think this is a mutual purpose that we
all feel. I think the agencies do. I give
the people in the bureaus that credit, as
I hope they give to me. Even without
the words 'control" and "use" this bill
would give this one agency of the Gov-
ernment, the GSA, the responsibility for
coordinating and otherwise providing for
the economic and efficient purchase,
lease, maintenance, operation, and uti-
lization of electronic data processing
equipment by the Federal departments
and agencies. It is not a very complex
matter to describe. It means that there
will be one agency to buy and lease this
equipment at the best possible deal in
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE
order to see if the equipment can be
made available to all agencies to meet
their needs on a reasonable and more
economic basis.
This is a recommendation that I did
not dream up, but is a recommendation
of the Comptroller General of the United
States. He, as the gentleman from
Michigan knows, is a distinguished Re-
publican appointed some years ago as
Comptroller General to a 15-year term,
and he has worked on this for some
years. This has not been a hasty recom-
mendation.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Do I understand
that there is now before the committee
a unanimous consent request to consider
the am6ndments en bloc?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will report the next com-
mittee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 1, line 8, strike the word "electronic"
and insert in lieu thereof the word "auto-
matic".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 1, line 8, after the word "by" add a
comma and the following: "or at the ex-
pense of,".
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to di-
rect some questions to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Beooics], the chairman
of the subcommitthe, as to the meaning
and import of the words in this amend-
ment "or at the expense of."
Mr. BROOKS. If the gentleman will
yield, it means "or at the expense of the
U.S. Government."
Mr. JOHANSEN. Let me be more spe-
cifiic. I want to be very clear as to what
I am driving at. Does not this amend-
ment Specifically mean that the powers
that are granted in this bill to the GSA
will be extended to all contractors in
private industry operating on Govern-
ment contracts?
Mr. BROOKS. If the gentleman will
yield, I do not believe that would fol-
low, sir.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I think it is very
clear, and I think it was brought out in
the hearings, that it was for the specific
purpose, and I will ask any of the gentle-
men of the committee who are here from
the Committee on Census and Statistics
if it was not the understanding that it
was specifically for the purpose of ex-
panding this authority to cover Govern-
ment contracts?
Mr. FASCIELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. FASCELL. Do I understand by
the gentleman's line of questioning that
he is opposed to the contractors who use
this equipment paying for the use of it?
Mr. JOHANSEN. Of course not. My
point is I want to know just what the
outer reaches of authority that we are
granting to GSA are. I want to know
how prodigious a job GSA is going to be
doing without any addition or at least
with a minimum of addition of person-
nel. It is my clear recollection in read-
ing the committee report that the pur-
post of this was to include controls of
the acquisition and the use and opera-
tion of this type of equipment by non-
Government agencies operating under
Government contracts.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, lines 2 and 3, strike out "Electronic
data processing equipment suitable for effi-
cient and", and immediately after line 3
insert the following:
"(b) Automatic data processing equip-
ment suitable for efficient and".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 10, strike the word "electronic"
and insert in lieu thereof the word "auto-
matic".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, beginning in line 17, strike out
"(1) " and what follows thereafter down
through page 2, line 21, and insert in lieu
thereof the following: "individual auto-
matic data processing systems or specific-
units of equipment, when such action is
necessary for the economy and efficiency of
operations, or when such action is essential
to defense or security: Provided further, That
the Administrator, in his discretion, prior
to the beginning of fiscal year 1966, may
delegate authority to lease, purchase, main-
tain, or operate automatic data processing
equipment to the various Federal agencies
to the extent necessary and desirable to
allow for the orderly implementation of this
utilization program."
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I simply say if we do
not grant the kind of total power, czar
authority, to the 'agency that is written
into section 111(a) , it will not be neces-
sary to start adopting amendments to
give part of it back. I directly and par-
ticularly emphasize the fact that this
amendment does not in any way alter the
fact that the discretion rests with the
GSA Administrator.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 22, after the quotation mark
at the beginning of the line, insert "(c)".
12271
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 23, strike "Treasury," and
insert in lieu thereof "Treasury".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 23, strike the word "electronic"
and insert in lieu thereof the word "auto-
? matic".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 5, strike the word "agencies."
and insert the following: "agencies: Pro-
vided, That a report of receipts, disburse-
ments, and transfers to miscellaneous re-
ceipts, under this authorization shall be
made annually in connection with the
budget estimates to the Director of the Bu-
reau of the Budget and to the Congress."
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, after the quotation marks at the
beginning of line 6, insert "(d) ".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 10, strike out "less any liabili-
ties assumed,".
The committee amendment was agreed.
to.
The CHAIRMAN. 'The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, line 14, strike out "persons" and
insert in lieu thereof "contractor".
?
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 3, lines 18 and 19, strike out "and
where appropriate, for terminal liability
charges".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-,
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, line 7, strike out "receipts.'" and
insert "receipts."
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, after line 7 add the following new
subsection:
"(e) The proviso accompanying section
201(a) (63 Stat. 383), the provisions of
section 602(d) (63 Stat. 401), and any other
provisions of the Federal Property and Ad-
ministrative Services Act of 1949, as amended
(63 Stat. 377), or of any other provisions of
law which are inconsistent with the purposes
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12272 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
and provisions of section 111 shall not be
applicable."
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOW
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
(e Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: On page
3, in line 20, strike the period, insert a
comma, and the following: "and the inclu-
sion in appropriation acts of provisions regu-
lating the operation of the automatic data
1 processing fund, or limiting the expenditures
therefrom, is hereby authorized".
?
(Mr. BOW asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
remarks.)
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment would permit limitations in
appropriation acts against the use of the
funds in the revolving fund. As this bill
is now drawn there is a revolving fund
set up and the General Services Admin-
istration has authority to make pur-
chases whether authorized by the com-
mittees or not. It takes the control away
from the Congress and they can go
ahead. Under the amendment of the
distinguished chairman of the subcom-
mine, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
BRomis], there is a provision that they
must report the receipts, disbursements,
and transfers to "Miscellaneous re-
ceipts." Under this authorization the
report shall be made annually in con-
nection with budget estimates to the Di-
rector of the Bureau of the Budget and
the Congress. All they have to do is re-
port to the Congress what they spend.
If they go ahead and spend beyond what
the Congress might think is necessary,
there is no limitation. All this amend-
ment I am offering does is permit, in the
inclusion of appropriation acts, a provi-
sion regulating the operation of the au-
tomatic data processing funds. It puts a
regulation upon this fund and also per-
mits limiting expenditures so that there
can be a limitation if they have gone too
far. You see, actually, what this section
(c) on page 3 does, and I am sure it was
not the intent of the committee to do so,
but what it actually does is to give to the
General Services Administration the op-
portunity to go out and buy without any
opportunity for the Congress to look it
over.
In the subcommittee of which I am a
member we have the Weather Bureau
coming up before us, and every year we
have a question of automatic data proc-
essing machines. This would mean they
would no longer come to us but the-Gen-
eral Services Administration could go out
and buy and make a report to us. Then
if we did not like it there is not much
we could do about it, but if this amend-
ment is adopted it gives the Congress an
opportunity to do something about it and
to exercise control. I think if we could
save $100 million this is fine, but I think
this amendment locks the door in a way
and keeps within the Congress control of
expenditures rather than delegating to
the head of the General Services Admin-
istration the opportunity of going out
and making the expenditures and only
reporting to us and giving us an oppor-
tunity of saying, "You should not have
done it," but that is all. This will give
us the opportunity to make a decision
and give control to the Congress and I
think we should maintain this control.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOW. I will be delighted to yield.
Mr. BROOKS. Let me say to my dis-
tinguished and able friend from Ohio, an
important member of the Appropriations
Committee which has dealt with this
matter for many years, that I appreciate
the motive behind his amendment. If
the gentleman would yield a little fur-
ther to me, I would just like to explain
that there is no intention that any given
agency would not have to get clearance
from the legislative committee and from
the appropriate subcommittee of the dis-
tinguished Committee on Appropriations
with full authority over any requests.
These funds would go then to the Gen-
eral Services Administration's automatic
data processing revolving fund. When
funds were taken from the revolving
fund GSA would justify it. I do not be-
lieve there is any conflict between our
ultimate aim of seeing that the Congress
has a check on what is done. The Ap-
propriations Committee will have one
check, and this amendment as I see it
would give them another check.
I want to thank the gentleman for
what I think would be a constructive
contribution to this legislation. It will
give Congress a determined and clear
check on every dollar that is spent by
this agency or any other for automatic
data processing equipment, as it should
be.
Mr. BOW. I understand the gentleman
is accepting the amendment. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. BOW. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. FASCELL. Does the language the
gentleman offers authorize language in
the appropriation act which would not
be otherwise authorized?
Mr. BOW. No, I think not; it would
have to be authorized.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offere,d by the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. Bowl.
The a.nl ent_Has a to.
_m greed
MI .1:)--TERTerrnia. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike out the last
word.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr.
Chairman, I do not think anyone can
find fault with the objectives of this bill
but I believe that the bill was introduced
rather hastily, that certain agencies of
the Government were not given an op-
portunity to present their views to the
committee as is evidenced by the report,
wherein the Department of Defense, the
Atomic Energy Commission, the Treasury
Department, and many others who are
the biggest users of these kinds of ma-
chines were not given an opportunity to
appear before the committee and whose
adverse views, including those of the Bu-
reau of the Budget, are expressed in that
report.
The National Aeronautics and Space
July
Administration does not have here a let-
ter in the report opposing this bill be-
cause it did not have an opportunity to
get one in. It was only yesterday that
I got a letter from Mr. Webb opposing
the legislation or opposing the passage
of the legislation in its present form.
Many of my colleagues in the House do
not need to be reminded that these
agencies use scientific computers and
more sophisticated machines. They are
not bookkeeping machines for payroll or
Inventory purposes. There is a great
deal of difference between them. These
machines are sophisticated. They must
be under the control of the people who
are using them and they cannot be
turned over for other purposes success-
fully.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. IVIIT,T.ER of California. I yield.
Mr. GROSS. The same thing is true
of the warning system devices, is not that
so?
Mr. MILLER of California. That is
true; and the Post Office Department and
many others. The Weather Bureau has
been mentioned here. These are some
of the specialized machines that are used.
The Department of Defense is in opposi-
tion to it for that reason, not that they
do not want to see this done, but I think
the best thing that could happen to this
bill is to have it returned to the commit-
tee with instructions to*go into the mat-
ter more thoroughly and give these im-
portant scientific agencies of Govern-
ment a chance to plead their case before
the committee.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, I hope
that I am alone in this, but I find that
I am not. There are quite a few who
are not experts in this field and who do
not understand all of the ramifications
of it. If I understand the gentleman
correctly, he and others here who are
concerned with the national security feel
that this would not be to the best inter-
ests of the country; is that correct?
Mr. MILLER of California. That is
correct.
Mr. COLMER. If that be true, and
the objective gained of trying to save
some money, in which all of us are in-
terested?and I am just seeking advice
because, as I say, I do not know a great
deal about this?why would it not be a
good idea to amend this bill to exempt
the Department of Defense, as suggested
by the gentlemen interested in this sub-
ject, such as the distinguished gentle-
man from California who is now ad-
dressing the House? I just throw that
out for what it is worth.
Mr. MILLER of California. I think
this would be good, but who is going to
say what agencies should be exempted
from the bill? I can name a dozen.
Maybe some of them should not be in;
maybe some should be out. We just
have not had time to study the matter
properly. It is a complicated bill.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield
to the gentleman from Michigan.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1. 9 63 CONGRESSIONAL 'RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. JOHANSEN. I commend the gen-
tleman on the statement he has made
and the position he has taken. I ask
him again if under the circumstances
he does not agree it is a matter of futility
to try to rewrite this bill dealing with so
complex a matter on the floor of the
'House? Would not the reasonable, logi-
cal solution be to send it back to the
committee and have the full and ex-
haustive exploration the subject de-
serves?
Mr. MILLER of California. I agree
entirely with the gentleman. You can-
not write the bill on the floor of the
House, and in its present form it is not
a good bill.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C. July 17, 1963.
Hon. GEORGE P. MILLER,
Chairman, Committee on Science and Astro-
nautics, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This replies to your
request for the views of the National Aero-
nautics and? Space Administration on the
bill, H.R. 5171, "to authorize the Administra-
tor of the General Services Administration to
coordinate and otherwise provide for the
economic and efficient purchase, lease, main-
tenance, operation, and utilization of elec-
tronic data processing equipment by Federal
departments and agencies." The bill is on
the Union Calendar of the House of Rep-
resentatives, and this report is difected to
the form of the bill in which it appears on
that calendar. We understand that it is
scheduled for debate tomorrow, July 18,
1963. Due to the urgency of your request,
time has not permitted the submission of
this report to the Bureau of the Budget for
advice as to its relationship to the program
of the President.
H.R. 5171 would, through the addition of
a new section 111 to the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as
amended, provide for the assumption by the
Administrator of General Services of re-
sponsibility for the acquisition, maintenance,
and use of most, if not all, automatic data
processing equipment required by agencies
of the Federal Government for both in-house
and contracted automatic data processing
activity.
Among the more important aspects of
the legislation are provisions under which:
1. The General Services Administration
would be made responsible for providing
automatic data processing equipment "suit-
able for efficient and effective use by Federal
agencies"; to carry out this responsibility
the General Services Administration could
not only buy or lease equipment, but could
transfer equipment between agencies, re-
quire its joint utilization, and establish pools
and data processing centers.
2. The General Services Administration
could delegate its authority to acquire and
utilize "incfividual automatic data process-
ing systems or specific units" when neces-
sary "for the economy and efficiency of
operations" or where "essential to defense
or security."
3. The program would be financed by a
revolving fund into Which agencies 'using
automatic data processing equipment would
make advances and reimbursements to pay
for services rendered.
4. Provisions of , law inconsistent with the
purposes of H.R. 5171 would be made in-
applicable.
'5. Under Section 111(a), the Administrator
of the General Services Administration would
be authorized and directed to coordinate and
control the purchase, lease, maintenance,
and use of automatic data processing equip-
No. 109-21
merit by, or at the expense of, Federal agen-
cies. The wording of this passage Is so
broad that not only "in-house" automatic
data processing and automatic data process-
ing work contracted out as such, but also
apparently any contract or procurement, the
performance of which entails any automatic
data processing, could be scrutinized by the
General Services Administration for "econo-
my and efficiency" of equipment utilization.
6. Section 111(b) would direct that ADP
equipment suitable for efficient and effec-
tive use by Federal agencies shall be pro-
vided by the General Services Administra-
tion. It is not clear whether the General
Services Administration would merely act as
an administrative intermediary in providing
all types of ADP equipment requested by
an agency or whether the provision would
effectively lodge in the General Services Ad-
ministration the authority to review agency
requests for equipment and to approve,
modify, or deny them by determining that
the equipment requested is, or is not, "suit-
able for efficient and effective use." If the
latter situation should develop, the provi-
sion might seriously impede, rather than aid,
the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration in discharging operative responsi-
bilities set forth in the National Aeronautics
and Space Act of 1958, as amended. Section
203 of the Space Act requires, for example,
that NASA arrange for participation by the
scientific community in planning specialized
scientific measurements and observations,
and authorizes the Administration to enter
into those "contracts, leases, cooperative
agreements, or other transactions as may be
. necessary in the conduct of its work and
on such terms as it may deem appropriate."
For those projects requiring ADP the statu-
tory grant set forth in the Space Act would
be severely circumscribed were the General
Services Administration assigned a share in
deciding whether the ADP equipment re-
quested for a given project was "suitable
for efficient and effective use" or whether
the "joint utilization" of the equipment with
other Federal agencies was necessary and
proper under the circumstances.
As of June 30, 1963, the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration had an inven-
tory of 118 general-purpose digital computer
systems ranging from 25 very large systems
to small "desk" computers available for the
direct use of individual scientists and engi-
neers in their daily activities. Only '7 of the
118 computer systems are used full time for
administrative applications. The remainder
are used on substantive scientific and engi-
neering tasks required by NASA programs.
The latter can be classified into five broad
areas: (1) theoretical and analytical investi-
gations; (2) engineering studies; (3) simi-
lation; (4) space flight operations; and (5)
processing scientific and engineering experi-
mental data. Several days ago, Mr. Edmond
C. Buckley, Director of NASA's Office of
Tracking and Data Acquisition, submitted
to the Census and Government Statistics
Subcommittee of the House Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service a statement on
the scientific and technical uses of com-
puters in the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. It provides a rather
complete report on this subject which you
might find helpful. I am enclosing a copy
for your use.
From the foregoing and the attachment, it
appears that the scientific and technical use
and management of computers cannot be
separated from the responsibility for con-
ducting the national space program. The
bill would necessarily have the effect of frag-
menting. and watering down that responsi-
bility. Accordingly, I see no alternative but
to recommend that NASA be exempted from
the terms of the bill.
In this -connection, reference is made to
the exemption in section of the Federal
12273
Property and Administrative Services Act,
section 602(d) (40 U.S.C., sec. 4'74). This
section provides that "Nothing in this Act
shall ' impair or affect any authority
of ? * * (3) any executive agency named
in the Armed Services Procurement Act of
1947, and the head thereof, with respect to
the administration of said Act." The Na-
tional Aeronautics and Spa6e Administration
is such an agency. Section 111(e) of H.R.
5171 would make this exemption unavailable
since it declares that?
"(e) The proviso accompanying section
201(a) * * * the provisions of section
602(d) and any other provisions of the Fed-
eral Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949, as amended, or of any other
provisions of law which are inconsistent
with the purposes and provisions of section
111 shall not be applicable."
Accordingly, we suggest and recommend
that section 111(e) of the bill be modified
to read:
"(e) Any provision of Yaw inconsistent
with the purposes and provisions of section
111 shall not be applicable; Provided, how-
ever, that section 111 shall have no applica-
tion for any purpose to the departments and
agencies of the Federal Government enu-
merated in section 2304 of the Armed Serv-
ices Procurement Act of 1947, as amended,
10 U.S.C. 2303."
Sincerely yours?
JAMES E. WEBB,
Administrator.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GARY
Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gary: Page 1,
fine 7, after "coordinate and" strike out
"control the" and insert "provide for the
economic and efficient".
Page 1, line 7, after "lease," insert "and".
Page 1, line 8, strike out the comma and
the words "and use".
Page 2, line 2, strike out "operate or".
Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment merely ? takes care of the
suggestions I made during my remarks
on the bill. It strikes out the control,
use, and operation of this equipment by
the General Services Administration.
With the amendment the section would
read:
The Administrator is authorized and di-
rected to coordinate and provide for the
economic and efficient purchase, lease, and
maintenance of automatic data processing
equipment by, or at the expense of, Federal
agencies, and to provide for the operation by
delegation of authority or otherwise, of such
equipment.
That is the sole purpose of the amend-
ment.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment
I have talked with the gentleman from
Virginia. I think everybody agrees that
if there is a coordination program no
one is trying to force anyone to do
things. We would like to encourage them
to save this $100 million instead of build-
ing their little empires. But I do not
think there is anything devastating about
this amendment. I think there might
be difficulty in this word "operate." I
believe we would be very wise not to try
to strike the word "operate" on page 2.
If you strike the words "control" and
"use" you will give the Administrator
authority to coordinate the purchase,
lease, and maintenance of automatic
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12274 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Jul r8
data processing equipment by or at the
expense of Federal agencies, and to op-
erate or provide for the operation by
-delegation of authority or otherwise, of
such equipment.
I think they sometimes may need to
operate this equipment. I think to strike
it from the language of the bill would
be inappropriate. I would offer a substi-
tute which would only strike the words
"control the" and strike the word "use."
Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROOKS. I yield to my distin-
guished friend, the gentleman from Vir-
ginia.
Mr. GARY. I would like to say to the
distinguished gentleman and to the
chairman, I do not think striking the
word "operate" has much effect except
that I am afraid if you give them general
authority to operate this machinery that
that would mean all of the machinery.
I leave in the language of the bill the
words "to provide for the operation by '
delegation of authority or otherwise of
such equipment," which I take it would
mean to operate their own equipment.
I think they ought to have the authority
to operate their own equipment and to
delegate that to somebody else if they
are fit to do so.
Mr. BROOKS. I would say it may well
be that that is true. I have not had an
opportunity to study this particular lan-
guage of the amendment at great length
so I believe I will not offer the substitute
amendment to which I referred. I thank
my colleague for his consideration and I
appreciate his support on this legisla-
tion. We would both like to save some
money as my colleague pointed out.
Mr. GARY. I am all for saving the
money, and moreover I think it can be
saved by coordination of the purchasing,
leasing, and maintenance of this equip-
ment. We have already saved a great
deal by the action of our committee but I
do not want to leave any doubt in any-
body's mind that we are giving the GSA
the right to use and operate this equip-
ment that is already under control of the
various agencies.
Mr. BROOKS. I thank my colleague.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
I would like to direct a question or two
to my good friend, the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. GARY]. Will the gentle-
man clarify the word that is being striken
in his amendment?
Mr. GARY. The word "operate."
Mr. JOHANSEN. That is the word
that would be stricken?
Mr. GARY. That is correct.
Mr. JOHANSEN. May I ask the gen-
tleman this question: Whether or not
we are in danger here of getting into
quite a word game and a semantic oper-
ation? I wonder if, with the uncertainty
as to what the effect might or might not
be, of deleting one word or adding
another, this is the best way of handling
the matter. I ask the gentleman if he
does not feel that the committee is a
much better area in which to work out
these problems and then to come back
with something after an exploration of
the practicalities of the matter rather
than attempting to do this on the floor
of the House?
Mr. GARY. Well, of course, the com-
mittee could do a more thorough job,
but I am particularly anxious to have it
absolutely understood, and I think with
the explanation of my amendment here
on the floor of the House, it will be plain
that what we are trying to do by strik-
ing out the word "operate" is to insure
the fact that the GSA will not attempt
to operate the machinery that is under
control of the Defense Department or
under the control of NASA or of any
other agency of Government.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I commend the gen-
tleman for his purpose. But I entertain
serious doubts, I will say to the gentle-
man, as to whether with the retention
of the word "control" or the retention of
the word "use" that purpose is made
clear.
Mr. GARY. They have both been
stricken by my amendment. It deletes
the word "use" and also the word
"control."
?Mr. JOHANSEN. Then I will say to
the gentleman, while I subscribe to his
purpose and commend him for it, I think
it is a sorry bit of legislating to come in
here with a bill in which the key word
is "control" and in which the committee
commits itself to building up this kind
of power, and then here in the matter
of an hour or an hour and one-half of
? debate it completely backtracks.
And then they ask us to try to doctor
up the bill with some namby-pamby eu-
phonisms and kindlier words.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment
is defeated, not because I disagree with
my friend's purpose, but I do not want
us to kid ourselves that we are improving
this bill.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do so for the purpose
of asking someone the question as to
where I can find a definition of "Federal
agency." This bill is predicated upon
? "Federal agency." I would like an offi-
cial definition of the words "Federal
agency."
? Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, I believe that defi-
nition is contained in the basic act. This
bill seeks to amend the basic act, and I
am sure that that term is defined in that
act. If the gentleman will give us a
minute or two, I think we can locate the
definition of it. Most of them, I am
sure, the gentleman from Iowa is familiar
with. There are a large number of agen-
? cies. We are interested in those, how-
ever, who use automatic data processing
equipment.
The gentleman could probably in his
own mind write down a list of the num-
ber of them.
Mr. GROSS. Of course, I have some
idea of what - constitutes a Federal
agency, but I do not know whether, for
instance, the Department of Defense is
legally a Federal agency, or the Depart-
ment of the Treasury is legally a Federal
agency.
Mr. BROOKS. I believe in the Fed-
eral Property Administrative Services
Act of 1949, as amended, revised Decem-
ber 1, 1958, on page 4, we have the defini-
tion of the words that we use. Section 3 ,
as used in titles 1 through 6 of this act,
part B, the term "Federal agency"
means any executive agency or any es-
tablishment in the legislative or the judi-
cial branches of the Government?except
the Senate and the House of Represent-
atives, the Architect of the Capitol, and
any activities under his direction.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman,
but I would add that the definition just
given was apparently written by the com-
mittee.
Mr. Chairman I am as much interested
in saving money as any Member of the
House, but up to this point no one has
convinced me that centralization as pro-
posed in this bill will provide any part
of the claimed savings. Earlier this
afternoon I asked the question as to the
basis for the claimed savings and I am
still awaiting an answer.
I would point out that in the past 2
years the Government has purchased
millions of dollars worth of equipment to
provide automation and yet in the same
period some 150,000 persons have been
added to the Federal payroll.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
Mr. Chairman, I, of course, am very
reluctant to disagree with my good
friend, the gentleman from Texas,
[Mr. BRooKs] . But at the appropriate
time I expect to offer a motion to recom-
mit this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is probably the
best example of poor coordination within
the Congress that has been on the floor
of the House in a long time. The mo-
ment I saw this bill on the calendar I
contacted the two agencies with which
I have very close relationships, NASA,
and the Veterans' Administration. I
find that both of them are opposed to the
bill. If you read further in the report
you find the Post Office Department,
the Defense Department, the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, the Department of
Labor, the Atomic Energy Commission,
the Federal Aviation Agency, also are
opposed to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, we have just com-
pleted months of hearings on the NASA
authorization. During these hearings
we asked representatives of NASA ques-
tions about this equipment. This is a
question which has a tremendous effect
on every agency. We asked whether or
not there is not some executive policy on
this whole question, and we were told
that it was being worked on, but it was
not.
Mr. Chairman, I think this legislation
is premature. I think it should be given
much more consideration among the
other committees of Congress and among
the other agencies of Government.
Mr. Chairman, I shall offer a motion
to recommit the bill at the proper time.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Surely, I
yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BROOKS. It does pain me to
have a difference with 111:' old and dear
friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
TEAGUE]. But I would say that I am glad
that all of the members of the commit-
tee have asked questions of the agencies
with which they are so directly con-
cerned, those in particular.
I would say that the Comptroller Gen-
eral, who works for us as Members of
Congress, sent in a letter?not an old
letter, but I believe it is dated June 11,
1963?a copy of a letter which he sent
to the Speaker of this great body, in
Which he said:
Our review disclosed that, during fiscal
'years 1961 and 1962 and part of fiscal year
1963, Goddard Space Flight Center made
rental overpayments for automatic data-
processing machines because it failed to de-
termine and consolidate operational use
time in accordance with provisions of the
Federal supply schedule contracts. We esti-
mate that the overpayments amount to
?about $1.2 million.
Now, I do not say that everyone does
not make mistakes. But I think that
this bill, in fairness to my colleague
-
? Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I hope the
gentleman will not take- all of my time.
Mr. BROOKS. I think the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. TEAGUE], in fairness,
should be given every opportunity to
continue to question these agencies, as
I think you have full authority to do,
and I think you should exercise it as
you do. But this legislation would take
no authority away from your .great com-
mittee or any other congressional com-
mittee, and no authority away from the
Bureau of the Budget and the Congress.
You understand why some of the agen-
cies that would be restricted would sort
of be chastised in overpaying $1,231,000,
to be exact. You can understand why
they are not very enthusiastic about
anybody taking a look at their opera-
tions.
. You can understand why they are not
very enthusiastic about anybody taking
a look at their operations. They did not
offer a criticism. My obligation is not
to the individual agencies, but, as yours
is, .I think you will agree, to the people
who pay the taxes and expect efficiency
from _every agency whether we work
with them or not.
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I am glad to
say to the gentleman that I requested
the General Accounting Office to furnish
pie the report he made on NASA. I have
seen the report. I know the gentleman
has it, and I will sooner or later find out
why I did not get a copy of it. Our com-
mittee was not furnished a copy of it,
neither was I furnished a copy. I have
seen the gentleman's report and I know
it. But why did not the General Ac-
counting Office send us this report? The
amount is tremendous and it is going to
get bigger and bigger as time goes on,
particularly in NASA. ?The amount there
is fantastic. We did ask the question,
and we were told that there is a policy
being formulated by the Government
that would control it.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
(Mr. OLSEN of Montana asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I think a statement has to be made
in fairness to the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration with regard to
the overpayment that was spoken of by
the distinguished gentleman from Texas.
It is exactly true, as the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. BROOKS] has said. The re-
port of the General Accounting Office
showed $1.2 million as an overpayment.
In fairness now to the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, I
think the Members should know that the
discovery of the overpayment was, as a
matter of fact, a discovery made by
NASA. NASA learned that they were
making some kind of an overpayment
and because they learned this fact, they
put a kind of counting device, time de-
vice, on the computers. Then with the
use of these timing devices on the com-
puters NASA learned how much the
overpayment was and at what rate this
was going. It was the General Account-
ing Office that revealed the overpayment_
to the Congress and to the public in
general, but it was NASA itself that
found the fact of overpayment, indeed
that made it possible to find the over-
payment. Then they went ahead and
negotiated for a refund of the overpay-
ment, and I understand the amount of
the refund as agreed upon is $1.1 million.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FASCELL. Was the committee
advised by the agency over which it has
jurisdiction?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. The com-
mittee on which I serve was advised by
the General Accounting Office first.
want to give them credit for having first
revealed this fact, but it was not because
NASA was concealing it. NASA had
actually been responsible for finding the
overpayment or the effect of it in com-
puting the overpayment. NASA, by the
way, appeared before our committee and
revealed it as well and gave full credit to
GAO and as well to justify their activity
and exonerate themselves for having
found an error and took credit by cor-
recting the error.
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time simply
to correct some of the statements that
have been made. I am quite sure they
were made in good faith, but, neverthe-
less, they are in error.
The Comptroller General did write a
report to the Committee on Science and
Astronautics in which he did say that
in his opinion there had been an over-
payment by NASA to the International
Business Machines Corp. and that in his
judgment the amount of the overpay-
ment was $1.1 million.
That report was referred to the Sub-
committee on Tracking and Data Acqui-
sition, of which my colleague, the gentle-
man from West Virginia [Mr. HEMMER],
is chairman.
The subcommittee referred that re-
port to me, perhaps for the reason that I
had had quite a bit to say in our subcom-
mittee hearings on the question of com-
puters. I was requested to look into
the matter and see what I could make of
12275
this reported overcharge. I did do that
and I spent the better part of an after-
noon in conference with officials of the
International. Business Machines Corp.
During that discussion it became appar-
ent, as I have said earlier on the floor
today, that the matter was far more
complex than the Comptroller Genera]-
himself had realized. However, it-vias
not disputed by the International Busi-
ness Machines Corp. that there might
very well have been an overpayment. It
came to light that the computer system,
the automatic data processing system,
can be linked up in an extremely wide
variety of ways. In some hookups, or
in some linkages, you might use three
tape drives and one computer and one
memory circuit, whereas in another sys-
tem you might use a different set of
components. Each component did not
have a separate meter upon it. Fur-
thermore, the machines are energized
not only while they are in use, but they
are energized while they are being over-
hauled, and when preventive mainte-
nance was being performed upon them
or when they were broken down and be-
ing repaired. None of these things have
been metered or have been subjected to
precise measurements.
Following my conference with the of-
ficials of the International Business Ma-
chines Corp. an agreement was reached
based not upon anybody's measurement,
but based simply upon an educated guess
as to what the overpayment might have
been. The actual refund made by the
International Business Machines to
NASA was over $1.2 million, although
the Comptroller General's estimate was
that it was $1.1 million. The whole point
of the matter is that it suddenly came
to light that a great deal more accuracy
was needed in the computation of time.
I might add at this point that the Inter-
national Business Machines Corp. does
not meter the time. It was strictly up to
NASA to do it. NASA had not done it
with the degree of specific accuracy as to
each component which would have been
necessary to make possible an accurate
billing by International Business Ma-
chines to NASA.
I am for this bill and I think we need
some agency of the Government to de-
velop that degree of specialized knowl-
edge which will enable them to go into
any agency of the Government and find
out whether a sensible, economical, and
thrifty use is being made of automatic
data processing, equipment. We do not
have such an agency at this point.
As to the particular language of the
amendment I do not see why we cannot
afford to strike the word "operate." We
do not want the General Services Ad-
ministration operating this equipment,
but we certainly need an agency and I
think the General Services Administra-
tion is the best one to do it, to 'go in and
see whether they have the right equip-
ment and whether the right methods are
being? used to determine how they use
the equipment and what type and kind
of equipment they ought to have, as well
as should the equipment be leased, or
whether it ought to be bought outright
by the Government.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
12276 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
For the reasons I have stated I urge
the membership of this Committee to
support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by use gentiTYM
? from Virginia.
The amendment was agreed to.
? AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. POIDT.,
Mr. POOL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
?
Amendment offered by Mr. POOL: Page 5,
line 4, strike out the quotation marks.
Page 5, immediately after line 4, insert the
following:
"(f) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, or any other provision of
? law, no punched card machine shall be pur-
chased or leased 1?1.nder authority of this
section by negotiation. Each punched card
machine which is purchased or leased under
this section shall be so purchased or leased
after public advertisement in accordance
with subsection (a) of section 303 of this
Act, and the award for such purchase or
lease shall be made to the lowest responsible
bidder notwithstanding any provision of sub-
section (b) of section 303."
Mr. POOL. Mr. Chairman, my dis-
tinguished colleague, the gentleman from
Texas, JACK BROOKS, has sponsored this
bill and made a speech here earlier, as
did my distinguished colleague from New
Jersey [Mr. WALLHAU5E111. They pointed
out that the main purpose of this bill
Is to save approximately $100 million a
year. I want to help this bill a little bit,
so I have offered an amendment to give
the contract to the lowest bidder.
First I want to point out that from
the work I have done on this matter, I
found that none of these machines is
presently bought on a low-bid basis,
either by custom or under the termi-
nology of the statutes. Many of the con-
tracts are negotiated. So I offered this
amendment in view of the fact that one
of the purposes stated, in this bill is to
save the Government money. Let us
save some, money by giving the contract
to the lowest bidder. This amendment
will save the Government a great deal
more money by requiring that when
punched card machines are purchased or
-leased, the lowest responsible bidder will
get the contract. That is all it does.
Mr. Chairman, I have limited the
amendment to punched card machines
because upon investigation I found that
these are about the only machines on
which you can get three or four bidders.
The electronic computers are so com-
plex that it would prove virtually impos-
sible to spell out the specifications which
would allow enough bidders a chance to
offer competitive bids on them. But, on
punchcard machines, I have been told
that the industry has been developed to
the point where it is possible to get a low
bid. That is all my amendment does, I
think the lowest responsible bidder
should get the contract. The same thing
is done in many other fields of Gov-
ernment.
There is no reason why weshould not
do it here, if possible. And it is possible
with 'respect to punched card niachines.
Mr. WATSON. ,Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. POOL. I yield to my friend from
South Carolina.
Mr. WATSON: Mr. Chairman, I want
to join my colleague, the distinguished
gentleman from Texas, with whom I
have the privilege of serving on the
Subcommittee on Census and Statistics
of the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service. We have studied this
particular problem for a considerable
period of time. I want to associate my-
self with his amendment and would
like to ask him just a question or two to
help develop this a little bit further.
Did not the Comptroller General, Mr.
Campbell, appear before our committee
and discuss this particular matter of
competitive bidding as distinguished
from negotiated contracts? "
Mr. POOL. That is correct.
Mr. WATSON. And did he not at that
time say that the Government had lost
millions of dollars because of negotiated
contracts on automatic data processing
machines, instead of going into competi-
tive bid contracts?
Mr. POOL. That is correct. I think
he went further than that and said that
with respect to punched card machines
it would be entirely possible to set up
specifications so that the awarding of
the contract could be made to the lewest
bidder.
Mr. WATSON. Does not the gentle-
man also recall further that although
he did not testify before our committee,
the Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNa-
mara, recently made a public statement,
which we all applaud, that he had saved
some $100 million, or perhaps in excess
of that, over the past year through com-
petitive bid contracts instead of negoti-
ated contracts? And he cited as one
particular example, I believe, of a radio
or some electronic device for which
originally the Department of Defense
had been paying something like $2,000
but which under competitive bidding
they got down to about $800?
Mr. POOL. That is right. And this
is a very similar situation. When they
first came out the punched card ma-
chines were all different and it was diffi-
cult for a department to specify what
they needed. It was difficult for the
industry to bid on specifications that
were so general. So they had to negoti-
ate. But we are now in the position
where, instead of 3 or 4 compa-
nies being in a position to bid maybe
10 or 15 of them could get in a
bidding position if we pass an-amend-
ment such as this one. It would save
the Government thousands of dollars.
Mr. WATSON. Under, the gentle-
man's position, this would not apply to
other equipment?
Mr. POOL. No. That is why we limit
it specifically to punched card machines,
because we can do it in this field.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment basi-
cally provides for no negotiated sales in
the limited field of punchcards. I believe
this is not trying to legislate on purchase
July A
practices. I believe there is some merit
to the suggestion. I would be delighted
and pleased to cooperate with the dis-
tinguished Member-at-Large from Texas
in pursuance of this, but I feel that it is
more arbitrary than we in this Congress
would want to establish as a precedent.
The statement that you would never buy
anything by negotiation has not proved
to be good business for the country. As
an example, we Senators do negotiate
sales but they ought to be submitted to
the Congress for approval. I think this
is good policy. Where there is only one
supplier or where there is one producer
of a given commodity, you might well
negotiate a purchase price with that in-
dividual, if you bought for the Govern-
ment or for yourself or for private
business. If you bought for the Govern-
ment on a negotiated contract, I think
it would be wise to provide for Congres-
sional approval or renegotiation.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amend-
ment and hope it will be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from?Texas.
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. WATSON)
there were?ayes 49, noes 61.
So the amendment was rejected.
,The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the Chair,
Mr. ASHLEY, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 5171) pursuant to House Resolu-
tion 432, he reported the bill back to the
House with sundry amendments adopted -"
in Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
_previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put
them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
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.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman quali-
fies.
The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. JOHANSEN moves to recommit the bill,
H.R. 5171, to the Committee on Government
Operations.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3
_
1963
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE - 12277
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I de-
mand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were?yeas 96, nays 258, not voting 79,
as follows:
[Roll No. 1011
Abele
Ayres
Becker
Beermann
Bell
Bray
Bromwell
Bruce
Burkhalter
Burton
Cameron
Casey
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Chelf
Coliclan
Collier
Colmer
Corbett
Cunningham
Curtin
Derounian
Devine
Dole
Dulski
Edwards
Ellsworth
Everett
Feighan
Frelinghuysen
Fulton, Pa.
Fulton, Tenn.
Abbitt
Addabbo
Albert
Alger
Anderson
Andrews
Arend.s
Ashley
Ashmore
Aspinall
Auchincloss
Avery
Baker
Baldwin
Baring
Barry
Bass Fogarty
Bates Ford
. Battin 'Foreman
Beckworth Fountain ,
Bennett, Fla. Fraser
Berry Friedel
Betts Gallagher
Blatnik - Gary
Boggs Gathings
Boland Gibbons
Bolling Gilbert
Bolton, Glenn
Frances P. Gonzalez
Bolton, Goodell
Oliver P. Grant
Bow Gray
Brademas Green, Oreg.
Brock ? Griffiths
Brooks Hagan, Ga.
Brotzman Halpern
Brown, Calif. Hanna
Brown, Ohio Hansen
Broyhill, N.C. Harding
Burke Hardy
Burleson Harris
Byrne, Pa. Harrison
Byrnes, Wis. Harvey, Ind.
Cahill Hays
Cannon Healey
Carey Hebert
Celler Hechler
Chenoweth Holifield
Clark Holland
Cleveland Horton .
Cooley Hosmer
Corman Huddleston
Cramer Hull
Curtis Hutchinson
Daniels Ichord
Davis, Ga. Jarman
Davis, Tenn. Jennings
Dawson
Delaney
Dent
Denton
YEAS-96
Fuqua
Gavin
Gross
Grover
Gubser
Gurney
Haley
Hall
Harvey, Mich.
Hemphill
Henderson
Herlong
Hoeven
Jensen
Johansen
Karth
King, N.Y.
Knox
Kyl
MacGregor
Mahon
Mosher
Norblad
Olsen, Mont.
Olson, Minn.
Pike
Pirnie
Poage
Pool
Quillen
Rivers, S.C.
Roberts, Tex.
Saylor
Schadeberg
Secrest
Senner
Short
Sikes
Staggers
Stratton
Teague, Tex.
Tuten
Martin, ,Calif. ' 'Udall
Martin, Nebr.
May
Meader
Michel
Miller, Calif.
Milliken
Montoya
Moore
Morris
Morse
NAYS-258
Utt
Van Pelt
Vinson
'Watson
Weaver
Westland
Whitener
Whitten
Wickersham
Winstead
Derwinski Kee
Diggs Keith
Dingell Keogh
Dorn Kilgore
Dowdy King, Calif.
Downing Kirwan ? '
Duncan Kluczynskl
Dwyer Kornegay
Elliott Kunkel
Fallon Laird
Fascell Langen
Findley. Lankford
Finnegan Lennon
Fisher Libonati
Flood Lindsay
Flynt Lipscomb
Lloyd
Long, Md.
McClory
McCulloch
McDade
McDowell
McFall
Macdonald
Madden
Mailliard
Marsh
Matsunaga
Matthews
Mills
Minish
Monagan
Moorhead
Morgan
Morton
Multer
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
Murray
Natcher
Nedzi
Nix
O'Brien, N.Y.
O'Hara, Ill.
O'Hara, Mich.
O'Konski
O'Neill
Osmers
Ostertag
Passman
Patman
Patten
Pelly
Pepper
Perkins -
Filcher
Poff
loelson Powell
Johnson, Wis. Price
Jones, Mo. Pucinski
Karsten Quie
Rains Schneebeli
Randall Schweiker
Reid, Ill. Schwengel
Reid, N.Y. Selden
Reifel Shipley
Reuss Shriver
Rhodes, Ariz. Sibal
Rhodes, Pa. Sickles
Rich Siler
Rielalman Sisk
Rivers, Alaska Skubitz
Roberts, Ala. Smith, Calif.
Robison Smith, Iowa
Rodino Smith, Va.
Rogers, Colo. Snyder
Rogers, Fla. Springer
Rogers, Tex. Staebler
Rosenthal Stafford
Roudebush Stinson
Roush Stubblefield
Rumsfeld Sullivan
Ryan, Mich. Talcott
Ryan, N.Y. Taylor
St. George Teague, Calif.
St Germain Thomas Younger
Schenck Thompson, N.J. Zablocki
NOT VOTING?'79
Abernethy Grabowski Morrison
Adair Green, Pa. Moss
Ashbrook Griffin Nelsen
Barrett Hagen, Calif. Nygaard
Belcher Halleck O'Brien, Ill.
Bennett, Mich. Harsha Philbin
Bonner Hawkins Pillion
Broomfield Hoffman? - Purcell
Broyhill, Va. Horan Rooney
Buckley Johnson, Calif. Roogevelt
Clancy Jonas Rostenkowski
Roybal
St. Onge
Scott
Shelley
Sheppard
Slack
Steed
Stephens
Taft
Thompson, La.
Trimble
Wharton
White
Wilson, Bob
Wydler
Thompson, Tex.
Thomson, Wis.
Thornberry
Toll ,
Tollef son
Tuck
Tupper
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vanik
Waggonner
Wallhauser
Watts
Weltner
Whalley
Widnall
Williams
Willis
Wilson,
Charles H.
Wilson, Ind.
Wright
Wyman
Young
Clausen,
Don H.
Clawson, Del
Conte
Daddario
Dague
Donohue
Edmondson
Evins
Farbstein
Fino
Forrester
Garmatz
Giaimo
Gill
Goodling
Jones, Ala.
Kastenmeier
Kelly
Kilburn
Landrum
Latta
Leggett
Lesinski
Long, La.
McIntire
McLoskey
McMillan
Martin, Mass.
Mathias
Miller, N.Y.
Minshall
So the motion to recommit was re-
jected.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Abernethy for, with Mr. Trimble
against.
Mr. Bob Wilson for, with Mr. Nelsen
against.
Mr. Fino for, with Mr. Garmatz against.
Mr. Horan for, with Mr. McIntire against.,
Mr. Nygaard for, with Mr. Rooney against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Sheppard with Mr. Dague.
Mr. Shelley-,with Mr. Broyhill of Virginia.
Mr. Moss with Mr. Ashbrook.
Mr. Johnson of California with Mr. Don H.
Clausen.
Mr. Hagen of California with Mr. Wharton.
Mr. Roybal with Mr. Taft.
Mr. Leggett with Mr. Bennett of Michigan.
Mr, Roosevelt with Mr. Del Clawson.
Mr. St. Onge with Mr. Adair.
Mr. Daddario with Mr. Hoffman.
Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Pillion.
Mr. Grabowski with Mr. Broomfield.
Mr. Farbstein with Mr. Miller of New York.
Mrs. Kelly with Mr. Clancy.
Mr. Buckley with Mr. Goodling.
Mr. Green of Pennsylvania with Mr. Mini
shall.
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Wydler.
Mr. Morrison With Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr. Mar-
tin of Nebraska.
Mr. White with Mr. Latta.
Mr. Donohue with Mr. Kilburn.
Mr. Philbin with Mr. Jonas.
Mr. O'Brien of Illinois with Mr. Martin of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Conte.
Mr. Slack with Mr. Belcher,
Mr. Lesinski with Mr. MeLoskey.
Mn, Landrum with Mr. Harsha.
Mr. Forrester with Mr. McMillan.
Mr. Kastenmeier with Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Steed with Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Evin.s.
Mr. Hawkins with Mr. Scott.
Mr. Jones pf Alabama with Mr. Long of
Louisiana.
Mr. Purcell with Mr. Gill.
Mr. FLOOD, Mr. JONES of Missouri,
Mr. BATES, and Mr. BARRY changed
their vote from "yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
The title was amended so as. to read:
"A bill to authorize the Administrator
'of the General Services Administration
to coordinate and otherwise provide for
the economic and efficient purchase,
lease, maintenance, operation, and utili-
zation of automatic data processing
equipment by Federal departments and
agencies."
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
ADJOURNMENT OVER
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on
Monday next.
The SPEAKER. Is there abjection to
the request of the gentleman from Okla-
homa?
There was no objection.
PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT ,
Mr. WELTNER. Mr. Speaker, on July
16, 1963, several members of the Geor-
gia delegation, myself included, were in
Georgia to confer with the Governor on
a matter of public importance. Accord-
ingly, I am recorded as not voting on
rollcall No. 95, taken on a motion to re-
commit the bill, H.R. 4897, to amend
the Wartime Sedition Act. Had I been
present and voting, I would have voted
"nay" on the motion to recommit, and
"aye" on final passage of the bill.
PARTICIPATION BY MILITARY PER-
- SONNEL IN CIVIL RIGHTS DEMON-
STRATIONS
(Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama asked and
was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama. Mr.
Speaker, during the debate on the De-
fense Department appropriations bill, I
made mention of a report released by the
President's Committee on Equal Op-
portunity in the Armed Forces. I stated
that this report indicated a real threat
to our military bases as it presupposed
that unless an area adjacent to a military
base was integrated, the people in the
area would be punished by removal of
the base. It also called upon military
commanders to take the lead in the com-
munities in the desegregation movement.
At that time, I stated that such action as
contemplated by the report was not con-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2014/03/06: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300330001-3