SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL 1969

Document Type:

CREST

Collection:

General CIA Records

Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):

CIA-RDP71B00364R000100180043-1

Release Decision:

RIFPUB

Original Classification:

Document Page Count:

Document Creation Date:

December 12, 2016

Document Release Date:

June 14, 2002

Sequence Number:

Case Number:

Publication Date:

May 21, 1969

Content Type:

OPEN

File:

Attachment	Size
CIA-RDP71B00364R000100180043-1.pdf	4.68 MB

Body:

Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100180043-1 la 3908 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 21. 1969 Mr. cotmErt. Mr. Speaker, I move the Previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPtArtEll pro ternpore (Mr. Ma- mogosow). The question is on the reso- lution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr, RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken; and there Were?yeas 322, nays 53, not voting 58, as follows: Abbitt Abernethy Adair Adams Addabbo Albert Alexander Anderson, Tenn, 4ndrews, Ala. Andrews, N. Dak. Annunzio Arends Ashbrook Aspinall Ayres Beall, Md. Belcher Bell, Calif. Bennett 'Berry Betts Bevill Biester Blackburn Blanton Blatnik Boggs Boland Bow Brasco Bray Brinkley Brock Brooks Broomfield Brotzman Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, N.C. Broyhill, Va. Buchanan, Burke, Fla. Burke, Mass. Burleson, Tex. Burlison, Mo. Burton, Utah Bush Button Byrnes, Wis. Cabe11 Caffery Camp Carter Casey Cederberg Celler Chamberlain Chappell Clausen, Don H. Clawson, bel Cleveland, Cohelan Collins Colmer Conable Conte Corbett Gorman Coughlin Cramer [Roll No. 581 YEAS-322 Cunningham Daddario Daniel, Va. Daniels, N.J. Davis, Ga. Davis, Wis. de la Garza Delaney Dellenback Denney Dennis Devine Dickinson Diggs Donohue Dorn Dowdy Downing Dulski Duncan Dwyer Eckhardt Edmondson Edwards, Ala. Erlenborn Each Eshleman Evans, Colo. Evins, Term. Fallon , Fascell Feighan Findley Fish Fisher Flood Flowers Flynt Foley Ford, Gerald R. Ford, William D. Foreman Fountain Frelinghuysen Friedel Fulton, Pa. Fulton, Tenn. Fuqua Galffianakis Garmatz Gettys Giaimo Gibbons Goldwater Gonzalez Goodling Gray Green, Oreg. Griffin Griffiths Grover Gude Hagan Haley Ffalpern Hamilton Earner- schmidt Hanley Hanna Hansen, Idaho Hansen, Wash. Earsha Harvey Hechler, W. Va. Henderson Hicks Bonfield Horton Homer - Hull Hungate Bunt Hutchinson Ichord Jacobs Jarman Joelson Johnson, Calif. Johnson, Pa. Jonas Jones, Ala. Jones, N.C. Jones, Tenn. Korth Kazen Kee Keith King Kleppe Kluczynski Kuykendall Kyl Kyros Landgrebe Landrum Langen Latta Lennon Lipscomb Lloyd Long, La. Long, Md. Lowenstein Lukens McClure McCulloch McDade McDonald, Mich. McEwen McFall McKneally Macdonald, Mass. MacGregor Madden Mahon Mailliard Mann Marsh Martin Mathias Matsunaga May Mayne Michel Miller, Calif. Miller, Ohio Mills Mink Minshall Mize Mizell Mollohan Monagan Montgomery Morgan Morton Myers Natcher Nelsen O'Konski O'Neill, Masa. Pas.sman Patman Patten Pelly Perkins Pettis Pickle Pike Pirnie Poage Poff Preyer, N.C. Price, Tex. Pryor, Ark. Pucinski Purcell Quie Quillen Renck Reid, Ill. Reid, N.Y. Rhodes Rivers Roberts Robison Rogers, Colo. Rogers, Fla. Rooney, N.Y. Rostenkowski Anderson, Calif. Barrett Bingham Bolling Brademas Brown, Calif. Burton, Calif. Byrne, Pa. Chisholm Clay Conyers Derwinski Edwards, Calif. Eilberg Farbstein Fraser Gaydos Anderson, Ill. Ashley Baring Bates Cahill Carey Clancy Clark Collier Cowger Culver Dawson Dent Dingell Edwards, La. Frey Gallagher Green, Pa. Gubser Hastings Rct,debush Roy bad Rupp* Ett -1 31 St tiermain St. Onge Satterfield Scbadeberg Se eerie Scott Sc cielins SI liver S1';:es Si Si tick :nth, Calif. Smith, Iowa Sr-!der Sr) inger Stafford St C FgC223 Stanton ead Steiger, Ariz. Si tiger, Wis. St( pheria SI c 'Oblate] d Stuckey 8,, 'Ivan Syinington Taft- - TalcOtt Taylor Te?ig-ne, Calif. Teague, 'fez. NAYS? -53 Cubant Ci r ass hail Hathaway Hawkins Fl yet Kastenmeler licech Mt ,Cacti y Meads 1Viikva &finish tica tor-need IV-tattier Mc .ss kt tic Clay (..)?tiare Thompson, Ga. Thomson, Wis. Tiernan Udall Ullman Utt Vander Jagt Vanik Vigorito Waggonner Waldie Wampler Watkins Watts Weicker Whalen Whalley White Whitehurst Whitten Widnall Williams Wilson, Charles H. Winn Wold Wolff Wright Wyatt Wydler Wylie Wyman Yatron. Young Zion Zwach Olsen Ottinger Podell Price, Ill. Rees Reuss Ronan Rooney, Pa. Rosenthal Ryan Scheuer Schneebeli Stokes Thompson, N.J. Tunney Van Deerlin Yates Zablocki NOT VOTING-58 Hebert Pollock Heckler, Mass. Powell Ii' Istosi'. i Rallsback Hogan Randall H,,ward Reifel irwan Riegle Leggett Rodin? I Ilian Rumsfeld M.:Clory Sandman McCloskey Saylor McMillan Schwengel Mtskill Shipley Morse Skubitz Murphy, Ill. Smith, N.Y. Murphy, N.Y. Stratton NcKizi Watson Nichols Wiggins O'Neal, Ga. Wilson, Bob hopper mitibirt So the resolution was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following Pairs: Mr. Hebert with Mr. Bates, Mr. Kirwan with Mr. Rtunsfeld. Mr. Dent with Mr. Dowsan. Mr. Edwards ol Louisiana- with Mr. Clancy. Mr. Gallagher with Mr. Sandman. Mr. Philbln with Mr. Anderson of Illinois. Mr. Rodino with Mr. Morse. Mr. Shipley with Mr. Lujan. Mr. Leggett with Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Culver with Mr. Pollock. Mr. Green of Penneylvania with Mr. Saylor. Mr. O'Nerd of Georgia with Mr. Meskill. Mr. Murphy or New York With Mr. Rails- back. Mr. Pepper with Mr. Cowger. Mr. Carey with Mr. Smith of New York. Mr. Basing with Mr. Frey. Mr. Howard with Mr. Cahill. Mr. Murphy of Illinois with Mr. Gubser. Mr. Nedzi with Mr. Skubitz. Mr. Nichols with Mr. Bob Wilson. Mr. Randall with Mr. Hastings. Mr. Stratton with Mr. Schwengel. Mr. Clark with Mr. Reifel. Mr. Ashley with Mr. Watson. Mr. Dingell With Mr. Riegle. Mr, McMillan with Mr. Wiggins. Mr. Powell with Mrs. Heckler of Massa- chusetts. Mr. Helstoski with Mr. Hogan. Mr. BRASCO changed his vote from "nay" to "yea." The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The doors were opened. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPRO- PRIATION BILL 1969 Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further con- sideration of the bill (H.R. 11400) mak- ing supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill HR. 11400, with Mr. HOLIFIELD in the chair. The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit- tee rose on yesterday, the Cleric had read through line 7 on page 2 of the bill. Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I do feel I want to express, as a member of the Committee on Ap- ? propriations, my concern regarding the excessive use of supplementals. You know, we have reached a point here where the ink is no more dry on the regular appropriations bills until we get the first supplemental. Then we get the second and the third and finally 30 days before the end of the fiscal year here we are up with another massive supple- mental bill. I recognize that we in Congress do take certain actions that sometimes do require consideration in the area of sup- plementals, but I just want to tell the House and the members of my commit- tee that I do not like this approach at all. I am very unhappy with it. I think the time has come when we in the Com- mittee on Appropriations should control ourselves better as to the handling of supplementals. Further, what we ought to do is tell the executive agencies not to come up with supplementals as prolifi- cally as they do now. In my opinion about one or two sup- plementals a year is enough. I am ex- pressing my opposition to a supple- mental bill in these amounts, 30 days before the end of the fiscal year in some instances with agencies trying to get money that was already denied in their regular appropriation bill. Mr. Chairman, I object to this ap- proach and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21 , 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 113907 CONTACT SERVICE AT MILITARY SEPARATION POINTS Preseparation group orientation on benefits is provided at 288 military sepa- ration points each month. During fiscal year 19E8 almost 8,000 visits were made to these separation points by VA contact representatives, over 496,000 servicemen were orianted and 70,265 personal inter- views were conducted. LOCATIC NS CIF VIETNAM CONTACT CENTERS Air Force: Tan Son Nhut. Bien Holt, Cam Ranh Bay, and De Nang. Army: Cam Ranh Bay and Long Binh. Marina: De Nang. Itinert.nt service: Than Rang, Tuy Hoa, Ph:, Cat, Chu Lai, U.S. Naval Hos- pital, De Nang, and 29th Evacuation Hospital, Saigon. Yet in this today there has been cut $500,000 off this kind of program, when they have the biggest backlog they have had at any time in the VA program. I want to say to the chairman that I will appear before your committee when th. s budget comes along, because I do not believe they are treating the VA right. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. MAHON. The main problem here, I believe, which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. TEscus) has so well present- ed, is that of personnel limitations which were fixed in section 201. of the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act last year. Let me say that in appropriation bills this year for the fiscal year 1970, we will probably propose to recommend some set-aside of that provision of the law as to persornel. We have already included such a set-aside provision in the ver- sions of the bills which have been marked tp to date. We expect to report the first one tomorrow. So the personnel problem can, I feel confident, be han- dled selectively and appropriately. With respect to the amount of funds needed, that will be a matter for the House to decide. I am sure all of us are going to give our veterans the benefit of the doubt and see to it that they get am- ple funds for the various veterans Pro- grams. Let the read to the committee the pro- vision on personnel that we would pro- pose to include in the bill making ap- propriaticris for the Veterans` Adminis- tration. I. reads: Poeltiong, in the agencies covered by this Act? Which would include the Veterans' Arirninisti ation? whether financed from funds contained in this Act or from other sources, may be tilled during the fiscal year 1970 without regard to the provisions of Section 201 of Public Law 90-384-- That is the tax bill? and such positions shall not be taken into considerati n in determining numbers of em- ployees under subsection (a) of that sec- tion or numbers of vacancies under sub- section (b) of that section. In other words, it sets aside the limita- tion on personnel which is in operation at this time, and which Is permanent law. It is, as 1 said, prepared to include this provision in the bill for the forthcoming fiscal year. I believe this will meet the situation adequately as to personnel ceil- ing restrictions on the Veterans' Admin- istration. (Mr. TEAGUE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use. (Mr. SMITH of California asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks.) _ Mr. SMITH of California...Mr, pg?eriker, I believe the very distinguished chair- man of the Committee on Rules, to- gether with the colloquy which has taken place between the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. JoNots), and the other gen- lemen, has ably explained this resolu- tion which is pending before the House. To some extent my understanding is itut; a little different, and I will mention t for what it may be worth. _.. I believe this is an unusual procedure, ho handle it in this way today. It is nee-es- i sary, for otherwise the resolution would have to lie on the desk for 24 hours, in order to have general debate. I believe the approach of providing the aqt1n1strat1on with a top ceiling is prob- abl the first time that is has ever been placed' to effect by the Congress, as to tnnk they a ceiling ti t for what could spend. Last year made them cut certain amounts, but Chis language, under title IV, will mean that they cannot spend more than $192.9 billion. Now, where I differ a little bit, if I understood the colloquy so far as the Veterans' Administration or anything else is concerned, is that thislanguage does not apply to the action Caken by the Congress of the United States. In our authorization bill for the veterans, we can exceed the money, in that au- thorization bill, that is set forth in the budget. If it is appropriated, that money' can be spent, and the $192.9 billion would be increased by whatever action Congress takes in authorizing and ap- propriating money over the budget top of $192.9 billion. I ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 1Vissiox ) is that not correct? Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is en- tirely correct. Mr. SMITH of California. In other words, we do not bind the Congress. W can come in next_week and change tl. We can repeal it. Ve_can add tolt..- e can do whatever we mail WI)M-Y sin- gle authorization or appropriation bill, and the veterans will be taken care of when the independent offices appropri- ation bill comes In, after the authorizing legislation has been approved. So other than that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is up to the Congress to cooper- ate. We have already taken one action in the maritime authorization bill, which Increased the money over and above the budget request. That amount, if appro- priated, will raise this ceiling by the dif- ference between what the administra- tion asked for and what this House of Representatives asked for last week. Next week we will have the space bill. A rule was granted on it yesterday. There is an additional amount in the space pro- gram, in the authorization bill, over and above the budget request. If that is ap- proved by the House of Representatives and the Senate and if the money is ap- propriated over and above that figure, In my opinion, that will increase the *192.9 billion. If I am not correct in that, I would like to have somebody straighten me out. Mr. WAGOONNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of California. I yield to the gentleman from Lonisiana. Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, I think the Committee on Appropriations and its chairman ought to be congratu- lated for the manner in which they are handling the spending ceiling this year. The chairman of the committee, the dis- tinguished gentleman from Texas, and Mr. COLMER, the chairman of the Com- mittee on Rules, and the ranking mi- nority member of the Committee on Rules (Mr. Sstrnr) have explained in de- tail how this ceiling will work. This ceiling limits the administration and the Bureau of the Budget, but it Places no limitation on any action that the Congress might choose to take either to raise or to lower in any instance any agency's budget. We all, to a man, share a sincere concern for our veterans. I know that this Congress is not going to be insensitive to the needs of our veterans or anyone eLe. We are doing a better job with placing a limitation on expend- itures this year in this manner, in my personal opinion, than we did last year, because we placed too much of a burden for reducing expenditures on the execu- tive branch of the Government and did not shoulder the responsibility in the leg- islative. We can raise or lower the budget any time we want to here in the Con- gress. It is up to the Congress, and that is where the responsibility ought to be. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? ? Mr. SMITH of California. I yield to the gentleman for a question. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Would you agree that by labeling this as a limitation on appropriations it is a misnomer and ac- tually it is solely a limitation on expendi- tures and not a limitation on appropria- tions? Mr. SMITH of California. I do not , think it is a limitation on appropria- tions. Mr. FARBSTEIN. I admit it is not a limitation on appropriations but just on expenditures. You are calling it a limi- tation on appropriations, and this is a misnomer. Mr. SMITH of California. I do not think the language says that. I do not think anybody says that. It is a limita- tion on the amount of money that the administration can spend in fiscal year 1970 unless Congress raises it or lowers it. Mr. FARBSTEIN, The gentleman evi- dently agrees with me except that he uses more words than I to say so. Thank you very much. Mr. SMITH of California, It is going to be awfully tough for the administra- tion under the pregent setup to live under this figure. Congress will have to help in every way that it can. Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21, 1969 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600,364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 11 3909 something can be done to control what I consider to be an abuse of the supple- mental appropriations procedure. Mr. MA ON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD on the sub- ject of supplementals. I would say that with respect to the matter of restoration of reductions made last year, less than 1 percent of the funds In this bill represent money for functions which were reduced in appropriations made by Congress last year. The amount so involved is some $34 million. It is only about one-third of 1 percent of the ap- proximately $12 billion cut last year from the requests for new funds for fiscal year 1969. That is a pretty good record, I would say. We always have a supplemental bill for the current fiscal year in the new session. This one, it is true, has been de- layed somewhat longer than usual. I agree that we should avoid supplementals wherever and whenever we reasonably can. Most of this pending supplemental is for costs associated with the war in Vietnam, or for pay increases voted and pUt into effect last year, plus a fe% other Items that are either mandatory under basic law or rest on other requirements that the committee found justifiable. But I appreciate the views of the gen- tleman from Michigan. Some supple- mentals are more or less inevitable for a variety of reasons. The basis for those In this bill are, of course, explained in the committee report accompanying the bill. AMENDMENT OVVERED BY MR. RYAN Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Ainendthent offered by Mr. RYAN: Strike out title 1, (beginning on page 2, line 1, and ending on pages, line 5), and redesignate the succeeding provisions of the bill accordingly. (Mr. RYAN asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to strike out title I of the bill entitled "Military Operations In Southeast Asia" which would appro- priate in supplemental funds some $1.2 billion for the war in Vietnam, This amendment is also sponsored by other concerned Members of the House, including my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Low- ENSTEIR) , and the gentleman from Cali- fornia (Mr. BURTON). Mr Chairman, my amendment is ap- propriate at this point because it offers the only means that the House has to vote on the conduct of the war. in Viet- nam. The power of the purse is the one power that we in the House of Repre- sentatives have to call a halt to the Cori- tinuecLinfusion of men and money into the conflict in Southeast Asia?and the continued sacrifice of lives. If we do not seize upoh this opportunity, then we will once again have abdicated the responsi- bility which we have to review and con- trol the administration's exercise of foreign policy. Again this year, as for each of the past 5 years, we have before us a request for supplemental appropriations to prose- cute the war in Vietnam, For the fifth year in a row the costs of the war have been underestimated in the initial budget presentation. Mr. Chairman, one third of the funds contained in this bill, $1234 billion out of $3.'783 billion is for military operations in Southeast Asia under title I. The in- creased funds are needed to pay for in- creased troop strength over that origi- nally estimated and budgeted for fiscal year 1960. Other funds are required be- cause there has been an increase by 50 percent in bombings by B=-52's in South Vietnam following the cessation of the bombing in the north. A greater tonnage of bombs has been used in Vietnam than the United States used in all of World Wax U. Despite the Presiders statement last week that the United States .does not seek a military victory, the level of our mili- tary involvement in Scutheast Asia is no less today than it wee 1 year ago. The brutal fact that over 12,000 American servicemen have been killed since the Paris peace talks began is proof that the level of violence and destiaction has not subsided. Witness the losi Of 43 American lives and the wounding of 290 other American soldiers in the 11 assaults upon Apbin Hill, known as "Hamburger Hill" since about May 10. Although the American people ex- pressed their apposition to the continu- ance of the war through the political process last year, theie has been no fun- damental change in pilieY which would lead to the disengagement of American forces. Mr. BURTON of Cal farina. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RYAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. BURTON of Cab fornia. Mr. Chair- man, I would like to congratulate our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. R,vsx), for bring- ing this matter at issue before the Com- mittee of the Whole J ouse on the State of the Union. It is obvious to every single person on this floor that unless we slow down and reduce the level of violence and the level of expenditures in Southeast Asia, we will not be able to cope with the other problems confronting- this Nation. I believe the gentleman from New York is to be highly commended by all of tis for having the insight to give us an op- portunity to express ourselves at this very important point in time in the war in Vietnam. Mr. KOCH. Mr Chairman, will the ,gentleman yield? Mr. RYAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. KOCH. Mr Chairman, I would like to commend the ge ttleman from New York and ask the gentleman for his per- mission to join in cosponsorship of this amendment. Mr, RYAN, Mr. Chat man I appreciate the support of the gentleman from New York for this amendenerite I believe the gentleman from California( Mr. BURTON) has pointed out very cogently that, as long as the war continues to drain some $27 or $28 billion as It already has done in fiscal year 1969 according to the re- port of the Committee onAppropriations, the necessary resources_ _will not be de- voted to solution of the pressing prob- lems which confront us domestically. This bill before us is inadequate in its treatment of domestic programs. The rent supplement program, for instance. was funded at less Klan 50 percent of the Johnson administration's budget request Yet this bill provides no supplemental apt propriations for rent supplements. The section 246 interest subsidy pro- gram for rental and cooperative housing is still $10 million under the authoriza- tion. Mr. Chairman, it is essential that this war end. By voting against supplemental appropriations for it, we will tell the administration that, with all the urgent domestic problems facing our country, it will have to get along in Vietnam with the paltry amounts of money which have already been appropriated for fiscal year 1969?some $27 billion or $28 billion. The only way to force a change in policy is to refuse to approve the allo- cation of any additional funds for the war. As long as Congress continues to ac- quiesce in appropriations for the war, as long as Congress continues to rubber- stamp administration policy, then Con- gress must share the responsibility with the administration for the continuation of that war. If congress wants to bring the war to a close, it has the power to do so, Mr. Chairman, in 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968 I voted against supplemental appropriation bills which permitted the war to be expanded and escalated. I shall do so again today. It is time to halt the violence and destruction which have claimed the lives of so many Americans and Vietnamese. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, as everyone knows, our Government is seeking to bring the war in Vietnam to a satisfactory con- clusion. Peace talks are underway in Paris, and we certainly do not want to weaken the position of our Government at this strategic time. It is hoped that more and more of the fighting will be assumed by the South Vietnamese forces. This bill contains a quarter of a billion dollars for strengthening and modernizing the South Vietnamese Army in order to better equip them for taking over the fighting. Mr. Chairman, it would be most ill- advised to pull the rug out from under our forces in Vietnam, so to speak, and out from under our, negotiators at the Paris talks. So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we can vote on this amendment at this time, and vote the amendment down. Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman how much of the additional appropriations, particu- larly as they relate to military pay costs for additional personnel, are for the ad- dition of troops beyond those presently I n Vietnam? Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-R1DP711300364R000100180043-1 113910 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE May 21, 1969 Mr. MASON. There are no funds for the addition of troops beyond those Pres- ently in Vietnam. Mr. OTTINGER. There is no money in here for additional troops? Mr. M.A.HON. No, that is correct. Mr. OTT'INGKR. I thank the gentle- man for yield. Mr. MAHON. Mr Chairman, I ask for a vote on the amendment. Mr. LOWENSTEM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. " ;Mr. LOWENSTEIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I speak today because the confluence of recent events have made the timing of this discussion fateful for the country. Last March 26, in a speech on the floor of this House I said: Soon we in the Congress will be asked again for the funds to continue prosecution of the war, and then, as before, Members of Con- gress will face the most unacceptable of alternatives; for they will be told that to refuse to appropriate money to protect our fighting men is to consign to death yet more of those Americans who are surely among those least deserving to die?those Americans Who are carrying out the orders of their Government with a valor and loyalty in the face of the great difficulties and uncertainties of the situation that must rank with the highest such response of our history. Yet valor and loyalty do not make wrong things right, or senseless policies sensible, or hopeless pursuits hopeful. So there will be those who feel that to vote money for the further prosecution of the war is not to pro- tect lives, but indeed to make more certain that more lives will be pointlessly lost. It is the imminence of this decision and the existence of stalemate and escalation in Paris and Vietnam that leads me then to urge the President the following steps: rirst, the United States should begin at the earliest possible moment to withdraw with all deliberate speed as large a part of our Armed Forces in South Vietnam as would be con- siar,ent with the continued safety of those men who remain behind. Second, the United States should make clear, to those whom we have supported and opposed alike, that it is our intention to con- tinue to withdraw American troops from South Vietnam until none shall remain, pro- viding only that during this continuing with- drawal the Government of North Vietnam and the Vietcong will participate in good faith efforts to resolve by negotiation the negotiable questions mentioned above. Third, the United States should reiterate Its willingness to assist in the relocation of people who do not wish to remain in So ith Vietnam under new circumstances that must arise in any peace settlement. and to assist through international agen- cies in the reconstruction of the land dev- astated by so many years of war. There has been hesitation to begin the removal of American troops on the theory that to take such a step while negotiations are in progress could weaken the bargaining position of the United States and of the Government of South Vietnam. But I have become convinced that the opp9slte is In fact the case, unless we are still seeking to negotiate what are not in fact negotiable go ala. Ivor if in fact the early withdrawal of American troops is one of our objectives in the negotiations, to begin that withdrawal could hardly be called a step away from achieving that one of our objectives. It even seems likely that to begin realizing that ob- jective might well make it easier to realize other objectives as well. The carrot of continuing the American withdrawal should increase the Incentive for the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese to negotiate in good faith; while the stick of beginning the American withdrawal could hardly fail to make clear to the South Viet- namese government that we finally mean what we have been saying for so many years?that the war in Vietnam will be de- Americanized. That simple fact should prove a greater inducement to the government of South Vietnam to negotiate in good faith than all the exhortations that words can construct It would at least remove their greatest incentive not to negotiate: the con- fidence that as long as there are not success- ful negotiations there will be an American army on hand to keep them in power. Therefore, should the President begin the withdrawal of American troops and accom- pany that withdrawal with public declara- tions such as those proposed here, he would. I believe, facilitate negotiations rather than binder them, and thus he would make a major start toward removing the barriers that separate the American people from the most nearly satisfactory resolution of their most difficult dileraraa. In short, It now seems clear that the be- ginning of the withdrawal of American troops would in fact strengthen our bargaining position if we want to get all the Vietnamese involved to work out the quickest possible way to end the war and the least painful way to begin the reconstruction. In any event, once these steps were taken and America's purposes were clear, there would be new unity at home in support of those who are negotiating And new hope for a healing of the spirit of this land; and there would be at last an irrefutable rebuttal to those who have denied the efficacy off the democratic process and who would tear it down the pretext that it has collapsed or has never worked. The money necessary for the "protection" of the lives of those Americans still in the combat area would then be voted without the haunting sense that each dollar pro- claimed as protection might in fact increase the likelihood of destruction. Mr. Chairman, Americans ought today to be feeling great pride because our fighting men gained what is called a great victory in a battle in Vietnam Instead, many millions of Americans feel a gnawing and growing wound at their heart, because in fact several hun- dred more of our finest young men have become casualties in what must be the most irrelevant battle in our history since the Battle of New Orleans. How bitter the taste?and the fruits?of such a "victory" at such a price. But what is most tragic about this "victory" is that the Battle of Ham- burger Hill is simply a concentrated dose of what goes on all the time in less con- centrated form, what goes on pointlessly, dangerously, and apparently intermin- ably. So the moment of "the most unac- ceptable of alternatives" has now arrived as expected, and once again we are asked for new funds to fight more such battles, to seek more such "victories" on the fevered road to disaster. *And since the withdrawal of American troops has not begun, since the President has not felt he could state the national goals in Vietnam in a fashion that would suggest that the beginning of such with- drawal is imminent since we still seem unwilling to use negotiations to pursue those things that are negotiable?above all, since military commanders still feel free to spill unmeasured blood to gain transient possession of distant hilltops? in these circumstances, I am convinced that to vote more money is to squander more lives. I cannot believe that anyone here or anywhere else thinks that it is in the national interest to continue this war, to pile up more bodies on-more Hamburger Mils. But that is what we authorize when we vote more money at this bloody moment. We do not "strengthen our bargaining position" by such a vote, on the contrary, we make it less likely that the President will read correctly the national will to get out of Vietnam. We give the green light, in fact, to the continuation of the policies that have led to all this unre- deemable slaughter. Many of us will not do this. We will vote to save American lives. We will vote to salvage the security and honor of the Nation. The only way to do that under the present circumstances is to vote "no" on this appropriation and on all subse- quent appropriations to prosecute the war. We vote no with the prayer that these, votes will help persuade the Presi- dent to reverse the course before the na- tional unraveling becomes irreversible. If the Congress abdicates its obliga- tion to make this judgment on the na- tional policy, it will do so to the peril of this country that we love next only to liberty and justice themselves. So it seems to me that this is the place and this is the moment to say "No; not another dollar?not another profligate expenditure of lives. Begin instead today the withdrawing of troops, the de-Amer- icanizing of the war, and begin at home with the pressing national agenda so long and so dangerously deferred and already so difficult to address." Then we can close ranks in support of the President, in support of his negotiators. We can vote the money for the closing- out in Vietnam and for the starting-in at home. We can offer protection for the South Vietnamese Government against massacres during transition if it will seek peace, or we can depart and let it tend to its own future if it prefers to fight. We can, in short, stop imposing a government on the people of South Viet- nam and a war on the people of that country and our own. I concluded my remarks here on March 26 by reading something that had been said by Senator Robert P. Kennedy a year ago. I read it again now haunted by the sense that grows more prophetic with each tragic day: I am concerned . . . that the course we are following at the present time is deeply wrong . . I am concerned that, at the end of it all, there will only be more Americans killed, more of our treasure spilled out, and because of -the bitterness and hatred on every side of this war, more hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese slaughtered; so that they may say, as Tacitus said of Rome: "They made a desert and called it peace." / don't think that's satisfactory for the United States of America. I do not think that is what this country stands for. Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 ? CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RE .CORD ? HOUSE 11 3911 Mr. KOCH. Mr, Chairman, in March of 1968 the American people made em- phatically clear that they no longer would support a government that per- sisted in the further prosecution of the Vietnam war. Here we are today-15,000 American lives and $27 billion later?being asked to approve more money for more killing in Vietnam. May I respectfully submit that the new administration and this Congress have failed the American people. Earlier this year, I said on the floor of this House that I will oppose any ap- propriations for the further prosecution of the Vietnam war?that I will not vote a single dollar for more killing. The man- ner in which this supplemental appro- priations bill is presented does not per- mit a separate vote on title I which is devoted exclusively to military opera- tions in Southeast Asia. There are non- military appropriations in this bill which deserve support but we are told that such Items are inseparable from the war ap- propriation. I resent the intention and effect of such a procedure. I do not think it shows proper respect for those Mem- bers who deeply oppose our involvement In Vietnam and I regret to say that it appears to show a contempt for the out- rage and agony that the Atherican peo- ple feel over the continuation of this un- conscionable war. It is because of this procedure, knowing that any amendment to strike title I from this bill will fad, that I have no alterna- tive but to vote "No" against the entire appropriations bill. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ECKHARDT TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RYAN- Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I Offer an amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. RYAN) . The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. EcxxArurr to the amendment offered by Mr. RYAN: Strike out lines 1 through 5 on page 3. Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr, Chairman, for at least 2 years now I have had deep con- cern about our involvement in Vietnam. I feel most sincerely that what we have been doing has many mistaken premises and has extended beyond reasonable bounds activity of the U.S. Government which is our benefit Nevertheless, I have voted for all appropriations which in- cluded support of the troops in Vietnam. I have come to the point today, however, Where I feel so strongly, along with some of my colleagues who have spoken here before, that I must express my protest against a wrongness of direction and a wrongness of pumping funds into that area. Yet I am not willing to vote for an amendment that would strike all of title I, which includes military personnel, Army; military personnel, Navy; military personnel, Air Force; and also includes operation and maintenance, Army, Ma- rine Corps, and Air Force, because I feel that many of these items necessarily must be spent or have been spent with respect to the necessary requirements of the perSonnel in the field. However, I note that the items involved for millitary personnel, Army, are at $110 million; Navy, $14,500.000; Air Force, $115 million; and then operations, $96,310,000. Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps, $15,390,000. Operation and inaietenance, Air Force, $242,700,000. But the procureme,it item is far greater than any of these itelas and is $640,100,- 000. The procurement item is largely prospective, and I believe that this is the place at which we she ild make our point, that continuation of procurement, in or- der to prosecute an effort on the part of the United States that is harmful, in my opinion, to the Nation, that that amount of procurement in this bill should be cut out as a strong statement against con- tinuation of the war unchanged and un- abated. For that reason I have offered the amendment to the amendment which would cut out the prespective portion of title I, the procurement section. I would appreciate an "aye" vote. I believe this is a proper way to show we want to turn around, but at the same time we would not bc withdrawing sup- port of men in the field at this time. Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ECKHARDT. I yield to the gen- ,,fleman from New York. Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I commend him for the amendment he has offered. It offers a welcome opportunity or those of us who want to register at t1 -4,s time our strong feelings against the Vietnam war, arid our belief that scaling down of the vio- lence will help produce peace. I support the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Texas, as well as the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from New York. There is plenty of money already available to do whate ver Is necessary to provide the forces now in Vietnam with what they need. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ECKHARDT. f yield to the gen- tleman from New YOTk. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlernac from Texas for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record as concurring in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas to the amendment offered IT the gentleman from New York. To ray mind it makes good sense. I do not think we thould deny to our soldiers medical care food, clothing, and housing. I do not thiek we should deny the needs of our peri onnel who are in the armed services, deny them the neces- sities of life. However, I believe can pretty well make evident our feeling, insofar as the continuing of the Vietnam war; make evident this concern hi concurring in this amendment and votie g. for this amend- ment, As I said befeee, it makes good sense and it is about time we turned over the fighting of this war to the Viet- namese. Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise In support of the amendment. I congrat- ulate the gentleman and associate myself with his remarks. (Mr. OTTINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) (Mr. ECKHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite ritunber of words. (Mr. SIKES asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to restate the thrust of the amend- ments before us. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would eliminate the possibility of providing additional weapons and equipment for the South Vietnamese forces and thereby limit their effectiveness in battle. Most im- portantly the amendment would make it more difficult for the Vietnamese to as- sume a greater part of the role in Viet- nam which they now are prepared to do and have shown the ability to do. This is something we have long desired. The amendment to strike title I offered by the gentleman from New York would simply, in addition to eliminating weapons and equipment for the South Vietnamese and replenishment of our own depleted combat stocks, which is badly needed, would have a further very serious and undesirable effect. It also cut off the pay?listen to this?cut off the pay of the members of the armed serv- ices who are on duty in Southeast Asia. Regardless of intent, this would be the effect of the amendment. Is that what we want to do? We are being asked to show a vote of no confidence in the men who literally are fighting and dying for this country. This amendment truly would jerk the rug out from under them. Just a little while ago we were being told that all the Communists wanted was to have us stop the bombing and they would be ready for realistic steps for peace. The bombing was stopped a year ago. What happened? Nothing. The Allied forces have been subjected to of- fensive after offensive, and the negotia- tions which have been in progress for months in Paris are still fruitless. There still are requirements for the war in Vietnam which must be met. There is no way to avoid our own responsibilities. That is why these amendments should be rejected, and they should be rejected overwhelmingly. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the debate in favor of the amendment. I felt the arguments made were not even worthy of being debated. It is an ex- tremely serious Matter to challenge the provision of the weapons and supplies needed in Vietnam. We must support our troops there to the full extent of our ability and we must strengthen the troops of the Government of South Viet- nam so that they can assume the major role in the defense of their country. This is a supplemental appropriation. We are proposing to give the fighting Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100180043-1_ H312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE May 21, 1969 men the material they need to work with. The $640 million recommended in Army procurement includes over $393.1 million for our own men, $338 million of which is for ammtmitIon. Over $246 million Is to provide for going ahead with phase land phase /I of modernizing and equipping the Vietnamese so they can take over more of the war effort, and we can bring our boys home sooner. This is what the $640 million is for. And we are replenishing the equipment destoyed in the Communist's Tet offen- sive of lest year. We are replenishing some funds we had to spend because the North Koreans be- came more aggressive in their actions, and seized the U.S13. Pueblo. I cannot understand why we should support amendments to abandon the re- spor sibilities that we have supported with our wealth and with the lives of fine Americans. Therefore, I oppose the amendment to the amendment, and I oppose the amendment. I believe we should go ahead and make this appro- priation for our military operations in Sotrheast Asia. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LIPSCOMB. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. I am informed by the staff of the Appropriations Committee that there are unobligated funds in the Arnsy procurement appropriations of $3.9 billion. Would that not be adequate, to cover the $600 million sought to be stricken out by this amendment? Mr. IsIPSCOMB. At this point in time, the Army is operating under deficiencies in some appropriations. On May 5 of this yew., the Deputy Secretary of Defense sent a letter to Congress notifying us this; in military personnel and operations and maintenance they were operating in a deficiency condition. This is not true of the procurement account in which funds remain available until expended, but as the gentleman knows?he is a member of the Appropriations Committee?the funds which are unobligated are com- mitted to specific programs and have bees taken into account in arriving at the sum now recommended. Mr. YAT1*3. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment to the amendment in order that It may be offered at the proper time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I rise In opposition to the amendment and move to strike the requisite number of wo ds. (Mr. HUNGATE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I speak not critically either of President Johnson or of President Nixon, and per- haps at the same time critically of both of them. I believe they are using their bet judgment in this situation. They are ixith in a better position, or holed be, to know what is needed under the cir- cuaistances than are we. For this reason I think the supplemental appropriations as requested should be supported. I think it is regrettable that we in the Congress, as the elected Representatives of all the people, have no real control over the expenditures of lives in Viet- nam. This is not a declared war; it is a conflict which has gone on for some years; so it cannot be said to be a tem- porary, emergency, expediency measure. I am further concerned, Mr. Chair- man. It seems to me I recall that a few years ago under the administration of President Johnson an announcement was made that draft calls would be dras- tically reduced. I think they were cut in half. It seems to me that announcement preceded an election by not very much. I know that my phone rang constantly at the same time, and almost every re- servist throughout my district was called up?without the benefit of a press re- lease. I am concerned at this time, Mr. Chairman. because I hear rumors that 50,000 men may be coming home, and the July draft call may be drastically reduced. I have just been home. I was getting, at one point, three telephone calls an hour from men who might be drafted in June. The size of the May and June draft callups are not the subject of euphoric press releases. This is a matter that concerns me. I hope we in the Congress can find some way better to control the expenditures of manpower In this country. Mr. GIAIMO, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GIAIMO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr, GIA/a10. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentle- man from New York. Let us make it clear at the outset that I do not intend in any way to short- change our fighting men in Vietnam. During the many years that I have had the privilege of serving in this House, I have consistently supported the requests of the Department of Defense, but I think the time has come when we In the Congress must exercise our responsibility to see to it that the Department of De- fense is brought to task and required to justify its expenditures. For too long a Period of time, Defense officials have come before us in a high and mighty fashion saying in effect, "Unless you give us every dollar that we ask for, either in the regular Defense budget or, if we miss the mark, in our supplementals, you are not being loyal to your country and you are not being loyal to the proper de- fense of your country." I believe this is nonsense. I think the defense of the united States is the absolute first pri- ority of all of us in this Nation, but that does not mean that I have to put a rub- ber stamp of approval on every appro- priation request of the Department of Defense. If we study their actions in re- cent years, we will see that the mark has been mine*. many, many times. Again, I say that we in Congress must compel the Defense Department to stop the loose spending and in some instances the squandering of billions of the taxpayers' dollars. Today we are talking about a request for $1.2 billion. We are now being told that if we do not appropriate this money we are jeopardizing our entire effort in Vietnam. Mind you, with a budget in the neighborhood of $90 billion, the Defense Department is telling us that without this money it cannot afford to conduct operations in Southeast Asia. I believe that it can. I believe the Defense Depart- ment can tighten up. Most importantly of all. I think the success of this amend- ment will serve as notice to the Depart- ment of Defense that the Congress in- tends to exercise its rights and to per- form its function by requiring that the taxpayers' money be accounted for properly. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GIAIMO. I am delighted to yield to my chairman. Mr. MAHON. The gentleman well knows that all of the funds requested by the Department of Defense last year were cut by more than $5 billion. In the request which is before us, in the title we have up now, the Committee on Ap- propriations recommended, and the amount contained in the bill represents, a cut of $262.9 million. In the entire bill there Is a cut of $559 million below the budget request for the military. So this Is not by any means a rubber stamping of the requests that have been made. I thought In connection with the gentle- man's statement that this fuller state- ment might be made. Mr. GIAIMO. I understand, Mr. Chair- man. While I realize that this is only the first step in the progress of this sup- plemental appropriation bill, I sincerely believe that the time has come for us to take a stand in the Congress to com- pel the DOD to be more responsive to the will of the American people and to the will of the Congress. In my opinion, the passage of this amendment is the only way in which this can be accomplished. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment do now close. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I object. MOTION Olerk.RED BY MR. MAHON Mr. 1VIAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the pending amend- ment do now close. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from New York (Mr. RYAN). The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Sums) there were?ayes 25, noes 140. So the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: PROCUREMENT PROCCREMENT Or EQUIPMENT AND MISSILES, For an additional amount for "Procure- ment of equipment and missiles, Army", gO ,100 000. to remain available until ex- pended.ALIENDIEENT OFFERED BY MR. ECKHARDT Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I of- fer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Ecitusaryr: On page 3, strike lines I through 5. Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE H 3913 (Mr. ECKHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this is the same amendment that Was offered a moment ago but, technically, since it was offered to a motion to strike out all of the title, there was no amendment that was appropriate to be offered at that time. So, I withdrew it and I am reoffer- ing it at this time. Much of the debate and opposition to the first amendment went to the argu- ment that we should support the men overseas, to which I agree, and I, there- fore, voted against the first amendment. This is an amendment which in nowise Jeopardizes the position of our men over- seas. It merely calls a halt to the mad artriaments spending in a war halfway around the globe, which constitutes most of title I of this bill. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the Members vote in support of the striking of the sum of $640 million for procure- ment, which is prospective for the ob- taining of further military materiel, to continue a war which we hope will close, and we should be doing everything we can to close it. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? Mr. ECKHARDT. I yield to the gen- tleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, a few mo- ments ago in an interchange with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lips- COMB), I made the point that the staff of the Committee on Appropriations had informed me that there were unex- pended funds in this item of $3.9 billion. That point has been verified. There are utiobligated and unexpended funds of that amount in this item. It is true, I am told, that they have been programed, but the fact remains that they are not expended, nor are they obligated at the present time. Mr. LIPSCOMB. If the gentleman will yield, there is a further point that the gentleman should make, and that is that they are committed funds. Mr. ECKHARDT. There is nothing that we commit that we may not uncom- mit by this amendment. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise In opposition to this amendment. I suggest that there is a serious in- congruity among those who, on the one hand, say that we have got to get out of Vietnam, and that we have got to turn more of this war over to the South Viet- namege and then proceed to support this amendment which would deny equipment to South Vietnam. They are biting off their noses to spite their faces, because this $640 million when broken down shows $393 million for U.S. forces in South Vietnam to replace the equip- ment that is being used up so very rap- idly in the toughest war we have ever fought, and the other $294 million would go to buy military equipment for the South Vietnamese forces. This amount, when broken down, shows $80 million fdr ammunition, $2.6 million for weap- ons, and other combat vehicles, $9.7 mil- lion for tutical support vehicles, $17.3 million for communication and elec- tronic equipment, and $53 million for other support equipment. How in the world can you say on the one hand that you want the South Viet- namese to take a biwter share of fight- ing in this war?and it support that posi- tion, and so does the President, and so do Most of the Members of the Con- gress?how can you ray on the one hand that you want the South Vietnamese to take on a bigger responsibility in the prosecution of this war and then not give them equipment with which to wage the war? Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this amendment should be' rejectd by the overwhelming vote. It would be my hope that the people of South Vietnam, their soldiers, and our own American soldiers who are fighting in South Vietnam in the cause of free- dom, would receive renewed confidence and hope from the vote we just cast which rejected by this House over- whelmingly the previous amendment by a 6-to-1 vote, and that it would be an indication to them that we here in Con- gress support their struggle for freedom as we did when we overwhelmingly adopted the Tonkin -Bay resolution, which put us into Vietnam in the first place. If my memory is correct, I believe there was one dissenting votehi this Chamber, and that there were two or three dis- senting votes in the other Chamber on the Tonkin Bay resolution. Mr. Chairman, we have stood by the people of South Vietnam because we know this: the collapse of South Viet- nam would only be the beginning of putting into captive bondage all the na- tions of Southeast,Asia by the Soviet Union, just as the ommunists put into Soviet bondage the captive nations of Europe and as the Soviets are now try- ing to put in Communist bondage and create captive nations out of all the na- tions in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, I an amazed at those who stand here today and say that they want us to get out of South Vietnam when they know that the Communists have 73 other countries on three con- tinents earmarked for the same kind of brutal, barbaric, cruel aggression through subterfuge, and terror that they have tested for 5 years in Vietnam, and are continuing to use to this very date, if the forces of freedom should falter in South Vietnam. I congratulate the committee for un- derstanding the military needs of the people of South Vietnam and of the forces of South Vietnam, and if we really want the South Vietnamese to take on a bigger share of responsibilities, I sug- gest that you overwhelmingly reject this amendment. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the gentle- man. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. From the fig- ures given by the gentlemen from Illinois and the ftures given by the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Florida, it is perfectly obvious that if this amendment is approved as offered by the gentleman from Texas you will slow down and materially hinder and hamper the effort to give grmter responsibility to the South Vietnamese. Mr. PUCINSKI. Precisely. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Therefore, I hope that for the benefit of the American military forces in South Vietnam that the amendment is defeated. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and on this title do now close. Mr. BURTON of California. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. MOTION OFFERED BY MR. idAhox Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment and on this title close in 5 minutes, and that the 5 minutes be given to the gentleman from California (Mr. BURTON) . PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. BURTON of California. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California will state the parlia- mentary inquiry. Mr. BURTON of California. Mr. Chair- man, I deeply appreciate the chairman- of the Committee on Appropriations sug- gesting that I be given the 5 minutes, but I am sure we all recall that on the Tonkin Bay matter, we had all of 60 minutes and we spend less than 2 hours annually discussing these matters in Committee of the Whole. My point or inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is if you really think 5 minutes is adequate time to dis- cuss the pending matter? The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Texas please repeat his motion. MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment and on amendments to title I close in 15 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON). The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has noted the names of Members standing to be recognized under the limitation of time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. BURTON) . Mr. BURTON of California. Mr. Chairman, we have heard this old saw every time a supplemental appropria- tion comes before us, that but for these few billions of added dollars that was not anticipated?but for the approval of these few billions?all the American effort is going down the drain. We have heard the old saw today that finally we are going to turn over the fighting to the South Vietnamese, if only we approve of this supplemental appropriation. What absolute nonsense. The fact of the matter remains that we have un- committed funds right now, if the De- partment of Defense wanted to use these funds, to' arm or to train or to do what- ever, with the South Vietnamese Army, and they could spend all the required money even if we do not do a darn thing but reject the pending proposal. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment So that we can reduce our excessive military expenditures on this occasion. Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 H914 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE May 21, 1969 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Low- Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I feel like Alice must have in Wonderland. Or :naybe Rip Van Winkle. We talk as if nothing goes on outside this room. We talk as if it were 5 years ago. We talk noneense In circles?vicious circles. Outside this room this country spirals Into worsening crisis. We are impervious. We debate the longest war in our his- tory, the most disputed adventure of our national experience, for half an hour. Thirty minutes. Then time is up. But if we cannot discuss these matters here, where can we? What is it we are so busy doing here? Various Members have proclaimed to- day that we have an obligation to the Americans in Vietnam. That is one point we can all agree about: we have an ob- ligalon to the Americans in Vietnam. We have an obligation to the integrity of this Nation. That obligation is not met by :abdicating the functions of the su- preme legislative body of the greatest democracy on earth. It is not met by quaetermaster-like issuing of ever more money to fight this pointless war which cannot be won and which is destroying national unity, poisoning the national purpose, crippling the national interest. Does anyone still believe that voting supplemental funds to make possible supplemental Hamburger Hills will save American lives? Will increase the na- tional security? Does anyone believe the Duke of Wellington is Chairman of the Joir t Chiefs of Staff? Can all us Alices leave Wonderland long enough to face the consequences of acting on this pro- posal by rote, by alogan, by habit, while all around us men and women in ever- less--quiet desperation and ever-larger numbers despair of the democratic proc- ess .and despair for the sanity of the Na- tion. If we cannot stop long enough to debate, can we at least stop long enough to think? Mr. Chairman, that is what this vote is all about. Tie CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. FRASER). Mr. FRASER, Mr. Chairman, I have participated in the very limited way that has been possible in this debate as it has recurred from time to time on the flooa. I think every time I have had a chance to speak on this subject the time has been restricted to 1 or 2 minutes. I hav:3 been thoroughly unimpressed with the role of the committee in affording any direction other than to rubberstamp, essentially, the policies of the President. At :gime point the House of Representa- tive;, if it is going to stand on its own feet and exercise its constitutional re- sponsibilities, ought to face the policy questions involved here much more squarely than has happened in the past. I do not believe that the Vietnam war has proven to be a wise venture. I take It from the actions and speeches of many of the Members here today that they think it has been a great venture for the Am nican people. They support it. They are prepared to involve us in more Viet- nams in neighboring countries in South- east Asia. I deeply regret that we do not have more time to discuss these questions. , The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. RYAN). Mr. RYAN. An appropriation bill is Indeed the only opportunity which we have to vote on the fundamental policy Inherent in the Vietnam war. I would like to point out, with respect to the question of military personnel which was raised earlier, that the funds under title I are intended to cover and pay for in- creased deployment to Southeast Asia of some 17,400 Army personnel. Accord- ing to the testimony of Gen. L. B. Taylor, director of Army budget, on page 361 of the hearings, and very significantly, in answer to a question posed by the gentle- man from Alabama (Mr. Aseezws) which was: Do you have any plans to send any more there Ln the near future? General Taylor said: I think it goes up approximately [deletion] In the next fiscal year. In other words, troop commitments in Vietnam will go up a certain number in the next fiscal year, according to Gen- eral Taylor. Yet we do not have the benefit of knowing how many additional servicemen are scheduled for Southeast Asia because that has been deleted or censored by the Pentagon. Mr. Chairman. I again urge the House to exercise its Proper role and make it clear to the President that this wax must be brought to a prompt conclusion. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman fiom Texas (Mr. Eciesaarte). (Mr. E'CKBARDT asked and was given PermIsaion to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ECKHAR.DT. Mr. Chairman, the lack of foresight that pervades the whole philosophy of those who would go Pen- men further Into a war after they get to the level where the water is reaching their nostrils 13 illustrated by the argu- ment here that we are going to arm and train the South Vietnamese Army under a supplemental appropriation. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Poeitt). Mr. PODELL. Mr. Chairman, I con- gratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ecemaiter) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. RYAN) and associate myself with their remarks. I think it is about time that we in the Congress reclaimed the prerogative of Congress to initiate and to declare war and to stop war when It becomes an insanity as is Vietnam. I think it is time that we issued our pro- test of the war in Vietnam in forceful terms. I think this is an opportunity for the Members of the House to make this protest heard. Once again we are asked to acquiesce in approval of more funds for Vietnam. Contained in title I of the supplemental appropriations bill before us, this re- quest is yet another testimonial to mud- dled political thinking and futile mili- tary efforts. Again we shall hear the same chorus of voices telling us military victory 18 Just around the corner. We know It is not. Again we shall be assured that just a few more billion and a few more di- visions are all that is needed for real power bargaining at the negotiating table. I refuse to believe it. Once more we shall be told about vi- able patriotic democrats and heirs of Thomas Jefferson running the govern- ment in Saigon. We know they are a patchwork military junta whose jails are crammed with non-Communist op- ponents. Still again we shall be told Ky and the Armed Forces of South Vietnam are al- most ready to take over a more mean- ingful role in the war. I have seen too many dead Americans. Taking all these factors into full con- sideration, I emerge with one major con- clusion?that this war is a civil conflict where we can only continue to waste our substance in vain. Further, that we are only pouring good men and money down a bottomless drain. I feel we have reached a point where the military of our own country must be curbed and held in tether. Also, their never-ending sources of national funds must be choked off, and there is no bet- ter time or place for it to begin than right here and now. (Mr. PODFLL asked and was given Permission to revise and extend his remarks.) The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Orriecee) . Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, our colleague (Mr. Pecressi), related the fact of the overwhelming support of Congress for the Gulf of Tonkin resolu- tion. Since that time a great many Amer- icans and a great many Members of this Congress have felt that the policies then approved have proved to be bankrupt. It is time that we reverse the inex- orable increase in the amount we give to the military to prosecute the war and to ever expand it; it is time to stop pour- ing billions after billions of dollars down the bottomless pit of the military, es- pecially when the military comes to us in this Congress and deliberately falsi- fies information and seeks to deceive us as it did in the case of the C-54 cargo plane. We simply can no longer take at face value that everything the military describes as "essential" is in fact es- sential. We are now spending $82.5 billion on the military. This constitutes some 60 percent of our free funds, not committed to payment of interest on the national debt. This is the largest and fastest rising Item in the budget. Its rise must stop. Many of us feel that the national se- curity of our country is more threatened by internal explosion than by external Invasion. A far greater proportion of our free funds must be devoted to education, job training, housing, and our environ- ment if we are to survive. It is past time that we reverse the trend toward an ever larger war in Vietnam and an ever larger military commitment, all made perversely in the name of "peace." This increase is a good place to start. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILBERT) Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21, 1969 Mr. GILBERT. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Ryan amendment to eliminate title I of the supplemental appropria- tions bill. I felt a vote for tile I is a vote to continue the unpopular war in Viet- nam. MY support of the Ryan amend- ment is meant to indicate the dissent in my district and in the country. People are opposed to the Vietnam war, and we In Congress must make every effort to appeal to the President to take steps to end the war. Our best way in Congress to support our troops, is to withdraw them, as I proposed just a few days ago in a resolution introduced in Congress with several of my colleagues. In supporting the Ryan amendment, I have attempted to register my protest, and that of my constituency, over any action to prolong fighting in Vietnam. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. BINGHAM) . Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ? would think Members of this House would have learned something from the events of the past year arid a half: That the intensity of the fighting in Vietnam does not bring peace clOser, but that re- ? straint does. We would not even be negotiating as we are today in Paris if President John- son had not shown restraint y stopping the bombing of North Vietnam. upport of this amendment would indicate sup- port of the idea of restraint in the future by keeping down the violence and would bring peace closer. The CHAIRMAN, The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Pucin- ma) . Mr. YUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, we are In Vietnam because of the overwhelming vote in the House and in the Senate in support of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which put us there. America went there with its eyes open. Congress knew what the consequences would be and that it would be a tough war. Just because it has been a difficult war, they should not be coming in here whimpering to pull out. The President was right when he said if the needless s,uffering continues at the hands of the North Vietnamese, we will have tp reconsider our alternatives. I think there is _a very good chance we may have to resume the bombing of the North. The last year during which we have had the pause in the bombing has only brought more casualties of Ameri- can boys and no subsequent progress toward peace. I believe we may very well have to re- sume the bombing of the North and at the same time withdraw our troops from Vietnam so that North Vietnam will realize it is in for a long bombing siege. Only then may we see some progress in Paris. This money and equipment is needed to win the war. This war is not going to ? be won In this Chamber; it will be won by the fighting in Vietnam. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch). (Mr. KOCH asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Approved For Release 2002/08/01: CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 3915 Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, it is not because this is a tough war or a hard war that I oppose It but because it is an immoral war, which is to say our involve- ment is politically, militarily, and eco- nomically indefensible. We therefore ought to get out of Vietnam. The vote on thio supplemental war appropriation is symbolic. If we were to vote it down, the President would know that we want a cease-fire now and a start of the withdrawal of American troops now. This vote transcends the simple ques- tion of an appropriation; it is rather an opportunity for thosc who oppose the war to demonstrate their opposition. We are told that we must vote for this appropriation in order to support our soldiers in Vietnam. I support our men in Vietnam. I want to bring them home. The. CHAIRMAN The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman I rem New York (Mr. FARBSTEIN) . Mr. FARBSTEIN, Mr, Chairman, 5 years ago I remember the then Secretary of Defense and the military saying the war would be over in a couple of months. This is a broken record of constant re- iteration and the war still goes on. I think the only way we can effectively turn this war over to the South Vietnam- ese is by denying any further funds for procurement of materiel. There is suffi- cient funds in the pipeline for materiel so the Vietnamese can take over the war. . I believe this additional equipment is unnecessary to provide full protection to our present forces in Vietnam. It could only serve as a means of escalating the American presence in Vietnam and dis- couraging the South Vietnamese from taking over a greater degree of responsi- bility for the prosecution of the war. I believe that the passage of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas to delete this $640,100,000 would take us a significant step closer to the goal of getting out of Vietnam. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Michigan, the minority leader (Mr GERALD R. Foin). Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the amendment as drafted is sloppy and poorly put together. The net result, however, ls that we are faced with whether or not we will go along with the desire of tLe American people to transfer to our allies, the South Viet- namese, a greater and greater share and ultimately the total burden of the fight- ing in Vietnam. If we vote for this amendment, we are voting to set back and to roadblock the effort to give the Soath Vietnamese a greater share of the fighting. Therefore, I truly hope that the amendment, badly drafted as it is, is defeated. The CHAIRMAN. , The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Liescoma). Mr. LIPSCOMB Mr. Chairman, the Nixon administration and the Subcom- mittee on Defense Appropriations have examined the requests for lands for mil- itary operations in Scutheast Asia and has reduced them where not essential. The Subcommittee on Defense went very cleeply into the requests and reduced over $262 million in the revised request for procurement funds. The? amount requested in the procure- ment account are the very minimum needed to support not only our own effort In Vietnam, but to equip and modernize the South Vietnamese, I ask a no vote on the amendment. Mrs. CHISHOLM. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must in- form the gentlewoman from New York that under the time limitation she is not eligible for recognition. Mrs. CHISHOLM. May I ask another Member to yield? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The gentle- woman may ask another Member to yield. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Maxon) to close debate on the amendment. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Cinsnor.m). Mrs. CHISHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief statement to make, because I think most of the statements pertaining to the reasons why we should withdraw from this war in Vietnam have been made. I speak on behalf of a minority in this country, the women and the mothers, the mothers 'whose sons have been lost in this war. Unfortunately, here in this body we do not have enough women to speak out on behalf of the women of this coun- try who have been suffering as a result of the loss of their sons in this war. I think there has to come a time when we have to recognize that we must with- draw, that we cannot continue to lose the cream of the crop of the young men in this country in a war that is unjust, a war that is highly immoral. The mandate of the people of this country has not been paid any attention. We are supposed to be representing the people of the United States in this Cham- ber, and the mandate means absolutely nothing in terms of what the women of this country are speaking out about. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ECKHARDT) . The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. BURTON of Cali- fornia) there were?ayes 23, noes 134. So the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE SUGAR ACT PROGRAM For an additional amount for "Sugar Act program", $7,500,000. Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to ask the chairman whether the amount listed on lines 11 and 12 of page 3?"For an additional amount for 'Salaries and expenses', for 'Plant and animal disease and pest control,' includes any amount that involves the spreading of pesticides such as DDT and other non- degradable pesticides, or whether this refers only to the sterile fly program for elimination of the screw-worm referred to in the report." Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R0001001800431 H316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE May 21, 1969 Mr. MAHON. Will the gentleman di- rect his question to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. WerrrEN) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture? Mr. OTTINGER. I am glad to. Mr WHITTEN. This is limited to the stern: zation of flies and the effort to stop the screw-worm infestation. Most of it represents money already expended un- der authority which permits deficit spending where life and property would otherwise be endangered. Nate of it has the purpose in mind that the gentleman refers to. Mr. O'FITNGER. In that case I have no objection. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: CHAPTER, III DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL Fumes FEDER...L PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLITATRTA For an additional amount for "Federal pay- ment to the District of Columbia" for the general fund of the District of Columbia", $10,315,000. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (l:i.. GROSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his rems.rks.) Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask ,someone on the Committee on Ap- propriations whether there are funds in this bill for the restoration of buildings that have been gutted by arson and fire and other acts of property damage at Howard University, including the de- struction of a $30,000 fire truck. tri7. NATCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? M.% GROSS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman. Mr. NATCHER. I would like for the gentleman to know that in this bill we have no money whatsoever for that purpose. Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: DEPARTMENT OF FrOtTraneo AND *URBAN Dlivai.OPMENT Mosseser Cererr NOMEOWNERSHIP AND RENTAL NOOSING ASSISTANCE The limitation on total payments that may be required in any fiscal year by all contracts entered into under section 235 of the Na- tion d Housing Act, as amended (82 Stat. 477). Is inereaeed by $40,000,000 and the lim- itation on total payments under those en- tered into under section 236 of such Act (82 Stat. 498) is increased by $40,000,000. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. FRASER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his rem arks.) Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate my support for the provision In ILE. 11400 which provides $40 million In new contract authority for the section 235 homeownership program. I would like to have seen the Appropriations Conunittee approve the administration's full request of $50 million for section 235 but the money in this bill will at least enable the program to continue operat- ing. It is essential that we follow up ac- tion on this $40 million supplemental appropriation with approval later in the session of the full 1970 budget of $100 million for section 235. The section 235 program has only been In operation in my district since the first of the year but already it is beginning to have a significant impact. In January the Minneapolis FHA office was allocated mortgage subsidy funds for 100 homes. Within 3 months all these funds had been obligated and the office now has a waiting list of over 200 eligible families. The Minneapolis Housing and Rede- velopment Authority has found that sec- tion 235 is a particularly useful aid for moderate income families displaced by the urban renewal projects. A MEHRA staff member wrote to tell me that three families relocated from a north Minne- apolis renewal project had recently ob- tained FHA mortgages subsidized under 235: They bought good houses?houses they could not have purchased without the sub- sidy. Home ownership will not be a burden because payments are related to their abil- ity to pay. But for every home purchased, we had at least 8 inquiries. Many families are continuing to look for homes pending ap- propriations of more funds The following cases from the Housing Authority files provide interesting ex- amples of how section 235 can make a real difference for families in need of good housing: Falsity "c" Mr. and Mrs. "C- have two children, ages 8 and 2. The "Os" purchased a FHA re- possessed home in northeast Minneapolis. The home is a two story frame structure with four bedrooms, bath and kitchen, liv- ing room and dining room. It was built about 50 years ago and has been well maintained. FHA approved a mortgage with a local savings and loan association on February 27, 1989, It VMS set at 7% % for $17.390 with a $200 down payment under Section 235, The "Os" moved into their new home on April 1. Their share of the monthly payments is $86.71 with a Section 235 subsidy of $72.57 for a total of $159.28 per month. rssextv "H" Mr. and Mrs, "H" have three children, ages 10, 8 and 7. They are expecting their fourth child in August. The "Hs" bought a two-story home built in the early 1900s. A special at- traction of this home is its location next to school, so their daughter with cerebral palsy doesn't have to walk. The "Hs" purchased their home for $14,800. The total monthly mortgage payment is $133.51. The "Us" will pay 682.15 and the gov- ernment will subsidize $51.38. The payment of $82.15 is 20% of Mr. "Hs" adjusted monthly income. The reasonable amount of the "Bs" monthly payments should enable them to stay financially secure and build an equity from this purchase. The human element in this new pro- gram is conveyed very effectively by a constituent who recently wrote: I had been paying $11300 per month and I was only earning about $300.00 per month for almost 10 years, With paying this much per month, I could hardly make any repairs. Things had reached the point where it was raining in every bedroom. When my children needed more and I could not keep up the payments, I was given 30 days to move out This was the point where 235 came to my rescue. Now with my sman house? easy upkeep and the monthly payments are much less, I feel more confident in the future. I hope this greatly needed program may be expanded. I know from experience how terrible it is not to have a decent place to come home from work. When I see friends and neighbors un- der the conditions I was in, I feel I should try to let you know how much this can mean to people and how more should be done. Mr. Chairman, the passage of the 1968 Housing Act held out the hope of home- ownership for millions of low-income families. Now, a year later, when the Initial excitement over this historic leg- islation has died down, it is up to us to make sure that the new housing pro- grams really work. Unless we vote ade- quate funds for section 235 and the other Innovative programs, the 1968 act will be nothing more than a token attempt to meet our country's critical housing needs. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON rita, ARTS AND THE HITMANliizS SALARIES AND EXPENSES For an additional amount for "Salaries and expenses", equal to the total amounts of gifts, bequests, and devises of money, and other property received by each Endowment under the provisions of section 10(a) (2) of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, not to exceed a total of $3,000,000, to remain avail- able until expended. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GROSS Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. GROSS: On page 13, strike out all of lines 13 through 20; and on page 14, strike out all of lines 1 and 2. (Mr. GROSS asked and was given Permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, let me em- phasize that this is a big bill. This is a $4 billion supplemental appropriation bill making additions to the regular ap- propriation bills of last year. And, I want to underscore what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CEDER8ERG) said earlier. He said, in effect, that these supple- mental appropriation bills are coming too fast. They make meaningless the validity of the regular appropriation bills. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike out the $3 million for the Arts and Humanities Foundation. I would like to ask the proponents for handing over another $3 million to this Arts and Hu- manities Foundation if they have read the latest casualty figures for Vietnam war, if they have, whether they do not think it is more than slightly tragic to be spending this money for poetry read- ing and ballet dancing when we are in the midst of a horribly costly full-scale war in men and money. We have lost 35,000 men killed in action in Vietnam, nearly another 6,000 dead from various other causes in connection with this war and 225,000 wounded. These arts and hu- manities people seem to be concerned mostly with bailing out bankrupt cul- tural centers, such as the one in Atlanta, Ga., while the Federal debt climbs and Inflation gallops on. Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 - May 21, Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 11 3917 I , remind you of the testimony of Charles Mark, the planning and analysis director of this organization. He wants this money so they can transport actors from Louisville, Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Minneapolis?among other places?to Broadway at the expense of the taxpay- ers. When they get there, Mr. Mark said, they will dance dances, present chamber opera, whatever that is, and give poetry readings. Mr. Mark failed to give any testi- mony on the subject of where the publics money has already gone at the hands of this Arts and Humanities setup. It would be interesting to know, too, if they plan any more grants to study Apache Indian history, or to make a computer analysis of style problems in epic poetry; or for research for a book on Medieval comic opera. Are they going to shell out more money for a study of aspects of 'Wordsworth's reading and writing "which have gone unnoticed or misinterpreted"? Perhaps they have another grant in Mind to study the background of 17th century members of Parliament. Maybe they plan another grant or two for a study of the leading literary critics of the 19th century Spanish literature. These people have never, as far as I can determine, financed a study of the flight Of our gold to foreign countries, nor has there been a grant to find out what tune Nero was playing when Rome burned. Maybe we could use that tune today as a sort of a second national anthem, when We talk in terms of giving an additional $3 million to people who engage in spending the taxpayers' money for pur- poses of this kind. Here is $3 million we could save, and we had better start sav- ing the millions or we are never going to save the billions. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. Mr. 'THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. IL is not necessary, I believe, because my beloved friend from Iowa has not caught up yet with the question that he asked 3 years ago when, of all things, being from an agricultural State, he said that he did not know the difference between a bale of hay, and a ballet dancer. That is rather remarkable, being from that area. One might expect that someone from lVIanhattan or places like that would not know that.' difference, at least, they would not know a bale of hay. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter Is that this is really a startlingly small arriotint of money:, even though it is what was requested' for matching grants. The gentleman from Iowa and some of the rnernbere ef the committee Might find it perfectly easy: to deride such things as interpretation of poetry and 19th-cen- tury Spanish literature, or anything else that makes life beautiful. Mr. Chairma,n, to equate 'this amount of money with what happens in Vietnam is, I believe, ridiculous. Probably this amount of money would not even pump the water out of thal, submarine at Mare Island. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. THOMPSON New Jersey. I will be glad to yield to rev friend from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Weld it might help. Mr. 'THOMPSON of New Jersey. It might help. It would cost, probably, much more than $3 million to pump it out, that is true. Mr. GROSS. I did not know in New Jersey that $3 million could be spent on notice, but perhaps that is true. Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. That what? Mr. GROSS. Thai $3 million could be spent on notice, that it had any real meaning. Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. This has very real meaning, I will say to my friend from Iowa.. This covers the entire governmental operation with respect to those grants to the arts and the human- ities, to scholarship, and to the beau- tiful things in life. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. I am delighted to yield to the distinguished majority leader. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate_ myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey. This appropriation item gives us the oppor- tunity to get private contributions into this very important area. On another point, while the gentleman has called attention to some areas, that might be humerous to some of us. is certainly none of us would, I hope, undertake to hamstring the artists and humanists of this country by trying to circumscribe the areas in which they operate. This program has been well run. I have had an opportunity to examine its scope and operations, and I commend the great men who have administered it. Mr. THOMPSON- of New Jersey. I quite agree with the distinguished ma- jority leader. Mr. ST GER1VIAIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman f,Dm Rhode Island. Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman _ for yielding. I would like to quote a project that took place just recently in Rhode Island. It was a very healthy and excellent dem- onstration. As a result of funding from the arts and humanities in Rhode Island, we had a project called Discovery which visited the high schools of the entire State?the theater. The children who were benefited by this program were very disappointed when they found out that Project Dis- covery might very well not be continued this year because of lack of funding. So they put on a demonstration march to the State House hoping that the State wOuld help to fund and that private funds would come in so that they could continue Project Discovery. I feel that if this type of demonstra- tion can be generated from this funding, certainly it is a healthy thing for the future of our Nation. Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. The gentleman has pointed but something that is very valuable, as has the majority leader. The fact is that since the passage of this legislation nearly every State in the Union has formed its own State arts council and has turned the attention of the youngsters and of the populace of the States to the beautiful things in life. They may not have much value to some of us, but they do to me and they do to the children and they do to elderly peo- ple, such as my friend, Dr. Barnaby Keeney. This money will generate probably three times as much as the appropria- tion provided for here. The Endowments on the Arts and the Humanities have done a truly magnificent job with very meager resources. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? t Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, if I understood the gentleman correctly, the possibility may be that some of our col- leagues cannot distinguish a ballet dancer from a bale of hay, and I believe that this would justify a considerable expenditure for cultural enrichment. Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. I sup- pose it would. - Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee and to the committee and my gratitude and the gratitude of our great constitu- encies who are interested in the arts and humanities for their work and for this very modest contribution. Mrs. HANSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the $3 million placed In this bill is to provide for matching grants for every dollar that the Govern- ment spends here, another dollar or more of grants will be donated and used to further the program arts and humanities. After listening to the debate a little earlier on another subject, I am just going to repeat what I said last year. We have solved many technical prob- lems. We have made magnificent contri- butions in the sciences and, yet, not yet does this Nation understand the depth of its soul. A better understanding of ourselves can be the contribution of the humanities. To the gentleman from Iowa, may I ask, what is wrong with knowing the history?the proud history of the Apache Nation? Mr. Chairman, I want to read a state- ment by a rather well-known business enterprise. A page advertisement was taken in the newspapers of the West about 3 weeks ago by the Pacific North- west Bell. At the top of the page appear the words "The Big Change in Arts and Cul- ture." At the bottom it says: Like many others in the business world today we recognize that the opportunity to enjoy the arts is an important part of the quality of living we enjoy here hi the Pacific Northwest. And like any part of our environ- ment, their growth must be nurtured and stimulated. You might say that's been our theme in this Big Change series. For what we've been saying is that the assets we have Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 113918 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R600100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE May 21, 1969 iii Washington must be matched by the deeds of men if we are all to enjoy the pro- ductive life. And that's an unchanging assignment. I strongly urge you to defeat this amendment. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. HANSEN of Washington. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. GROSS. How about the history of the Comanches, and the Arapahos and all the rest of them?the Mohawks, the Sioux. the Cherokees, and all other In- dian tribes? Mrs. HANSEN of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, .1 think the history of every group who has been part of this count'y's history is part and parcel of this country's great heritage and should be more widely known. It is part of our culture. I am personally proud to have worked with ;he Indian people of this Nation and to understand their role and their relaticnehip in today's world. Mr. GROSS. The gentlewoman in the very brief hearings that we held on this subject said it was her understanding that tie appropriations-- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tlewoman from 'Washington has expired. (Mr. McDADE asked and was _given permission to revise and extend his remar:es.) Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to point out to the Members on both sides of the aisle that this Is a rec- orrunendation that comes from the sub- committee in unanimous fashion. We gave it What .we thought was an im- portant and extensive hearing. In our judgmmt, it is an item in which our Gov- ernment, our Nation, our people, ought to be iiterested. The question is really at what level. I believe all of us will agree that this is a ninimal level of Federal funding. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the position of the subcommittee and defeat the amend- ment offered by my colleague from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McDADE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman frost Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Did, not the gentlewoman from Washington, in opening the quick hearing OD this $3 million item, say that, In effe A, she was surprised that they would be asking for this funding since she thought supplemental appropriations dealt with emergencies? What, kind of emergency is there in this situation? Mr. McDADE. I would say to my col- league--and the gentlewoman from Washir gton, of course, is able to speak for herself ably?but I would point out that this Is a matching program in which we are making an effort to stimulate non-Federal funding in this area, and in order ti do this we are providing funds which can be matched in this bill. Mr. GROSS. But that scarcely makes an emergency out of this thing. Mr. McDADE. I think we have to do it in order to stimulate the non-Federal funding'. We ought at least to come for- ward with some Federal funding to keep faith, That is what we are doing. Mrs. HANSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McDADE. I yield to the gentle- woman from Washington. Mrs. HANSEN of Washington. May I say that in our committee questions were asked to develop the fullest amount of Information necessary to find out what the funds were designed to do. We were told that for every dollar that. would be provided in the Federal funding there is more than a dollar pledged in gifts to the arts and humanities under the matching program. We did not want to appropri- ate more than would be necessary. We did want to know why, exactly, we needed the money at this time, and the complete answers are in the record of our hearings. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the amendment close. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? Mr. JOELSON. Mr_ Chairman, I ob- ject. MOT/ON OFT/OtED HT MR. menore Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendent close In 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON). The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. JOELSON ) . (Mr. JOELSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. JOFI.SON. Mr. Chairman, I rise In opposition to this amendment I think that when the history books of our Na- tion are written, we are going to be judged not on the number of angry bombs we were able to produce, or the screaming missiles, or the whining bul- lets, but by what kind of culture or civili- zation we created. The gentleman from Iowa mentioned Vietnam. I believe the people of this country want to acknowledge that there are more things to life than wars, and that there are the pursuits of peace, and the advantages and the blessing of Peace We would like to acknowledge that we are a humane, an interested, and an aware people. I do not think a Congress that today is appropriating $1.2 billion for killing has the right to turn its back on a token $3 million for the appreciation of cul- ture and the blessings of democracy and learning. This may seem a very paltry matter, but I think it goes to the heart of what America is and what America would like to be and what America could become if we are willing to invest our weath in our minds and our spirits. We must not become a nation of Philistines. We are not barbarians; we are human beings. As one .who would have chosen over Sparta, I urge the rejection of this nega- tive amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. MAYNE). (Mr. MAYNE agked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I would not want to take the position that $3 million is a small amount of money, but considering the vast scope of this project, the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, this seems to me to be a very reasonable expenditure in this bill. I, therefore, speak in opposition to the amendment. Cultural activities of this kind have never in the history of civilization oper- ated at a profit. It has always been nec- essary to have either some Government subsidization or some other type of con- tribution from patrons or sponsors to bring great works of art and literature to the peoples of the world. This has been necessary to make progress in raising the cultural and artistic standards- of the human race. We are not talking here about some vague experimental program, but of a Program which has already proved its worth operating within the confines of a relatively modest budget. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thomson) said, the arts councils have been very successful throughout the United States. I can certainly assure my colleagues that the Iowa Arts Council, under the direction of Jack E. Olds, has been an outstanding success. This has been a bipartisan effort in the State of Iowa commenced during the administra- tion of a Democratic Governor with an appropriation of $50,000_ This year a Republican Governor has recommended an appropriation of $61,460 and the full amount has been voted by a Republic legislature. Using State and Federal funds, the Iowa Arts Council has been able to bring great music, great litera- ture, and great drama to every corner of the State. The 1967-68 biennhun report of the council shows that 33 projects were undertaken and presented in a great majority of Iowa's 99 counties. To mention some of these, there were performances by the Des Moines Civic Ballet at Marshalltown and Des Moines and a performance by the Dubuque City Youth Ballet Company in collaboration with the University of Northern Iowa. An extended tour by the University of Northern Iowa Concert Chorale and Concert Band; a tour of western counties by the Iowa State Symphonic Band; re- citals by the internationally known Iowa violinist, Charles Treger, the only Amer- ican to win the famous Wieniawski com- petition in Poznan, Poland, and by Pi- anist David Kaiserman. A tour of 24 communities by poets from Iowa colleges and universities who read and interpreted their poems to an estimated 5,000 high school students; a drama consultation and technical serv- ices project from Iowa State University which brought staff members as consult- ants to about six communities. An artist-in-residence program which brought the celebrated painter, Marion J. Kitzman, of Iowa State University, to two communities; a touring exhibition of prints by 12 Iowa printmakers; a traveling program showing and discuss- ing films as an art form was presented In four communities. Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21, 1969 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 113919 An Iowa elesigner-craftsmen touring exhibit assembled by Donn Young, direc- tor of the Cedar Rapids Art Center, which has toured 22 communities. These are some of the extremely worthwhile programs which the Iowa Arts Council has been carrying forward with the aid of grants from the National Foundation on the Arts and Humani- ties, and from the Iowa State Legisla- ture. Even more extensive and reward- ing programs for the people of Iowa are being planned for next year, if sufficient funds such as those provided for in this bill can be made available through the Arts and Hnmanities Foundation. The Iowa Legislature has already done its share having appropriated the full amount of $61,460 recommended by Gov- erner Ray for the 1969-70 biennium. I strongly urge that this House similarly shOw its coni'ldence in the worthiness of the program,: by overwhelmingly reject- ing this amendment, the purpose of which, is, to delete all supplemental funds for the Arts and Humanities Foundation. Evidently some Members of the House are still unaware of the vigorous cultural and artistic activity which has long thrived in the State of Iowa. There has even been some intimation that one of the most beautiful of the performing arts, the ballet, is completely unknown in Iowa. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to fairly frequent appearances by national touring com- panies, a number of Iowa colleges, uni- versities, and cities sustain their own ballet groups. I can assure the House that many Iowans know what ballet dancers look like. Thanks to the Iowa Arts Council, and the National Founda- tion on thee Arts and Humanities, in- creasing numbers of Iowans are having an, Cieeportunity to decide for themselves whether their lives are indeed enriched by the humanities and the arts. I urge all my colleagues to vote against this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, the au- thor of this amendment has said we should start with a half million dollars or with $3 million before we can expect to save billions of dollars. The House has just rejected an opportunity to register a protest against the literally billions of dollars in waste which has been exposed in the Defense Department. Therefore, I would suggest a slogan for this amend- ment: "Billions for defense waste, but not one cent for what we are supposed to be defending." The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross). The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. Gaoss) there were?ayes l, noes 99. So theeamenelment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read es followDEteiRTMENT OF nEALTA EDUCATION, AND WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION I-IIOILER EDUCATIONAL IPTIVITIEE For an additional amount for "Higher eclu- catienal activltiee", including payments au- thorized by section 108(b) a the District of Columbia Public Education Act, as amended (Public Law 90-354, ;..iproved Susie 20, 1968), and annual Interest grants authorized by section 306 of the His-her Education Facilities Act, as amended (Public Law 90-575, ap- proved October 16, 1968), $11,161,000, of which $3,920,000 shsll remain available un- til expended for said Innual interest grants: Provided, That, in addition. $160,000 shall be derived by transfrr rpm. "Community mental health resource support, Public Health Service, fiscal year 1969. AMENDMENT OFFERED R Sr MR. SCHERLE Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offeren by Mr. SCHERLE: On page 15, at the end cf line 6. strike the pe- riod and insert the following: "Provided fur- ther, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act for annual interest grants au- thorized by section 306 of the Higher Edu- cation Facilities Act, as amended by P.L. 90- 576, shall be used te, formulate or carry out any grant to any institution of higher edu- cation unless such institution is in full compliance with sect,on 504 of such Act." Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am proposing would pro- hibit any part of the funds appropriated by H.R. 11400? under chapter VII, higher education activities found on page 14 of this supelementai appropria- tion bill?for the purpose of such annual interest grants to be granted to any in- stitution which is not in full compliance with the provisions of section 504 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1968. Under chapter VII of the bill before us, Congress is asked to appropriate $3.9 million for interest, subsidy grants for college construction loans. This Federal financial assistance would result in the colleges being able to obtain an esti- mated $145 million in loans from non- Federal sources, The taxpayers have a large stock in the higher educational institutions in this country?billiens of their tax dol- lars aid it each year. There is an urgent need for college administrators to elimi- nate the radical troublemakers. The clear congressional intent is that the col- leges either ought to clean up their cam- puses or suffer the consequences. I can think of no more powerful way to impress upon tne administrators the seriousness of their failure to impose section 504 than te tell them that such failure would mean that they will not be eligible for this additional type of aid. Section 504?Pi bib Law 90-575? basically requires that if any student is found, after a hearing by the college or university, to have either have been con- victed of a crime it a court of record or violated a school regulation which was of a serious nature and contributed to a disruption which erevented his faculty or other student,: fT0111 attending to their duties or engaging in studies, then that student shall ot bc eligible for cer- tain Federal stuelciit loan programs for at least 2 years. Some colleges ace laboring under the false impression fe ven by former Sec- retary of Health, Education, and Wel- fare, Wilbur Cohi n, who felt that en- forcement of section 604 was not manda- tary. However, the preSent Secretary Of Health, Education and Welfare, Robert Finch, in testinioey before a House Subcommittee on Special Education, of which I am a member, on April 18, 1969, made it clear that section 504 imposed a mandatory obligation on the college. Secretary Pinch said: As with any provision of law, Section 504 demands compliance in good faith by those to whom it applies. So we expect that col- leges and universities will strive in good faith to implement its provisions for aid termination where the facts disclose the "abuses" have taken place. The amendment only requires the in- stitution of higher education which wishes to qualify for funds under the an- nual interest grant program to obey the law as far as section 504 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1968 is con- cerned. Surely no institution of higher education can make any claim that it should be "beyond the law" in any re- spect, or that it should not have to com- ply with the provisions of section 504. It is in fact "bad faith" on the part of an institution of higher education if it applies for one form of Federal assist- ance while it is guilty of refusal or fail- ure to comply with the requirements of the law in its administration of another Federal assistance program. The intent of Congress that the col- leges must hold hearings is most clear. Not only was it clear from the language used in section 504, but in addition the Congress last year passed substantially similar amendments to three different appropriations bills. They were the Labor and Health, Education, and Wel- fare Act for fiscal 1969, Independent Of- fices Appropriation Act?Public Law 90- 550?and NASA appropriation?Public Law 90-373. This amendment does not bring the Federal Government into the field of academic discipline. It merely states that none of the funds under this section will be granted to any institution that is un- willing to comply with the present Fed- eral law. The amendment is important not so much in the program that it amends, but in the principle that it establishes. The relatively new and small annual inter- est grants program is the only rather general assistance program relating to institutions of higher education in the present bill. My amendment will help the annual interest grant program, by in- suring that the limited funds will go to those institutions which are willing to help themselves and to curb the vio- lence and disorders disrupting and in many ways destroying these institutions by using all appropriate means avail- able, including the tools made available to these institutions by section 504 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1968. Denial of an annual interest grant will not invoke serious injury upon any insti- tution, but it would show the institutions that Congress is concerned and demands compliance with section 504 of the High- er Education Amendments of 1968. The experience gained under this amendment would be of great interest when the Con- gress considers Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations legislation for fiscal year 1970 later this year, and when it considers other legisla- tion in the field of Federal assistance to higher education. Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100180043-1 H 3920 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE May 21, 1969 In brief, my amendment simply says that section 504 of the present law must be enforced, not ignored; that the time to stop disorder on the campuses of our Nation is now, not later; and that the American people are fed up with placid college administrators who are unwilling or unable to carry out their responsibil- ities to their colleges, their communities, or their country. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, he is drawing attention to section 504 of the Higher Education Act and to sections of the Labor-Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill, the independent offices appropria- tion b ill, and the Defense appropriation bill of last year which contain certain restrictive language with regard to aid to the colleges. To some extent, the gen- tleman's amendment merely seems to endorse the present law. I have no au- thority to speak for the Committee on Appropriations, but personally I do not see anything objectionable about the amendment. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, unani- mous consent that all debate on this amendment be closed in 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nives the gentleman from New York (Mr. POSELL) . (Mr. PODELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. PODRIVI, Mr. Chairman, it dis- quiets me to see an effort afoot in the House to coerce universities and col- leges loto taking action against student protestors. Offered in the form of an amendment to the supplemental appro- priations bill we are considering, it aims at a Federal intrusion onto almost every campus in the Nation, deriding who shall be penalized, and who shall not be. Such an amendment requiring insti- tutions of higher learning applying for Federal interest subsidies for construc- tion projects to certify that they are complying with a legislative antidisorder measure passed by Congress last year. Here a e have those who cry the loudest about Federal intervention, demanding such intervention in the worst possible manner. Such an overshadowing Federal pres- ence a:id the threat implied is the very antithesis of what Congress intentions were when Federal aid to colleges and universities was enacted into law. Shall the National Government use its freely offered aid to education to require each school to retain or expel students? Is the Goverement about to set up standards for scholarship as well? Enactment of such a coercive measure would be the first step toward abroga- tion of all the liberties our campuses embody and teach. Academic freedom and the right to dissent will be next. This Is intrusion with a vengeance. I hod no brief for those who bring weapons onto campuses or destroy prop- erty. I have no sympathy with those who use the right of protest to prevent the vast majority from attending classes and obtaining educations. Simultaneously, Mr. Chairman, I am vehemently opposed to those who have so little faith in our young people, our Ideals and our institutions. At the first sign of trouble, their answer is coercion, abrogation of traditional liberties and the Imposition of harsh laws and harsher penalties. Already overreaction is visible in the form of midnight arrests and pounding on the door in the wee hours. This is no solution. It is the very anti- thesis of our country. We must not allow ourselves to be carried away by the frightened cries of those with little faith and no understanding of democracy. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. KOCH). (Mr. KOCH asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. KOCH, Mr. Chairman, the poten- tial effect of this amendment is most abhorrent. It would substitute the judg- ment of the Secretary of HEW for that of the chancellor of every university with respect to student discipline. And cruelly, If such oversight were exercised so as to find the university chancellor derelict, then under this amendment the Federal funds granted to the university for the construction of academic facilities would be withdrawn affecting all students, good and bad alike, violent and nonviolent. Those who have always feared the assertion of Federal power in education now seem bent on using It in a punitive manner. Students must be held respon- sible for their conduct?but the Federal Goveriunent has no business using its funds to play schoolmaster. This amendment establishes an ugly Precedent and I oppose it. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from New York has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA) (Mr. HARSHA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) . Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The Ameri- can people are fed up with the violence, destruction of property, intimidations, and disruptions on the college campuses. They are sick and tired of seeing their tax dollars used for purposes for which they were never intended. They are sick and tired of seeing educational facilities which they funded abused and misused for purposes for which they were never intended. This 'amendment merely serves notice on the faculties and administrators that they must enforce the law on their cam- puses and they must put their own house in order so that academic freedom can be maintained in these institutions, so that the great majority of students who earnestly desire an education may Pur- sue their efforts to improve their knowl- edge and skills in an atmosphere con- ducive to that goal. This amendment Is not repressive. It does not impose Federal intervention on the universities, but to the contrary will help insure academic freedom. It should serve notice, however, to the faculties and administrators that unless they do put their own house in order and bring a halt to this nonsense, that they themselves have encouraged, that the American peo- ple will no longer stand for such actions and that this Congress will undoubtedly take far sterner measures in the event that they continue to fail to meet their responsibilities. This is a most proper amendment and Is a proper area in which this Congress can act. Certainly there is a Federal in- terest involved here because of the great expenditure of Federal funds in the name of higher education, and the Congress has a responsibility to see that these funds are properly used and that the facilities constructed with these funds are not destroyed or damaged. I have been approached from several sources inquiring whether or not I would offer my bill as an amendment to this legislation, and I was also asked, in the event I did not offer my bill, if some- one else offered it, would I support it as an amendment to this supplemental appropriations bill. I informed those who made such in- quiries that I would not offer my bill nor support anyone else who did in that event. While I feel very strongly on this Issue, it is my feeling that the Special Subcommittee on Campus Disorders under the chairmanship of the distin- guished lady from Oregon has acted very equitably and fairly in this matter. They are conducting hearings on the issue and have been doing so for several weeks. They have afforded me an op- portunity to express my views on behalf of my legislation and afforded others a similar opportunity. It is my feeling that we first should exhaust the usual legis- lative process before we resort to any other methods to legislate on this issue. Therefore, I have indicated that I would not offer my legislation at this time. I think. the proper procedure is to let the committee work its will and to in- quire into all the ramifications of this Issue. I am convinced the committee is doing that and will come up with some suggested legislation to cope with this is- sue of such concern to the American peo- ple, In the event it does not, there will be ample time and opportunity to offer my legislation or other measures to cope with the situation. I see nothing contradictory with that approach in supporting this amendment as the amendment merely clarifies exist- ing law and tells the faculties and ad- ministrators that before they receive any future funds they must certify to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel- fare that they will comply with existing law. This is little enough to ask of these faculties and administrators, and I would hope that the committee would accept this amendment. Mr. ),IICHEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HARSHA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 .? CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE 113921 [Mr. MICHEL addressed the Commit- tee. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY ) . (Mr. HATHAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As I understand, the gentleman proposes that institutions of higher education certify that they are in compliance with section 504 of the Higher Education Act and section 411 of the Labor-Health, Ed- ucation, and Welfare Appropriations Act as a prerequisite to making application for programs which will be funded under the second supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1969. As a practical matter, this will mean that institutions will be required to make this certification With respect to just one program?the program providing Federal payments to reduce interest charges on leans obtained from the private money market for the construction of academic facilities. Mr. Chairman, the bases for my oppo- sition to this amendment are numerous. First of all, the amendment will be most selective in its application. Under the $3.9 million supplemental appropriation proposed for the interest subsidy pro- gram, it is estimated that less than 250 institutions of higher education, out of a possible 2,000; will be able to participate in the program. Thus, under the amend- ment only a small percentage of our Na- tion's colleges and universities will be obligated to meet the requirement man- dated by the gentleman's amendment. .All other institutions, many of them car- rying on extensive student assistance programs, will not be required under the gentlemen's amendment to file a certifi- cation of compliance. Mr. Chairman, more objectionable than this, however, is the very dangerous precedent which this amendment would establish. Action taken last year in the Higher Education Amendments of 1968 and on the Health, Education, and Wel- fare appropriations bill was directed at disruptive students. These amendments were not directed at institutions of high- er education as is the gentleman's amendment. We must not confuse our purposes for it is a much different mat- ter to suggest that we punish colleges and universities than it is to say that we should punish students for illegal actions. AS you know, the Subcommittee on Special Education has conducted exten- sive hearings on the question of student Unrest and, not one witness, and I include Secretary Finch and Attorney General Mitchel, has suggested that we enact legislation directed at institutions of higher education. Quite the contrary is the Case. Just yesterday, Attorney Gen- eral Mitchel advised us that he did not reeoMniend any additional Federal leg- islation at this time. What -he was saying to us is what should be repeated here to- day?that there is sufficient existing au- thority to meet the problem. There is *Bey sufficient authority to deal with any institution of higher educa- tion which refuses to comPly with sec- tions 411 and 504. There is absolutely no need to add the requirement the gentle- man's amendment suggests. It can only be viewed as a totally unnecessary amendment which would be selective in its application and which would estab- lish a most dangerous precedent. The CHAIRMAN The time of the gentleman from Mane Las expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. EVANS). (Mr. EVANS of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EVANS of Colorado. If the pro- ponent of the amendment would answer a question, I would like to pose an in- quiry. If his amendment passes, how and by whom is it going to be determined as to whether a college or university is in compliance with the laws as passed last year? Mr. SCHERLE. Mi. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EVANS of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. SCHERLE. Under section 504, if they comply with the law as T indicated; there would be no problem whatsoever. Mr. EVANS of Colorado. My question is how and by whore is it determined that they are complying with the laws which have been previously passed? Mr. SCHERLE. We leave the deter- mination in the hands of the college ad- ministrators, exactiy where it belongs, and they will have to make the determi- nation as to whether they are in com- pliance with the statutes, Mr. EVANS of Colorado. When the gentleman mentions "compliance with the statutes," who will judge as to whether or not they are in compliance with such statutes under the gentleman's amendment? Mr. SCHERLE, The Secretary of Health, Education. and Welfare will have final jurisdiction in the matter. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Selizarizi . (Mr. SCHERLE asked and was given permission to revise end extend his remarks.) Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Chairman, the statement was mace a moment ago that this is punitive with reference to the penalty involve& Certainly there should be a penalty. I think it is very important that the penalty be available for use. This is exactly what it would amount to: It would leave the authorization in the colleges and universities where it belongs and all we say is, "You enforce the law." We take no jurisdiction away from them. The discretion lies, in the areas of the college and university and all we are ask- ing is that they enforce the law. Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SCHERLE. I yield to the gentle- man from Colorado. Mr. EVANS of Colorado. If it remains in the hands of the -office of education it would be 'handed &Ver to the commis- sioner of education? - Mr. SbgER,LE, It Will rest in the Secretary of nealth, Education, and Welfare. - Mr. EVANS of Colorado. In other words, he will have jurisdiction over every college and university which re- ceives Federal funds? Mr. SCHERLE. No, the decision to comply with section 504 would remain with the college and university adminis- trators. If they do not comply with the law then funds would be cut off. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from Iowa has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. WvmAw) (Mr. WYMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. WYMAN.'Mr, Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It was my privilege to draft and introduce those portions of section 504 that do not relate to conviction. There is no reason why we should not now require compliance with statutes that were passed by this Con- gress by a vote of 6 to 1. The only action required on the part of the schools is either that someone should be convicted or that, after notice and hearing, they have been found by the school to have wilfully participated in a serious disrup- tion of the university administration. This amendment would leave the control of the situation in the school administra- tion where it belongs, except in cases of convictions in court, which, incidentally, I hope will be extended to include con- victions for contempt of court at some later date. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is a worthy one in coping with some aspects of the problems which we are now experiencing at our educational in- stitutions. This is not the complete legis- lative response, but it helps. In due course hopefully the subcommittee headed by the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. GREEN) will present addi- tional general legislation firmly imposing sanctions and appropriate penalties for the reprehensible deliberate insurrection we have been witnessing with dismay on too many campuses in this country. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from New Hampshire has ex- pired. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. GREEN) . (Mrs. GREEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend her remarks.) Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair- man, section 504 was adopted by this Congress last year by an overwhelming majority. As I understand the amend- ment this does not cut off funds. It re- quites each university which wants to apply for funds to file a certificate of compliance?simply a statement to the effect that they will comply with the law. I do not believe there is anything re- pressive about this; I do not believe it is punitive, but it serves notice upon the colleges and universities of this country that the Congress of the United States has a legitimate concern about the vio- lence which is now current on our col- lege campuses. This Congress is 'concerned when ad- vance amnesty is demanded. This Con- gress is concerned when it appears that Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 B3922 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 21, 1969 a college faculty capitulates to nonne- gotiable demands at the ixgot of guns. This Congress is concerned when the faculty of a liberal arts college of a great university votes to ask that crim- inal charges be dropped for over 200 students and faculty members who par- ticipated in a recent riot. This serves notice that the patience of this Congress of the American people is not enlimited. This is to serve notice to the far left Una we are sick and tired of the violence we see in this country, and that this Congress is determined to do whatever It can to see that it is stopped. This is to serve notice to the small minority in the EDS, in the Black Panthers that this cotntry will not tolerate the tyranny of the minority. My committee, I believe, will have other legislation that we hope will be helpful in this situation. I hope that it wilt be considered in an atmosphere that is calm?that reason will prevail. I will not support legislation that will fall into the plans of the militants. I hope that this legislation will come to the floor of this House within the next few weeks. But I say that I see nothing repressive &bent the amendment that has been of- fered today, and I rise in support of the amendment 'The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania to dose the debate. Cdr. BARRETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. BARRETT Mr. Chairman, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1963 made Many important advances in our efforts to provide good housing and good neighborhoods for all of our citi- zens There is nothing in the 17 titles of _the; bill, however, that is more Minor- tans than the new interest subsidy pro- grams designed to foster homeownership for families which could not otherwise afford it and a greatly expanded rental housing program. We all know the basic role which homeownership plays in our American way of life by giving families a sense of pride and dignity, a sense of ressonsibility for the community in which they live, and a sense of Partici- pation. The benefits of this aid for home- ownership will go far beyond the indi- vidtal families which receive them. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Committee on Appropriations for the positive approach which they have dis- played on most items in the complex supplemental appropriation request. At the same time I deeply regret that they fate d to authorize the full $50 million regt.est for each of the interest subsidy Programs. / am hopeful that the other bode will grant the full request and hold It :n conference. Another reduction which deeply concerns me is the com- plete elimination of the modest request for funds to enable HUD to carry out its ,:,xtensive responsibilities under the fair housing legislation. The $2 million rem. ested in this supplemental Is sorely needed for responsible administration of these duties. Again I am hopeful that the other body will include the full amount In Its bill. In addition we should all stand behind the budget requests for the coming fiscal year which contains the full authorization for interest subsidies in the amount of *100 million for each of the Programs. In the case of fair hous- ing funds, I am hopeful that, the com- mittee can be persuaded that the original budget proposal of $14 million is fully Justified. Mr. Chairman, there is an urgent need to move ahead with homing legislation already on the books. My Subcommittee on Housing recently concluded hearings on our national homing goals and the witnesses were unanimous that these goals can be met if our existing author- izations are fully and promptly funded. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill today so that we can get on with the job of providing a good home and a decent environment for every American The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Iowa (Mr. Scnsmi). The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT cam= se soi. SMITE OP IOWA Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Salmi of Iowa: On page 14, delete lines 24 and 25 and on page 15, delete lines 1 and 2 and the first four words on line 3 and insert in lieu there- of: "$7,241,000". (Mr. SMITH of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the permis- sion to begin a new program of interest subsidies for college construction in this supplemental bill. The bill carries $3.9 million for this purpose. The Depart- ment has stated that if this permission is approved it will withhold direct loans from appropriations that have already been made for this fiscal year for the purpose of college construction. Under this new program that they propose to fund, either colleges, Junior colleges that are now being built, and universities, will sell bonds, and the Gov- ernment will pay the Interest above 3 percent. They do not propose to sell be- low face value in order to give an effec- tive yield at the going rate of interest, and the Government pay the difference between the return and the face value, but instead to merely pay 1 year of the subsidy now, and then to go in debt for the rest, and pay it each year over a 35-year period. So we see that obviously this is a gim- mick to avoid the limitation in the Ex- penditure and Control Act of last year, or a gimmick to avoid the Mahon amend- ment limitation hi this very same bill. This proposition will cost $140 million, but only $3.9 million shows up in the budget, and we go into debt, for the rest. This is only part of an overall plan that has been explained to us. In fiscal year 1970. they Propose to spend $7 million under the interest subsidy programs and to substitute that completely for the pro- gram of direct loans and grants to 4-year colleges. In other words, there will be no direct grants and no direct loans for undergraduate and gradute schools if we approve this approach. Now in the two bills?$3.9 million plus $7 million plus a second year payment of $3.9 million is all that shows up. The cost of the Government is $440 million. But all that shows up in the budget is about $15 million and we will pay the rest over a period of 35 years. This is deficit financing and backdoor financing and defeats the limitations in the Bow and Mahon amendments and in addition to that it makes the time that we spent on debt limitation bills a waste of time. To make it more palatable, now they call this, "relying more on the public sector." But a rose by some name is still a rose. No matter what they call it. It is nothing but deficit financing. I would not mind so much if we did not hurt junior colleges and colleges and universities at the same time. I was on this subcommittee chaired by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. GREEN) when we developed the legisla- tion that finally became this Higher Fa- cilities Act. I thought we were trying to help the colleges, but now this is to be turned into a bill for the relief of invest- ment bankers and it is not going to give the aid needed to the oplleges. The colleges face about a 50 percent or more increased enrollment in the next 7 or 8 years. They have already engaged in selling as many bonds as they feel they can market with the full interest rate. In addition to that, they need to get some grants and some direct loans to supplement what they can raise through contributions. I think It is an involved subject and if we are going to substitute completely an interest subsidy program for the good college grant and direct loan programs, It should not be in a supplemental and It should be fully discussed here. If we do not carry this amendment, then these debt limit bills, limitations on expenditures and the Expenditure Control Act, and the Nixon budget, which claimed a $4 billion reduction, all are as phony as a $3 bill. If my amendment does not pass, the cost to the Federal Government will be more, most of the cost will be hidden and colleges will be in worse financial con- dition. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chair- man, it pains me that I must oppose my colleague on my subcommittee who is generally my strong right arm. The facts are these. Congress author- ized this method of financing in Public Law 90-575, approved just last October 16; so Congress is on record as being for It. The exact number of dollars and ap- propriation language that is in the bill was requested of the Congress by the Johnson administration; so the Johnson administration was for it. It was est- proved by the present Nixon administra- tion; so they are for it. Of course, it would not be in the bill if the Committee on Appropriations were not for it. Thus, under no circumstances will the appropriation circumvent the Mahon Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21, 1969 and Bow expenditure limitation proposal which applies to the 1970 budget. Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FLOOD. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. JONAS. Is it not true that the force and effect of this amendment would be to return to Treasury bor- rowing? Mr. FLOOD. That is correct. Mr. JONAS. And that it would require the Treasury to go out into the market and borrow $145 million for a program ? which we can handle in 'the way the committee proposes to handle it. ? Mr. FLOOD. The only thing wrong with that statement is that I did not think of it. That is absolutely correct. ? The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Iowa (Mr. Shinn) The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: S4LARIES, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES Of;the of the Speaker: From and after March 1, 1969, the basic annual lump-sum ceiling allowance applicable under this ap- propriation is hereby increased by $2,230. AMENDMENT Olr BARD BY MR. HATCHER Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer in amendment. The Clerk read as follows: ? Amendment offered by Mr. NATCHER: On page 16, strike out line 16 through 19, inclusive. Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Chairman, this line item is no longer necessary. The amendment meets with the approval of the Speaker. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GROSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GROSS. Me Chairman, I rise to ask why this item is being stricken. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. When the committee met, we were requested by the Speaker to increase the basic lump-sum ceiling allowance for his office. Since that time the Speaker has lost his most val- uable "right arm," his former admin- istrative assistant, and has now pro- moted his legislative assistant to that position. The situation has changed and there is now no occasion for the item. I believe the gentleman would agree. Mr. GROSS. I agree and I appreciate the gentleman's explanation. Now that we are on the subject of a pay increase, and since there are salary increases on almost every page of this bill, and it is hard to pull together in any one place information with respect to them, let me ask the gentleman this question: Where are the funds for the ^pay increases for the Members of Con- gress that went into effect-recently? Mr. ANDHEWS of Alabama. Page 23, In another section of the bill. Mr. MAHON, Page 23, line 12. / Mr. GROSS. Page 23, line 12; and this Is for what period of time, for Members of the Congress? Approved For Release 2092/08/01 ,CIA-RDP711300364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Mr. ANDREWS cri Alabama. To the end of the current fiscal year, that is, to midnight of June 30, 1969. Mr. GROSS. Are there any funds in this bill, is there any forward funding in the bill providing pay increases for the leadership of the Houseand the other body? Are there any funds in this bill at all for the possible funding of the in- crease contained in the bill that passed the House and then was shelved in the Senate? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I again refer the gentleman to the figure on line 12, page 23, for the same period of time, for the rest of this fiscal year. Mr. GROSS. For forward funding of the legislation that tvas passed by the House and that is now gathering dust over in the Senate? Surely there is no funding for the leaders' pay increase which has not been authorized. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Yes, it is in there. Mr. GROSS. In the hill we are con- sidering? Mr. ANDREWS ef Alabama. Yes. Mr. GROSS. You are putting up the money without an authorization? Mr. ANDREWS of -Alabama. We held these hearings over g Months ago, and inserted the funds to carry out the bill which had passed the House at the time. I should add, of course, that the funds cannot be paid unless the House bill passes the Senate and becomes law. Mr. GROSS. How much other money is there in this bill on the basis of for- ward funding for items that have never been authorized by the congress? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Referring to the bill in question, one-third of the annual amount involved. The actual amount would be $19,835. Mr. GROSS. One-third of the annual amount involved? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. For these particular jobs. Mr. GROSS. For these particular jobs? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. That is correct. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GROSS. I ani glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. MAHON. The funds cannot be ex- pended unless they are authorized. There is some money here in anticipation of authorization. That money eemains in the bill, but as final action has not been taken on the legislative authorization, it is still alive as an issue, and there is nothing to be gained by striking this from the bill. Mr. GROSS. Then this is not even a supplemental appropriation bill? Is this the procedure of the House Appropria- tions Committee to put in the supple- mental bills funds for items that are not even authorized by Congress? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, we have not had a situation like this since I have been on the com- mittee. This is the lagt supplemental bill for the current year and the last oppor- tunity for the committee to fund these increased ,salaries----if the bill becomes law. The funds are in here on that con- tingency. Mr. GROSS. If the leader's pay in- H 3923 crease becomes law, there would be every opportunity to bring a bill to the House floor. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I hope this will be the last supplemental bill for this fiscal year. Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman mean it could not put it in a regular appropri- ation bill? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. We will not have another one affecting this par- ticular subject. Mr. GROSS. Will we not have a house- keeping bill before this session is over? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. GROSS was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.) Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we will not have an appropria- tion bill for the legislative establishment for the remainder of this fiscal year. I doubt if we will get the regular legisla- tive bill for fiscal year 1970 on the floor before the 1st of July. Mr. GROSS. This is a most unusual procedure, I will say to the gentleman. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I say to the gentleman this is the first time we have had a situation like this since I have been on the committee. The money cannot be spent, and will revert to the Treasury if the bill now pending before the other body does not become law. Mr. GROSS. If it is not acted upon by July 1. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Xhat is correct. The extra funds Can only be used if the bill pending in the other body be- comes law. Mr. GROSS. Then what is the gentle- man going to do if the bill subsequently is passed? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. We will not have anything to act on. Mr. GROSS. After July 1, if the bill subsequently is passed by the other body, then what will the gentleman do in order to get the money for the leadership? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. We are meeting that contingency, making pro- vision for that contingency in this bill. I say to the gentleman that this is the last opportunity this fiscal year that we will have to fund the increased salaries if the bill becomes law and the salaries are increased. If the bill does not become law, then the money will not be spent. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Kentucky (Mr. NATCHER) The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: TREASURY DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT For an additional amount for "Administer- ing the public debt", $1,978,000; (and release of $334,000 reserved under this appropria- tion pursuant to section 201 of Public Law 90-364) . Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the necessary number of words. (Mr. GROSS asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 11 3924 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE May 21, 1969 Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I would like xi ask the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee about the increase Of nearly $2 million?ap- parently it becomes more than $2 mil- lion .f we take into account the release of other funds?for the Bureau of Public Debt. Why would there be a sup- pima/Asa in this regard? ? Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. STEED. In this item of operation In the Government there are certain fees they have to pay to the Federal Reserve Banks and to the commercial banks throughout the country for services ren- deree in the cashing of bonds and other transactions. The major part of this Item here is what is needed to finish pay- ing the claims they will have for the remainder of this fiscal year. The volume of this sort of business is turning out to be ccnsiderably more than the original estimates over a year ago. Mr. GROSS. So the debt is going up? Is that what the gentleman is saying and increasing the business of the Bureau of the Public Debt? Mr. STEED. Some of this item could be attributed to the fact that the debt has gone up. Most of it is in the item of rembursement we make to the Fed- eral Reserve Banks and to the corn- mereal banks for various services they Perform for the Treasury Department, Mr, GROSS. But that deals with the Federal debt. What is the total appro- priat en for the operation of the Bureau of the Public Debt? What is the annual cost this one agency of the Government to administer what it does with respect to the Federal debt? Mr. ST'EED. I think, with the approval of the supplemental, it will bring the total cost for this item for this year to $58 illien. Mr. GROSS. Between $58 million and $60 million, is that correct? Mr. STEED. That is correct. Mr. GROSS. It seems to me the $3 mil- lion which was just approved for cul- ture could very well have been used to take care of the running expenses of the Bureau of the Public Debt. The public debt now is around $370 billion. Is the interest alone on the debt about $16 bil- lion a year? What is the latest figure? Mr. STEED. The interest on the pubic debt for the coming fiscal year is esti- mated to be $17.3 billion. Mr. GROSS. $17.3 billion. It is going up fsst. So is the cost of administering It. I can remember when that cost was down to around $20 million. Does the gentleman remember that? Mr. STEED, It has gone up $300 mil- lion in the estimate since last January. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: 111531SLA7T17E ERANCIX House OF PADIDDSZNTATIVES COMPENSATION' or sweeaas Ossepeatiou, cd members. $1,975,000; MALLEEDS, OPMCM/IL AND ZDIPLOYED3 "Oinee or the speaker". $4.015; POTP1T Or ?EDER Mr. GROSS Mr. Chairman, I make a Point of order against the language on page 23, lines 12, 13, and 14, on the ground that, as admitted by the com- mittee, this contains moneys to be ap- propriated that have not been author- ized by Congress. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will in- quire: Does the gentleman's point of order refer to lines 12, 13, and 14? Mr. GROSS. Lines 11, 12, 13, and 14. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard on the point of order? Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, the gen- tleman, I believe, does not seek to reduce funds for the Office of the Speaker, as shown on line 14. The gentleman is. I believe, only referring to the pay in- crease for the Speaker and other Mem- bers?the item on line 12. Mr. GROSS. Very frankly, I do not know which one of these line items con- tains all the funds, so I am just trying to take as much as I can to be sure / get the funds covered. If the gentleman will tell me what line they are in I will amend my point of order, with the permission of the Chair. Mr. MAHON. The funds which have not been authorized are included in line 12, in the $1,975,000 figure. Mr. GROSS. Those are the only funds that have not been authorized? Mr. MAHON. Yes; that is the figure in- volved. A small portion of that has not been authorized. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Texas yield for a clarifying ques- tion on the part of the Chair? As the Chair reads this language it says, "for Increased pay costs authorized by or pur- suant to law." If the Chair understands language, this refers to a cost already authorized by and pursuant to law that is now in existence. Is that true? Mr. MAHON. The Chair is correct. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule. Mr. GROSS. May I be heard, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized. Mr. GROSS. The committee admits there are funds contained in line 12 that are not authorized by law. Mr. MAHON. The $19,835 included in line 12 has not been authorized. That is correct. Mr. GROSS. You mean the $1,975,000? Mr. MAHON. No; $19,835 has not been authorized. But It cannot be paid unless It is authorized. Otherwise, it would re- vert unused to the Treasury. The CHAIRMAN The Chair again is confused, The Chair sees no reference to a figure of $19,835 in the bill or in the language referred to here. Mr. MAHON. It is part of the figure of $1,975.000. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas state to the Chair that of the amount of $1,975,000 there is $19,835 that is not authorized? Mr. MAHON. $19,835. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is still in a quandary because the language in line 7 says. "for increased pay costs author- ized by or pursuant to law." Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, all com- pensation due by law to Members of Con- gress is authorized. lilt is not authorized, it cannot be paid. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MAHON. And this is for compen- sation for Members. Unless you go be- hind these figures it is clear that the whole sum would be authorized. What other sum Congress wishes to authorize can be authorized. It could be consider- ably abase the $1,975,000 beeause it is for the compensation of Members. If the figure is too high or in error, it is still authorized by law, because there is au- thorization for the payment of Members. Therefore, I have some doubt that the point of order lies against this. But the debate has disclosed the facts. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is con- strained to hold that the gentleman's point of order is not well taken, because the money amount in line 12 cannot be used for any other purpose than in- creased pay costs authorized by or pur- suant to law. Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is overruled. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. GROSS. What was the purpose of the bill which passed the House and is now in the hands of the Senate with no action taken upon it in that body? That was the authorization bill. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, of course, does not have that language before him and cannot answer the gentleman's question. AMENDMENT ?maze BY MX. HALL Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ll1At.t.: On page 23, line 12, strike "$1,975,000" and insert "$1,068,789". (Mr. HALL asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, the pur- pose of this amendment is very simple. This amendment simply deducts $906,- 211, which is the amount of pay increase for ourselves in this body and on which we did not vote at any time. It does not apply to the 2 months which have al- ready been paid. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this would deduct that amount of this ap- Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21, 1969 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 113925 propriation for our pay increase, only for the months of May and June. As- suming there is no forward funding in this portion of the $1,975,000 that per- tains to the pay of the Members of the House of Representatives, by taking one- sixth of $12,500, times the number of Members in this House, one arrives at this figure. Deducting it from the $1,975,000, we have the remainder of $1,068,789. It does not affect the pay of the judiciary or the executive branches. The entire purpose of this amendment Is clear cut. It is to avoid any more of the "sky being the limit" philosophy of raising our own pay. It is to get back In the groove and on the right track with the general belt tightening, the gen- eral economy and cuts that we are asking other branches, departments and people to make. It is starting at the epitomy and establishing a top in priority, where economy should begin and that is with ourselves. It is an attempt to rescind, in the hope that we can continue to recti- fy, when the next appropriation act af- fecting legislation of the pay of the Members themselves in fiscal year 1970 occurs, instead of the "Valentine's mas- sacre" which I referred to on the floor of this House once before, as a massacre of the taxpayers when it was known that tilts pay raise which was brought on by this Commission would become ef- fective on February 11, 1969; It did not. It became effective March 1, 1969. We have been paid for that and for the month of April, and this amendment calls for no retroactivity or payback of the Members. This would simply deduct that amount which will be paid for in May and June, the balance of this fiscal year 1969. Mr. Chairman, I hope the future good judgment of the Members of the House will preclude further payment in fiscal year 1970. It is that simple. I urge support from those of you who have received many letters demeaning you for allowing a pay increase to go through without asserting or working the will of the House and voting ourselves in this matter. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I am _ pleased that my friend from Missouri has offered this amendment. We have long been joined in the fight against the un- conscionable pay increase for Members of Congress, the judiciary, and the execu- tive branch of Government. It is most unfortunate that under the law it is impossible to get at the pay in- creases for others, some of whose pay- checks were increased by an outrageous 70 percent. Here is the opportunity by supporting the amendment to rectify part of the mistake that was made when the pay in- crease bill was slipped through the back- door of the House while the Members were conveniently on vacation last Feb- ruary. And the MeMbers of the House should be on notice, that Unless the amendment Of the gentleman from Missouri is adopted, a vote 'for this supplemental ap- propriation will be a vote for the first time by the Members of the House to give themselves an unconscionable 41- percent Increase. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amencmen:,. (Mr. MAHON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. MAHON. Mr. 01 iirman, there are a variety of views in the House with re- spect to the pay raise which was made effective for members oE the judicial and executive and legislative branches of the Government. Some of us thought that a pay raise, while clearly justifiable in some respetts was not timely at the moment it was put into effect and that the amount of the raise was too great. I was among the gr-up opposing the pay raise, but the pay raise has been enacted into law, and it is the law of the land. It has been in effect since March 1. If this law is to be changed, then it is a matter for the appropriate committee of the Congress to consider, and. it would be very inappropriate through this pro- cedure to undertake to nullify the law with regard to one of the branches of the Government involving the pay raise. So, regardless of one's original views as to the wisdom of the pay raise, to me it Is clearly out of order at this time to un- dertake on an appropriation bill to revise or to modify the law with respect to the pay raise. The proper procedure would be through a legislative bill covering the entire Government and worked out by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and presented to the House. There was not a direct vote on the pay raise legislation this year. There was a rollcall vote in 1967 when the Commis- sion was authorized to set up a pay raise scale for officials of the Government. I was among those who voted against that proposal but it became the law. As I stated, there was no direct vote on the pay raise Issue this year but there was a rollcall vote in regard to the issue. Prior to the Lincoln pay recess it was proposed that the House not recess With- out taking a vote on the issue of the pay raise. I was among those voting not to adjourn for the recce; because adjourn- ment would have precluded any chance for a vote on the issue. I voted not to adjourn without taking action on the pay raise issue but a majority vote was to the contrary. This vote related to the issue but was, of course, not a direct vote on the issue. The debate in the House on February 5 just prior to the vote on ad- journment made clear that the pay raise was the issue. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations if it is not true that, if this amendment were adopted, the entire ray raise and all parts thereof would be nullified. Mr. MAHON. Yes, t would cover the entire pay raise, as I understand it. Mr. ALBERT. The Members could not get any portion of the pay raise. Mr. MAHON. Yes; as I understand it, it would eliminate all the pay raises for the members of the legislative branch, but not other branches of the Govern- ment. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chair- man, I fully share the views of the dis- tinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in urging that the amendment be defeated. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment close, and I ask for a vote. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Missouri (Mr. HALL). The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the ayes ap- peared to have it Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. HALL and Mr. MAHON. The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were?ayes 49, noes 165. So the amendment was rejected. The Clerk proceeded to read the bill. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the remainder of title III of the bill deals in various pay raises for the various agencies of the govern- ment, funds to meet those pay raises as provided by law, I ask unanimous con- sent that the remainder of title III be considered as read; in other words, that the bill be considered as read up to line 5, page 61, which is the end of title III, and that the bill be open for amendment up to that point. Mr. GROSS. Reserving the right to object, did the gentleman say page 61? Mr. MAHON. Up to line 5, page 61, which would be the end of these various parts relating to various portions of the Government?the end of title III of the bill. Mr. GROSS. Amendments would be in order? Mr. MAHON. Amendments would be in order to that section. Mr. GROSS. Let me ask the gentleman, under my reservation, one question: Does the gentleman have any idea of the amount of salary increases carried in this $4 billion supplemental appropriation bill? Mr. MAHON. Does the gentleman mean the pay raises to all agencies of the Gov- ernment? Mr. GROSS. The total contained in the bill. Mr. MAHON. That total is contained in the chapter of the report entitled "In- creased Pay Costs," that can he found on page 73 of the report. The total amount shown is approximately $1.3 billion. Mr. GROSS. $1.3 billion? Mr. MAHON. Yes. Mr. GROSS. Out of a $3.8 billion appropriation? Mr. MAHON. Yes; $1.2 billion plus is in title I for the Defense Department for the war in Vietnam; title III relates to pay raise money for the various agencies and departments of the Government. There are some pay costs in title II. The pay raises were brought about by actions Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 3926 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE May of the last Congress, as the report ex- plains on page 73. :Pay funds in titles II and M?which are recapitulated on page 73 of the re- port?total just under $1,3 billion. 'Mae II, of course, contains a num- ber of supplementals not related to pay costs. Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Mr: HALL. May I ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appro- pr..ations if, in that portion which the Clerk has just read prior to the unani- mous-consent reque.st, there is, to his knowledge, any more forward funding of the pay increase of the employees of the House? Those that I will speak of as the "employees" of the House? Mr. MAHON. So far as I know, there is none whatever. Mr, HALL. I thank the gentleman. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to tha request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The bill is consid- ered as read to line 5, page 81. Amend- ments are in order. Are there any amendments? Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. A moment ago, when my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. MALL), came down to the well and took 30 seconds of his 5 minutes, I had hoped to catch his attention because I wanted to tell him that, despite the fact that I had labored long and hard on a state- ment in support of a Pay cut for this body, and despite the fact that I am aware that the gentleman from Arizona, himself, put in a lot of time this after- noon preparing an appropriate attack Upon my amendment, nevertheless, I wit- nessed with tears in my eyes the expres- sion of the sentiment of the House on the pas-cut amendment offered by my friend from Missouri, and I want the gentle- man from Arizona and the rest of the Members of this body to know that I ac- cept the decision as final. Accordingly, I will not offer my amendment. My amendment in effect would have placed a temporary ceiling of 636,250 on congressional salaries. This would reduce by one-half the recent pay increase. Chis was not an appealing amendment for me to consider offering nor for Mem- bers to contemplate voting upon. No one will contemplate a cut in his pay with enthusiasm. Most of us believe?justifi- ably I hope?that we are worth every penny of $42.500. The expenses of nm- nir g a congressional office are enormous and often outstrip our allowance. And on to of it all, I can tell you that the Find- ley family has encountered no difilcultY spending all of my paycheck. With this In mind, I recognize that acceptance of my amendment would have been truly extraordinary?an unprecedented event. Unprecedented IS also the right word to describe the factors which motivated me to draft the amendment. Inflation Is the most serious domestic problem confronting us today. In March of this year, the increase in the cost of living was the largest since February 1951. Consumer prices have risen more In the first quarter of this year than at any time since 1956. Unless we bring this under control quickly, we are in serious trouble. Fiscal restraint is a necessity, and nothing would be more helpful than for Congress itself to show some restraint. The bill before us now which includes money for the salary increase quite prop- erly includes what is described as a "rigid" limitation on total federal ex- penditures. Because of budget pressures, many needed federal programs are being cut back or eliminated, and the surtax undoubtedly will be extended. The out- look for an increase in social security benefits is unclear to say the least. In light of these factors, the 41-per- cent increase in congressional pay was poorly timed, to say the least, and the outrage which taxpayers have voiced is completely understandable. If the in- crease had been staged over 2 or 3 years, it would have been more acceptable. In this period of deep fiscal crisis, when an emergency surtax is required, Congress should attempt to set an exam- ple for the rest of the country. AMENDMENT OFFERED DV MR. HALL Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Rau.: On page 61, after line 4 insert the following: "GENERAL PROVISIONS "The Commission on Executive, Judicial, and Legislative Salaries established under Public Law 90-206 is hereby abolished. The salary increases recommended by the Presi- dent as a result of the actions of said Com- mission are hereby rescinded." Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve points of order on the amendment on the ground that it appears to be legislation on an appropriation bill. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves points of order on the amendment. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized. Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas reserving points of order in order that I may speak to this amendment. Again this is a straightforward open- faced amendment. I do not accept the fact that our action here today on my prior amendment decision is final, es- pecially without the Members of this House of Representatives ever having voted on their own pay increase. It is true that they did vote on the Commis- sion as established for executive, Judicial, and legislative salaries, back in 1967. Up to this tirae, I have tried to be care- ful and be within the dictates of the Con- stitution. Members will note that the last amendment involved no one?those stat- ing to the contrary notwithstanding? except we who are in the legislative branch and indeed we in this House of Representatives. Now, of course, under the restrictions or rescindraents or actions under rule IE:XE and the "Holman rule," we can, in 21, 1969 In an appropriation bill, take action by the act of the House to eliminate any- thing that costs additional expense from the General Treasury and that has been acted on previously. I think that the amendment is in or- der. Certainly it is germane. Certainly it is a retrenchment on its face. Very simply, this amendment would eliminate the Commission that has poor backing, poor strategy, and has been demonstrated to have poor timing, in that it has recommended without any vote of the Members and with them able to evade?as indeed we did in January and February?confrontation with a vote on our constitutional requirement to raise our own pay, which is just as much a requirement as it is for us to raise and support the armed services. I do not believe we ever should have delegated this to the responsibility of the executive branch. I think it is time that we had an amendment to abolish the Pay Commission, which does retrench expenditures by the reduction of the salaries of the officers of the United States and, therefore, falls under the "Holman rule." This rule allows us to legislate in an appropriation bill?and there are resplendent examples, and many areas in which we can prove that It has been accepted in the past, and they can be quoted both from Cannon's Procedures and from our own manual. Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, all of us knew what the salaries were when we ran for office. Few of us have found that there was a sparsity of those who were ready to run against us at the same income rate. Many of us serve in the interest of representative government and the Republic as a duty, and at a financial sacrifice. Finally, I think we should have stood and been counted on our bill setting up this spurious Commission and I am giv- ing one additional chance for everyone to vote in support of abolishing it. Its being delegates our authority as legislators, our constitutional rights, and indeed our re- sponsibilities, to the executive branch every 4 years to designate what the sal- aries of the executive and the judicial and the legislative branch will be. Mr. FIUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman. - will the gentleman yield? Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am in complete sym- pathy with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri, but I ad- vise the gentleman that under article In of the Constitution it says the Pay of judges shall not be diminished during their continuance in office, and I wonder how a rescission of pay increase as pro- vided in the gentleman's amendment would apply to the salary of the judges. Mr. HALL, Mr. Chairman, that was in the amendment that was defeated on the vote a while ago. The intent here is to abolish the Commission. It would abolish the Commission which would in the future bring forth recom- mendations every 4 years, and they would go into effect unless one or the Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 e _ Approved May 21, 1969 other body of Congress took action against them Within 60 days, having been revised down from the 90 days accord- ing to the original eorganization Act of 1949. Mr. HUTCHrNSON. I thank the gen- tleman. I apologize for having Misunder- stood the purpose of the amendment. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HAYS. Did I understand the gentleman's amendment as read abol- ished the Commission and abolished the pay raise the Commission ordered? Mr. HALL. I would be glad to ask unanimous consent that the amendment be reread. It simply intends to abolish the Commission. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, again I wish to commend my colleague from Mis- souri for offering this amendment which would repeal the authority of a Presi- dentially appointed and Presidentially annointed commission to recommend the salaries of Members of Congress. This is one of the most unholy delega- tions of power and authority ever made by Congress. To give a commission?any commission?and the President?any President?the power to recommend the Pay of Congress is unthinkable. No Member of the House or Senate should want to be in any way a pawn of any President and this amendment seeks to restore the independence of the legis- lative branch?independence which was supinely delegated in the 1967 pay act. The time to correct that mistake is here and now. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from Missouri has expired. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, this is a supplemental appropriation bin. I renew my point of order on two grounds: First, the proposal of the gentleman from Mis- souri is legislation on an appropriation bill; and, second, it is not germane to the supplemental appropriation bill. The CHAIRMAN (Mr. HoarnELD) . The Chair is ready to ride. The Chair has examined the amend- ment and the precedents, and would call attention of the House to Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, page 480, section 2914, which reads as follows: "to a sec- tion proposing legislation for the current year an amendment rendering such leg- islation permanent was held not to be germane." Then, in section 2915: "to a provision in an appropriation bill proposing legis- lation for the fiscal year provided for by the bill an amendment proposing to make the provision permanent legisla- tion was held not to be germane." The Chair therefore rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri is not germane and there- fore not in order; and the Chair sus- tains the point of order. Mr. BALL. Mr. ICiiaigman, I move to strike the last word. I wish to apologize to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. ?HAYS) because on re- reading the typed amendment?a copy of which I supplied him?I observe the last sentence does include therein?and this apology also would go to the gentle- For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 113927 . , However, I recognize, also, that the all too likely outcome of this ceiling?and mark this, please?the all too likely out- come to this ceiling is to guarantee sub- stantial cuts in spending for urgently needed social programs. Let me explain. Under the provisions of this limitation total Federal spending for the 12 months of the next fiscal year cannot exceed $192.9 billion unless Congress takes spe- cific action to increase expenditures. This ceiling will be reduced by the amount of the spending reductions implicit in ap- propriation cuts which will, no doubt, be made in some areas by the Congress. The trouble is that the budget contains a very large number of mere estimates as to expenditures. Most of these esti- mated items represent civilian open- ended or fixed-cost programs. These are programs like social security, public as- sistance, medicaid, farm subsidies, vet- erans' benefits, and interest on the na- tional debt. I refer you to page 16 of the President's 1970 budget on this. These are all expenditures which the Government is by law committed to meet. Thus, if spending for these pro- grams exceeds the budget estimates, the excess will have to be taken from spend- ing for some other programs also au- thorized by the Congress. Reductions in spending to offset these unbudgeted increases can be made only in that portion of the budget which is controllable. The fact is that the controllable por- tion of the budget is comparatively small, and it contains almost all the social pro- grams?such as antipoverty, education, health, job training, and housing?which a good many of us strongly believe must be substantially increased and not de- creased. Estimates of outlays for fiscal year 1970 show this: $81.1 billion in civilian noncontrollable programs like social se- curity and veterans' benefits. Our col- league, the gentleman from Texas, and others devoted to the veterans' programs were on the floor speaking about this today. Of the remaining $111.8 billion, Defense accounts for $80.4 billion, and $31.4 billion is for other accounts. How- ever, of the $31.4 billion, $18.9 billion is accounted for by uncontrollable expendi- tures due on obligations entered into in the previous fiscal year. This leaves us only with $12.5 billion in civilian con- trollable expenditures. If the current fiscal year is any exam- ple, the noncontrollable items will exceed their estimates by $3 billion to $6 billion and, if the practice of taking the reduc- tions out of the hides of the social pro- grams, rather than defense spending, is again followed, we could well find that spending for controllable domestic pro- grams will have to be cut back by a staggering 25 to 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on this amendment. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the proposal for an ex- penditure limitation, as set out in title IV of the bill, has been debated for 2 days. The proposal, a,.s eXplained in the com- mittee report, has been available for man from Michigan (Mr. RUTCHINSON)? , the elimination of the actions taken by the Commission which I sought to elim- inate. I offer my apology. I made a mis- statement of fact, and I ask unanimous consent that the RECORD be corrected. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the RECORD will be corrected. There was no objectim. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, am I cor- rect in assuming that the portion of the bill beginning on line 5-, page 61, has not been read? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. ? Mr. MAHON. I ask that the Clerk read. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: TITLS; IV LIMITATION ON FISCAL YEAR 1970 BUDGET (iITTLAYB SEC. 401, (a) labcpendaures and net lending (budget outlays) of the Federal Government during the fiscal year ending June 80, 1970, shall not exceed $192.900,000,000: Provided, That whenever action, or inaction, by the Congress on requests for appropriations and other budgetary propcsals varies from the President's recommendations thereon, the Di- rector of the Rureau of tile Budget shall re- port to the President and to the Congress his estimate of the effect of such action or in- actiCin on expenditure: and net lending, and the limitation set forth herein shall be cor- respondingly adjusted. (b) The Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall report periodicelly to the Presi- dent and to the Congress on the operation of this section. The first such report shall be made at the end of the first month which begins after the date of approval of this Act; subsequent reports shall be made at the end of each calendar month during the first ses- sion of the Ninety-first Congress, and at the end of each calendar quarter thereafter. AMENDMENT OFFERE13 BY MR. ()CHELAN - Mr. COFIELAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. COHELAN: On page 61, line 6, strike out all of title IV and renumber title V on page 62 as title iv. (Mr. COIIELAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. COHELAN. ,Mr. chairman, as I announced earlier, _at tile time we were considering the rule, I _rise in opposition to the expenditure :limitation placed on fiscal year 1970 outlays by this supple- mental appropriation bill, and, of course, my amendment moves to strike title IV limitation _entirely. _ I want the Comthittee to know I did not arrive at this porletvision lightly. I pondered long and hard over the mean- ing and the effects of pie limitation. As a matter of fact, earlier I was disposed to support the ramaire on the theory that this wa,s the beginning of a pos- sible legislative budget. I recognize the desirability of an afinpa,1 congressional assessment of the PDATOPIlate levels of Federal revenues and expenditures. In fact, as Members may know, I strongly endorse the fine recommenda- tions of our former 'secretary of the Treasury, Joe Barr, for the creation of a legislative budget. I recognize, too, the need to maintain a restrained fiscal policy so that rising prices may be controlled. Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100180043-1 H 928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 21, 1969 Members to review for 5 or 6 days. The matter was rather thoroughly discussed at the time we had the rule before the House today and the rule was passed overwhelmingly, This does not necessar- ily mean that everyone who voted for the rule is for the expenditure limitation. But, undoubtedly, the overwhelming ma- jority of those who voted for the rule are In favor of the expenditure limitation. The proposal was extensively debated here yesterday. I refer especially to the debate beginning on page H3830 of the RECORD of yesterday. The gentleman from California has sommhat oversimplified the problem and the purpose of what is actually pro- posed in the expenditure limitation. I see no reason to belabor this issue fur- ther. We have had opportunity to discuss it in great depth previously and have done so. Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jorats). (Mr. JONAS asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marts,) Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, the only -reason I asked the chairman of the Com- initt2e on Appropriations to yield is to agree with the chairman that this sug- gestion has been thoroughly explored on yesterday and today. I concur in the chairman's views. I think this spending limitation will have a salutary effect. Therefore, I am opposed to the amend- ment and I join the chairman in asking that It be voted down. 11.7. MAHON. I thank the gentleman. M:7. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment do now close and that all debate on the bill do now close. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. COHELAN). The amendment was rejected. ISMENDMENT OFFKRED Si' MR. COHELAN Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Tt.e Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. COKELAN of California: On page 62, line 3, add the fol- lowing as a new section: "(c) The limitation set forth in subsec- tion ;a), as adjusted In accordance with the provix) to that subsection, shall be increased by an amount equal to the aggregate amount by which expenditures and net lending* (buci.;et outlays) for the fiscal year 1970 on socount of items designated as "Open- ended programs and fixed coats" in the table appekrIng on page 16 of the Budget for the fiscal year 1970 may be in excess of the ag- gregate expenditures and net lending (budg- et outlays) estimated for those items in the April review of the 1970 budget." Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment in that it is legislation on an appropria- tion bill. Mr. Chairman, the rule pertaining to title IV only protects what Is in the bill, not amendments to the bill. Mr. COBELAN. Mr. Chairman, all this amer.dment does is to exempt from the outlay limitation noncontrollable civil- ian expenditures. It is what I regard as a fallback amendment, Just to make sure that if we are going to have this expendi- ture ceiling we are not going to take it out of the hide of the noncontrollable expenditures. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, all this amendment does is to insure that social programs will not be needlessly reduced by exempting from outlay limitations noncontrollable civilian expenditures. Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, a parlia- mentary Inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, is the gen- tleman speaking on the point of order raised by the chairman of the com- mittee? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the Chair has requested the gen- tleman from California to speak on the Point of order, and the Chair assumes that the gentleman is so doing. Mr. COHELAN. On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am merely trying to ex- plain the amendment, and its validity and its germaneness. It is similar to one offered by the Bureau of the Budget, and other provisions of last year's Expendi- ture Control Act. It differs only in that it calls for South Vietnam expenses to be controllable, and thus would not exempt them from the budget ceiling. There is also an additional advantage to ray amendment which I could explain if I had the time, but in sum my amendment would insure that if the budget estimates for noncontrollable civilian expenditure programs were low, the Increase would not have to come from expenditures in housing, health, education, job training, and the like. It also treats all defense expenditures as controllable items. Mr. M.AFION. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman is discussing the merits of the proposed amendment, and not the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair has examined title IV. This Is a new subparagraph to title IV. Title IV is legislation in a general appropria- tion bill, and all points of order have been waived in title IV, as a result of it being legislation. Therefore the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the provisions contained in title IV and o'-errules the point of order. The gentleman from California is rec- ognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Did not the previous unanimous- consent action of the House eliminate all further general debate? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman is correct. Mr. COHELAN A parliamentary in- quiry, Mr. Chairman, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, is It all right for me to urge a -yea" vote on the amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from California (Mr. COHELAN). The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: TITLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR., VANIK Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, but I cannot talk about it. as I understand. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. VANIK: On page 61. line 10. After "$192,00.000,000," insert ", et which the amount expended by the Department of Defense shall not exceed 577,500,000.000". The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous action of the Committee, all further de- bate has been eliminated. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, am I barred by the motion that was adopted previously? Does that preclude me from telling the House that this is a $2.5 bil- lion reduction? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman from Ohio is pre- cluded from debate on his amendment in view of the action taken by the House on the limitation of debate. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. VANIK). The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed ELS tellers Mr. Vawric and Mr. MAHON. The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were?ayes 38, noes 165. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I favor the expenditure ceiling that would hold spending next year to the $192 billion level. I have already voted for the rule. Later today I must leave and may not be here for final passage of the bill due to a commitment I made to the student leaders at Virginia Polytechnic Institute several months ago. Tonight I will talk with the students at VPI about present campus unrest and academic freedom, and I feel I should honor this commit- ment. If I were here to vote on final passage, I would vote to hold spending to the $192 billion level and reduce Fed- eral spending wherever possible. One of the greatest problems facing our country today is spiraling inflation. The housewife is finding her grocery bills are higher each week. The consumer is being shortchanged. Excessive Govern- ment spending bears down most heavily on the American housewife, the elderly. those drawing retirement benefits and pensions, and the American wage earner. Last year I voted in favor of the $6 billion cut in Federal spending. The ques- tion before the House now is the same as it was then?the stability, integrity, Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May Approved Fcod2littga0?1134/18&att5RDIMIN364R000100180043-1 21, 1969 3929 these duties. Again, I am hopeful that the other body will include the full amount in its bill. In addition, we should all stand behind the budget requests for the com- ing fiscal year which contains the full authorization for interest subsidies in the amount of $100 million for each of the programs. In the case of fair housing funds, I am hopeful that the committee can be persuaded that the original budget proposal of $14 million is fully justified. Mr. Chairman, there is an urgent need to move ahead with housing legislation already on the books. My Subcommittee on Housing recently concluded hearings on our national housing goals and the witnesses were unanimous that these goals can be met if our existing author- izations are fully and promptly funded. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill today so that we can get on with the job of providing a good home and a de- cent environment for every American family. Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I con- gratulate the gentleman for his courage In offering this amendment. The whole pay package adopted 'pur- suant to the Koppel Commission is in- flationary. Unfortunately the parliamen- tary situation will not permit an amend- ment to attack the other pay increases or for the abolition of the Commission. Let me say, the taxpayers are entitled to have the whole pay package voted on by their representatives in this body. The only way that can happen is for Mem- bers to sign the discharge petition on H.R. 7778. There has been no stampede to the Clerk's desk, and I suppose the prospects are rather slim that we will get a vote on that bill. But, we can begin to regain the respect of the taxpayers if we approve this amendment?which I confess is unlikely. As the author of H.R. 7778 to repeal the whole Koppel package. As the spon- sor of the discharge petition, I can say to the gentlemen he is to be congratu- lated for his courage. This amendment will not win him many friends here. I know. But the gentleman well represents his people and the sentiment of the country. I urge a favorable vote. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, during the consideration of amendments to this bill, I expect to offer an amendment to title IV to provide that the expenditure limi- tation of $192,900 million shall include a further limitation of expenditures by the Department of Defense of $77,500 million. This amendment would reduce defense expenditures by $21/2 billion from budg- etary requests of approximately $80 bil- lion. It appears that there is no other way to achieve reduced defOlose spend- ing. This amendment would leave the discretion for spending cutbacks within the Defense Department and the further action of Congress. Better housekeeping in the Defense Department should make it possible to reduce the overall expenditures by 3 per- cent without impairing any essential de- fense need. Recent reports of waste in the pur- chase of defective aircraft, tanks, and leaky submarines Indicate that too little attention is directed toward careful and purchasing power of the American dollar. We must cut every nonessential expenditure of the Federal Government and save the American dollar. Mr. )3IAGGI. Mr. Chairman, like so many Americans, I am opposed to the war in Vietnam, but I have voted for the supplemental appropriations bill which has nearly one-third of its expenditures earmarked for military operations in Southeast Asia. " I have listened to opponents of the bill who have argued that Congress could halt the war by refusing to authorize the military appropriations. On that basis, they have sought rejection of this bill in spite of the fact that more than two- thirds of the appropriations are for non- military purposes. I supported an amendment to have the military appropriations voted on sepa- rately and I regret that the majority of my colleagues rejected this move. It would have brought the war into focus and would have given us the opportunity of concentrating completely on that very Important matter. As the bill now stands, we have very little discretionary control over these nonmilitary appropriations which repre- sent the lion's share of the expenditures because the previous Congress has com- mitted us to them. They involve, for ex- ample, grants to States for health and welfare; veterans compensation; medical and other costs; unemployment compen- sation payments; military retirement pay; college housing; social and reha- bilitation services and disaster relief, They are obligations that require fiscal responsibility and must be met. If we rejected this bill because of its military appropriations at a time when we are at the conference table negotiat- ing for peace, I fear the consequences could ix disastrous. We would be an- nouncing to the world that we no longer Intend to defend ourselves. We would be going to the conference table with no cards at all. Yes, let us hasten the process for peace. I agree that we are lingering too long at the conference table. I agree that our boys should be returned to American soil. I agree that they should not have to sac- rifice their lives in the jungles of a for- eign land where we are engaged in the most unpopular war in our history. But ,while Americans are fighting in Vietnam, we have an abiding responsi- bility to give them everything they need for survival. Our fighting forces have brought the Communists to the point where they are trying to achieve at the conference table what they could not achieve on the battlefield. Are we to tel the world at this time that we are ablidoning our military ef- fort; that we are pulling our purse strings tight? I am sure that now, more than ever, is the time for solidarity at home. I am convinced that we must stand united if we are to secure a meaningful peace at the conference table. The military sector of this bill is de- signed to permit the South Vietnamese forces to assume a greater share of the burden of battle and to enforce peace when it comes. Two major events that have occurred since the original budget requests for fis- cal 1969 were submitted to Congress also contribute largely to the need for the passage of this bill I am referring to the Tet offensive in Vietnam which caused losses of equipment fin- in excess of what was anticipated and the seizure of the Pueblo by the North Koreans which led to the callup of rnilitcry forces to meet this military threat. While I support this bill chiefly for the reasons set forth here. I remain deeply concerned about a wet, that has already taken 35,000 American lives and has caused our Nation to become most rest- less. The administration and this Con- gress must give the utmost priority to the attainment of an honorable peace in Vietnam. Every effort Must be exerted to accomplish that goal as soon as pos- sible. I believe we can atialrf the peace we want under the circutnatances we want' reasonably soon if our Government does not buckle under the task that lies ahead and instead carries unity and strength to the conference table That is why I do not oppose the military appropriations at this time. After considering au facets of this bill and its importance to America at home and abroad, I could do nothing less than urge its passage. Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there are several necessary and desirable items included in this bill, but I shall vote against the bill as a whole if the unnec- essary apprcipriation3 for additional procurement and other items related to the war in Vietnam reniain intact. If the bill were to be defeated at this stage, which would be Most surprising, it could be promptly resubmitted to the House in appropriately Modified form. Mr. BAR,RETT. Mr. Chairman, the Housing and Urban DeVelOpment Act of 1968 made many important advances in our efforts to provide gOod housing and good neighborhoods for all of our citi- zens. There is nothing in the 17 titles of that bill, however, that is more impor- tant than the new it-J.4dt subsidy pro- grams designed to foster homeownership for families Which could not otherwise afford it and a greatly eXpanded rental housing program. We ail know the basic role which homeownership plays in our American way of life-by giving families a sense of pride and dignity, a sense of re- sponsibility for the community in which they live, and a sense br participation. The benefits of this aid for homeowner- ship will go far beyond the individual families which receive thein Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Committee on Appropriations for the positive approach which they have dis- played on most items in the complex supplemental appropriation request. At the same time I deeply regret that they failed to authorize the 'full $50 million request for each of the interest subsi0 programs. I am hopeful that the other body will grant the fun. request and hold it in conference. Another reduction which deeply concerns Me is the com- plete elimination of the Modest request for funds to enable HUD to carry out its extensive responsibilities under the fair housing legislaticn? The $2 million requested in this supplemental is sorely needed for responsible administration of Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 H 3930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE May 21, 1969 management and prudent economy in our Defense Establishment. If the civilian sector of our Govern- ment can face budgetary cutbacks of almost $3 billion, it seems to sue that the defense sector should make the same kir.d of an effort. l. cannot support legislation which ex- empts the military sector from effective congressional oversight. Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, there are those who make these regular supple- mental appropriations a test of support or dissent regarding our policy in Viet- nam. This strikes me as a superficial and erioneous interpretation of the legisla- tiv process. eln examination of the legislation turns up item after item of national concern. There are within this appropriation spe- cific allocations that cannot be refused without doing serious harm to impor- tant domestic programs. The following examples of specific requests in this $3.8 bition appropriation make this point rather clearly: The vital programs of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are scheduled to receive an additional $666.7 milion through this appropriation. An imoortant new program of interest sub- sidies for higher education facilities construction is included within this al- location. Included in this appropriation is a nondiscretionary appropriation of $35.9 million for the Department of Labor for unmmloyment and employee compen- sation claims. Obviously these are ex- penses that must be met. Recognizing the grave national prob- lem caused by a shortage of low- and middle-income housing this appropria- tioa provides $80 million for the home- ownership and rental housing interest subsidy programs. Included in the appropriation is $25.4 Million for the vital conservation pro- grams of the Department of Interior. The National Transportation Safety Board which is involved in the crucial matters of flight, rail, and auto safety is to receive additional funds under this appropriation. The merit of such an ex- penditure is patently obvious. These are just examples of the needed and obligated expenditures to be covered by this supplemental appropriation. Also contained in this legislation is a necessary ceiling on Federal expendi- tures for fiscal 1970. This ceiling is set at the administration's requested budget of $192.9 billion and is a first step in ret.ucing Federal spending in a wide variety of wasteful, unnecessary, and duplicative areas. Establishment of this ceiling at this time, with the expectation that a lower ceiling and spending cuts can be estab- lished when tax legislation is considered, is an important means of controlling the steadily rising Federal budget. In another realm this appropriation contains the funds for mandated pay for Federal employees. This accounts for $1.3 billion or more than a third of the appropriation. This part of the Federal payroll is established by law and obli- gated. Therefore the funds mast be ap- propriated or we will cause budgetary havoc in the various departments and agencies of Government. Now, turning to the matter of Viet- nam, it must be noted that the appro- priation does include $1.2 billion for military operations in Southeast Asia with a substantial amount of this to be used to cover expenses resulting from Increasing tensions in Korea. But the fact remains that the largest part of this section of the supplemental appropriation involves expenses con- nected with the war in Vietnam. This is not, however, a new appropriation. Nor will these funds affect our search for peace. The appropriation will be used to Pay for materials already contracted for by the Defense Department. By appropriat- ing these funds we are discharging a commitment of the Federal Government for these are truly obligated moneys for defensive and support operations in the field. As I have said in the past, I do not be- lieve we can responsibly deny a single American boy in Vietnam the material to defend himself. As I reiterate that these are obligated funds already contracted for, it becomes clear that we have no choice but to ap- prove the appropriation. I am prepared to vote for the appropriation with the knowledge that these funds will not be used to enlarge the scope of the war in Vietnam and with the knowledge that contained herein are the funds for many important domestic programs. Now there is no one more interested in achieving peace in Vietnam than I. Since coming to Congress more than 4 years ago I have repeatedly dissented from our policy in Vietnam in order to offer pro- posals for peace. And I am deeply disappointed that we have failed to make greater strides for peace. The President's recent message acknowledged something I have said for years, "We must take risks for peace," and I believe we must do exactly that. When, I ask, when will we take these necessary steps to end the war? The continued loss of American lives and the steady flow of our needed resources into Vietnam is a responsibility that the new administration cannot escape. Peace in Vietnam is essential if we are to join the domestic wars against poverty, hunger, joblessness, inadequate housing, and substandard education. Certainly these domestic needs deserve a priority. Moreover as one who has long dis- sented from American policy in Vietnam, I must repeat my strong feeling of un- happiness at the failure of the South Vietnamese to assume their role in the fighting. For months we have been told that the South Vietnamese will take on a greater combat role enabling us to be- gin bringing American boys home. I am tired of waiting for this action. If the South Vietnamese are not prepared to fight their own war I see no reason why we should fight it for them. The appropriation before us today, however, is not a test of support or dis- sent on the matter of Vietnam. Although I dissociate myself from our unsuccess- ful and inexcusable policy errors in Viet- nam, I would consider a vote against this appropriation irresponsible and a dere- liction of my duty as a Member of the Congress. But I also consider it the height of ir- responsibility to give American lives in a war for a people that are unwilling to protect themselves. Just as the Congress must vote ap- proval of the appropriation before us today, .so must the administration im- mediately move toward peace in Viet- nam. To do less would be to violate the trust of the American people. Mr. 0011ELAN. Mr. Chairman, after much travail and thought, I have con- cluded that I must vote against the Pas- sage of this bill._ In arriving at this position in oppo- sition to the bill I have given considera- tion to the demands for fiscal restraint, to the virtues of the committee's action in support of low-cost housing to the purchase of additional lands for the Redwood National Park, and to other necessary and worthwhile programs. However, I have also given considera- tion to the potentially devastating ef- fects of the expenditure ceiling, to the Implications of continued funding of :Vietnam expenditures at their present levels, and to the intrusion of the Fed- eral Government into university affairs as provided in amendments to the bill. On balance, I have concluded that there is more bad than good in this bill. I would like for a moment to ex- pand on these compelling considerations. I have been a strong supporter of the efforts to enact and secure full funding for the section 235 homeownership as- sistance program and for the section 236 aental assistance program. Accordingly, X was pleased with the action of the :committee in recommending the author- ization of $40 million in additional con- tractual authority for each of these pro- grams. I am only disappointed that the Lull $50 million requested by both the past and the present administrations was not granted. I am hopeful however that the' Senate will approve the full request for these urgently needed funds. As one of the original sponsors of the legislation to create the Redwood Na- tional Park in California, I am appre- ciative of the promptness with which the Subcommittee on Interior Appro- priations, under the able leadership of Chairwoman Jotot HANSEN, has acted In appropriating funds for this park. This bill authorizes the expenditure of another $19 million to complete the pur- chase of lands obtained by the Govern- ment under a decree of legislative tak- ing. The previous appropriation earlier this year, together with the funds pro- vided in this bill, bring to $72 million the amounts available for the purchase of the park in the very first year after its creation. I am warmly supportive of the appropriation of these funds, and am deeply pained that other objectionable provisions of the bill prevent me from supporting the entire measure. I have today at some length attempted to explain to the Members of this body the evils I see in the expenditure limi- tation which is provided in this bill. In a nutshell, it is my fear that?while this limitation appears on its face not to re- duce domestic expenditures below the levels requested in the budget?it will have the result of requiring enormous reductions in social spending to make up for underestimates of noncontrollable spending, like the interest on the public Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 May 21, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE 113931 debt. I am not willing to lend my sup- port to this action which has the poten- tial to gut the urgently needed and pres- ently underfunded programs for health, education, housing, job training, pollu- tion control, and antipoverty efforts. Mr. Chairman, we have today heard many very thoughtful statements on the situation in Vietnam. I have for several years closely followed the tragic events In that tragic far away country. I have witnessed for the past 2 dozen months the growing revulsion with the war by the American and Vietnamese people. And throughout the same period I have witnessed small changes in the allied conduct of that war in the effort to wind down the conflict and find a stable peace. However, I have witnessed no new and major allied policy changes. Earlier this year I urged the President and his advisers to not only attach larger im- portance to the urgency of finding a solu- tion in Vietnam, but to conduct a thor- ough review of our policy objectives with regard to the war and the settlement which would be acceptable to us. Presi- dent Nixon in his recent statement of- fered to take some steps toward 'troop withdrawal and the recognition of a coalition government. But the conditions attached to these statements indicate that we have not yet conducted a thor- - ough rethinking of our position in Viet- nam. Accordingly, I am troubled today by this bill which appropriates funds to support continued fighting at current levels. I am troubled too by amendments which have been adopted today which au- gur for a greater Federal involvement in the troubles of our colleges. As the repre- sentative in Congress of one of the most troubled of these communities, I can say that it is ray considered judgment that in all but the most extreme circum- stances it is best to leave the university problems to the university. Only when violence exceeds the capability of the local authorities is there any appropriate role for Federal intervention?and then only as a mediator, conciliator, and , fa,ctfinder. In sum, Mr. Chairman, I have weighed the virtues and shortcomings of this bill, and I have found it lacking in sufficient merit to overcome the substantial dan- gers it opens up. I urge the defeat of this bill. The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill. Mr. MAHON, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments with the recom- mendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass. - The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the $peaker hiving resumed the chair, fkitr. Hormino, Chairman of the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the LTnion, reported that that Com- mittee, having had under consideration the bill (HR. 11400) making supplemen- tal appropriations for the fiscal year end- ing June 30, 1969, and for other pur- poses, had directed him to report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments be agre(-cl to and that the bill as amended do pass. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the bill and all amendments thereto to final passage. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote de- manded on any amendment? Mr. GERALD R. FORD Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called Scherle amendment to page 15, at the end of line 6. The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote de- manded on any other amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros. The amendments were agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment: On page 15, at the end of line 6, strike the period and insert the following: "Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this Aat for annual interest grants authorized by section. 306 of the Higher Education Facilities Act, as amended by PL 90-575, shall be used to formulate or carry out any grant to any institution of higher education unlen, such institution is in full compliance with rection 504 of such Act." The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken: and there were?yeas 329, nays 61, not voting 43, as follows: Abbitt Abernethy Adair Addabbo Albert Alexander Anderson, ran Anderson, Tenn, Andrews, Ala. Andrews, N. Da,k. Annunzio Arends Ashbrook Aspinall Ayres Baring Barrett Beall, Md. Belcher Bell, Calif. Bennett Berry Betts Bevill Biaggi Biester Blackburn Blanton Boggs Boland Bow Bray Brinkley Brock Brooks Broomfield Erotzman Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, N.C. Broyhill, Va. Buchanan Burke, Burke, Mass. Burleson, Tex. Burlison, Mo. Bush. Byrne, Pa. Byrnes, Wis. Cabell [Roll No. 59] YEAS-329 CafferY Camp Carter Casey Cederberg Chamberlain Chappell Clancy Clausen. Don H. Clawson Del Cleveland collier Collins Colmer Conable Conte Corbett Coughlin Cramer ;Cunningham Daniel, Va. Daniels, N.J. Davis, Ga, Davis. Wia. de la Garza Delaney Dellenback Denney Dennis Derwinski Devine Dickinson. Dingell Donohue Dowdy Downing Dulski Duncan Dwyer Edmondson Edwa.rds, Ala. Eilberg Erleneorn Esch Eshlema Evans, Colo. Evins, Tenn. Fallon Fascell Feighan Findley Fish Fisher Flood Flowers Flynt Ford, Gerald It Ford, William D. Foreman Fountain Friedel Fulton, Pa. Fulton, Tenn, Fuqua Galifianakis Garmatz Gaydos Gettys Glaimo Gibbons Goldwater Gonzalez Goodling Gray Green, Oreg. Griffin Griffiths Gross Grover e,ubser Gude Ragan Haley Hail 'Halpern Hamilton Hammer- schmidt Hanley Hansen, Idaho Hansen, Wash. Harsha Harvey Bays Hechler, W. Va. Heckler, Mass. Henderson Hicks Horton Homier Hull Hungate Hunt Hutchinson Ichord Jacobs Jarman Hatcher Joel-son Nedzi Johnson, Calif. Nelsen Johnson, Pa. Nichols Jonas Jones, Ala. Jones, N.C. Jones, Tenn. Karth Karen Kee Keith King Meppe Kluczynski Kyl Kyros La,ndgrebe Landrum Langen Latta Lennon Lipscomb Lloyd Long, La. Long, Md. Lukens McClory McClure McCulloch McDade McDonald, Mich. McEwen McFall McKneally Macdonald, Mass. Madden Mahon Mailllard Mann Marsh Martin Mathias May Meeds Michel Miller, Calif. Miller, Ohio Mills Minshall Mize 1Vlizell Mollohan Monagan Montgomery Morton Mosher Murphy, Ill. Myers Obey O'Konski Olsen O'Neal, Ga. O'Neill, Mass. Passman Patman Pelly Pepper Perkins Pettis Philbin Pickle Pike Pirnie Poage Poff Preyer, N.C. Price, Dl. Price, Tex. Pryor, Ark. Pucinski Purcell Quiz Quillen Rarick Reid, Ill. Rhodes Rivers Roberts Robison Rogers, Colo. Rogers, Fla. Ronan Rooney, N.Y. Rooney, Pa. Rostenkowski Roth Roudebush Ruth St Germain Satterfield Saylor Schadeberg Scherle Schneebeli Schwengel Scott Sebelius Shriver Sikes Sisk Slack NAYS-61 Adams Farbstein. Anderson, Foley Calif. Fraser Ashley Frelinghuysen Bingham Gallagher Bolling Gilbert Brademas Green, Pa. Brasco Hanna Brown, Calif. alathaway Burton, Calif. Hawkins Button Holifield Caller Kastenraeier Chisholm Koch Clay Leggett eohelan Lowenstein Conyers McCarthy Corman Matsunaga Daddario Mayne Diggs Mikva Eckhardt Minish Edwards, Calif. Mink NOT VOTING-43 Bates Helstoski Randall Blatnik Hogan Reif el Burton, Utah Howard Riegle Cahill Kirwan Rodino Casey Kuykendall Rumsfeld Clark Lilian Ruppe Cowgen McCloskey Sandman Culver McMillan Schauer Dawson MacGregor Shipley Dent Meskill Skubitz Dorn Morgan Smith, N.Y. Edwards, La. Morse Vander Jagt Frey Murphy, N.Y. Wiggins Hastings Pollock Hebert Railsback Smith, Calif. Smith, Iowa Snyder Springer Stafford Staggers Stanton Steed Steiger, Ariz, Steiger, Win Stephens Stratton Stubblefield Stuckey Sullivan Symington Taft Talcott Taylor Teague, Calif. Teague, Tex. Thompson, Ga. Thomson, Wis. Tiernan Tun ney Udall Ullman 'Utt Van Deerlin Vanik Vigorito Waggonner Wampler Watkins Watson Watts Weicker Whalen Whalley White Whitehurst Whitten Widnall Williams Wilson, Bob Wilson, Charles H. Winn Wold Wright Wyatt Wydler Wylie Wyman Yatron Young Zablocki Zion Zwach Moorhead Moss Nix O'Hara Ottinger Patten Podell Powell Rees Reid, N.Y. Reuss Rosenthal Roybal Ryan St. Onge Stokes Thompson, N.J. Waldie Wolff Yates So the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs: Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1 B 3932 Approved ForReemeaRgilakiCaNty BOM00100180043-1 a y m 2 1 , 1969 On this vote: Mr. Hebert for, with Mr. Scheuer against. Mr. Dorn for, with Mr. Carey against. Mr. 'Kirwan for, with Mr. Dawson against. Mr. Edwards of Louisiana for. with Mr. Bel stoeki against. )1r. McMillan for, with Mr. Murphy of New York against. Until further notice: Mr. Rodin? with Mr. Cahill. Mr. Howard with Mr. Sandman, Mr. Shipley with Mr. Meakill. Mr. Dent with Mr. Bates. Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Morse. Mr. Morgan with Mr. Riegle. Mr. Randall with Mr. Railsback. Mr. Clark with Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Culver with Mr. Smith of New York. Mr. Hogan with Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Wiggins with Mr. Cowger. Mr. Burton of Utah with Mr. Ruppe. Mr. Vander Jagt with Mr. Prey. Mr. Pollock with Mr. Hastings. Mr. Relfel with Mr. Skubita. Mr. MacGregor With Mr. Kuykendall. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. 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. MOTION TO BECOMMrr Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, I of- fer a motion to recommit. The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman 0P- poE ed to the bill? Mr. CLUERBERG. I am, Mr. Speaker, in Its present form. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: lir. Czeonseac moves to recommit the bill H.E. 11100 to the Committee on Appropria- tions. The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the mo- tio 1. to recommit. There was no objection. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit was rejected. The SPEAKER. The question is on the palsage of the bill. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were?yeas 347, nays 40, not voting 46, as follows: Abbitt Abernethy Achir Adams Ad< tabbo Albert Alexander Anderson, M. Anderson, enn. Andrews, Ala. Andrews, F. Dak. All IlUDZIO Are ads Adiley Aar inall Ayres Baling Barrett Bell, Md. Belcher Bell, Calif. Bennett " [Roll No. 601 YKAS-647 Berry Betts Bevill Biaggi Biester Blackburn Blar ton Blatnik Boggs Boland Boll tug Bow Brmiemas Bracco Bray Brinkley Brock Brooks Broomfield Brett:man Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, N.C. Broyhill, Va. Buchanan Burke, Fla. Burke. Mass. Burleson, Tex. Burlison, Mo. Bush Button Byrne, Pa. Byrnes, Wis, Cabell Caffery Camp Carter Casey Geller Chamberlain Chappell Clausen, Don H. Clawson, Del Cleveland Collier Collins Colmer Cianahle Conte Corbett COrman Coughlin Cramer Cunningham Daddario Daniel. Vs. Daniels, N.J. Davis. Ga. Davis. Wis. de la Garza Delaney Dellenback Denney Dennis Derwinski Devine Dickinson Dingell Donohue Dowdy Downing Dulski Duncan Dwyer Eckhardt Edmondson Edwards, AIL Eilberg Erlenborn Each Eshleman Evans, Cob. Erin. Tenn. Fallon Fasoell Feighan Piet Fisher Flood Flowers Flynt Foley Ford, Gerald R. Ford, William D. Foreman Fountain Frelinghuysen Friedel Fulton, Pa. Fulton, Tenn. Fuqua C al illanakis Gallagher Clarmats Gaydos Ciettys laimo Gibbons Goldwater Gonzales Goodling ray Green, Oreg. Green, Pa. Griffin O riMtha Grover Gubser Gude Hagan Plalpern Hamilton Hammer- schmkit Hanley Hanna Hansen, Idaho Hansen, Wash Harvey Hathaway Hays Hechler, W. Va. Heckler, Mass. Henderson Hicks Hol Meld Horton Homer Hull Hungate Hunt Hutchinson Anderson. Calif. Ash brook Bingham Brown. Calif. Burton, Calif. Cederberg Clsitiholm /chord Quie Jacobs Earl& Jarman Reid, /IL Joelattn Reid. N.Y. Johnsan, Calif. Routs Johnson, Ps. Rhodes Jonas Roberts Jones, Ala. Robison Rogers, Colo. Rogers, Fla. Ronan Rooney. Pa. Rostenkowski Roth Rouciebush Roybel Ruth $t Germain St. Ong? Setterlield Saylor Schadeberg Scherle Sehwengel Scott $ebellus Shrive: Sikes Sisk Slack Siaalth, Calif. Smith, Iowa Snyder Springer Stafford Staggers Stan-ton Steed Steiger, Ariz. Steiger, Wis. Stephens Stratton Stubblefield Stuckey Sullivan Symington Taft Talcott Taylor Teague. Calif. Teague, Tex. Thompson, Ga. Thompson, N.J. Thomson, Wis, Tiernan Twiner Udall Ullman Ut t Van Deerlin Vander Jagt Vigorito Waggonner Waidie Wampier Watkins Watson Welcker Whalen Whalley White Whitehurst Whitten Williams Wilson, Bob Jones, N.C. Jones, Tenn. Earth Kasen Kee Keith King Kleppe Kluczy neat Kyros Landgrebe Landrum La ngen Leggett Len non Lipscomb Lloyd Long, La. Long, Md. Lukens McCarthy McClory McClure McCulloch McDade McDonald* Mich, MeEwen McFall McK.neally Macdonald, Mass. Madden Mahon Maillisrd Mann Marsh Martin Mathias Matatinaga May Mayne ?deeds Michel Miller, Calif. Mills Mai& Mink Minstutli Arles Mizeil Mollohari Monagan Montgomery Moorhead Morton Moss Murphy, Ill. Myers Natcher Redid Nichols Nix Obey O'Hara 0^Koriski Olsen O'Neal. Ga. O'Neill, Mass, Charles B. Passman Winn Pitman Wold Patten Wolff Pelly Wright Wyatt Wydler Wylie Wyman Yates Tat ron Young Zablockl Zion Zwach Pepper Perkins Pettis Philbin Pickle Pike Pirnie Poage Poff Preyer. N.C. Price. M. Price, Tex. Pryor. Ark. Fuel nski Purcell NAY8-40 Clancy Gilbert Clay Gross Cohelan Haley Conyers Hall Diggs Harsh& Edwards, Celli, Hawkins Parbateln Kastennader Fraser Koch Kyl Latta Lowenstein. Mikes Miller, owe", Mosher Ottinger Podell Powell Quillen Rees Rosenthal NOT VOTING-46 Ruppe Ryan Schneebell Stokes Vanik Bates Hogan Burton, Utah Howard Cahill Carey Clark Cowger Culver Dawson Dent Dorn Edwards, La. PindleY Prey Hastings Hebert istoski Kirwan Kuykendall Lujan McCloskey' McMillan MacGregor Meskifl Morgah MOM@ Murphy, N.Y. Nelsen Pollock Railsback Randall Reifel Riegle Rivers Rodin() Rooney, N.Y. Rumsfeld Sandman Scheuer Shipley Skubitz Smith, N.Y. Watts Widnall Wiggins So the bill was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs: Mr. Iltbert with Mr. Nelsen. Mr. Kirwan with Mr. Widnall. Mr. Dent with Mr. Riegle. Mr. Carey with Mr. Cahill. Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. itleskilL Mr. Rodin? with Mr. Sandman. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Morse. Mr. Edwards of Louisiana with Mr. Frey. Mr. Morgan with Mr. Railsback. Mr. Watts with Mr. Burton of Utah. Mr. Clark with Mr. Relfel. Mr. Culver with Mr. Findley. Mr. Dorn with Mr. Cowger. Mr. liolatoaki with Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. McMillan with Mr. Skubitz. Mr. Rivers with Mr. Bates. Mr. Randall with Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Shipley with Mr. Kuykendall. Mr. Howard with Mr. Hogan. Mr. Scheuer with Mr. Dawson. Mr. Smith of New York with Mr. IffacCiregor. Mr. Pollock with Mr. Lujan. Mr. Wiggins with Mr. Hastings. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. ALBERT) . Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members speaking on the bill may be permitted to revise and extend their remarks and that I may be permitted to revise and extend my remarks, and insert certain tabular material and pertinent extracts otherwise. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- man from Texas? There Vas no objection. CORRECTION OF VOTE Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, on roll- call No. 58 I am recorded as not voting. I was present and voted "yea." I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Recent]) be corrected accordingly. Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100180043-1

Printer-friendly version

Search form

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL 1969