MILITARY PROCUREMENT AUTHORIZATIONS --1972 AMENDMENT NO. 294

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 22, 2005
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: July 21, 1971
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
,-"ne 16, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 1-15273
iearings, then it can also go to the more important than this need to im- tem that could send three of these rock-
(ny as well. prove the funding of our research and de- ets into various sections of this country,
:. GUBSER. That is right. velopment to keep up our technological including this very Chamber right now,
'"'"f simply conclude with this statement: capability in the world. Again, assuming and do it with mathematical accuracy.
If wo want to upgrade the level of classi- a 5-percent inflation, $355 million of that Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is
fication available to the Committee on research and development increase would something we should completely ignore
Armed Services and to the Congress of be absorbed by inflation. or summarily say that this is one of those
the United States, then let us prove we Third. Improvement in our strategic propaganda gimmicks that once a year
are responsible individuals and keep it capability, including $250 million for ad- is brought forward in order to justify
classified the way it was intended to be. ditional modernization of our land-based expenditures for our defense.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield strategic missiles and $100 million to im- Mr. Chairman, I was one of those
myself such time as I may consume. prove the penetration capability of our who took the lead in striving for ac-
Mr. Chairman, I make these remarks strategic bombers. countability in the expenditure of de-
for the purpose of getting them in the Fourth. For the first time this year the fense funds.
RECORD for the benefit of the many Mem- committee has to authorize the appro- I have not seen any of the critics
bers who have asked this very question priations for the procurement of tor- really in favor of examining such things
that I will attempt to answer now by this pedoes for the Navy. The authorization is as the Renegotiaton Board.
insertion. $193,500,000. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
It is true that this year's bill is larger In summary, the relatively small ac- gentleman from Texas has expired.
than the similar authorization approved tual increase in this year's bill over last Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1
by the committee last year. It is also true year's authorization is easily understood additional minute to the gentleman from
that a loaf of bread costs more this year and was dictated solely by clear military Texas.
than it did last year. This effect of in- requirements and by the effect of infla- Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I
flation shows up in the Defense budget tion. thank the gentleman for the additional
as it does in anybody's household budget Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 time.
and is one of the reasons why the bill minutes to the gentleman from Texas Mr. Chairman, that is not the issue
has to be higher than the 1971 authori- (Mr. GONZALEZ). here. The issue here, I think, is one of
zation. (Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was given providing a minimal defense, not the
The total amount in the committee's permission to revise and extend his re- so-called surfeiting of defense, nor the
bill, H.R. 8687, after accounting for the marks.) so-called gluttony of defense, because
committee-supported amendment to de- Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I that is nonexistent. I am convinced this
lete funds for the F-14, will be $21,069,- want to thank the distinguished chair- time that we are wholly vulnerable-in
112,000. This compares with an authori- man of the Committee on Armed Serv- what manner, shape, and form specifi-
zation last year of $19,595,089,000. ices for yielding to me at this time. cally only time and circumstances can
Thus this year's authorization is Mr. Chairman, I have listened to most tell us. But the handwriting is on the
$1,474,023,000 above last year's bill, of the debate on this bill. I take this op- wall.
The reasons for the increase are very portunity to rise in support of the bill. Our civil defense is in a shambles.
simple. One reason, as I indicated, is in- Yesterday afternoon I am glad that I There is no such animal-and I have
flation. Since inflation affects different sat in and listened to a part of the dis- spoken out on that before.
parts of the Defense budget to different I think and I hope that the provisions
degrees, it is difficult to give a precise cussion, because one of the cosponsors or of this bill will at least give us some
estimate of the inflationary impact. The authors of the so-called Nedzi-Whalen minimal defense capability so that at
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. amendment got up and said exactly what least we will be able to get some gas
STAFFORD) in preparing his amendment the amendment would not do and is con- turbine equipped ships in the fleet of
on research and development, estimated trary to the extent of 180 degrees to what our Nation, because during the time that
a level of 5 percent for inflation. If we mail I have been receiving. I have people the Russians were cruising during these
apply a 5-percent factor across the board write and say, "Vote for the end to the - last three occasions in the Gulf of Mex-
to last year's authorization, it would war amendment." ico and the Caribbean, there was not one
chew up almost a billion dollars-$977,- The author, or one of the authors of Americah ship we could have deployed.
754,450. If a 5-percent inflation is as- the amendment, Mr. WHALEN got up All our ships were elsewhere throughout
sumed across the board, the actual dollar Yesterday and said it would not do any the world. So this notion that we have
increase remaining over last year's au- such thing, that it would not remove the a surfeit of defense must be corrected..
thorization is only $496,268,550. troops from Vietnam and that it would Again I thank the Chairman, the
In addition to inflation, there are four not stop anything except to inform the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. HE-
reasons why this bill is higher than last administration about the desires and BERT), for yielding me this time.
year's. wishes and the hopes of the American Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I have
First. We have increased the ship- people. no further requests for time,
building account by $617 million. While Mr. Chairman, so much for that. I rises Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
a lot of that is chewed up by inflation, a in support of this bill, because I am fully 3 minutes to the, gentleman from Cali-
study of the Soviet naval threat, as out- convinced that it is necessary for the fornia (Mr. WALDIE) .
lined in the committee's report, leaves no minimal adequacy of our defense at this fMr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, while re-
doubt in anybody's mind that we have to time. ently in Indochina, I visited Laos and
increase the rate of modernization in our Somehow the myth has been extended several questions occurred to me, and I
Navy, that we are so superior militarily that would like to address those questions to
Second. We have increased research the United States is not. vulnerable at the chairman of the committee. And
and development expenditures by $860 all. The real truth of the matter is that may I say to the chairman that I appre-
million over last year. These two areas, the United States never has been as ciate his courtesy in giving me, a non-
ship construction and R.D.T. & E., are vulnerable as it is now. For the first time member of the committee, an opportunity
the two areas where major, general in- in the 20th century, and since the last to speak on this matter.
creases were requested by the adminis- century, a squadron of Soviet modern Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentle-
tration and approved by the committee. naval ships with gas turbine engines, man from Louisiana if the gentleman can
The trend in research and development none of which our fleet has, cruise at tell me if there are funds in this bill for
spending has been downward, while the will and have on occasion since 1969 in the Central Intelligence Agency?
momentum of Soviet research and de- the Gulf of Mexico and in the Caribbean. Mr. HEBERT. There are funds in the
velopment has been dramatically up- Even as we are meeting here today it bill for intelligence work of all our agen-
committee And it was made very clear to our is entirely possible at this time for a bill I will tell the gentleman.
committee that we have to reverse the submarine to even rise to the surface Mr. WALDIE. Would that include the
trend or the Soviets could gain techno- off the coast, because it is there with a Central Intelligence Agency?
logical superiority over us by the end of so-called multiple reentry vehicle with
the 1970's. No other aspect of this bill is at least a 1- to 2-megaton delivery Sys- Mr. HEBERT. It does.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 H 5274
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 16, 19.
Mr. WALDIE. Can the gentleman tell
me in what portion of the bill those funds
are contained?
Mr. HEBERT. No, I cannot tell the
gentleman that.
Mr. WALDIE. Is it available so that a
Member of this House of Representa-
tives can go to the committee and ex-
amine the classified documents involving
the amount of money available for the
Central Intelligence Agency in this bill?
Mr. HEBERT. No, sir, it is not. The
chairman takes the full responsibility
of not discussing the matter further.
Mr. WALDIE. So whatever those sums
are and to whatever purpose they will
be put, that is only known to the chair-
man of the committee?
Mr. HEBERT. It is known to the chair-
man and the ranking minority member
of the committee. This is a policy which
has prevailed throughout the years in all
administrations.
Mr. WALDIE. Yes. Mr. Chairman , I
think I understand the policy that no
other member of the committee knows
that information.
Mr. HEBERT. That Is correct.
Mr. WALDIE. May I ask this question?
In title IV there is a prohibition against
using any of the moneys appropriated in
this bill for the payment of free world
forces serving in Laos. Are there any
fundsbeing appropriated by this bill for
the payment of any forces in Laos?
Mr. HEBERT. No, there is not any
provision for the payment of those forces.
The only moneys that are involved in
this bill are those providing for the in-
telligence agencies of this country.
May I make a further correction, I do
not want to mislead anybody by saying
that the chairman and the ranking
minority member know about these
funds and only them, because the entire
committee is briefed by the CIA on its
functions. So I do not want to have that
misconception carried away that the
members of the committee do not know
of the activities of the CIA and of the
other intelligence agencies, this we do
know. This year, for thefirst time in the
history of the committee, at the chair-
man's request, the CIA was invited to
appear before the entire committee. Its
director, Mr. Helms, appeared and sub-
jected himself to all kinds of questions
and all the questions were answered by
the director, Mr. Helms.
Mr. WALDIE. May I ask the chairman
one final question?
What is the purpose of the CIA activity
in Laos?
Mr. HEBERT. The activity of the CIA
in all sections of the world, in Laos, the
Middle East and everywhere is the
gathering of intelligence for the pro-
tection and security of the United
States.
Mr. WALDIE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. (HuN-
cATE).
(Mr. HUNGATE asked and was given
r-ermission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, we will
soon be called upon to vote on the Nedzi-
Whalen amendment, or some House ver-
sion of the McGovern-Hatfield amend-
ment. Since I fear there may have been
a considerable amount of high-pressure,
slick, oversimplification of this problem,
I believe the following editorial in the
Washington Post is illuminating:
CONGRESS VOTES ON THE WAR
The McGovern-Hatfield and Nedzi-Whalen
amendments, which are to be voted on today
in the Senate and House respectively, would
not "end the war" or automatically retrieve
the American POW's or guarantee the safe
-'xit of American forces or, least of all, as-
sure a Vietnamese reconciliation. Any such
claim promises more than either amendment
can deliver and invites further frustration
and disillusionment. Not only does fulfil-
inent of claims like these lie to a great extefit
iii other than American hands. But the Amer-
iran system of Government gives the Presi-
dent broad authority to conduct a war. It is
idle to pretent while the fighting goes on-that
Congress can remove that authority; in fact,
McGovern-Hatfield explicitly concedes the
point.
So it is misleading the public to talk of
these proposed congressional restraints in
terms of a "date certain" for our withdrawal,
however comforting and convenient that
piece of shorthand may be to supporters of
both measures; Vietnam has given us enough
deceptive shorthand, and also enough easy-
and offensive-sales pitches-...
My colleagues, as you are well aware, I
voted in favor of fixing December 31,
1971, as the date for withdrawal of all
U.S. troops from Southeast Asia. I have
voted three times this year to end the
draft on June 30, 1971, in the belief that
if wars In Southeast Asia can be fought
with volunteers, they will prove they have
the popular support of the American peo-
ple. If they cannot, and I would assume
this one cannot be fought with volun-
teers since 80 percent of combat troops
are draftees, then the President could
come to Congress and ask us for troops
and prove his justification for the request.
Then we could restore to Congress a
meaningful voice in foreign policy.
However, since a majority of this Con-
gress sees fit to draft our young men and
ship them halfway around the world to
fight 10,000 miles from home, I find it
difficult to vote against funds to provide
them with supplies, equipment, arms and
ammunition they need to defend them-
selves and our country's position, even
though we might not have selected their
mission in Southeast Asia. As one who
served in the combat infantry in World
War II, I would consider it irresponsible
to send a draftee into a combat zone
without providing him with all the sup-
port those fortunate enough to stay at
home can provide.
Therefore Mr. Chairman, I must op-
pose the Nedzi-Whalen amendment.
Mr. NEDZI. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNGATE. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. NEDZI. Did the Washington Post
editorial recommend voting for or
against?
Mr. HUNGATE_ The Washington
Post wrote these very skillful lines, I
thought, with which I agree and found
that in essence my construction would
be meaningless and then it came out
for it.
I think it is very much like the story
you have all heard of a man coming In
the House and speaking about 10 m-
utes, and another Member said I he
you speak and I cannot tell where
stand. Can you tell me whether you
for or against it? The guy speaking srid-
I watched the gentleman when he came in
this House and raised his hand and took the
oath to become a Member and I said, "There
is a man, and no matter how long he is
here, he will never know what's going on."
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNGATE. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. GUBSER. Would you not summa-
rize the Washington Post editorial this
way-that they gave all the reasons for
voting against Nedzi-Whalen inorder to
justify their point that you ought to
vote for it?
Mr. HUNGATE. The gentleman's point
seems accurate to me.
Mr. WHALEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNGATE. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. WHALEN. I would just like to read
for the RECORD the editorial's conclusion.
The amendments as written we by and
large thoughtful and responsible, though
limited. A wise Congress would enact them,
and a wise President would welcome them
as reinforcement of his own policy and his
own concern for the Nation.
Mr. HUNGATE. I appreciate the gen-
tleman's contribution, but I would say as
to the expression "a wise Congress," I
presume its wisdom will be revealed in
the future hours today.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNGATE. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. ARENDS. When you must make
a decision on what the Washington Post
article sets forth as to whether this is a
wise Congress or not-that is a far
stretch of imagination.
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. ARZIUG).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman
from New York is recognized.
Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, we have
all been very concerned about the shock-
ing revelation in the last few days, that
there have been secret military and polit-
ical decisions by our Government with-
out the consent or knowledge of this
great body. These decisions were all the
more shocking because they indicate that
Government policy on Vietnam was con-
structed and conducted by lies and de-
ceptions. There was a discussion that
took place earlier in the debate between
two members of your committee, Mr.
Chairman, in which they suggested that
classified material concerning the needs
of our defense was available for inspec-
tion to the Members of this House.
Subsequent to this an inquiry was
made of you, Mr. Chairman, by the
gentleman from California (Mr. WAL-
DIE) with respect to information avail-
able concerning the CIA, and you indi-
cated thatit was not available for in-
spection by Members of either the Armed
Services Committee or the House.
My question to you, 'sir, is this: Is
classified material concerning the needs
of our defense and the matters about
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 -t. Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
lung 16, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE H 5275
which we are to act today and the next
'ew days in the bill before us available
or inspection to, the members of the
congress? We need to know this be-
cause all the Members of this House are
going to be subject to a great deal of
questioning by our constituents, and we
s:.iould be; as to whether or not we are
informed on and involved in the deci-
sions which we make. The public has a
right to be skeptical and to demand that
those who represent them are privy to
knowledge before we commit their hard-
earned tax dollars to military hardware
instead of to programs for health, edu-
cation, transportation, child care, hous-
ing, and employment so desperately
needed in our country.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
$Vfr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
2 additional minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman
from New York is recognized for 2 addi-
tional minutes.
Mrs. ABZUG. I would like an answer
to that question.
Mr. HEBERT. That Is the reason I am
yielding additional time to the gentle-
woman.
?a, Mrs. ABZUG. Thank you, sir.
tMr. ?HEBERT. I will tell the gentle-
woman this, and try to make it very
ex )licit: All the hearings before the
House Armed Services Committee in
executive session are available to any
Member of this House who has the in-
cliliation, the desire, or the intent of
tiding them. But they must read this
Information within the confines of the
committee room, and they can read
everything that has been said in that
committee room. They cannot copy it.
They cannot take it out. They are bound
by their consciences and the executive
position of the committee in having
executive hearings under the rules of the
committee arid of the House.
But there is nothing, absolutely noth-,
ing, that is taken away from the indi-
vidual Members of this House, and any
Member who desires to read the unex-
purgated transcripts of the hearings Is
welcome to come to the House_ Armed
Services room at any time. They can re-
main in the room. During that time they
can look at the copy. They can read the
copy. We will give you coffee, and if you
are from New Orleans, we will put a little
bourbon in it to make you more com-
fortable. You can stay around as long as
you want. There are no secrets in the
House Armed Services Committee.
Mrs. ABZUG. Does that include classi-
fied material presented to the committee?
Mr. HEBERT. That includes every
statement that is made by witnesses,
classified or not, in the record.
Mrs. ABZUG. I am a little confused by
a previous statement made by you, Mr.
Chairman, in which you indicated that
the material concerning the CIA was not
available for inspection.
Mr. HEBERT. It Is not in the record.
Mrs. ABZUG. I see. You have answered
my question, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. STRATTON).
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1
additional minute to the gentleman from
New York.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
New York is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, the
bill reported by the Committee on Armed
Services recommends authorizations for
appropriations for fiscal year 1972 for
torpedoes and related support equipment
in the amount of $193,500,000. Most of
this authorization is required for the pro-
curement of the MK-48 torpedo.
At this point I should emphasize that
this bill for fiscal year 1972 represents
the first time that authorization for
torpedoes was acted upon by the Com-
mittee on Armed Services and required
under the statute. The inclusion of naval
torpedoes as a weapons system requiring
annual authorization was the result of
last year's action by the conferees of the
House and Senate who agreed that this
weapons system required a continuing
review by the respective Committees on
Armed Services.
I am now happy to report that after
receiving departmental testimony on be-
half of the MK-48 torpedo program and
supporting documents, the Committee on
Armed Services approved the depart-
mental procurement request for fiscal
year 1972.
The MK-48 torpedo is the most ad-
vanced and most effective antisubmarine
torpedo scheduled for use by the U.S.
Navy and is vastly superior to any con-
ventional ASW weapon now available to
our submarine force.
The MK-48 torpedo is, In fact, a so-
phisticated missile which operates in an
undersea environment rather than in an
airborne mode.
In order to accomplish this capability
this torpedo contained the most complex
electronic components which are to be
found in an advanced missile, airborne
or otherwise.
Stated very succinctly, the Impressive
characteristics and capabilities of the
MK-48 torpedo will provide the U.S.
Navy with an absolutely indispensable
weapon to be used to combat the increas-
ing Soviet submarine threat.
Much has been said in the news media
concerning this program. Unfortunately,
much of this information has left the
impression that the program was tech-
nically infeasible and constituted a hor-
rendous waste of public moneys.
Such an inference is simply not true.
At the outset, let me point out that
although there have been, In fact, many
monumental technical problems encoun-
tered in this program because of the
unique requirements of this weapons sys-
tem, they have nonetheless been over-
come and resolved during the past year.
The intensive testing provided the two
models of this torpedo have, established
conclusively that the Navy will be pro-
vided with a new and unique weapons
system that will accomplish its mission
of destroying both enemy submarines
as well as surface vessels.
The committee report contains a great
deal of information on this weapons sys-
tem. The report, together with the
printed hearings, should certainly sat-
isfy the most severe critic of this pro-
gram. Nonetheless, let me review very
briefly the cost picture :
As of May 1, 1971, the Navy had obli-
gated $524 million and had contractual
commitments for an additional $110 mil-
lion, of the total $672 million appro-
priated by the Congress for the develop-
ment of this weapons system. The re-
maining $38 million is held in a deferred
status pending selection of the model
torpedo for final production and pro-
curement.
Unfortunately, too many times both
the public media and others have drawn
the inference that the cost to date has
exceeded $4 billion, when, in fact the
Invested cost to date more nearly ap-
proximated the obligated and committed
amount of $634 million.
Reference has been made to the high
unit cost of individual MK-48 torpedoes.
It is true that the individual unit cost
of the MK-48 torpedo would exceed
$500,000 if the total program costs in-
cluding research and development
moneys were included as the cost basis;
however, the actual unit costs for future
procurement of this torpedo are esti-
mated to be more nearly $300,000 and
will probably reduce considerably below
that in the future.
I cannot discuss much of the detailed
characteristics of this new weapons sys-
tem, but let me assure my colleagues
that it is indispensable to our arsenal
and we must go forward with this pro-
gram if we are to have a meaningful
antisubmarine warfare capability. z
therefore, urge your approval of this
program.
Mr. DENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the gen-
tleman from South Dakota.
(Mr. DENHOLM asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
yielding.
"The Congress shall have Power to declare
to raise and support Armies"-Article I sec-
tion 8, U.S. Constitution.
The original Articles of Confederation,
made prior to the adoption of the Con-
stitution of the United States, conferred
upon Congress the "sole and exclusive
right and power of determining on peace
and war." But the United States could
not engage in war "unless nine States
assent to same."
More definite and full language was
written by our founding fathers and is
used in the existing Constitution of the
United States of America. All those pow-
ers are attributes of nationality and
would exist without mention in the Con-
situation. But it was desirable to make
definite the department of the Govern-
ment in which they should reside.
In the Constitutional Convention some
of our forefathers thought the President
should have the power; others favored
restoring such powers upon the Senate
as representing the States in equal num-
ber from each represented State; but the
prevailing opinion was that the grave
acts of declaring and conducting war
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
should be performed by the whole Con-
gress.
in 1812 Congress passed an act in de-
claring war on Great Britain because of
hostile acts done by that country.
1:11 1846 the Congress declared a state
of war with Mexico by a resolution owing
to hostile acts of that nation.
In 1898 Congress declared war on
Spain.
in 1917 a resolution of war was passed
by Congress as a result of the sinking by
G+ rniany of the Lusitania and other
merchant ships with the loss of American
lives. and of other violations of interna-
tional law with respect to the United
States.
In 1941, Japan attacked at Pearl Har-
bor. Congress immediately declared that
a state of war existed between the United
States and Japan, Germany, and Italy.
The United States emerged as the only
great nation in the modern world that
had never lost a war. This proud record
again demonstrates the strength of free
institutions. When the representatives of
the people vote for a war, the people
respond.
The important lesson to be learned
here is that in the United States one
man-or one coterie-cannot conduct or
declare war.
The conduct and declaration of war
can be done only by the two Houses of
Congress whose Members are substan-
tially all elected by the direct vote of the
people. The argument and theory pur-
sued by our forefathers was that action
is not likely to be hurried or unjust when
submitted for the due care and delibera-
tion of such a body of representatives of
the people duly assembled in a joint
session of Congress.
The Supreme Court of the United
States said in 1849 the following:
The genius and character of our institu-
ions are peaceful, and the power to declare
war was not conferred upon Congress for the
purpose of aggression or aggrandizement, but
to enable government to vindicate by arms,
if it should be necessary, its own rights and
the rights of its citizens.
The question before the Supreme
Court was then whether the city of Tam-
pico. Mexico, while in the military pos-
session of the United States in 1847,
ceased to be a foreign country so that
custom duties could not be laid on im-
ports from it. The answer was "No."
While the United States may acquire
territory, it can do so only through the
?,reatymaking or the legislative powers-
,,he victories of the President as Com-
mander in Chief "do not enlarge the
aoundaries of this Union, nor extend the
operation of our institutions and laws
beyond the limits before assigned to them
by the legislative power."
Congress shall have the power to raise
:?rrd support armies which is an implied
sewer from the expressed constitutional
,3ower "to declare war." But to leave no
r;uestion as to what Department of the
i ;overnment would do it, the power was
xpressly conferred upon Congress; for
?rherwise the President as Commander
vi Chief might assume to raise armies
fter Congress had made the declaration
war. The President cannot raise an
- rny, nor can Congress maintain one by
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE June 16, 19
an appropriation for a longer term than
2 years.
Conclusions: There is no constitu-
tional authority or precedent authoriz-
ing and justifying the President to de-
clare war. The President as Commander
in Chief may under the emergency pow-
ers of the President mobilize the Armed
Forces in the interest of national se-
curity. The power to declare war is ex-
pressly reserved to the joint session of
Congress. It-is further restricted by the
provision for appropriations not in ex-
cess of 2 years without another request
to the Congress for further appropria-
tions to fiinance war.
The more subtle and difficult issue is
what may from time to time constitute
an act in the national interest? There
can be no doubt that when this Nation,
its people or its possessions are attacked
directly by a foreign aggressor our na-
tional interest is placed in jeopardy. Ab-
sent of a direct attack the citizens of
this country have not historically con-
doned war. It is unmistakably clear that
when the citizens have acted through
their representatives in Congress this
Nation has always prevailed whatever
the adversities.
The second and equally frustrating is-
sue of our time is premised upon the
notion that national security is some-
what or somehow exposed and absent of
any act by Congress, the President has
continued to commit the country to mili-
tary involvement. The underlying ques-
tion of such an issue is to what magni-
tude must such military involvement be
committed and for what duration absent
of an act of war. Necessary appropria-
tions to finance modern war are far in
excess of any recorded in the history of
all wars of this Nation.
In summary the United States en-
tered Vietnam pursuant to a resolution
passed by the Congress in 1964 with but
two dissenting votes and granted unto
President Lyndon B, Johnson the power
to repel the Vietcong in the interest of
national security. The Congress has con-
tinued to appropriate adequate funds to
protect our military commitments and
men in Vietnam. More recently President
Nixon entered Cambodia without any
act, counsel, or resolution of the Con-
gress. However expedient in the sense of
military science the act of aggression in
the country of Cambodia is without prec-
edent and of questionable merit as to
national security. The continued military
commitments in Indochina without con-
gressional approval will continue to di-
vide reasonable people on the priority of
the issues of our times. It is my judgment
that this Nation can ill afford to further
pursue such policies without a full dis-
closure by the executive branch of Gov-
ernment to the Congress of how the se-
curity of this Nation is placed in jeop-
ardy and an evaluation of our national
interest in Vietnam. It is the duty of the
Congress to respond and if war is to be
declared it is for Congress to decide
whom the act of war should be de-
clared against and to lead and unite
the citizens of this Nation in the com-
mon cause against the enemy. It is my
belief that the Congress cannot and will
not identify the enemy, the Nation, or
the people for whom any declaration
war will issue in Southeast Asia un
present existing circumstances. If th4
is not to be an act of declared war bs'
the Congress the policy of military in-
volvement in Indochina should and must,
be reviewed to determine a true evalua-'
tion of how our national interest is i.,
jeopardy.
It appears that our military commit-
ments and our military involvement has
exceeded any reasonable degree of tem-
porary defense of our national security
in Indochina. If we seek but the balance
of power in a by-polarism struggle of
world politics between communism and
the people of free governments then it is
for Congress to decideto what extent we
must be committed economically, mone-
tarily, and politically to achieve tjle
equilibrium of power among nations.
It is my conclusion that Congress can-
not fail to act upon these grave questions
confronting the citizens of our country.
It is wrong for the President to pursue a
course of no apparent purpose and par-
ticularly so without consultation of the
Congress. It is wrong for the members of
Congress to pursue individually the poli-
tical expediencies of public opinion at
the expense of a divided citizenry. The
present policies cannot and should not t
continued and it is the duty of every elec
ted representative of the people to do ;all
that he can to bring these grave issi4es
to a united decision through the consul-
tive processes of our democratic Govgiti-
ment by official action of the Congress in
joint session.
I understand this constituted Repuaic
is a land of laws-and not merely mor-
tal men. In the interests of mortal men---
I shall stand by precedent of the law of
the Constitution of the United $tatels of
America and I shall vote a4nss appro-
priations for military intervention anei
the deployment of arms in any fore!igzi
land until the issues of those commit-
merits are honestly placed before t1w
Congress for appropriate and timely de-
termination as provided by the provi-
sion of law contained in the Constitution
of the United States of America.
(Mr. STRATTON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled.
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be con-
sidered as read, printed in the RECORD,
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Lou-
isiana?
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, reserv-
ing the right to object, I do not like to
object to a request by my good friend
and my chairman, the gentleman from
Louisiana. However, I will be constrained
to object, because I believe the bill should
be read by titles and open to amendment
as each title is completed. Therefore, Mr.
Chairman, I object.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 S 11684 Approved For ReCONGR05/ OgALCRI*OK BOM Nf'1V5000400 0-1 July 21, 1971
States pursuant to article V of the Con-
stitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
ALLEN). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
S. 1318
At the request of Mr. FANNIN, the Sen-
ator from Tennessee (Mr. BROCK) was
added as a cosponsor of S. 1318, a bill to
deny tax exemption under section 501 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
S. 1442 THROUGH S. 1445
At the request of Mr. Moss, the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. BAYH) was added as
a cosponsor of S. 1442, ?a bill to provide
that the first $3,000 received as civil serv-
ice retirement annuity shall be excluded
from gross income; S. 1443, to eliminate
the survivorship reduction during pe-
riods of nonmarriage of retired employ-
ees and Members, and for other pur-
poses; S. 1444, a bill to increase the
contribution by the Federal Government
to the costs of employees' health benefits
insurance; and S. 1445, a bill to provide
increases in certain annuities payable
under chapter 83 of title 5, United States
Code, and for other purposes.
S. 1659
At the request of Mr. FANNIN, the Sen-
ator from North Carolina (Mr. ERVIN)
was added as a cosponsor of S. 1659, a
bill to amend the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
S. 2223
At the request of Mr. TALMADGE, the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. BUR-
DICK), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
GAMBRELL), the Senator from Washing-
ton (Mr. MAGNUSON), the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN), and the Sen-
ator from Kansas (Mr. PEARSON) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2223, a bill to
amend the Consolidated Farmers Home
Administration Act of 1961, and for other
purposes.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
35-SUBMISSION OF AN ORIGINAL
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION FAV-
ORING THE SUSPENSION OF DE-
PORTATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS
(Ordered to be placed on the calen-
dar.)
Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee
on the Judiciary, submitted the follow-
ing original concurrent resolution:
S. CoN. RES. 35
Resolved by the Senate (the House of
Representatives concurring), That the Con-
gress favors the suspension of deportation in
the case of each alien hereinafter named, in
which case the Attorney General has sus-
pended deportation pursuant to the provi-
sions of section 244(a) (2) of the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act, as amended (66
Stat. 204; 8 U.S.C. 1251) :
A-9687873, Chan, Chuen.
A-17949342, Chin, Lean.
A-6816735, Funk, Thomas Fredrik.
A-13282197, Moy, Huey Nai.
A-10465009, Torres de Bejarano, Socorro.
A-11596573, Yee, Soon Hing.
A-8486988, Terrazas-Barrio, Efren.
A-4316706, Ioanides, Gabriel Constantinos.
A-1864768, Herrera-Marquez, Aurelio.
A-18496866, Lum, Wah Gum.
A-3212791, Candanoza-Leza, Rogelio.
A-6499744, Cartier, Paul August.
A-12027264, Liu, Lai Chih.
r MILITARY PROCUREMENT
AUTFT(lR.TZ A TTONS-1972
AMENDMENT
(Ordered to e pr n ed and referred to
the Committee on Armed Services.)
CLOSING LOOPHOLES: AN AMENDMENT TO END
U.S. FINANCING OF FOREIGN MERCENARIES IN
cult to comprehend, a brief review of the
facts will be helpful before I propose a
legislative solution to this problem.
Following the U.S. incursions into
Cambodia in May 1970, it was recog-
nized that language of the defense au-
thorization and appropriations legisla-
tion providing $2.5 billion for "support
for Vietnamese and other free world
forces in support of Vietnamese forces"
could possibly be interpreted as per-
mitting U.S. financing of Thai troops in
Cambodia and Laos. Indeed, in August
1970, the State Department acknowl-
edged that a "tentative agreement" had
been reached between the United States
and Thai Governments regarding the
sending of Thai troops to Cambodia.
It was generally understood at the time
that the provision of any troops to Cam-
bodia by Thailand would be contingent
upon the furnishing of financial suppori.,,.
by the United States.
It was in the light of these facts that
an amendment was added to both the De-
fense Authorization and Appropriation
Acts which provided that nothing in the
authorization to support "Vietnamese
and other free world forces in support
of Vietnam forces" could be construed
"as authorizing the use of any such funds
to support Vietnamese or other free world
forces in actions designed to provide mil-
itary support and assistance to the Gov-
ernment of Cambodia or Laos."
This amendment was originally pro-
posed by the distinguished chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee who
declared that his intention was to pre-
vent our paying for South Vietnamese or
Thai forces to ex nd their military
activities in am a and Laos so that
we would become involved in large-scale
operations in close support of the Gov-
ernment of Cambodia or the Govern-
ment of Laos.
Nevertheless, despite this amendment,
a Department of State spokesman ad-
mitted on June 7 that there were Thai
forces in Laos and also that the United
States was supporting them, although he
described them as "volunteers."
This spokesman did not say that these
Thai-forces are operating principally in
the war in northern Laos, a war that
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Sul-
livan has said has "nothing to do with
military operations in South Vietnam or
Cambodia."
The amendment included in the De-
fense Authorization and ppropria ign
t that the on-
oyernmen to pa al roo
fight in Laos or Cambodia. Today there
are al troops in aos and they are be-
ing paid by the U.S. Government. The
State Department has finally admitted
that we are paying the Thais, but the
Thai Government still asserts there are
no Thai troops in Laos.
In our discussions with the executive
branch, we have encountered two lines of
legal argumentation being used o bus i y
. roe in iS izarre affair. First,
e'
1 is arau at the legislative h1 St tOr
o as year's amendments indicates that
t amendments' sponsor, wnow-avowed
S. 2258
At the request of Mr. GRIFFIN, the
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE)
and the Senator from Alaska' (Mr.
STEVENS) were added as oonsponsors of
S. 2258, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution
Control Acceleration Act.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 62
At the request of Mr. GRIFFIN, the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. STEVENSON)
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. STE-
VENS) were added as cosponsors ofSen-
ate Joint Resolution 62, authorizing the
display of the flags of each. of the 50
States at the base of the Washington
Monument.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 99
At the request of Mr. CASE, the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Moss) was added as a
cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 99,
a joint resolution proposing establish-
ment of a National Collegiate Press Day.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 114
At the request of Mr. CURTIS, the Sen-
ator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN) was
added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint
Resolution 114, a stable purchasing power
resolution of 1971.
purpose proposIng Me men in oca forces in Laos and Thailand" d
Me promolDiLiana written into t~~e r~""rO-
Me first place was to pruniM t io
fooi Thai troops in Laos or am o i p"appropriations o on c applied, o course, only to
condone c available T,07 , the Depart-
prac ice a was see ing fro ibit. Sec- me o e ense during the sc 1
andit ism a , even i Tiis aad year Thus t mieht argue that
been the sponsor's intent, Central Inte
.enacted con aine oonholes which ner-'T not covered by the amendment
Sher way, they say it is legal for the in Laos are "local forces in Laos," even
United States to hire Thais to fight a though they are Thai nationals who were
war in Laos which the Lao are no longer recruited and trained in Thailand, are
able to sustain with their own manpower. transported by us from Thailand to Laos;
For those who find this situation diffl- then they are sent back to Thailand
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
July 21, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
of myself and other Senators, I intro-
duce, for appropriate reference, a bill to
give union members a voice in determin-
ing whether they wish to remain on
strike. I ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill be printed in the RECORD
at this point.
There being no objection, the bill was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
S. 2327
A bill to provide for strike ballots in certain
cases
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That as used
in this Act-
(1) The term "Board" means the National
Labor Relations Board.
(2) The term "labor Organization" means
any organization of any kind, or any agency
or employee representation committee or
plan, in which employees participate and
which exists for the purpose, in whole or in
part, of dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work.
(3) The term "commerce" means trade,
traffic, commerce, transportation, or com-
munication among the several States, or be-
tween the District of Columbia or any terri-
tory of the United States and any State or
other territory, or between any foreign coun-
try, and any State, territory, or the District of
Columbia, or within the District of Columbia
or any territory, or between points in the
same State but through any other State or
any territory or the District of Columbia or
any foreign country.
(4) The term "affecting commerce" means
in commerce, or burdening or obstructing
commerce or the free flow of commerce, or
having led or tending to lead to a labor dis-
pute burdening or obstructing commerce or
the free flow of commerce.
(5) The term "strike" includes any con-
certed stoppage of work by employees, in-
cluding a stoppage by reason of the expira-
tion of a collective bargaining agreement, and
any concerted slowdown or other concerted
interruption of operations by employees.
SEC. 2. Upon the filing with the Board of
a petition therefor signed by at least 20
per centum of the employees in the appro-
priate bargaining unit or units involved in
a strike which has been pending for thirty
days or more in any industry affecting com-
inerce, the Board shall conduct a referendum
among the employees of such unit or units
on the question whether such strike should
be continued. If a majority of the employees
voting in the referendum vote against the
strike, the labor organization representing
the employees shall order such employees to
discontinue the strike and such strike shall
not be resumed until at least ninety days
have elapsed following the referendum. If a
majority of those voting in the referendum
vote in favor of the strike no subsequent
petition may be filed under this section until
at least sixty days have elapsed following
such referendum, and unless such subse-
quent petition has been signed by at least
:30 per centum of the employees in the appro-
priate bargaining unit or units involved in
the strike. In determining whether a petition
under this section has been signed by the
requisite percentage of employees, such peti-
tion shall be deemed to have been signed by
any employee whose approval in writing of
such petition is filed with the Board not later
than 30 days following the filing of the peti-
tion.
SEC. 3. Any employee who participates in a
strike which has been continued, or resumed
prior to the expiration of ninety days, after
a majority of the employees in the appropri-
ate bargaining unit or units involved in the
strike voting in the most recent referendum
conducted with respect to such strike under
this Act shall have voted against such strike,
shall not during the existence of the strike
or thereafter, unless reemployed or rein-
stated by the employer, be considered to be
an employee of such employer for the pur-
poses of the National Labor Relations Act or
the Railway Labor Act.
SEC. 4. Referendums provided for in this
Act shall be conducted by the Board, except
that the Board may delegate, generally or in
specific cases, authority to conduct such ref-
erendums to any public or private agency or
organization which, in the opinion of the
Board, is qualified to conduct such refer-
endurns.
SEC. 5. Nothing contained in this Act shall
be construed to supersede or modify in any
way the requirements of section 8(d) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I intro-
duced a similar bill in previous Congress-
es. As I have noted, the idea of providing
for a secret strike vote is not new. It was
recommended to the Congress by Presi-
dent Eisenhower in 1954. My proposal is
new only insofar as it recognizes that
there are legitimate reasons why a pre-
strike vote may adversely affect free col-
lective bargaining. The bill, accordingly,
provides for a secret ballot by the workers
concerned only on continuing the strike
and only after the right to strike has been
exercised and the positions of the parties
have tended to become stalemated.
Under my proposal a petition for an
election to determine whether a strike
should continue could not be filed until
after a strike, had been in effect for 30
days. The bill further provides that no
more than one strike-vote election can
be 'held within any 60-day period. The
purpose of this proviso is to insure that
the union's ability to bargain effectively
will continue after a vote favorable to a
continuation of the strike.
The bill also contains a provision de-
signed to protect the identity of petition-
ers. Thus, under this proposal the re-
quired percentages necessary for an elec-
tion could be secured through the filing
with the Board by individuals of their
approval of the petition.
Within these limitations the bill pro-
vides workers caught in a protracted
bargaining stalemate with a means of
ending a strike which has gone beyond
the point of economic return or, alterna-
tively, with a means of expressing to
;management and to the public their
determination to continue the strike,
despite the economic costs.
Mr. President, consider the workers
whose lives and livelihoods are directly
affected by these struggles between the
giants of labor and the giants of industry.
These are the real victims in labor dis-
putes that drag on in long and costly
strikes. I know about these workers be-
cause we had more than 10,000 of them in
the State of Arizona-the victims of a
copper strike who still have not recover-
ed from the long strike of 1967-68. My
distinguished colleagues from New
Mexico, Montana, Nevada, and Utah, as
well as the other copper-producing
States, had thousands more of these
"forgotten men" in their constitutencies.
The situation in the copper industry
was symptomatic of a nationwide prob-
lem that can affect almost every working
man and woman in America. Consider
S11683
the copper worker who endured months
cf enforced idleness. And think also of
what the situation is in other industries
around the Nation. I think it can be said
with accuracy that almost any time a
strike lasts more than 39 days, the worker
stands to lose more than he can gain. I
point out the recent General Motors
strike, for example, it will take the aver-
age automobile 'production worker at
General MotopS several years to make up
what he lostduring those months of en-
forced idleness.
Take a machinists' strike against the
major Airlines during the summer of
1966--,Z73 days of enforced idleness. Who
woiy'r Only the high chiefs of the IAM-
th?y showed them who was top dog, all
right. And theyshowed the general pub-
lic, too, and thousands of vacationers
who had to give up their vacation plans
or who were left stranded around the
country.
Take the strike in the rubber industry
in 1968-107 days of enforced idleness.
Or the long steel strike in 1959. Or the
General Motors strike in 1964-it is the
same story right down the line. Who
wins? Well, really nobody wins in a
strike, but in each instance the union
high command shows who is running
the ball game, who has the economic
stranglehold. And who loses? The work-
er. Every time, it is the worker.
Last year 3,305,000 workers were un-
employed due to 5,716 strikes which cost
the Nation 66.4 million man working
days lost. This year from January
through May there occurred 2,140 strikes
with a resulting loss of 12.4 million
working days. A total of 1,328,000 work-
ers have been unemployed because of
these strikes.
I think that the time is at hand when
the Congress must stop automatically
labeling any bill which the union lead-
ers oppose as an "antilabor" bill and
consider each such bill on its merits. Is
it not just as important to protect the
rights of workers to_ vote for an end to a
strike as it is to protect their right to
strike? If they strike and it proves to
have been a mistake, must they, their
families, management, and the public
suffer the results indefinitely with no
opportunity for the workers to recon-
sider when the point of economic return
for all parties involved has been reached
and passed?
I sincerely hope, Mr. President, that
my bill will receive early and fair con-
sideration on its merits. Members of this
Congress, like the striking workers,
should be given an opportunity to vote
the issue up or down.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILLS
AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
S.. 215
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that S tors CooK, FONG,
GURNEY, HRUSKA, SCOT THURMOND, and
TUNNEY be designated a cosponsors with
me of S. 215, a bill to provdde procedures
for calling constitutional conventions for
proposed amendments to the Constitu-
tion of the United States on application
of the legislatures of two-thirds of the
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 July 21, 1971
Approved CONGRESSIONALI RECORD-R DpEzR96R000500040020-1 S11685
after their tours where they are given of Defense is not conducting any mili-
various special benefits by the Thai Gov- tary operations in Laos. If that is correct,
ernment. and I am sure it is if he said it, it means
There are certain other facts about that the American taxpayer is financing
the omposl on o this a1 force in secre y a mercenary arm u d
the e resident to invade a cry
Laos, facts gave the end in
course of the closed session on June 7 with which the ni a es is not at
PT-Mi year, but W is the executive war. iS secret war 1S ing Carrie On
branch typically coninue5 mail mus
remain c asst e , is serf- gress, but without full knowledge on tile
ous undermines the cre i l l y O the ar O On ress. -If c aim that these Thai are oca forces this article is correct, we are both
m dos. financing and training an invasion force
submit an amendment to H.R. into Laos, despite an amendment to the
8687, the bill authorizing military pro- law which specified that could not be
curement appropriations for fiscal year done.
1972. This amendment ndment is designed t I ask unanimous consent that the
prohibit U.S. support for Thai so ier -A article, "Thais Said To Erect Base Com-
or rrregu ars conscripts or y41- Alex In Laos" written by D. E. Ronk,
u g dateline from Vientiane, July 20, be
fore authorizes the use of funds ap ro- printed at this point in the RECORD.
prria ted to s uport "local farces of Laoa There being no objection, the article
in Laos and local forces O mna;lA.n~, was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
THAIS SAID To ERECT BASE COMPLEX
IN LAOS
(By D. E. Ronk)
Laos and Thailand."
'Fe amendmen also inserts language
at the end of paragraph (1) of section
401(a) of the act of March 15, 1966,
which language states that notwith-
standing any other provision of law-
including the sentence of that paragraph
which authorizes funds appropriated to
be made available to support "Vietna-
mese and other free world forces in sup-
port of Vietnamese forces"-funds made
available under this law, or und` ear an
other law, cannot a used to support any
member o a local orce in Laos who s
not a citizen or national of Laos.
p , it will
cover not on y e Mr- 1.),eparu
funcTs uit all appropriated funds in-
cludin those appropriated for a en-
tral In
a so
mean that no U.S. funds can be used to
support a local force in Laos that is not
composed of citizens or nationals of Laos.
It will therefore once and for all put an
nical loophole which might be used to
continue to circumvent the intent be-
hind the amendment to last year's au-
thorization and appropriation arts.
I ask unanimous consent that the text
of my amendment be printed in the REC-
ORD at this point.
There being no objection, the amend-
ment was ordered to be printed in. the
RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENT No. 294
On page 5, line 26, beginning with the
word "local," strike out through the word
"Thailand" in line 1 on page 6, and insert
in lieu thereof "local forces of Laos in Laos
and local forces in Thailand in Thailand."
On page 6, line 25, immediately before. the
quotation marks, insert the following: "Not-
withstanding any other provision of law (in-
cluding but not limited to the foregoing
provisions of this paragraph), none of the
funds made available under this or any other
law may be used to support any member of
a local force of Laos in Laos who is not a
citizen or national of Laos."
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, here
is an article published this morning in
the Washington Post entitled "Thais
Said To Erect Base Complex in Laos." We
have had testimony from the Secretary
of Defense stating that the Department
VIENTIANE, July 20.-Elements of a Thai
army regiment have reportedly moved across
the frontier and established permanent
bases in western Laos.
The bases were set up in a large area of
Sayaboury Province which borders Thailand,
according to reports reaching here from
Xieng Lom, 160 miles northwest of Vientiane.
The reports say That units entered Laos
from Nan Province of Thailand during an
antiguerrilla sweep in recent weeks and con-
structed satellite camps to the complex of
CIA-maintained bases extending eastward
from Xieng Lom in a 40-mile shallow arc Ito
Hong Sa.
U.S. sources say the move is being coor-
dinated by the Central Intelligence agency,
probably for area security.
Other U.S. sources reporting from Saya-
boury Province say the That units are show-
ing indications of permanently occupying a
strip of Laos nearly 100 miles deep and 20
miles wide. They are also said to be turning
southward toward Sayaboury City, the prov-
ince capital, establishing outposts.
A recently improved all-weather highway
from Nan City in Thailand to the Lao bor-
der, where it becomes an improved trail, is
said to be the supply link with the Thai
units.
Western military sources last week con-
firmed that there have been border incur-
sions by Thais In recent weeks, but ascribed
them to the ill-defined demarcations.
A heavy security curtain maintained over
northern Sayaboury Province. Air transport,
which is necessary for entry, is routinely
denied to those without security clearances,
including newsmen.
Nan and Uttaradit provinces of Thailand,
which border Sayaboury, are also off limits
to journalists by orders from Bangkok.
Informed sources in Vientiane have con-
firmed that an operation had taken place in
the Xieng Lom area in recent days but de-
nied knowledge of any Thai participation in
Laos. They said, however, that a concurrent
and "possibly coordinated" sweep had oc-
curred on the Thai side of the border.
U.S. mission sources said the clearing op-
eration had been completed about 10 days
ago. Until Monday, however, knowledge of
such an operation was denied by all U.S.
embassy offices normally releasing such infor-
mation.
The Xieng Lom-Moung Ngeum-Hong Sa
complex, with its satellite camps, are reliably
reported to have outstripped the Meo base
at Long Cheng near the Plain of Jars in im-
portance to the U.S. war effort in Laos. They
are said to be less important, however, than
a base near Ban iiouei Sal, 210 miles north-
west of Vientiane and 50 miles northwest of
Xieng Lom.
A unit of Thais training hill tribesmen in
Laos is regularly reported to be stationed in
Xieng Lom and operating along. the com-
plex of positions.
lations Committee has prepared a report that
puts the number of Thai troops in Laos at
4,800.
In an action possibly related to the Thai
incursion from the west, pro-government ir-
regulars have reportedly launched an offen-
sive thrust westward from Luang Prabang
across the Mekong. There is no official confir-
mation of the thrust.
Other reports tending to confirm Thai op-
erations in Sayaboury Province were printed
in the Bangkok Post last week and attributed
to "informed government sources."
The Post said that Thai intelligence had
located the headquarters of a Pathet Lao
battalion less than 5 miles from the Thai
border, with another battalion moving from
Sayaboury Province to join it. The Pathet
Lao, according to the sources, had sent men
to pick up food from Thai territory.
An alert has been ordered in Uttaradit
Province, according to the Post, and "the 2d
Cavalry Regiment has been assigned to dou-
ble the number patrolling the border area as
a precaution against possible Invasion by the
Pathet Lao."
"Meanwhile," the Post reported, "an intel-
ligence mission has been sent to collect more
reports on Pathet Lao movements, the
source said." U.S. analysts in Vientiane sug-
gest the Post story may be a "planted cover"
for operations 100 miles north of those re-
ported and say they have received no re-
ports on Pathet Lao presence in northern
Sayaboury Province for months.
Western military sources only last week
said they had no reports of enemy move-
ments in northern Sayaboury and no knowl-
edge of anything more than isolated, inef-
fective pockets of Pathet Lao.
It is noteworthy, however, that northern
Sayaboury lies just across the Mekong from
where military analysts believe Chinese en-
gineers will eventually stop building their
road through northwestern Laos.
U.S. intelligence sources say construction
was halted 20 miles short of the Mekong a
year ago but it continues to produce official
comments of alarm in the Thai capital.
It is also noteworthy that Sayaboury Prov-
ince was annexed by Thailand during World
War II, then returned to Laos and the French
as part of the war settlement. The Bangkok
government is generally believed to still covet
the strip of Laos west of the Mekong.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am happy to yield
r. President, I
Missouri for the statement he has just
made -and his constant surveillance of
what is happening in Laos especially, and
in other parts of Indochina, as well.
I, too, have read the same news story,
which indicated that Thais were moving
in on a permanent basis to take over the
province of Sayaboury in western Laos.
To me it appears that Laos, which is a
very poor, simple country gat best, is
becoming more and more a victim of
circumstances over which it has no say
and no control.
I am hopeful that despite th~ot
that the distinguished m.
Missouri has not been able to receive
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
S 11686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 21 ,-19 71
replies to letters he sent to the State
spa men a e par men oT
Defense that with the arrive r -1
my reco ec ion is correc o ttthe Kmeri-
canAmbassa ors o aos an aZ m6odia,
iuTii rte-will-' ie appearing'T amore
tie omtxiittee nn Foreign e a ions
shortly, that we will be able" TD _go into
is ma er in more a `_""
Two 1 e o now more about the
extent of the authority of the American
Ambassador to Laos; I would like to know
more about what really is going on in
Cambodia, where we now have a mission
which has risen since the invasion from
11 to in excess of 100, I believe, at the
present time. There are many questions
about these areas about which we know
too little, and it is because of that that
I commend the distinguished Senaitor
from Missouri for his watchdog activities
over Laos, especially, but, to repeat, other
areas of Indochina as well. I would ex-
press the hope that when these two
Ambassadors, one to Vientiane and the
other to Phnom Penh, appear before the
Committee on Foreign Relations, we will
get a clear picture of what is being done
actually and how much is being spent.
In addition, speaking to the Senator's
amendment, I most certainly hope we
will be able to limit expenditures so that
an expenditure of the nature the Senator
has in mind will not apply to any one
segment of our participation, but across
the board, as he has indicated it would.
Mr. President, I commend, the Sena-
tor.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the able
majority leader, the best authority in
this body on the Far East.
The Senator mentioned letters writ-
ten to the Secretary of State requesting
information about Laos gotten up by the
staff of the Committee on Foreign Rela-
ions. We have received no answer to date.
I also wrote to the Secretary of Defense
last May 27 and asked for information
on Laos. On the first of June I received
an answer from an Assistant Secretary
which stated they were working on it
and would answer shortly. That is the
last we have heard about it.
I understan the Secretarl of Defense
will appear in executive session tomor-
rowaTiou Laos b`ef"or a the committee on
Armgd Sendcec
All this is an effort on the part of this
Senator to find out the facts. If we first
authorize and then appropriate money
in this body, and later find that the
money is being used to wage an unau-
thorized secret war, what is the purpose
of our being here? In effect, what is the
purpose of the legislative branch?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD the
letters to which the distinguished ma-
jority leader referred; namely, a letter
written on May 27, 1971, to the Secre-
tary of Defense, also the reply received
from his Assistant on June 1.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Hon. MELvre R. LAIRD,
Secretary of Defense,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: As a result of the
recent visit to Laos by the Staff of the Sub-
committee on U.S. Security Agreements and
Commitments Abroad I wish to obtain addi-
tional information concerning the overall
cost of Department of Defense related activi-
ties in that country. Accordingly I would ap-
nreciate your supplying answers to the en-
closed list of questions.
Your cooperation in providing this in-
formation at your earliest convenience will
be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
STUART SYMINGTON.
ATTACHMENT
1. What is the total cost of military assist-
ance to Laos expected to be In FY 1971?
2. What Is the cost of maintaining the or-
ganization headed by the Deputy Chief Joint
U.S. Military Advisory Group, Thailand,
which supports military assistance activi-
ties in Laos?
3. What are the comprehensive costs, di-
rect and indirect, including personnel, facili-
ties, aircraft and ordnance, of U.S. air activi-
ties, for all services. in and over Laos for FY
1971 and FY 1972? What are the average
per scritie costs for the operation of various
types of U.S. aircraft in Laos?
4. What is the cumulative cost of the
facilities and equipment now operated by
Task Force Alpha? What are the personnel
and operating costs of Task Force Alpha? for
FY 1971? What is estimated for FY 1972?
5. Whait Is the current fiscal year cost of
maintaining the U.S. Army and Air Force
Attache organizations in Laos, including pay,
allowances, housing, local personnel costs,
supplies, equipment, transportation, com-
munications and office space (figures for the
Air Attache component should include all
costs associated with the American Forward
Air Controllers in Laos). What is the esti-
mate of FY 1972 costs?
6. What Defense Department related or
financed activities are now being conducted
or are contemplated in Laos through or un-
der the auspices of the AID program? What
is the cost of these activities for FY 1971
and what will it be for FY 1972?
7. What amount of funds appropriated to
the Defense Department have been trans-
ferred to other U.S. Government agencies
as reimbursement, or for any other purpose,
during FY 1971? Identify all transactions of
this nature, including amounts of money
involved, for the current fiscal year. What
transfers or transactions are expected In FY
1972?
8. How many Defense Department per-
sonnel, including armed service personnel,
are on loan or detailed to other U.S. Govern-
ment agencies for activities related to Laos?
What are the costs (salary and maintenance)
of such personnel and to what agency are
they charged?
9. What Is the total amount of reimburse-
ment or other forms of payment or transfer
of funds from other U.S. Government agen-
cies to the Defense Department or to the
various services during 1971? What are the
anticipated totals for 1972?
10. What is the value of surplus or excess
equipment given to the Royal Lao armed
forces or to U.S. financed irregular forces,
both Lao and Thai, for use in Laos?
11. What is the value of U.S. financed mili-
tary equipment and supplies given, trans-
ferred or loaned to the Royal Lao armed
forces by third countries, Including specifi-
cally Thailand?
12. What was .the cost of all types of mili-
tary or military related training, including
travel costs and language training, provided
by the United States to Laos in FY 1971?
What are the projected costs for FY 1972?
13. Describe the types and value of U.S.
military aircraft loaned, rented or "balled"
to Air America, Continental Airlines, Lao Air
Transport, Royal Air Lao or any other corn-
pany during FY 1971. What is the total
amount of payments or other forms or re-
imbursement received for the use of these
aircraft?
14. What was the cost of all construction
financed by Defense appropriated funds in
Laos in Fiscal Years 1970 and 1971? What
construction is contemplated in FY 1972?
15. What expenditures have been made
from Defense Department funds for purposes
related to Lao irregular forces or Thai irregu-
lar forces?
16. In addition to the information re-
quested above, are there any other categories
of Defense Department expenditures in Laos?
What amounts are expected to be spent for
these activities in FY 1971 and FY 1972?
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., June 1, 1971.
Hon. STUART SYMINGTON,
Chairman, Subcommittee on U.S. Security
Agreements and Commitments! Abroad,
Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Secretary Laird has
asked that I acknowledge your letter of May
27 in which you request additional Informa-
tion concerning the overall cost of the De-
partment of Defense activities in Laos.
Your letter is receiving attention and you
can expect a further reply at an early date.
Sincerely,
RADY A. JOHNSON,
Assistant to the Secretary for Legislative
Affairs.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
also ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD a letter written to
the Secretary of State on June 29 and
again on July 16 with respect to matters
that have to do with Laos.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Hon. WILLrAM P. ROGERS,
The Secretary of State,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: On June 29 I wrote
you requesting background information re-
lated to a statement made by the Depart-
ment of State spokesman on June 7 con-
cerning United States financing of That
troops in Laos.
In my letter I presented that we needed
this Information in connection with the Sen-
ate's consideration of pending legislation
having to do with United States expenditures
in Laos; and for that reason asked for a reply
by July 5.
More than-two weeks have passed since my
letter and we are now ten days beyond the
date on which we had hoped to receive the
information requested. So far we have not
even received an acknowledgement.
It is difficult to understand the protracted
delay of the Department in responding. As
noted above, the questions raised were di-
rectly related to the Department's statement
of June 7; therefore the Department must
have made a review of the facts before
issuing said June 7 statement and must have
had at hand the relevant documents on which
a response to our letter could have been
based.
Failure to respond to such legitimate re-
quests raises serious questions regarding the
willingness of the Executive Branch to main-
tain a working relationship with the Senate,
because continued delay in the receipt of
information is tantamount to a denial of
information.
Sincerely,
STUART SYMINGTON,
Chairman, Subcommittee on U.S. Se-
curity Agreements and Commit-
ments Abroad.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 ft M A1i2VlR8MP7 RIRR000500040020-1
July ' 1, 1971 Approved Fo tk%t
Hon. WILLIAM P. ROGERS,
The Secretary of State,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: On June 7 a State De-
partment spokesman told the press that the
United States support for Thai troops in
Laos began as a program authorized by Pres-
ident Kennedy, that the troops are in Laos
at the request of the Prime Minister of Laos
and that United States financing of these
troops is "fully consistent with all pertinent
legislation." As Chairman of the Subcommit-
tee on United States Security Agreements and
Commitments Abroad, I am interested in ob-
taining background information and docu-
mentation relevant to these assertions by the
Department's spokesman.
In this connection we would appreciate
your furnishing the Subcommittee with the
following information.
(1) A description of the specific decisions
taken by President Kennedy to authorize
United States funding of Thai troops in Laos,
and of the subsequent actions taken by
United States diplomatic and military au-
thorities to implement such decisions.
(2) An explanation of the funding pro-
cedure used to provide financial support for
Thai troops pursuant to President Kennedy's
original -authorization.
(3) A description of Prime Minister Sou-
vanna Phouma's request for That troops, in-
cluding answers to the following specific
questions:
a. When was the Prime Minister's request
(or requests) made?
b. In what form was the request made?
c. To whom and to what government or
governments was it addressed?
d. What specifically did the Prime Min-
ister request?
e. What did the Prime Minister's request
say with regard to, arrangements for finan-
cial support and publicity concerning Thai
troops?
f. What response was given to the Prime
Minister by the person, government or gov-
ernments to whom the request was addressed?
(4) An explanation of how Souvanna's re-
quest relates to the various undertakings of
the Royal Lao Government in the Geneva
Agreements of 1962.
(5) A detailed-explanation of any discus-
sions, arrangements and agreements, formal
or informal, involving the United States
Government and the Royal Lao Government
or the Government of Thailand relative to
past or present United States financing and
support for Thai troops in Laos.
(6) An identification of the departments
or agencies which have provided funds for
support of each of the various programs in-
volving That troops in Laos.
Because the above request is relevant to the
Senate's consideration of pending legisla-
tion having to do with United States expendi-
tures in Laos, we would respectfully request
that the information be provided at earliest
opportunity.
Sincerely,
STUART SYMINGTON,
Chairman, Subcommittee on U.S. Secu-
rity Agreements and Commitments
Abroad.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, this:
is getting to be quite an Interesting de-
velopment. When there. was a crisis in'
the British Government in 1936, a story
was around that Sir Winston Churchill
Suggested the King use the King's men.
If, in accordance with press reports, the
CIA is conducting a war in Laos, we
might call them the President's men,
people operating not only without the
,approval of Congress, but also without its
knowledge.
S.11687
FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN shall be deemed to have made a contribution
ACT OF 1971 to such candidate in an amount equal to
the excess of the amount usually charged for
AMENDMENTS NOS. 295 THROUGH 300 such goods or services over the amount
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on charged such candidate.
the table.) NO Violation of the provisions of this
Mr. BELLMON submitted six amend- section is punishable by a fine not to exceed
ments intended to be proposed by him to $5 On page between the bill (S. 382) to promote fair practices On item relating to slimes 17 608 and ,
erik 18,
o title 8
in the conduct of election campaigns for United States Code,and insert In lieu there-
Federal political offices, and for other of the following:
purposes. "608. Limitation upon certain campaign
AMENDMENTS NOS. 301 THROUGH 305 AND 310 expenditures.";.
THROUGH 314 SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS or Mn. ALLEN
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on While I voted to order reported from our
the table.) Committee on Rules and Administration the
Mr. PACKWOOD submitted 10 amend- bill, S. 382, as amended, I feel that it is sub-
ments intended to be proposed by him ject to the objection that it does not limit
to the bill (S. 382), supra. the overall cost of campaigning. While com-
mendable in purpose and potentially effec-
AMENDMENT NO. 306 tive in the limited area of its operation, it
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on simply does not go far enough.
the table.) The bill would limit campaign expendi-
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I submit an tures in two categories only, (1) broadcast
amendment to S. 382, and ask unanimous media advertising, and (2) nonbroadcast
consent that the -amendment be printed media advertising, such acalsnewspapers,
at this point in the RECORD. board magazines and rtising a other periodicals, and bill-
I also ask unanimous consent that cer- The limit set is 5? for each person of vot-
tain supplemental views relating to the ing age for such office and each of the two
bill, presented by me, be printed in the categories of advertising. However, the ex-
RECORD. penditures are interchangeable, so that ac-
There being no objection, the amend- tually a limit of 100 for each person of vot-
ment and material were ordered to be ing age for such office is provided, to be di-
printed in the RECORD, as follows: tided as the candidate wishes between the
two categories.
AMENDMENT No. 306 In most cases, the limits set are much
On page 15, line 8, insert "608," before higher than those set by S. 3637 which
"610". passed during the, 91st Congress but was
On page 22, strike lines 9 and 10, and insert vetoed by the President and his veto sus-
in lieu thereof the following: tained.
Sec. 203. Section 608 of title 18, United In the President's veto message, he said
States Code, is amended to read as follows: that S. 3637 did not limit the overall cost of
608. Limitation upon certain campaign campaigning. Neither does S. 382.
expenditures He also said in his message:
"(a) No candidate shall make or authorize "The problem with campaign spending is
expenditures on behalf of his candidacy, or not radio and television;
plugs the problem is
to influence the outcome of the election in spending. This bill plugs only one hole in a
which he is a candidate, for goods or services sieve.
other than broadcast communications media large sums "Candidates
money, and wnd would spend
(as regulated by section 315(c) of the Com- ply their , advertising could u out of s and
radio and
munications Act of 1934) and nonbroadcast television into thto advthe media-magazines,
communications media (as regulated by sec- newspapers, other pamphlets, and di-
tfon 103 of the Federal Election Campaign sect mail. billboards, be nrestriction and di-
Act of 1971) in excess of- . There would be no on
"(1) 10 cent multiplied by the estimate the amount they could spend in these media.
of resident population of voting age for the "less `Henc campp nothing in this bill would mean
office for which he seeks nomination for elec- aign spending.
tion or to which he seeks election, as deter- rather "In fact, than the decrea pal might tend to Increase
mined by the Bureau of the Census in June in the total amount
of the year preceding the year in which the candidates spend in their campaignC It
re a
election is to be held; r sional districts political life that in many ong can
"(2) $60,000, if greater than the amount reach and per States dollar a candidate a can
determined under clause (1). more voters per dollar through njca-
and TV than any other means of communica-
"(b) No person may make any charge for tion. Severely limiting the use of TV and
goods or services (other than those regu- radio in these areas would only force the
lated by section 315 (c) of the Communioa- candidate to spend more by requiring him to
tions Act of 1934 (relating to broadcast com- use more expensive techniques.
munications media) or by section 103 of the "By restricting the amount of time a can-
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (re- didate can obtain on television and radio,
lating to certain nonbroadcast communica- this legislation would severely limit the abil-
tions media)) furnished to or on behalf of ity of many candidates to get their message
a candidate in connection with his campaign to the greatest number of the electorate. The
for nomination for election, or election, un- people deserve to know more, not less, about
less such candidate, or an individual author- the candidates and where they stand." .
ized by such candidate to do so, certifies to These same criticisms apply to S. 382 ex-
such person that the payment of such charge cept that nonbroadcast media advertising
will not violate subsection (a). Any person has been limited along with radio and TV.
who furnishes such goods or services to or The President seemingly favors an overall
for the benefit of a candidate without charge limitation on expenditures and with this
therefor shall be deemed to have made a position I agree.
contribution to such candidate in an amount The bill places no limit on expenditures
equal to the amount normally charged by for mass mailings, for handbills, brochures,
such person for such goods or services. Any printing, WATS lines, telephones, postage,
person who furnishes such goods or services campaign headquarters (state and various
to or for the benefit of a candidate at a charge local ones), unlimited campaign workers, air-
which is less than the charge usually made plane rentals and tickets, buses, -trains (spe-
by such person for such goods or services cial and regular), campaign newspapers,
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 S 11688 Approved For Release 200ION21 RECORD73B~JR~9 00500040020-1July 21' 197
movie theatre film advertisements, campaign ferred group the members of which may enactment of restrictive legislation, add
staffs, public relation firms, production ex- very well not qualify under the usual another factor which is sure to accelerate
penses for broadcasts, public opinion polls, volume and space criteria. In this sense, the trend toward the consolidation of
paid campaigners and poll watchers, novel- we are creating a discriminatory pref- communications media.
ties, bumper stickers, sample ballots. erence. In many parts of Alaska and in other
I feel that an overall limit should be placed
on the total amount of campaign contribu- While I joined in voting to report S. rural areas throughout the Nation, the
tions and expenditures that a candidate may 382, which I believe to be an important collapse of small broadcast and print
receive or spend. step forward in Federal campaign re- media would result in the termination of
I would feel that a limit of 10c or less per form, I am strongly opposed to the con- all sources of information, not just the
person of voting age, for an office should be cept of lowest unit pricing. One of the end of a healthy competition between
set for all expenditures not limited by the primary purposes of S. 382 is to limit different sources. Again, one of the basic
broadcast and nonbroadcast media advertis-
ing limitations. political campaign expenditures. This is premises of our democracy would be vio-
Total contributions that might be received the effect of other sections of the bill. lated since the citizenry in these areas
could thus be limited to 20c or less per per- However, since sections 101(b) and 103 would not have the information neces-
son of voting age for such office. This limita- (b) would drastically increase the value sary to make the type of informed deci-
tton on the total amount of contributions of the political dollar during the specified sions upon which the ideological health
would probably be more effective than mere- periods, this laudable goal would be par- of our Nation is so heavily dependent. In
ly adding the 10c or less limitation for all
expenses other than media advertising. I tially thwarted. This is so because the addition, in places like Alaska where ac-
would also feel that the candidate's own ex- amount of time and advertising space cess to weather data and public service
penditures should be treated as contributions which a-candidate could purchase with a information is so important to the safety
to the campaign. specific amount of money would be sub- of the people, the collapse of the commer-
I submit that there is even greater need to stantially increased. Thus, these provi- cial media would mean that Federal,
limit expenditure for nonmedia advertising sions are nothing more than a giveaway State, and local governments would have
than for media advertising. Media advertising within the overall context of a limits- to provide all such essential informa-
is open and aboveboard and available for all
to see. Overuse of media advertising might tion on political expenditures. If sections tion. This would be most costly and un-
.'ven be counter-productive If the electorate 101(b) and 103(b) are enacted, the necessary, especially in view of the will-
felt that the candidate was overspending in broadcast and nonbroadcast media will ingness of the commercial media to dis-
that field. The nonmedia expenditures would be jammed during election time with po- seminate public service information pro-
iot be as apparent to the public but could be litical advertisements that do not meet vided that governmental regulation does
us effective and as expensive. It would be in the usual lowest unit pricing criteria. not deprive them of the economic where-
the field of nonmedia expenditures that Ir-
. egularities, or corrupt practices or abuses, if In addition to thwarting one of the withal to do so.
any, might be more likely to occur. A limit major purposes of S. 382, these provisions Mr. President, I believe that the con-
should be placed on nonmedia expenditures, would have an extremely adverse eco- siderations which I have referred to
and I plan to offer an amendment providing nomic impact on small broadcasters and today are compelling reasons for the
for such a limit. elements of the print media. This im- elimination of the lowest unit pricing
JAMES B. ALLEN. pact would result from the fact that sec- concept from S. 382, which, as amended
AMENDMENT NO. 307 tions 101(b) and 103(b) would compel by the Committees on Commerce and
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on many elements of the media to give poll- Rules, is indeed an important statement
the table.) ticians bargain rates during prime time of political campaign reform. Accord-
COMPARABLE UNIT RATE AMENDMENT or in advertising space which could be ingly, I ask the Members of this body to
f bl on the amendment which
t
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I
am introducing an amendment to S. 382,
to promote fair campaign practices in
Federal elections, which is designed to
prevent political candidates from reap-
ing an economic windfall because of the
lowest unit rate provisions of this legis-
lation.
Specifically, my amendment would
alter section 101(b), which deals with
broadcast media, by eliminating the re-
quirement that such media charge politi-
cal candidates for Federal elective office
their lowest unit rate during the 45-day
period preceding a primary election and
the 60-day period preceding a special or
general election and by substituting in
lieu thereof a requirement that such
candidates be assessed the rates charged
for the "same class and amount of time
and same frequency of use" during the
il
l
y, my ame
d
n
-
i
ar
fied per
o
s.
m
i
i
S
spec
d
g
y
now beleaguere
ment would change section 103(b), which problems would result in the collapse of
some broadcasters, newspapers, and
i
m
-
di
b
y
li
e
i
non
cas
t
me
a,
ea
l
s w
b
roa
d
d
th
would be most _-_------ _
s
Thi
other publications.
i
re-
nating the lowest unit pricing requ
ment and substituting a requirement unfortunate.
that candidates be assessed the rate on a nationwide basis, the failure of
charged others by the person furnishing some media elements would result in -the
such medium for the "same class and increasing aggregation of communica-
amount of space and same frequency of tions resources in a few individuals and
use" during the time periods stipulated corporations. This type of aggregation is
in the bill. foreign to one of the basic tenets of our
As presently written, sections 101(b) democracy; that is, that our citizens
and 103(b) would require that ?a candi- should be exposed to many ideas and
date purchasing prime television and points of view from which the best ideas
radio time or buying space in the printed will ultimately emerge. Over the years,
media be provided the same preferential we have seen an alarming decrease in
rates that the media now gives its volume the number of newspapers which serve
customers in order to attract additional the various cities of this Nation. This
advertising. Thus, these provisions would decrease is due to many factors. I do not
give volume advertising rates to a pre- want to see the Congress, through the
avora y
more profitably utilized if allocated to ac
other customers. In order to survive, some I have just described.
components of the media would find it I ask unanimous consent that the
necessary to abandon lowest unit pric- amendment be printed at this point in
ing altogether. In many instances, the the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. In addition,
loss of income incurred by those radio I also request that the rate schedule of
and television stations, newspapers, and certain broadcast and nonbroadcast
magazines which decide to retain lowest media in.my State be printed in order to
unit pricing would be just as great as document further the contentions which
for those which abandon it. I have made today.
In my State of Alaska, which has many There being no objection, the amend-
small broadcasters and elements of the ment and material were ordered to be
print media, the economic consequences printed in the RECORD, as follows:
of sections 101(b) and 103(b) would be
specially acute. The Alaska media is do-
ing its best to provide our small popula-
tion with modern, quality news and pro-
graming-services; however, they are do-
ing so on what often amounts to a shoe-
string budget. To impose additional eco-
nomic burdens on an industry which is
h taxes and other
hi
d b
On page 3, line 14, strike out "amount of
time" and insert in lieu thereof "class and
amount of time and same frequency of use".
On page 10, line 6, strike out "amount of
space." and insert in lieu thereof "class and
amount of space and same frequency of use".
KWKO FM STEREO, 102.1 MHZ-COMMERCIAL
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 minute:
AAA--------------
5.50
5.00
4.85
4.60
4.35
4.10
AA_-_-_-----------
4.25
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
------------
ROS
4.00 _
_____
3.60
3.40
3.20
---
-
Y~ min:
AAA _ -_ - _ _ - - - _
4.50
4.00
3.90
3.70
3.50
3.20
AA_---------------
2.50 _
____
2.40
2.30
2.20
13 week
26 week
52 week
Earned rate:
--- ___-
i minute
3.80
3.50
3.00
--
34 minute----------
2.75
2.60
2.10
Notes: AAA: Monday through Friday, 7 to 9 a.m. and 5 to
11 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Al: Monday
through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ROS: Monday through Sunday,
6 a.m. to 1 a.m. ER: Earned rate is based on a minimum 13 week
schedule with no less than 3 announcements per week. Air time
is ROS between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
Septeiber 'ft, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 14047
ator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIK-
ER), Dick Siegel, and the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), Sid Johnson,
Bert Carp, and Steve Engelberg, not to
mention Jon Steinberg of my subcommit-
tee staff who, I think, all worked night
and day for many hours on the impor-
tant substance of this measure.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Now, Mr.
President, with apologies to the distin-
guished junior Senator from Michi-
gan-
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, let me
say to the distinguished acting majority
leader that if I were not so anxious to get
back to the dining room to rejoin the
three astronauts, with whom I am hav-
ing lunch, I would speak for 5 minutes or
more about the work of those who have
managed the bill on both sides of the
aisle as well as others who have partici-
pated in the debate.
However, let me say that I join in the
tributes already extended by the acting
majority leader.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I thank the distinguished assistant
minority leader, and now, with apologies
to him, I respond to his inquiry.
The Senate will adjourn before too
much longer-
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, would
the Senate from West Virginia yield so
that I may comment on the comments
which have just been made regarding
the just-passed bill?
Mr.. BYRD of West Virginia. Let me
continue first, if the Senators please, and
then I will ask that the able Senator's
remarks appear in the RECORD at the
appropriate place with those just made.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may we
have quiet in the Chamber so that the
acting majority leader may be heard?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr
ROTH). The Senate will please be in
order.
Mr. BYRD of .West Virginia. I thank
the distinguished Senator from Missis-
sippi (Mr. STENNIS).
Mr. President, the Senate will convene
tomorrow at 10 a.m. Immediately follow-
ing the recognition of the two leaders, or
their designees, under the standing or-
der, the following Senators will be rec-
ognized, each for not to exceed 15 min-
utes, and in the stated order:
Senators JACKSON, DOLE, PERCY, and
COOK.
Following the recognition of these
Senators under the order which I shall
get later, there will be a period for the
transaction of routine morning business,
not to exceed 15 minutes, with state-
ments therein limited to 3 minutes; fol-
lowing which the Senate will resume
consideration of the so-called military
procurement bill, H.R. 8687, which I ex-
pect to ask the Chair to lay before the
Senate and make the pending business
before I yield the floor today.
I have discussed this matter at con-
siderable length with the very distin-
guished Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
STENNIS), who is the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services and who
will be the manager of the bill on the
floor. In view of those consultations with
the Senator from Mississippi, I am in-
clined to announce that there will be no
more rollcall votes today, and that to-
morrow will be consumed with respect to
opening statements on that legislation.
Therefore, Senators need not expect any
rollcall votes on tomorrow.
The Senate will adjourn tomorrow, at
the close of business, until 10 a.m., on
Monday morning next.
In accordance with the wishes of the
distinguished majority leader, and in
accordance with the arrangements which
he made some days ago, the Senate, on
Monday next, will proceed to the con-
sideration of the conference report on
the extension of the draft, The unfinish-
ed business, of course, will continue to
be the Military Procurement bill.
It is anticipated that rollcall votes may
occur at any time on any day next week.
The distinguished majority leader in-
dicated also, some time ago, that the Sen-
ate might anticipate sessions on Satur-
days after this weekend.
Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will yield
so that I may respond briefly to the
Senator's remarks about the setting of
the military procurement bill, I com-
mend the Senator and the Senate for
disposing of the other bill. We are ready
to present the military procurement bill.
I think it will save time for the Senate,
though, later-I am sure it will-if the
committee is given the opportunity on
the first day to present the overall pic-
ture of what is in the bill and the perti-
nent parts of the report, and such other
remarks as the subcommittee chairman,
as well as the chairman of the full com-
mittee may see fit to make on the overall
subjects-and down to the detail level,
too.
So, Mr. President, we will be ready
tomorrow, when we get to the bill, and if
anyone in opposition to it wishes to
speak, that will be all right and they will
have an equal opportunity to state their
views.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
join my colleagues in commending the
leadership, as well as the manager of the
bill which has just been passed, on
the efficient and excellent way it was
handled.
With regard to the military procure-
ment bill coming up, on behalf of the
distinguished Senator from Missouri
(Mr. SYMINGTON) and myself, he is in-
tensely interested in some aspects of it,
as I am, and we wanted to make the
request of the leadership that with re-
gard to any anticipated unanimous con-
sent request on votes on the bill or
amendments, certainly those in which
we would be interested, that we have
positive notice of it.
I know it is difficult for the leadership
because we are sometimes in committee
meetings or not on the floor. However,
this is an extremely important bill. By
this I do not mean in any way to criticize
the leadership for the unanimous con-
sent procedure. I think on most bills it
is entirely in order and entirely proper
and the most efficient way in which to
handle it. However, there are certain
bills that involve vast sums of money 14
which we want to be very sure that we
are not precluded from offering amend-
ments.
I hope that is the understanding of
the leadership.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, it will be the understanding of the
leadership. The leadership will certainly
keep the wishes of the distinguished
junior Senator from Arkansas in mind.
The Senator from Arkansas has also in-
cluded in the request the name of the
distinguished senior Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. SYMINGTON).
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is cor-
rect. I have discussed it with him, and
he makes the same request.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator can be assured that any unanimous
consent requests concerning amend-
ments of interest to him or to the senior
Senator from Missouri will certainly be
discussed with them before such requests
are presented to the Senate.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr ?Pres-
ident, I might say, in that connection,
that the distinguished Senator from Wis-
consin (Mr. NELSON) has four amend-
ments to the military procurement bill.
He has already indicated his agreement
to enter into a unanimous-consent agree-
ment with respect to each of his four
amendments, with 1 hour to be allotted
to each. The Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. STENNIS) has indicated his consent
with respect thereto.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST
If the Senator from Arkansas would
not think it inappropriate at this time,
I would now ask unanimous consent that
there be a time agreement with respect
to those four amendments only, so that at
such time as the Senate reaches those
four amendments they would be under a
time limitation.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am not aware of
the substance of the four amendments to
which the Senator refers. If they do not
involve the subject in which I am in-
terested, I would have no objection. How-
ever, I am not aware of the substance
of the amendments.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Very well.
I will not seek a unanimous-consent
agreement at this time, inasmuch as I
cannot inform the able Senator as to
their exact nature.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. If they cover the
same subject in which the Senator from
Missouri is interested, we would have ob-
jection. We do this with the intention of
having flexibility on certain amendments
that deal with certain subjects.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator's wishes will be respected.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO 10
A.M. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1971
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent that
when the Senate completes its business
on tomorrow, it stand in adjournment
until 10 o'clock on Monday morning next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
MILITARY PROCUREMENT APPRO-
PRIATION AUTHORIZATIONS, 1972
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent at this
time, for the purpose of making it the
pending business-and with the under-
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 14048 Approved For ReIC NGRESSIONAL R C ORD -- SENATE Septe*.ber
standing that has already been ex-
pressed-that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 355, H.R.
8687.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
i= rill be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Calendar No. 355, H.R. 8687, a bill to au-
Lhorize appropriations during the fiscal year
i 072 for procurement of aircraft, missiles,
{Aral vessels, tracked combat vehicles, tor-
,)!does, and other weapons, and research,
development, test, and evaluation for the
armed Forces, and to prescribe the author-
ized personnel strength of the Selected Re-
,erve of each Reserve component of the
Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of the bill.
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill which had been reported from the
Committee on Armed Services with an
amendment to strike out all after the
enacting clause and insert:
TITLE I-PROCUREMENT
SEc. 101. Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated during the fiscal year 1972
for the use of the Armed Forces of the United
States for procurement of aircraft, missiles,
naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, tor-
pedoes, and other weapons, as authorized by
law, in amounts ae follows:
.\IRCRAFT
For aircraft: for the Army, $94,200,000; for
the Navy and the Marine Corps, $3,256,200,-
000 of which not to exceed $301,600,000
shall be available for a F-14 aircraft program
of not less than 48 aircraft; for the Air Force,
32.989,000.000.
MISSILES
For missiles: for the Army, $1,066,100,000;
fur the Navy, $704,100,000; for the Marine
corps. $1,300,000; for the Air Force, $1,774,-
900,000.
NAVAL VESSELS
For naval vessels: for the Navy, $3,010,600.-
000, of which $14,600,000 is authorized only
for advance procurement for the nuclear
powered guided missile frigate DLGN-41.
'['RACKED COMBAT VEHICLES
For tracked combat vehicles: for the Army.
:5112,500.000; for the Marine Corps, $63,900,-
1)00.
TORPEDOES
For torpedoes and related support equip-
ment: for the Navy, $193,500,000.
OTHER WEAPONS
For other weapons: for the Army, $33,000,-
000; for the Navy, $1,300,000; for the Marine
Corps, $1,000,000.
TITLE II-RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
'LEST, AND EVALUATION
S,.c. 201. (a) Funds are hereby authorized
i.,, be appropriated during the fiscal year 1972
,rr the use of the Armed Forces of the United
States for research, development, test, and
evaluation, as authorized by law, in amounts
as follows:
For the Army, $1,818,256,000;
For the Navy (including the Marine Corps),
X2,376,869,000:
For the Air Force, $2,910,744,000; and
For the Defense Agencies, $451,443,000.
fib) Section 40 of Public Law 1028, ap-
proved August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 636: 31
Q.S.C. 649c) is amended to read as follows:
"SEc 40. Unless otherwise provided in the
appropriations Act concerned, moneys appro-
priated to the Department of Defense (1)
!or the procurement of technical military
r'quipment and supplies and the construction
at public works, including moneys appropri-
ated to the Department of the Navy for the
procurement and construction of guided mis-
siles, remain available until spent, and (2)
for research and development remain avail-
able for obligation for a period of two succes-
sive fiscal years."
SEC. 202. There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Defense
during fiscal year 1972 for use as an emer-
gency fund for research, development, test,
and evaluation or procurement or production
related thereto, $50,000,000.
TITLE III-RESERVE FORCES
SEc. 301. For the fiscal year beginning July
1. 1971, and ending June 30, 1972, the Selected
Reserve of each Reserve component of the
Armed Forces will be programed to attain an
average strength of not less than the follow-
ing:
(1) The Army National Guard , i the
United States, 400,000
(2) The Army Reserve, 260,000.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 129,000.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 45.849.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United
Skates, 88,191.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 49,634.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 15,000.
SEc. 302. The average strength prescribed
by section 301 of this title for the Selected
Reserve of any Reserve cop ponent shall be
proportionately reduced by (1) the total au-
thorized strength of units organized to serve
as units of the Selected Reserve of such com-
ponent which are on active duty (other than
for training) at any time during the fiscal
year, and (2) the total number of individual
members not in units organized to serve as
units of the Select Reserve of such compo-
nent who are on active duty (other than for
training or for unsatisfactory participation in
training) without their consent at any time
during the fiscal year. Whenever any such
units or such individual members are re-
leased from active duty during any fiscal year,
the average strength for such fiscal year for
the Selected Reserve of such Reserve compo-
nent shall be proportionately increased by
the total authorized strength of such units
aI,d by the total number of such individual
members.
SEC. 303. (a) Section , 70(a) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end thereof a new sentence as fol-
lows,
"However, no member who has served on
active duty for one year or longer shall be
required to perform a period of active duty
for training if the first day of such period
falls during the last one hundred and twenty
days of his required membership in the Ready
Reserve."
(h) Section 502(a) (2) of title 32, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end
thereof a new sentence as follows:
-However, no member of such unit who has
served on active duty for one year or longer
shall be required to participate in such train-
ing if the first day of such training period
falls during the last one hundred and twenty
days of his required membership in the Na-
tional Guard."
TITLE IV-ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE CON-
STRUCTION AUTHORIZATION; LPUIITA-
TIONS ON DEPLOYMENT
SEc. 401. (a) Military construction for the
Safeguard anti-ballistic missile system is au-
thorized for the Department of the Army as
follows:
(1) Technical and supporting facilities and
acquisition of real estate inside the United
States, $98,500,000.
(2) Military family housing, four hundred
and thirty units, $11,070,000:
Malmstrom Safeguard site, Montana. two
hundred and fifteen units,
Grand Forks Safeguard site, North Dakota,
two hundred and fifteen units.
(h) There are authorized to be appropriated
for the purpose of this section not to exceed
$109,570,000, of which not more than $5.200,-
9, 197 1
000 shall be available for community impact
assistance as authorized by section 610 of
Public Law 91-511.
(c) Authorization contained in this sec-
tion (except subsection (b)) shall be sub-
ject to the authorizations and limitations of
the Military Construction Authorization Act,
1972, in the same manner as if such au-
thorizations had been included in that Act.
SEC. 402. Notwithstanding the repeal pro-
vision of section 605(b) of the act, of Oc-
tober 26, 1970, Public Law 91-511 (84 Stat.
1204, 1223), authorizations contained in sec-
tion 401 of the act of October 7, 1970, Public
Law 914-41 (84 Stat. 905, 909) for the follow-
ing items which shall remain in effect until
fifteen months from the date of this Act and
which shall be increased from $8,800,000 to
$9,200,000.
(a) two hundred family housing units at
Malmstrom Safeguard Site, Montana.
(b) two hundred family housing units at
Grand Forks Safeguard Site, North Dakota.
SEC. 403. (a) None of the funds author-
ized by this or any other Act may be obli-
gated or expended for the purpose of initiat-
ing deployment of an anti-ballistic-missile
system at any site; except that funds may
continue to be obligated or expended for the
purpose of advanced preparation (site selec-
tion, land acquisition, site survey, and the
procurement of long leadtime items) for
anti -ballistic-missile system sites at Francis
E. Warren Air Force Base, Cheyenne, Wyom-
ing, and Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob-
noster, Missouri. Nothing in this section shall
be construed as a limitation on the obligation
or expenditure of funds in connection with
the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile
system at Grand Forks Air Force Base, Grand
Forks, North Dakota, or Malmstrom Air
Force Base, Great Falls, Montana.
(b) Section 402 of Public Law 91--441 (84
Stat. 905, 909) is hereby repealed.
TITLE V-GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEc. 501. Subsection (a) (1) of section 401
of Public Law 89-367, approved March 15,
1966 (80 Stat. 37), as amended, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"(a) (1) Not to exceed $2,500,000,000 of the
funds authorized for appropriation for the
use of the Armed Forces of the United States
under this or any other Act are authorized
to be made available for their stated pur-
poses to support: (A) Vietnamese and other
free world forces in support of Vietnamese
forces, (B) local forces in Laos and Thailand;
and for related costs, during the fiscal year
1972 on such terms and conditions as the
Secretary of Defense may determine. None
of the funds appropriated to or for the use
of the Armed Forces of the United States
may be used for the purpose of paying any
overseas allowance, per diem allowance, or
any other addition to the regular base pay
of any person serving with the free world
forces in South Vietnam if the amount of
such payment would be greater than the
amount of special pay authorized to be paid,
for an equivalent period of service, to mem-
bers of the Armed Forces of the United
States (under section 310 of title 37, United
States Code) serving in Vietnam or in any
other hostile fire area, except for continua-
tion of payments of such additions to regu-
lar base pay provided in agreements executed
prior to July 1, 1970. Nothing in clause (A)
of the first sentence of this paragraph shall
be construed as authorizing the use of any
such funds to support Vietnamese or other
free world forces in actions designed to pro-
vide military support and assistance to the
Government of Cambodia or Laos: Provided,
That nothing contained in this section shall
be construed to prohibit support of actions
required to insure the safe and orderly with-
drawal or disengagement of United States
Forces from Southeast Asia, or to aid in the
release of Americans held as prisoners of
war."
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 Approved For Release 2005111V21 P7 QA2 R000500040020-1
E
September -9, 1971 CONGRESSIVINAL
SEc. 502. No part of the funds appropriated quarter a report on the audit for such quar-
pursuant to this Act may be used at any ter performed by the General Accounting
institution of higher learning if the Secretary office pursuant to this subsection.
of Defense or his designee determines that at (c) The restrictions and controls provided
with
the time of the expenditure of funds to such for in this section institution recruiting personnel of any f the $321,500,000 referred to in subsections (a)
Armed Forces of the United States are being and (b) of this section shall be in addition
barred by the policy of such institution from to such other rercribe ricbontbe and cconSecretarytrols as
of
prescribed
the premises of the institution except that may
this section shall not apply if the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Air Force.
h
e
Defense or his designee determines that t
expenditure is a continuation or a renewal
of a previous grant to such institution which
is likely to make a significant contribution to
the defense. effort. The Secretaries of the mili-
tary departments shall furnish to the Secre-
tary of Defense or his designee within 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act and
each January 31st and June 30th thereafter
the names of any institution of higher learn-
ing which the Secretaries determine on such
dates are barring such recruiting personnel
from the campus of the institution.
SEC. 503. Section 5(a) of the United Nations
Participation Act of 1045 (22 U.S.C. 287c(a) )
is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence: "On or after the
effective date of this sentence, the President
may not prohibit or regulate the importation
into the United States pursuant to this sec-
tion of any material determined to be strate-
gic and critical pursuant to section 2 of the
Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling
Act (50 U.S.C. 98a), which is the product of
any foreign country or area not listed as a
Communist-dominated country or area in
general headnote 3 (d) of the Tariff Schedules
of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), for so
long as the importation into the United
States of material of that kind which is the
product of such Communist-dominated
countries orareas is not prohibited by any
S 14049
quest as modified is as follows: I ask
unanimous consent that S. 2464, a bill in-
troduced by the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. McGovERN), be referred to
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, to which other similar bills have
been referred, and that if, in the judg-
ment of the Parliamentarian, the con-
tents of the bill are such that in the
ordinary course of things, another stand-
ing committee-for example, the Judici-
ary Committee-would have jurisdiction,
that bill, S. 2464, along with all other
similar bills, be then referred-after hav-
ing been reported by the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service-to the ap-
propriate committee having regular
jurisdiction over such legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia subse-
quently said: Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that the order previously
entered with respect to the referral of
S. 2464 be negated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. -
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, may the RECORD show that my re-
quest, with respect to the negation of the
order previously entered concerning
S. 2464, was made with the approval and
understanding of the distinguished Sen-
ator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN).
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN-
ATORS JACKSON, DOLE, PERCY,
AND COOK TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that to-
Morrow, immediately following the rec-
ognition of the two leaders or their de-
signees under the standing order, the
following Senators be recognized, each
for not to exceed 15 minutes and in the
order stated: Senators JACKSON, DOLE,
PERCY, and COOK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
SEC. bM4. kaj ruC xuuiv u++v ..+ w~--.---.---
authorized to be appropriated by this Act for ferred to any other committee or such
the development and procurement of the other committee as they might have
C-5A aircraft may be expended only for the been or vikould have been referred to if
reasonable and allocable direct and indirect the unanimous consent request had not
costs incurred by the prime contractor under
a contract entered into with the United been made.
States to carry out the C-5A aircraft program. I would make a similar request with
No part of such amount may be used for- respect to this matter. It would be my
+ho+ s?rh a. bill should
(2) profit on any materials, supplies, or
services which are sold or transferred be-
tween any division, subsidiary, or affiliate of
the prime contractor under the common
control of the prime contractor and such
division, subsidiary, or affiliate;
(3) bid and proposal costs, independent
research and development costs, and the
cost of other similar unsponsored technical
effort; or
(4) depreciation and amortization costs
on property, plant, or equipment.
Any of the costs referred to in the preceding
sentence which would otherwise be allocable
to any work funded by such $321,500,000 may
not be allocated to other portions of the
C-5A aircraft contract or to any other con-
tract with the United States, but payments
to C-5A aircraft subcontractors shall not be
subject to the restriction referred to in such
sentence.
(b) Any payments from such $321,500,000
shall be made to the prime contractor
through a special bank account from which I have made. I do not think that the
such contractor may withdraw funds only Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc-
justification a request containing a detailed
justification of the amount requested has GOVERN) would be constrained to oppose
been submitted to and approved by the con- the suggestion made by the senator from
tracting officer for the United States. All pay- Michigan. So, I modify my request ac-
ments made from such special bank account cordingly.
shall be audited by the Defense Contract The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
Audit Agency of the Department of objection, it is so ordered.
Defense and, on a quarterly basis, by the Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the
General Accounting Office. The Comptroller
General shall submit to the Congress not Chair understands that the request has
more than thirty days after the close of each been modified.
REFERRAL OF S. 2464
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, on behalf of the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. McGovERN) I ask
unanimous consent that S. 2464-a bill
he introduced to amend the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 to require that per-
sons eligible to register to vote in Federal
elections shall be permitted to register
as late as 30 days prior to the date of
such an election-be referred to the
Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service where other similar bills, I am
told, have been referred.
The Senator from South Dakota
(Mr. McGOVERN) asks for this assign-
ment to make it possible for hearings to
be held on the bill by the same committee
which is holding hearings on other legis-
lation pertaining to voter registration.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object, when the request
concerning the other bills to which ref-
erence has been made, was made earlier,
the junior Senator from Michigan asked
unanimous consent that following con
go to the .lualcimry __--
know whether the Parliamentarian
would say it should go there or not.
However, if it should go to the Judiciary
Committee, I would ask that the acting
majority leader so modify the request.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. That
would be so that the measure would be
referred to the committee normally hav-
jurisdiction after having been re-
in
g
ferred to the Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice Committee.
Mr. GRIFFIN. After it had been re-
ferred to the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service in accordance with the
request made by the acting majority
leader.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I am in no position to object to
the request made by the distinguished
Senator from Michigan, inasmuch as he
t
object to the request
o
ORDER FOR PERIOD FOR THE
TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE
MORNING BUSINESS TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that fol-
lowing the completion of the orders pre-
viously entered for the recognition of
Senators there be a period for the trans-
action of routine morning business to-
morrow for not to exceed 15 minutes,
with statements therein limited to. 3
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER TO RESUME CONSIDERA-
TION OF H.R. 8687 TOMORROW -
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that at
the conclusion of the routine morning
business tomorrow the Senate resume
consideration of Calendar No. 355, H.R.
8687, an act to authorize appropriations
for military procurement.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
 S 14050
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1
PROGRAM
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident. the program for tomorrow is as
follows:
The Senate will convene at 10 o'clock
a.m.
Immediately following the recognition
of the two leaders or their designees un-
der the standing order, the following
Senators will be recognized each for not
to exceed 15 minutes, and in the. order
stated: Senators JACKSON, DOLE, PERCY,
COOK, and PROXMIRE.
At the conclusion of the orders for the
recognition of Senators there will be a
period for the transaction of routine
morning business for not to exceed 15
minutes, with statements limited therein
to 3 minutes.
At the conclusion of routine morning
business, the Senate will resume its con-
sideration of the then unfinished busi-
ness, H.R. 8687, an act to authorize ap-
propriations for military procurement.
Opening statements will be made by
the manager (Mr. STENNIS) and other
members of the committee.
No rolleall votes will occur tomorrow
on that legislation. This will give com-
mittees of the Senate an opportunity
to hold uninterrupted sessions with re-
spect to legislation which may soon be
reported to the Senate for floor action,
and the joint leadership hopes that Sen-
ate committees will take advantage of
that opportunity.
When the Senate completes its busi-
ness on tomorrow, it will stand in ad-
journment until 10 o'clock on Monday
morning next.
On Monday next, in accordance with
the wishes of the distinguished majority
leader, the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of the conference report
on the extension of the draft. The unfin-
ished business at that time will continue
to be the military procurement author-
ization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
QUORUM CALL
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the-absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
.,he roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN-
ATOR PROXMIRE TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
cent. I ask unanimous consent that on
tomorrow, immediately following the
remarks by the able Senator from Ken-
tucky (Mr. Coox), the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROx-
IRIRE) be recognized for not to exceed
15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, if there be no further business to
come before the Senate, I move, in ac-
cordance with the previous order, that
the Senate stand in adjournment until
10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 3
o'clock and 39 minutes p.m.) the Senate
adjourned until tomorow, Friday, Sep-
tember 10, 1971, at 10 a.m.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500040020-1