MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION, 1975

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050011-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 3, 2005
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: August 9, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

1107984
position he would have had to occupy
for the next 6 months while fighting im-
peachment. We would also have a part-
time Congress. The Nation's economy
and many external problems are at
stake. The slow but deadly paralysis of
Watergate and impeachment already
have taken too much from America.
Now this terrible period is behind us.
America can 'breathe again, live again,
work again. We have a new administra-
tion which, hopefully, will bring new
drive for a better America and new so-
lutions for America's economic ills.
Gerald Ford is a man of ability and
character. I have confidence in him. /
sincerely believe that he will seek earn-
estly to restore harmony, to rebuild
America's faith in its Government, and
that he will do everything in his power
to insure a sound working relationship
with Congress. He will need the help and
the prayers of the American people in
this most difficult task.
Perhaps most of all there is a need to
put the bitterness of Watergate and im-
peachment behind us and to learn agaip
the essentiality of building up, not tear-
ing down, a country. America needs to
look ahead, not backward.
ilfzi 134
Approved FotetqwesgIMV2LOWEGIAIRIDP-71932111350R00070005041449t 9, 1914
cooperation, to seek solutions to the
problems that beset our Nation in a
troubled world.
As a Member of Congress I look f or-
wiwd to working with President Ford
for the best interests of the people of
our country.
THE RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT
NIXON AND THE SWEARING IN OF
PRESIDENT FORD
(Mr. BRADEMAS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his re-
marks, and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, the
resignation of Richard M. Nixon is an
event without precedent in our history.
Thirty-seven Presidents have served
our Nation with varying degrees of dis-
tinction, but until now no Chief Execu-
tive has been forced to relinquish his
office prior to the end of his term.
For nearly 26 months we have wit-
nessed an unfolding tale of conspiracy,
perjury, misuse of Government agencies,
and obstruction of justice.
And we have seen a President of the
United States approve and participate in
such illegal activities while directing a
complex plan to conceal his wrongdoing.
We should not forget, nor should we
minimize, the tragic pattern of events
which led to Mr. Nixon's announcement.
But our Nation will survive this ordeal,
as we have survived more violent up-
heavals in the past.
We now have a new President, a new
custodian of the national trust.
I have known Gerald Ford throughout
my 16 years in Congress. He is an honor-
able man.
President Ford faces the difficult task
of reuniting the country, and in this
endeavor I join all Americans in wish-
ing him well.
I know that in the future President
Ford and I may disagree on some ques-
tions of public policy as in the past we
sometime disagreed when we served to-
gether in the House.
But on one matter I know we do not
disagree.
It is that the public interest now re-
quires that both Congress and the Presi-
dent act together, in a spirit of mutual
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH P.
VIGORITO ON THE RESIGNATION
OF THE PRESIDENT
(Mr. viaoRrro asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. viGoRrro. Mr. Speaker, it is
regrettable that this Nation has to wit-
ness the resignation of a President. Since
we are a Nation governed by laws and
not ruled by men, we are left with no
other choice.
I am sure that we will come out of this
stronger than ever and our democratic
institutions will survive.
My best wishes and support go to Presi-
dent Ford in these trying times.
AMERICA NEEDS MENDING
(Mr. STARK asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise arid extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the worst is
over. The American people and their
representatives in Congress must now
concentrate on the larger problems that
confront our Nation?inflation, poverty,
unemployment, health care, education,
and peace.
? Our country needs mending. It can
only be done with a Chief Executive
willing to share his assignment with the
leadership of both major parties. A
strong bipartisan effort is needed to re-
store people's faith in GOvernment and
tend to matters that have been neglected
for too long because of the Nixon diver-
sion.
through a major depression, and suf-
fered through Presidential assassina-
tions. We have emerged stronger as we
met these crises head on. We will also
survive the tragedy of Watergate.
We must now devote our efforts toward
providing an orderly transition in Gov-
ernment and begin healing the wounds
left by Watergate. It is incumbent upon
us to clearly demonstrate to the other
nations of the world that our form of
government which guarantees freedom
and justice to all, has survived another
major crisis.
THE PRESIDENT'S RESIGNATION
(Mr. WOLFF asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Speaker, I am sad-
dened by the events that have led to the
resignation of our President, but I also
feel that we as a nation can take heart
that our constitutional processes and sys-
tem of government have withstood the
trauma. The President's resignation is
In the national interest; we have pro-
vided for the orderly transition of power
to a new administration; there will be
no lack of continuity in our domestic or
international policies nor any weakening
of our position in the world community.
We must come together as a nation,
healing the wounds of the past so that we
can meet the very pressing problems that
face us and the world. Let us as well put
on notice those throughout the world
who would view what has happened as
a sign of weakness. To the contrary, this
Nation has shown its strength in the face
of unprecedented Strain.
THE PRESIDENT RESIGNS
(Mr. GAYDOS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GAYDOS. Mr. Speaker, President
Nixon's admission that he withheld im-
portant evidence from Congress, the
courts, and the American people virtu-
ally assured his impeachment by the
House and a strong probability of con-
viction in the Senate.
Previous to this admission, the matter
was so grave that in my opinion, even,
precaution had to be taken to see that
full justice was done, not only to Presi-
dent Nixon, but to the Nation at large.
I have spent many hours reading both
the White House and the Judiciary Com-
mittee transcripts and personally lis-
tened to the actual tapes in an effort to
be as objective as possible in the event
I would be called upon to cast my vote
for or against impeachment.
The President's decision to resign has
now put that all behind us. As a nation,
we have encountered and survived many
crises in the course of history: a civil war,
several international conflicts, agonized
MILITARY CONSTRUCTIO171
AUTHORIZATION, 1975
Mr. YOUNG of Texas. Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1297 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as fol-
lows:
H. RES. 1297
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 16136)
to authorize certain construction at military
installations, and for other purposes, and
all points of order against said bill for failure
to comply with the provisions of clause 3,
rule XIII are hereby waived. After general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill
and shall continue not to exceed one hour,
to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Armed Services, the bill
shall be read for amendment under the five- ?
minute rule by titles instead of by sections.
At the conclusion of the consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise
and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and
the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. YOUNG) is recognized for 1
hour.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
United States
of America
Tongressional Mord
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 93d CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 120
mammenunio
WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 9, 1974 No. 121
House of Representatives
The House met at 11 o'elock
Rev. Jack P, Lowndes, Memorial Bap-
tist Church, Arlington, Va., offered the
following prayer:
If any of you lacks wisalom, let hi=
ask of Gott?and it will be yiven him."?
James 1:&
We are grateful, our Father, for the
Pounding Fathers of our, Nation who
sought and found wisdont, from Thee
and gave us the form of government that
keeps us now.
Today we continue to need that wis-
dom beyond our own. We pray for Thy
wisdom. We pray for the Presidentleav-
ing office and the President as =MU
flee today. They both need _Thy wisdom,
strength, and the assurance of Thy lovta
Help our new President make the de-
cisions that will bring reconciliation to
our Nation and help bring peace to our
world.
For the Speaker of this House and
those who serve with him we pray. Ag
they work together for the good of our
Nation help, them to have that divine
wisdom needed.
We pray for the news media who have
the responsibility of reporting to us the
actions of our Government Give them
wisdom to report fairly and impartially
the news upon which we all depend to
make our judgments and decisions.
Lord, help all of us to have mercy and
sympathy toward one another and to be
good stewards of our national heritage.
"Grant us wisdom, grant us courage
for the facing of this hour:'
In Jesus' name. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Choir )(as e
arnined the Journal of the last dity's Va'o-
ceedings and announces tee/the House
his approval thereof. - ? -
Without objection, thiJournal stands
aPproved.
There was no obj tion.
H.R. 7218. An act to improve the laws re-
lating to the regulation of insurance Com-
panies in the District of Columbia;
H.R. 11108. An set to extend fora years the
District of Columbia Medical and Dental
Manpower Act. of 1970; and
MR. 12832. An act to create a Law Revision
Commission for the District of Columbia, and
to establish a municipal code for the District
of Columbia.
Senate agrees to the amendments of the
House to a bill of the Senate of the fol-
lowing title:
S. 3782. An act to amend the Public Health
Service Act to extend for :. year the author-
n appropriations tor Federal capital
contributions into the student loan funds of
health professions education schools.
The message also announced that 4ie
Senate had passed with amendmerits in
which the concurrence of theiouse- is
es
rtmsted, b g
ills of the House the fol-
lowirig titles:
H.R. 15323, An act to aEnergy Act,of 1954, as sinemethod of providing for
In the event 'of a nu
other purposes;
H.R. 15681. An act making appropriations
for the govern '1 of the District of do-
er activities chargeable in
againet the revenues of said
fiscal year ending June 30,
other purposes; and
91. An act to amesd section 204(g)
lstrict of Columbia gelf-Government
overnmentaa Reorgarlizfition Act, and
ther purposes.
The message also announced that th
The message also announced that the
d the Atomic
ed, to revlbe
talc remunerat: on
ar incident, and for
tumble, and o
Whole or in p
District for
1975, andjbr
H.R.
of the
andfori
.,-
White House Office and Executive5 nese.
y
dence personnel, and for other pr ases "
requests a further conterence 'with the
House on the disagreeing efotes of the
two Houses thereon, argik appoints Mr,
McGssn Mr. RANDOLPFIAnd Mr. FONG to
be the conferees on/the part of the Sen-
ate.
The message also announced that the
Senate insists' upon its amendments to
the bill (H. 15581) entitled "An act
making,a6propriations Atm the gov
ize ern-
ment the District of Columbia and
othetiactivities chargeable in whole or in
Part, against the revenues of said District
,ifir the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975,
and for other purposes," disagreed to by
the House; agrees to the conference
asked by the House on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses thereon, and ap -
points Mr. 13.sintr- Mr. Inotrre, Mr.
Canso, Mr. McCue-ease -Mr. BAGLETON
Mr. MATHIAS, and Mr. HirtlattoN to be the
conferees on the part ot-the Senate.
CORRECTION OF RECORD
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous cement that my remarks in the
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD of August 6.
1974, be corrected. They were improperly
transcribed and printed.
The first sentence in the second pare-
of the third column on page H'1706
Of the RECORD should read as follow3-
"It is not always wisely spent, ht t it
must be admitted that money is the life-
' blood of the Government."
The SPEAksaR. Is there objection to
the request of the 'gentleman from
, Texas?
There was no objection.
Senate insists upon its amendments to
he bill (H.R. 15322) entitled 'An ac
to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
as amended, to revise the method of pro
viding for public remuneration in th
vent of a nuclear incident, and for othe
urposes," requests a conference with tit
House on the disagreeing votes of th
twoes thereon, and appoints Mr
"STORE, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. ByBEINGTON
Mr. BIBLE, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. AIKEN, Mr
ENNETT, Mr. DOMINICK, and Mr. BAKER
o be conferees on the par; of the Senate.
The message also anncymeed that the
Senate had tabled the canference report
on the bill (H.R. 14715) and it. further
announced that the Senate further in-
sists upon its amendments to the bin
(H.R. 14715) entitled "An Act to clarify
existing authority for employment of
t
A NEW HEAD AT THE HEIM
a
(Mr. SIKES asked and ems given per-
mission to address the House for I min-
' ute and to revise and extend his remarks
? and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, President
Nixon's farewell message was monumen-
tal in content and delivery?one of his
most impressive speeches. In it there was
sadness, an obvious regret at not finish-
ing the task he had undertaken, but no
bitterness. It was spoken like a patr,ot.
He stated well that America cannot af-
ford to have a part-time Fresident--the
MESSAGE OM THE SENATE
A messagjfroni the Senate by Mr.
Arrington,,e of its clerks, announced
that the Senate had passed without
amendment bills of the House of the fol-
lowing titles:
H 7983
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Azigust 9, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
(Mr. YOUNG of Texas asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 30 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA) , pend-
ing which I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 129'7
provides for an open rule with 1 hour of
general debate on H.R. 16136, the mili-
tary construction authorization bill for
the fiscal year 1975.
House Resolution 1297 provides that
the bill shall be read for amendment by
titles instead of by sections. House
Resolution 1297 also provides that all
points of order against the bill for failure
to comply with the provisions of clause 3,
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives-the Ramseyer rule-
are waived.
The purpose of H.A. 16136 is to provide
military construction authorization and
related authority in support of the mili-
tary departments during the fiscal year
1975. The total authorization in the bill
Is $2,983,821,000 and provides construc-
tion in support of the active forces and
Reserve components, defense agencies
and military family housing. Of this
total, $152,267,000 represents construc-
tion for the Reserve components.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 1297 in order that we
may discuss, debate, and pass H.R. 16136.
(Mr. LATA asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, House Reso-
lution 1297 provides for the consideration
H 7985
of HR. 16136, the military construction
authorization for fiscal year 1975. The
rule has several provisions. It provides
for 1 hour of general debate. The bill is
open to amendments, and points of order
are waived for failure to comply with the
provisions of clause 3, rule XIII. This
waiver is needed because the committee
report does not include a complete Ram-
seyer of the bill. The rule also provides
that the bill be read for amendment by
title instead of by sections.
The purpose of this legislation is to
authorize $2.9 billion for military con-
struction for fiscal year 1975. This figure
represents a reduction of $347,957,000 be-
low the amountrequested by the Depart-
ment of Defense. The following chart
shows how the funds will be allocated
within the Department of Defense:
ORIGINAL DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST AS CONTAINED IN H.R. 14126 TOGETHER WITH THE COMMITTEE ACTION AS REFLECTED IN H.R. 16136
Title Service
H.R. 14126
department
request
Changes in
amounts
authorized for
appropriations
Percent
change
H.R. 16136
adjusted totals
authorized for
appropriations
I Army
II Navy
III Air Force
IV Defense agencies
V Family housing and homeowners assistance
Deficiency authorization
VII Reserve forces
Total
$696, 815, 000
567, 674, 000
468, 276,000
47,400,000
1, 347, 283, 000
42, 898, 000
150;932, 000
-$85, 162, 000
-21,801, 000
-67, 049, 000
-39, 000, 000
-161,402,000
+5,122,000
+1,335,000
-12.2 $611, 653, 000
-3. 8 545, 873, 000
-14.3 401, 227, 000
-40. 1 28, 400, 000
-12.0 1,185,881,000
+11.9 48,020,000
+.9.152,267,000
3, 321, 278, 006
-347,957,000 -10.4
2,973, 321, 000
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for
time.
Mr. YOUNG of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
I move the previous question on the reso-
lution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER, The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken: and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not pres-
ent.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
sent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were-yeas 327, nays 1,
not voting 106, as follows:
Abdnor
Abzug
Adams
Anderson,
Calif.
Andrews,
N. flak.
Annunzio
Archer
Arends
Ashbrook
Befalls
Barrett
Bauman.
Beard
Bell
Bergland
Bevill
Biester
Bingham
Boggs
Boland
Brademas
Bray
Breckinridge
[Roll No."471
YEAS-327
Brinkley Clark
Brooks Clausen,
Broomfield Don H.
Brotzman Clay
Brown, Calif. Cleveland
Brown, Mich. Cochran
_ Brown, Ohio Cohen
Broyhill, N.C. Collier
Broyhill, Va. Collins, Ill.
Buchanan Collins, Tex,
Burgener Conlan
Burke, Fla. Conte
Burke, Mass. Corman
Burleson, Tex. Cotter
Burlison, Mo. Coughlin
Burton, John Crane
Burton, Phillip Cronin
Butler Daniel, Dan
Byron Daniel, Robert
Camp W., Jr.
Carney, Ohio Daniels.
Carter Dominick V.
Cederberg Danielson
Chappell Davis, S.C.
Clancy Davis, Wis.
Delaney Heinz
Delleiaback Helstoski
Denholm Henderson
Dennis Hicks
Dent Hillis
Derwinski Hinshaw
Dickinson Holt
Dingell Holtzman
Dorn Horton
Downing Hosmer
Drinan Howard
du Pont Huber
Eckhardt Hudnut
Edwards, Calif. Hungate
Eilberg Hunt
Erlenborn Ichord
Eshleman Johnson, Calif.
Evans, Colo. Johnson, Colo.
Evins, Tenn. Johnson, Pa.
Fascell Jones, Ala.
Findley Jones, N.C.
Fish Jones, Okla.
Fisher Jones, Tenn,
Flood Jordan
Flowers Karth
Foley Kastenmeier
Ford Kazen
Forsythe Kemp
Fountain Ketchum
Fraser Kluavynaki
Frelinghuysen Koch
Frenzel Kuykendall
Froehlich Lagomarsino
Fulton Landgrebe
Fuqua Latta
Gayclos Leggett
Gettys Lehman
Giaimo Litton
Gilman Long, La.
Ginn Long, Md.
Goldwater Luj an
Gonzalez Luken
Green, Oreg. McClory
dreen, Pa. McCloskey
Grover McCollister
Gude McCormack
Gunter McEwen
Guyer McFall
Haley McKinney
Hamilton Madden
Hammer- Madigan
schmidt Mahon
Hanley
Hanrahan
Hastings
Hawkins
Mann
Martin, N.C.
Mathias, Calif.
Mathis, Ga.
Hebert Mayne
Hechler, W. Va. Mazzoli
!deeds
Melcher
Metcalfe
Mezvinsky
Miller
Minish
Mink
Minshall, Ohio
Mitchell, N.Y.
Mizell
Moakley
Montgomery
Moorhead,
Calif.
Moorhead, Pa.
Morgan
Mosher
Moss
Murtha
Myers
Hatcher
Nedzi
Nelsen
Nichols
Nix
Obey
O'Hara
O'Neill
Parris
Passman
Patman
Patten
Pepper
Perkins
Pettis
Peyser
Pike
Poage
Preyer
Price, Ill.
Price, Tex.
Pritchard
Quillen
Railsback
Randall
Rangel
Rees
Regula
Reuss
Riegle
Rinaldo
Roberts
Robinson, Va.
Robison, N.Y.
Roe
Rogers
Roncalio, Wyo,
Roncallo, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa. Spence Veysey
Rose Stanton, ' Vigorito
Rosenthal J. William Waggonner
Rostenkowski Stanton, Waldie
Roush James V. Walsh
Rousselot Stark Wampler
Roy Steele Whalen
Roybal Steelman White
Runnels Steiger, Ariz. Whitehurst
Ruth Steiger, Wis, Whitten
Ryan Stokes Wilson,
St Germain Stratton Charles H.,
Sandman Stubblefield Calif.
Sarasin Studds Winn
Sarbanes Sullivan Wolff
Satterfield Symington Wright
Scherle Symms Wydler
Schroeder Talcott Wylie
Sebelius Taylor, &ft. Yates
Seiberling Taylor, N.C. Yatron
Shipley Teague Young, Alaska
Shoup Thompson, N.J. Young, Fla.
Shriver Thomson, Wis. Young, Ga.
Shuster Thornton Young, Ill.
Sikes Tiernan Young, S.C.
Sisk Towell, Nev. Young, Tex.
Skubitz Traxler Zablocki
Slack 'Ullman Zion
Smith, Iowa Van Deerlin. Zwach
Smith, N.Y. Vanik
NAYS-1
Harrington
NOT VOTING-106
Addabbo
Alexander
Anderson, Ill.
Andrews, N.C.
Armstrong
Ashley
Aspin
Badillo
Baker
Bennett
Biaggi
Blackburn
Blatnik
Bolling
Bowen
Brasco
Breaux
Burke, Calif.
Carey, N.Y.
Casey, Tex.
Chamberlain
Chisholm
Clawson, Del
Conable
Conyers
Culver
Davis, Ga.
de la Garza
Dellums
Devine
Diggs
Donohue
Dulski
Duncan
Edwards, Ala.
Esch
Flynt
Frey
Gibbons
Goodling
Grasso
Gray
Griffiths
Gross
Gubser
Hanna
Hansen, Idaho
Hansen, Wash.
Harsha
Hays
Heckler, Mass.
Hogan
Holifteld
Hutchinson
Jarman
King
Kyros
Landrum
Lent
Lott
McDade
McKay
McSpadden
Macdonald
Mallary
Maraziti
Martin, Nebr,
Matsunaga
Michel
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
H 7986
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE August 9, 1?74
Milford Reid Udall The SPEAKER. The Chair designates
Mills Rhodes Vander Jagt
Md. the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
mitebell, Rodin? Vander Veen
Mollohan Rooney, N.Y. Witte STEED) OS Chairman of the Committee
Murphy, Ill. Ruppe vyidnall of the Whole, and requests the gentle-
Murphy, N.Y. Schneebell Wiggins man from Pennsylvania. (Mr. DENT) to
assume the chair temporarily.
IN VIEE COIVIMITEEE OS fliE WHOLE
O'Brien Snyder WWlams
Owens Staggers Wilson, Bob
Pickle Steed Wilson,
Podeli Stephens Charles, Tex.
Powell, Ohio Stuckey Wyatt
Qute Thone Wyman
Banck Treen
SO the resolution was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following
Pairs:
Mr. Addabbo with Mr. Andifews of North
Carolina.
Mrs. Grasso with Mr. Diggs.
Mr. Rodino with Mrs, GrifdthS.
Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Owens.
Mr. Mitchell of Maryland with Mr. Milford.
Mr. Carey of New York With-Mr. Mills.
Mr. Biaggi with Mr. MoSpadden.
Mr. Matsunaga with Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Staggers with Mr. Andetson. of Illinois..
Mr. Badillo with Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Steed with Mr. Martin 'Of Nebraska.
Mr. Pickle with Mr. Michel. -
Mr. Mollohan with Mr. Marliziti.
Mr. Murpphy of Illinois with Mr. Powell of
Ohio.
'Mr. Hays with Mr. McDade.
Mr. Jarman with Mr. Baker.
Mr. Kyros with Mr. Lott.
Mr. Macdonald with Mr. Del Clawson.
Mrs. Chisholm with Mr. Culver.
Mr. Donohue with Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Dulski with Mr. Conable.
Mr. Dellums with Mr. Blatnik.
Mr. Breaux with Mr. Edwards of Alabama,
Mr. Ashley with Mr. Frey.
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Devine.
Mr. Casey of Texas with Mr. Goodlirig.
Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Mach.
Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Gross.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Hansen of Idaho.
Mr. Flynt with Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. Gibbons with Mr. Lent
Mr. Conyers with Mr. Gray.
Mr. Rarick with Mr. Mallary.
Mr. Reid with Mrs. Heckler of Massachu-
setts.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Gnbser.
Mr. Stuckey with Mr. King.
Mr. Podell with Mr. Charnberlain.
Mr. Bowen with Mr. Blackburn.
Mrs. Burke of California with Mr. Vander
Veen.
Mr. McKay with Mrs. Hansen of Washing-
ton.
Mr. Udall with Mr. Planta,
Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas with Mr. Roll-
field,
Mr, Aspin with Mr. Hogsin.
Mr. Bennett with Mr. Quie.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Ruppe.
Mr. Schneebeli with Mr.-lhone.
Mr. Vander Jagt with Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Widnall with Mr. Wyman.
Mr.Wiggins with Mr. Wyatt.
Mr. Bob Wilson with Mr. Ware.
Mr. Treen with Mr. Williams.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself Into the Com-
mittee of the Whole Rouse on the State
of the Union for the consideration of the
bill (HR. 16136) to authorize certain
construction at military installations,
and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Price).
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill HR. 16136, with
Mr. DENT (Chairman pro tempore) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under
the Tule, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Puss) will be recognized for 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Vir-
ginia (Mr. WRITEHURET) will be recog-
nized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Prim).
(Mr. PUCE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today we are present-
ing H.R. 16136, the military construc-
tion authorization bill for fiscal 1975.
The purpose of this bill is to provide mili-
tary construction authorization and re-
lated authority in support of the military
departments, which is necessary for
enactment before appropriations can be
provided to finance these activities of the
military departments during fiscal year
1975.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
ranking member, my colleague from New
York (Mr. KING) and all the memters Of
the subcommittee for their faithfulness
and attendance to the subcommittee
sessions.
The new authorization request was
$3,278,380,000. This was almost $300 mil-
lion over the request for fiscal 1974. Xhe
increase requested fa fiscal 1975 is due
primarily to additional emphasis on
people related projects such as bachelor
and family housing construction and
medical facility replacement and mod-
ernization; facilities for the Navy's Tri-
dent weapon system, the Air Force
shelter program in Europe as well as con-
tinued emphasis on the Reserve forces
and the pollution abatement program.
The construction proposals contained
in the fiscal year 1975 request are located
at approximately 300 named installa-
tions and there are almost 700 separate
construction projects.
After extensive hearings in 25 separate
sessions, and review of each project re-
quested by the Department of Defense
the committee was successful in search-
ing out those proposals that in our view
could be deferred without impairing the
operational effectiveness of the armed
services. In addition, our committee is
convinced that these reductions will in
no way jeopardize our national security.
The committee unanimously voted for
a new total in the amount of $2,973,321,-
000 in new authorizations and deficiency
authorizations. That amount is for
specific projects authorized for construe-
tion. This is a reduction in the total ie-
quested authorization in the amount of
$347,957,000 or a reduction of 10.4 per-
cent.
I would like to discuss each project in
H.R. 16136 with you, but I am afraid I
would unnecessarily try the patience of
this House. However, there are several
significant Items contained in this bill
which I do feel you would be interested
In.
In the family housing section of the
bill, 10,462 units of new housing were
requested, at an average unit toss of
$30,000, ati increase of $2000 from last
year's average. The committee voted to
increase from $27,500 to $30,600 the
average unit cost for houtsing within the
United States?except Alaska and
Hawaii; but limit the number of un!ts to
be constructed to 5,552.
One of the reasons for cutting the
number of housing units to 5,552 was
the Defense Department request for
3,000 units which would be assigned to
the E-l's, 2's and 3's which heretofore
were ineligible for family housing. The
committee voted to eliminate these units
because it was felt that we just cannot
build housing units for all members of
the military. In fact when I questioned
the Defense witness regarding the reduc-
tion in criteria he confirmed my observa-
tion that if the criteria had not been
reduced there would be nO deficiency in
family housing for the military in ap-
proximately two years, given the nu:miser
of units requested. Further, the commit-
tee deleted 422 units of Navy housing in
the Norfolk, Va., area because of objec-
tions from the Members representing
that area and the local governing bodies.
We believe the housing program reColn-
mended will be sufficient for the coming
year.
In title VI, most of the general provi-
sions contained in this year's bill are
Identical to those in prior years. Some of
the general provisions, however, intro-
duced departures from prior legislation
and will be pointed out to the committee.
In section 303 the Defense Department
sought to add a subsection providing au-
thority to exceed the limitations con-
tained in Subsections (a), (b), and (0) of
section 603 up to a maximum of an addi-
tional 10 percent if it was determined
that such increase was required in order
to encourage change in design or con-
struction estimated to affect substantial
energy savings consumption or to meet
unusual cost increases attributable to
difficulties arising out of the energy cri-
sis. The committee deleted the requested
section since there were no guidelines on
which to really base whether or not this
extra expenditure was justified.
In section 606, which prescribes the
cost limitation for permanent barracks
and bachelor officers quarters, the De-
partment requested an increase of $2.50
per square foot for permanent barracks
and $3.50 per square foot for bachelor
officers quarters, which amounts would
also be retroactive to projects previously
approved but not put under contract as
of the time of enactment of this legisla-
tion. The committee voted to leave the
square-foot costs limitations as they now
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
August 9 197A4pproved For1j810MOM it$M9T751fft9.641r000700050011-2 11 7987
,
exist, which is $28.50 for barracks and
$30.50 for bachelor officers quarters.
The committee added several sections
to title VI, the general provisions, one
of which would make the proceeds from
the sale of recyclable material available
to the services for the cost of collection,
handling and sale of the material in-
cluding purchasing equipment to be used
for recycling purposes. Also, the funds
could be used for projects for environ-
mental improvement and energy con-
servation at military facilities.
I would like to bring to your atten-
tion two major additions which were
made to the bill. In the fiscal year 1974
supplemental request, $29 million was re-
quested for facilities on the Island of
Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. As
a result of the conference between the
House and Senate on the supplemntal,
it was agreed that this item, which was
approved by the House in the supple-
mental, would be carried over to the fis-
cal year 1975 military construction au-
thorization bill. The committee voted to
approve this Navy request.
The bill as submitted by the Depart-
ment of Defense contained no request
for the Uniformed Services University of
Health Sciences. However, under date of
July 9, 1974, the committee received a
communication from the Department of
Defense which stated that the Deputy
Secretary of Defense had approved a
plan to provide an initial increment of
construction funding in the fiscal year
1975 military construction program for
the initial facilities required for the Uni-
formed Services University of Health
Sciences. The committee voted to ap-
prove the Department's request for an
addition to the bill of $15 million in order
that the schedule as stated in Public Law
92-426, which requires 100 medical grad-
uates by 1982, could be met.
That, in a nutshell, is the committee's
recommendation to you. There are many
details relating to the bill which I did
not discuss, but we are ready to answer
any Member's questions regarding the
committee action and our recommenda-
tions. We believe our recommendation to
you is a good one, and I recommend the
approval of the bill before you, H.R.
16136.
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
(Mr. WHITEHURST asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 16136, the mili-
tary construction authorization bill for
fiscal year 1975. This is a sound bill. I
urge its immediate enactment.
Mr. Chairman, my distinguished col-
league from New York pointed out to the
House the fact that our subcommittee
met on 25 separate occasions and ex-
amined almost 700 separate construction
projects, so this bill is not something
that has not been seriously worked on. I
do not think I have ever been on a sub-
committee during my years in Congress
where all the members worked as hard
as the members worked on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to empha-
size that on the final day of the subcom-
mittee markup every member of the sub-
committee was present and the bill was
reported to the full committee unani-
mously. During the full committee con-
sideration 34 members were present and
on the final rollcall, 34 members voted
In favor of the bill and none against it.
I think these facts deserve emphasis.
Mr. Chairman, this is the second of the
major authorization bills that the Armed
Services Committee presents to the House
each year. Earlier, we presented the mili-
tary procurement authorization bill. You
will remember we adopted the confer-
ence report last week.
I would like to express my full support
of H.R. 16136 because it recognizes twin
goals. It provides construction which
our committee believes to be necessary,
and at the same time it recognizes the
call for economy and a reduction of de-
fense expenditures whenever possible.
I will not take the time of the House to
go into extensive detail, because I do not
think it is necessary to repeat what most
of you have read in our report and heard
the chairman of the subcommittee de-
tail in his statement.
The reductions made by the Armed
Services Committee were not based on a
judgment that the items were not de-
sirable or important, but because the
committee felt they could be safely de-
ferred without jeopardizing the security
of the Nation or reducing the effective-
ness of our military services.
I know that there are Members who
feel that there are justifiable programs
in their districts which deserve to be au-
thorized. I can only say that, looking at
one project alone, I would probably agree
with them. However, we are obliged to
evaluate each project on its merits rela-
tive to other proposed projects. This bill
Is limited to what we deem essential. We
look upon a stable economy as a second
line of defense and I believe our commit-
tee has conducted itself accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, there are many other
things I could say about this legislation,
but I will not take the time of the House
to do so now. The committee report fully
spells out the programs approved, and
we are prepared to answer any questions
that the Members may have.
I hope the Members of the House will
support this bill unanimously.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentle-
man from California (Mr. CHARLES H.
WILSON) .
(Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia, Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased
to be able to address my colleagues on the
military construction bill for fiscal year
1975. The Committee on Armed Services,
under the competent leadership of the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana
and New York, have achieved a well-bal-
anced facilities L3nstruction program for
each of the military services. I appreci-
ate the opportunity to speak in support
of enactment of this military construc-
tion authorization bill. I will address my
remark to title II of the bill, the Navy's
program, which totals $545,873,000.
STRATEGIC FORCES
Under strategic forces, the committee
approved $95 million or approximately
17.4 percent of the amount authorized
under title II for facilities construction
for the Trident support site, Bangor,
Wash. The approved facilities will pro-
vide a practical construction schedule for
meeting the initial operational capability
date of late calendar year 1978 for this
weapons system which will be one of the
most survivable weapons system of the
Nation's strategic deterrence arsenal.
The approved project includes con-
struction or modification to a number of
missile production and missile support
buildings, the initial increment of the
bachelor enlisted quarters, enlisted mess,
Marine Corps berthing and associated
administration building, fire station, re-
location of the quality engineering and
evaluation laboratory, and the second
phase of site improvement and utilities
and training facility. The Trident facili-
ties represent only 5 percent of the total
cost of the system, but they are vital to
deployment and economic life-cycle
maintenance of the weapons system.
ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE
In this year's authorization bill, the
committee has approved $180.9 million
to support the Navy's efforts to attract
and retain personnel under an all-volun-
teer force. The Navy believes that bache-
lor housing and community support facil-
ities, medical facilities and cold iron
facilities directly impact on the Navy's
enlistment and retention of personnel.
Community support facilities are clubs,
exchanges, libraries, theaters, and other
morale, welfare, and recreational facil-
ities. Cold iron facilities are the provision
of utilities on a pier that will permit a
ship in port to shut down its boiler plant
and electrical generation equipment.
This allows the crews of the ships to
have increased amounts of liberty when
In port and enjoy a work routine that is
comparable to their civilian contempo-
raries. Projects approved in the all-vol-
unteer category amount to 33 percent of
title II of the authorization bill.
Approved for bachelor housing and
messing was $74.1 million or 14 percent
of title II. This will provide spaces for
5,781 E2-E4, 1,135 E5-E6, and 107 E7-E9
personnel.
The Navy's emphasis on bachelor
housing and particularly the lower rated
personnel should pay dividends in tomor-
row's Navy.
The amoimt approved for commUnity
support facilities of $20.8 million is a
significant increase-1.7 times greater?
over the amount authorized in fiscal
year 1974.
This is the second year of the Navy'S
efforts to accelerate the modernization
of medical facilities. This bill will pro-
vide for a long overdue start on mod-
ernization of the National Naval Med-
ical Center in Bethesda.
Approved for upgrading and modern-
ization of hospitals, dispensaries, and
dental clinics was $82.3 million or 15
percent of the total authorized under
title II. Another $17.4 million was ap-
proved for upgrading bachelor enlisted
quarters, public work shops, roads,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050011-2
H 7988 Approved ForItIsmtiM/MR: EkedEpf 1-
pf818%000700050012
August 9, 174.
parking, and utilities at medical installa-
tions. The total approved under the
Navy's medical installation moderniza-
tion program was $99.8 million.
For cold iron facilities, the Navy re-
quested $24 million which was 4.3 Per-
cent of the authorization request.
The committee approved $24 million
for eight projects at six installations. In
addition, two amendments totaling $7.6
million were approved to provide a capa-
bility for converting boilers to burn coal.
These amendments are recpaired in ac-
cordance with national policies to con-
serve scarce petroleum resources.
MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS
For major weapons systems the com-
mittee approved $8.7 million for proj-
ects that will directly support: the 8-3A
anti-submarine warfare aircraft, class
688 nuclear attack submarine; light air-
borne multipurpose system?LAMPS--
helicopters which increase die capabili-
ties of destroyer class ships to detect and
kill submarines at long range; P-30
anti-submarine warfare patrol aircraft;
captor weapons system, which is a re-
mote unattended anti-subMarine war-
fare system, that uses the ane-46 torpedo
as its weapon.; A-SE and A-7E attack
aircraft, and the EA-6B electronic coun-
termeasure aircraft. In addition, $16.9
million was approved for Projects that
will be utilized for existing as well as
new major weapons systems,. These proj-
ects will support the S-3A and S-2 anti-
submarine Warfare aircraft, FA-6B elec-
tronic countermeasure aircraft, and A-6
attack aircraft; and F-14 and F-4.7
fighter aircraft. Facilities are included
to house modern flight simulator equip-
ment that will lead to savings in avia-
tion fuel and in the cost-to-train flight
crews.
POLLUTION ABATEMUNT
The sum of $59 million or approxi-
mately 11 percent of the total authorized
for the Navy has been aPProrved to abate
air and water pollution, with a break-
down between air and water of $10.9 and
$48.3 million respectively. This author-
ity will provide facilities to reduce the
risk of oil pollution and to reclaim oily
wastes, improve or develop sewerage sys-
tems, provide pier sewers to serve ships
in port, and construct the third incre-
ment of the demilitarization facility at
naval ammunition depot, Hawthorne,
Nev. Air pollution control facilites in-
clude a propellant disposal facility, solid
waste facilities, fuel vapor cOIlection and
recovery systems and air emission con-
trols for various industrial and power
facilities.
I have covered some of the categories
the Navy stressed in this year's bill, but
I should make it clear that the Navy's
authorization request is not unbalanced
for the categories of facilities discussed.
The Navy also had approved $53 mil-
lion which Is 10 percent of title II, for
operational facilities which provides air-
field runways, parking aprons, a POL
pipeline, communications buildings, ra-
dar facilities, runway navigational aide,
berthing piers, and dredging. Another
category with a significant amount ap-
proved was training facilities with $35.5
million. The Navy considers that trained
personnel are one of its greatest assets
therefore, the Navy has allocated a ma-
jor amount of its authorization request
to training facilities as one of several ac-
tions being taken to strengthen, mod-
ernize, and vitalize its training programs.
Under the Navy's multiyear program-
ing system, the Navy requests facilities
In the various categories on the basis of
achieving a generally balanced rate of
correction in relation to the backlog of
deficiencies, while of necessity pressing
forward annually with projects for new
weapons systems and new missions. Ac-
cordingly, facilities categories such as
research and development, supply, ad-
ministrative and utilites have fewer
projects approved but are in general in
balance with deficiencies. The commit-
tees reduction generally maintained the
balance with the one exception of admin-
istrative facilities which was one cate-
gory of facilities that could be deferred
with a minimum of impact on the Navy's
operations.
I believe the projects authorized under
the Navy title fulfill the committee's
goal of approving only those projects
that are essential to the Nation's na-
tional defense interests. I recommend
the bill be enacted as reported.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6
minutes to the gentleman from Califor-
nia. (Mr. STARK).
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the distinguished chairman of the sub-
committee for providing this time for
me. Also I would like to thank him for
investigating what I think is an over-
sight going on all through the military
construction field, an oversight which
may be concurrently going on in es=
Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
It came to my attention at the Oak-
land Naval Hospital in Oakland, Calif.,
that the Navy was building 35 housing
units in the middle of my district at a
cost of $650,000. They are nice units and
I think they are well worth that amou:at,
but it turned out that within 12 blocks,
which would be considered an easy coin-
muting distance even in an energy short-
age and shortage of gasoline, that HUD
and FHA owned and had boarded up 60
units.
It also came to our attention that these
houses would be available for lease to
the Navy. Some of the 60 houses may not
be as nice as the ones being built and
some of them are much nicer, and they
would have provided at far less cost ade-
quate housing for qur military personnel.
Further that would have had the effect
of providing residents in my district who
had good, high-paying jobs and it would
have helped to bring these people into
the neighborhood.
I would like to ask the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee if he
would not join with me It, the term ahead
to see that we investigate this problem
and see that where one branch of the
Government owns good housing units,
that we find out, through cooperation
and more efficient use of Government re-
sources, about it so we might save the
Government resources in the future.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. Puctl. Mr. Chairman, first of all I
would like to commend the gentleman
not only for raising the issue and bring-
ing it to our ettentkei but also-for pro-
viding us with documentary evidence and.
with photographs of the housing that
was being built at the same time there
was other housing available in the area.
The gentleman was absolutely correct.
The gentleman knows I do not always
agree with him. On this particular Issue
he was absolutely correct. There was no
Justification whatsoever for the Navy
building what they built at the time there
was the housing available which was ade-
quate in the area. The gentleman was
correct.
At the time however that the housing
was built, while there is no logical expla-
nation for what happened, as alWaYS,
there was a legal explanation for what
happened. The legal explanation for
what happened was that while this other
housing had been abandoned it was still
not wholly available for the FHA to use..
The redemption time, or whatever it, is
called in the State of California, they
said made it impossible for them to get
their hands on it. I happen to think they
did not try hard enough. I happen to
think they really did not take a look at
what else was available.
I can only say we presented them with
this evidence. We did our very best to
hold their feet to the fire. If additional
legislation is required In the correlation
between the Departments of Defense and.
the Federal Housing Authority as to Gov-
ernment-owned housing, If the gentle-
man will introduce the legislation, I will
help get it passed.
Mr. STARK. Mr. ,Chairman, I appre-
ciate the kind offer of the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee. I am sure
we will have many more of our colleagues
joining with us to see where this lack of
communication and cooperation between
two Government agencies exists, that we
can indeed find legislation that will cross
over the boundaries of more than one
committee. I am sure we will find bi-
partisan support to be more efficient in.
this question of the lack of housing.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentle-.
man from Georgia (Mr. Bansxtry) .
Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. Chairman,
would like to speak on behalf of this
year's budget request for MCA funding
of Army bachelor housing.
To achieve the goal of an all-volunteer
force, the Army has vigorously pursued
several tracks to improve the lot of the
soldier. Troop housing is one of these
and, as we all know, has needed consid-
erable improvement. World War U 'bar-
racks will no longer meet the require-
ment.
Since fiscal year 1972, the Congress
has approved the expenditure of $695
million to construct or modernize nearly
151,000 spaces in the Army's troop hous-
ing program.. After completion of this
fiscal year 1975 MCA program the Army
will have attained over 75 percent of its
stated goal of providing adequate quar-
ters for its bachelor personnel. Recent
upward enlistments and retention sta-
tistics are beginning toshow the validity
of Army efforts to improve the attrac-
tiveness of military life with housing
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
August 9, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 7989
playing a major part. For example,
through mid-June this year the Army
enlisted over 180,000 volunteer men and
women. In May the Army achieved over
103 percent of its recruiting objectives
and through mid-June nearly 107 per-
cent of its objectives. Reenlistment, a
better barometer of Army improvement,
shows that the Army achieved nearly 108
percent of its reenlistment goals through
May.
Much progress has been made in prop-
erly housing our soldiers. There is still
much to be done and this year's MCA
program will continue the momentum.
Secretary Callaway and the Army should
be highly commended for the vigor with
which they have pursued this most
worthy program.
Mr. Chairman, I urge approval of the
Army troop housing contained in the bill
before you.
Mr. PIKE. Mr, Chairman, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. WHITE).
(Mr. WHITE asked and Was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to comment briefly in support of that
portion of the Army's construction pro-
gram which pertains to medical facilities.
The fiscal year 1975 program represents
a substantial increase over previous
years?and for good reason?for it com-
prises the first major increment of the
Army's accelerated health facilities mod-
ernization program. The modernization
program is designed to replace inefficient
and deteriorated facilities built during
and prior to World War II, modernize
and expand outmoded and overtaxed f a-
ditties of more recent origin, and con-
struct new facilities where there are
unsatisfied requirements.
The present request marks an admir-
able beginning to this ambitious pro-
gram, directed toward providing modern,
adequate health care facilities in support
of the All-Volunteer Army. While the
present request includes but one com-
paratively small replacement hospital,
two major clinic additions are included,
reflecting the Army's increasing need
for outpatient treatment facilities. Not
unlike the civilian sector, the Army has
experienced a change in the relationship
between inpatient and outpatient care
in recent years. There is an increasing
- trend to treat patients in an outpatient
status, thus increasing clinic require-
ments and reducing the need for addi-
tional bed space in many cases.
? Also included in the request is a major
Item for electrical/mechanical upgrade
of a number of existing hospitals. This is
a requirement generated by the stand-
ards applied under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, more advanced
standards for life safety now included in
the most recent edition of National Fire
Protection Association codes, technologi-
cal advances, more stringent require-
ments of the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Hospitals, increased
electrical requirements of hospitals, and
increased seismic protection required as
a result of scientific reassessment of
seismic zones in the United States and
the degree of protection required for
hospital structures.
For many years, military dentists have
been operating in conditions and under
constraints imposed by their physical
plant environment which are considered
unacceptable and inefficient in the civil-
ian community. The present program
includes a number of dental clinics to re-
place the old World War II wooden clinic
structures with modern efficient designs.
Both military and civilian dentists have
long recognized the need for more than
one dental chair per dentist to make the
most efficient use of each dentist's time.
The design of these new clinics will allow
the dentist to operate in a multiple chair
configuration, thereby increasing the
numbers of dental procedures which can
be performed. Upon completion of clinics
in the program this year, a substantial
deficit remains, Army-wide, to be ac-
complished during the remaining 4 years
of the health facilities modernization
program.
I believe this program constitutes a sig-
nificant and desirable contribution to an
essential element of the military con-
struction program and commend it to
you for your support.
Mr. PricE Mr. Chairman, I yield 3
min ewonaan from Colo-
() (Mrs. ScnsoziSii ). )
Mrs. SCHR,OEDER. I4 Chairman,
t want to th-ank the com-
mittee for the hard work it has done
on this bill. I think the subject matter
of this bill is one of the most thankless
tasks the committee has. It is so la-
borious to take the time to go through
each item.
Mr. Chairman when we get to title II
I W ur.a. Migiit- ? el -
? ego Garcia e , w c fl
' em ? ers ave no eard of before.
I just wanted to take this time to put
the Members on notice that this will be
coming up.
Some Members ask whether Diego
Garcia is a private bill. No, it is an island
in the middle of the Indian Ocean. We
have $32 million in the bill for expanding
' and building up the naval communica-
tion facilities which are already on
Diego Garcia.
Therefore, I will be offering an amend-
ment when we get to title II of the bill
to eliminate this.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such
time as he may consume to the chair-
man of the full committee, the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. HEBERT).
(Mr. HEBERT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I merely
rise to pay tribute to and compliment
the subcommittee headed by the gentle?
-
man from New York (Mr. PIKE), and the
members of his subcommittee. It is the
action of such subcommittees as this
headed by the Senator from New York
(Mr. PIKE) , and the diligence which the
committee showed in bringing this bill
before the House in record time, which
makes the chairman of the full com-
mittee rest a little easier.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is also very,
significant that this is the only bill, since
I have been chairman of the committee,
that was reported out of the committee
without a dissenting vote. The vote was
34 to 0. No Member objected to the bill,
all voted for it. I think this is a high
compliment to those who served on that
committee.
Mr. Chairman, I arise to address a few
remarks to a special area of this year's
military construction bill that is of par-
ticular interest to me and I believe will
be to the whole body of the House.
Before proceeding with my remarks I
wish to commend the distinguished gen-
tleman from New York, Congressman
OTIS PIKE, for the thorough, expeditious,
and effective manner in which hearings
were conducted this year.
My remarks will be related to the Tri-
dent weapons system facilities author-
ized under the Navy's portion of the bill.
In fiscal year 1973, appropriations were
provided for initiating planning and de-
sign and last year's authorization act
provided $118.3 million for initiating con-
struction at the Trident support com-
plex, Bangor, Wash., and the Air Force
eastern test range, Cape Canaveral, Fla.
In the fiscal year 1975 program for
Trident Support Site, Bangor, Wash., the
committee approved $95 million for fa-
cilities construction. The Trident project
will provide construction or modification
to a number of missile production and
missile support buildings; the initial in-
crement of the bachelor enlisted quar-
ters; enlisted mess; Marine Corps berth-
ing and associated administration build-
ings; fire station; facilities relocation?
the Quality Engineering and Evaluation
Laboratory?and the second phase of
site improvement and utilities, and
training facility.
The Trident system is planned as this
country's sea based deterrent in future
years to prevent a nuclear war or at-
tempted nuclear blackmail. The system
is being developed, in a highly defined
and orderly manner to be available to
supplant our present strategic forces as
they become more vulnerable and tech-
nically obsolete. The Trident system will
include a new submarine; quieter and
more survivable than its predecessors, a
new missile, of longer range than the
Poseidon, and a shore support facility
for both to be located at Bangor, Wash.
Our present fleet ballistic missile sub-
marine fleet is supported from submarine
tenders positioned at various locations
overseas to eliminate the long transit
time from U.S. bases that would be nec-
essary with the current relatively short
range missiles. The increased range of
the Trident missile, in addition to pro-
viding a greater operating area for the
Trident submarine and thus greater sur-
vivability, allows us to support the Tri-
dent submarine from a shore facility lo-
cated within the continental United
States.
The shore facility will provide main-
tenance for the Trident submarine dur-
ing off-patrol periods, production and
maintenance capability for the Trident
missile, and initial and refresher train-
ing for the crews of the Trident subma-
rine. The availability and cost effective-
ness of the Trident submarine is
optimized by this dedicated shore facility
Approved For Release 2005/05/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050011-2
II 7990 Approved For ReireA05/0_6/09_:AL Q1A7RaP2513Q90A1000700050011-2
N ketthaale/IN letraletele ?11.01J August 9, 1974
which will allow a reduction in time
spent in port between petrels as welt as
up to 10 years of operations between
shipyard overhauls. The mailability of
the Trident submarine force will be
about 15 percent greater than that of
the present FBM force. This greater
availability, coupled with idie feet that
each submarine will carry more missiles,.
means that the cost of keeping a rotestle
at sea on Trident is approxiMately half Of
the cost per missile at sea for Polaris
and Poseidon, even including all devel-
opment and acquisition costs.
Last year, $118,320,000 was provided
for a new wharf and turning basin and
related facilities at Cape Canaveral for
the development and flightetest program
of the Trident missile and for the facili-
ties required earliest at the Bangor sup-
port site. The facilities at Bangor in-
cluded a submarine maintenance pier, an
explosive handling wharf, the first phase
of the training building, site improve-
ments, and utilities.
At Cape Canaveral, work on the wharf
and dredging project commenced In
March of this year with the start of
dredging for the new turning basin. Con-
struction of the wharf itself will start in
September. Contracts were awarded in
June for the work on modifying the Po-
seidon guidance/telemetry building and
the missile assembly and checkout area to
configurations to support Trident. The
start of construction for modifications to
launch complex has been delayed from
July to September by a change in explo-
sive safety criteria; however, this
2-month delay does not impact on the
required availability date.
The Navy is continuing the planning
for the Trident support site at Bangor,
Wash. The preliminary master plan has
been developed which, based on analysis
of several alternatives, Identifies a land
use plan with general sitirw for all on-
base and waterfront facilities. Design is
underway for selected fealties; design
criteria and detailed cost estimates are
being developed for other projects. The
preparation of the final master plan has
begun. Concurrently a draft environ-
mental Impact statemeet?EIS?has
been prepared addressing the construc-
tion and operation of the base. Public
comments from individuals and organi-
zations have been received during the
public hearing held April 24 and 25, 1974,
and during the public review period
which ended on May 31, 1974. These
comments were incorporated into the
final environmental impact statement
which was filed with the council on en-
vironmental quality on July 23, 1974. The
Navy supported by the Office of Economic
Adjustment within the Defense Depart-
ment and other Federal agencies includ-
ing the Office of Management and
Budget are working closely with Wash-
ington State and county officials to ad-
dress and mitigate the social-economic
impacts identified in the Trident envir-
onmental impact statement. Necessary
Federal assistance as identified is ex-
pected to be provided through the ap-
propriate Federal agencies. The subcom-
mittee added section 610 under the gen-
eral provisions to authorize the Secretary
of Defense to assist counties and com-
munities located near the Trident sup-
port Site in Bangor, Wash., in meet-
ing the cost of providing increased mun-
icipal services and facilities to the resi-
dents of such areas if it is determined
there is substantial need for such services
as a direct result of the Trident facility.
Indtistrial engineering analyses and
engineering studies of individual facili-
ties and 1111!*tions at th.e site have con-
tinued, Additional reviews of explosive
safety requirements have confirmed that
existing naval ship repair installations
cannot be used for Trident refits unless
all missiles are offloaded. The time to
offload and reload all missiles between
patrols would reduce the percent of tine
at-sea-on-alert and therefore would re-
duce the cost effectiveness of the Trident
system; the additional missile handling
would also create safety hazards and de-
grade missile reliability.
Plans for the Trident support site will
provide industrial facilities to refit sub-
marines while missiles remain on board.
This will reduce the off -patrol time and
keep more missiles at sea. The capability
to refit while carrying missile& could not
be developed at existing naval ship repair
activities.
Even though the Trident shore facili-
ties represent only 5 percent of the total
cost of the system, the facilities are vital
to deployment and economic life cycle
maintenance of the weapon system. The
provision of this dedicated and inte-
grated Trident support at a single site
provides the most cost effective life cycle
for the weapon system.
I strongly support this project and
urge approval of the bill as reported so
that construction may continue in an
orderly manner to meet the initial oper-
ational capability date of late calendar
year 1978.
Mr. PI= Mr. Chairman, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. Paws).
(Mr. PRICE of Minds asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the Mr Farce request
to provide additional aircraft shelters
and associated hardened support facili-
ties on various European bases. This tem
is a continuation of the theater air base
vulnerability reduction program?TAB
VEE?that the Air Force initiated and
Congress approved in fiscal year 1968.
The quickest and where possible, the
most effective way of gaining air su.Pn-
riority is to destroy the enemy's aircraft
on the ground. In this regard, congested
air bases, when unprotected by antiair-
craft defenses, dispersal and camouflage,
are highly vulnerable to low-flying enemy
aircraft and insurgent attacks. Unshel-
tered aircraft on the ground can be de-
stroyed by bombing, strafing, or napalm
even in the face of heavy ground anti-
aircraft arid surface-to-air missile lire.
In addition to direct hits, near misses,
blast, shrapnel, fire, and sympathetic det-
onation can all cause unsheltered air-
craft t,o be damaged or destroyed. Deter-
mined insurgents or a few aircraft in
bombing or strafing passes can inflict
widespread destruction to aircraft which
are not dispersed and sheltered, The mer-
its of aircraft protective shelters, coupled
with aggressive ground-based antiair-
craft defense, has been shown in the dra-
matic difference in the survival rates of
the Egyptian Air Force in the 1961 war
when its aircraft were destroyed on the
ground, and the 1973 war when only an
Insignificant number of Egyptian and
Arabian aircraft were destroyed on the
ground. A major factor in this reversal
of destruction was that in the 1973 con-
flict the Arabian aircraft were protected
on the ground by hardened shelters that
were surrounded by effective surface-to-
air missiles and other antiaircraft weap-
ons. In light of this and our experience,
It is prudent to look to the survival cf the
U.S. aircraft we have committed to the
NATO mission. The $92.3 million of lunds
provided in earlier programs by the Con-
gress have sheltered every U.S. aircraft
permanently based on the caraineat of
Europe.
However, we do have commitments to
send additional aircraft squadrons to
NATO in the event of force mobilization.
Should the Warsaw Pact nations ini-
tiate an attack on Western Europe using
conventional weapons, as opposed to a
surprise attack with nuclear armed mis-
siles, there will be sufficient warning to
NATO by troop movements, materiel
stockage, and other unusual actions to
allow a .reactive NATO mobilization.
U.S. aircraft that we are committed to
deploy to NATO during a mobilization
would have no shelters at their assigned
bases, and would be extremely vulner-
able to destruction by conventional
weapons even with dispersal, camou-
flage, and vigorous anti-aircraft del ense.
The aircraft shelter, when coupled
with a strong antiaircraft defense, is
probably the most effective measure for
Improving aircraft survivability. It forces
the attacker to consider each shelter as
a target whether or not it houses an air-
craft. This strategy requires a commit-
ment of one sortie for each shelter and
exposes his aircraft to heavy attrition
from defensive firepower while reducing
our risk to a minimum.
To keep the momentum that the
United States has generated in the shel-
ter program, to provide a visible deter-
rent to potential enemies, and to pro-
tect our alreraft should hostilities occur,
the shelter program should proceed.
The merits of shelters have been recog-
nized in NATO and the other a'ATO
countries have in being, and under con-
struction, protective aircraft shelters
that provide for the major portion of
their forces. The shelters in this request
will protect a portion at the rapid re-
action aircraft and are designed t3 ac-
commodate the full gamut of U.S. tac-
tical fighters including the new F-15,
A-10, and F-111. -
Construction of these shelters by di-
rect NATO funding would delay their
completion for at least 15 months. The
Defense Department will take the neces-
sary action to secure the maximum
possible recoupment from NATO foe this
$62 million prefinanced program.
In conclusion, it should be noted that
the net U.S. outlay to shelter those com-
bat fighter aircraft which would be de-
ployed under various contingency situa-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Ailgust 9, 1974pproved For ftispaREQ9M/SM :141861p9Z5E1116189#000700050011-2
tions, is approximately 1 percent of the
value of the aircraft protected. I feel this
is a sound investment to pay for increas-
ing the survivability of our tactical air-
craft.
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gm-
MAN)
(Mr. OILMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. OILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from Virginia for yield-
ing and request permission to revise and
extend my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, in considering the mil-
ltarY construction authorization, H.R.
1613'7, now before us, the Armed Services
Committee has authorized $7.1 million
for renovation and an addition to the
gymnasium at the U.S. Military Acad-
emy at West Point.
The initial request for this worthy
project was $9.1 million, the committee
having reduced that request by $2.1 mil-
lion. While improving the antiquated
gymnasium facilities at West Point war-
rants the full requested funding, the $7.1
million authorized by the committee, if
It is not further reduced by the Appro-
priations Committee, should be sufficient
to make most of the changes necessary
for modernizing the existing structure.
Having personally visited the present
gymnasium facilities at the Academy, I
am convinced that it is inadequate, anti-
quated, and a health hazard. It was orig-
inally built to accommodate 2,700 cadets
but is now utilized by almost twice that
number.
Recognizing that the physical fitness
of our cadets is of great importance to
the training of our Nation's future mili-
tary leaders, we have always encouraged
our military academies to foster rigor-
ous physical education programs. Since
the major portion of the West Point gym-
nasium was constructed almost 65 years
ago, with only minor alterations and ad-
ditions completed in 1935, 1947, and
1970, this facility is totally inadequate
' for the needs of the growing West Point
community.
A priority project anticipated by the
Academy is the renovation of the ven-
tilation system in the gym. An appraisal
of the existing ventilation system reveals
that in the boxing and wrestling areas,
there is no provision for fresh air. Ad-
ditionally, the present system is only ca-
pable of recirculating the stale air, creat-
ing an unpleasant and unhealthy at-
mosphere.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the ur-
gent need for improving the facility at
West Point, there is another, equally
Important reason for early funding of
this project. The depressed economic
climate of the region surrounding West
Point, particularly in the building and
construction trades, stresses the need for
increased activity in that industry. With
several thousand building and construc-
tion workers currently unemployed in
the greater West Point area, the deteri-
orating status of the economy in that
region is threatening. Accordingly, early
approval of the renovation and addition
to the existing gymnasium facilities at
West Point will not only provide needed
physical expansion for the U.S.M.A. but
will also be a boon to our sorely affected
construction industry.
Mr. Chairman, while the full $9.1 mil-
lion funding would have been a more
adequate response to the needs of the
Academy's physical fitness program. I
recognize the necessity of tightening the
reins on our Nation's pursestrings dur-
ing this critical economic period, and
willingly accept the Committee's au-
thorization of $7.1 million, provided it is
not further reduced.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, in the in-
terests of enhancing the physical fitness
program at the U.S. Military Academy, I
urge my colleagues to support this pro-
posal authorizing an early funding of the
West Point gymnasium project.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, will gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. OILMAN. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I notice
that in addition to the gymnasium at
West Point, there are already 839 mili-
tary swimming poels in the United
States. I wonder if any of those are in
the gentleman's district.
Mr. OILMAN. Not that I know of. I
am not requesting any swimming pool. I
am concerned about an antiquated gym-
nasium at West Point. West Point has
recently doubled its cadet personnel. The
existing 65-year-old gymnasium was
built to serve one-half the size of the
academys' present personnel. The Acad-
emy has outgrown this facility.
Mr. STARK. Would the addition of
that gymnasium accommodate female
cadets at West Point?
Mr. GILMAN. I would hope that it
would, for I favor admission of women
to our service academies.
Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman
for that, and ask him to yield for just
a moment more.
I note that the bill also contains
289 maintenance funds for golf courses
in the United States. I wonder if the
gentleman knows whether or not those
golf courses are sufficiently severe to
challenge the members of our Armed
Forces to sharpen their eyes for the WIT
difficult job they may have of defend-
ing us.
Mr. GIL1VIAN. Mr. Chairman, while I
am not aware of any of those golf courses
being provided for any military installa-
tion in my own region, I am certain that
the Armed Services Committee has
given appropriate attention to the con-
cern expressed by the gentleman from
California.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
the gentleman from Virginia will yield a
couple of minutes to the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. WHITEHURST. I will be glad'to.
Mr. PIKE. First of all, I cannot let
stand on the record the statement that
there are 839 swimming pools in this
bill, because there are not 839 swimming
pools in this bill.
I think there are only 700 line items, in
total, in this bill. Therefore, somewhere
along the line the gentleman from Cali-
fornia got some very bad statistics. I
11 7991
just hate to have very bad statistics
spread on the record.
One just cannot have more swimming
pools in the bill than there are line
items. We are building airfields and
shelters and barracks, and we are build-
ing all kinds of things all over the United
States of America and all over the rest
of the world.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. RANDALL.)
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding the time.
(Mr. RANDALL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of H.R. 16136, the military
construction authorization. I think the
chairman of the subcommittee hit the
nail on the head when he said in the
well a moment ago that the best meas-
ure of the worth and merit of this bill is
that he has received complaints from
both sides, first, from those who felt they
had not received enough, authorization
and also complaints from some who be-
lieved these complaints had received too
much.
Now let me answer the gentleman from
California (Mr. STARK) who is worried
about 'swimming pools and golf courses.
First there was no request for a single
golf course, and there never has ever
been a single request or authorization.
These are all built with nonappropriated
funds. Next about the swimming pools?
one was requested?note, only one and
no more than that and it was rejected.
These are the facts and that should put
to sleep these false reports or rumors.
All of the line items in this bill, are
necessary and essential and many are
sorely needed. True, there is not enough
housing provided, but this is a time for
austerty because of inflation.
If I may be pardoned for being pro-
vincial I can attest to the need for a
flight control facility at Richards-Ge-
baur Air Force Base in our district which
is needed as a safety measure. Then
throughout the bill are numerous hos-
pitals much like the one at Whiteman
Air Force Base in our district.
The subcommittee approved a project
that will replace three obselete buildings.
In this bill there is a $6 million project
for a composite medical facility at White-
man Air Force Base. There is nothing
extravagant about this. This is only a 30-
bed facility and it is not only too small
even before it is built. It does contain
some very badly needed outpatient clinic
space and 18 dental treatment rooms.
This facility is needed most because it is
required to satisfy the medical needs
around this Air Force base where re-
tirees have chosen to make this their
permanent home. At present medical and
dental requirements exceed the space of
the facilities. As it is now there are only
three buildings. They are all obsolete. In-
patient care space is needed. It is too
crowded at present and out-patient space
Is even more crowded. It has been noted
that the present facilities are approxi-
mately only one half of the area that
should be allotted. Surely, the time has
come to provide this necessary medical
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
H 7992 Approved For ReetirteiM8549i9L: 02131i116?_p9413M00070005001kbust 9, p174
care for our airmen and their depend-
ents.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I
wish to say a word in support of the
funds for the Navy base at Diego Garcia
in the Indian Ocean. I =1 opposed to
deletion of any of these funds. This is an
item of construction of utmost strategic
importance. One has only to look at the
map to prove that if we do not proceed
to work on this base we might just as
well turn over the Indian Ocean, to the
ships and the submarines that carry the
insignia of the Red Star.
Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. Any
one of us who doubts that the Soviets
control this area, had better revise their
thinking. We need Diego Garcia now.
Finally let me commend the chair-
man and all the members of the commit-
tee. They have worked many, many
hours. There is no reason why this mili-
tary construction bill should not be re-
garded as one of the very best that has
ever been presented to the House. It
should just be adopted without amend-
ment.
Mr. CARTER, Mr. Chairman, will the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri
yield?
Mr. RANDALL. I will be glad to yield.
Mr CARTER. I rise in support of what
the gentleman from Missouri has said,
and I want to associate myself with his
remarks.
I realize and we all should realize that
If we visit the military hospitals outside
of this country and in this country, they
are not hi the state that they should be
in. They should be improved.
The armed forces of our country de-
serve the very best that the country can
give them. During wartime we do not
hesitate to demand much, but this is the
time when we are really putting them on
the back burner, so to speak.
They deserve our support, and I want
to compliment the distinguished gentle-
man from Missouri for his remarks.
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for his contribution.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I shall
vote against this military construction
authorization, H.R. 16136, jiist as I voted
against the military appropriation, the
agricultural appropriation, the legisla-
tive appropriation, the State, Commerce,
and Justice appropriations, and other
bills which represent huge increases
every year without significant new
programs.
Inflation is raging. We flought to be
holding it back. Instead we spend as if
money were going out of style. My vote
will be a lonely one, and it is no reflec-
tion on the fine committee that handled
th elieve it is an impertant
r. Chairman, I support
nt to strike funds for Diego
Garcia. We are asked to approve a mere
$29 million to turn a communications fa-
cility into a naval base. But the implica-
tion of this mild request is staggering.
It is nothing less than a redirection of
our foreign policy, by the Pentagon.
Shapers of foreign policy in both ex-
ecutive and legislative branches have al-
ways regarded the Indian Ocean as low
priority in terms of national security, by
contrast with the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Mediterranean oceans. We have kepi; a
low profile there and so has the SoNiet
Union. The states bordering on the Indian
Ocean have the long-term objective of
making it a zone of peace, freedom, and
neutrality.
Last May our Assistant Secretary of
State, Joseph Sisco, observed that "our
Interests there are marginal." In 1972, as
Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird de-
fined our strength there as "not so much
in maintaining a Large standing
force ? * ? but rather in our ability to
move freely in and out of the ocean."
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
Mr. PIECE Mr Chairman, I have no
further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN pro terapore. Ptxsu-
ant to the rule, the Clerk will read. the
bill by titles.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I
SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may
establish or develop railitszT installations
and facilities by acquiring, constructing,
converting, rehabilitating, ce installing per-
On August 3. Williarxi Colby. the di- manent or temporary public works, includ -
rector gr ale temed that Ihe SONIEring land acquisition., site preparation ap -
presen 6 m ,bnal aocean it no, a_ mu.. At purtenances, utilities, and equipment fcr the
" following acquisition and construction:
m e rffeitailAian
iry
er with messianic fervor to re-
sume the role of world policeman UP-
holds the Navy's request to start build-
ing a major base.
ActuaHy, the Navy appears to have had
this ambition for some time. A secret
search for new bases resulted in the
choice of Diego Garcia, because it could
be expanded into a major service base
for submarines and B-f Zs. In 1966 the
island was made available to the United
States through the cooperation of Brit-
ain. Periodic patrols of Polaris and Posei-
don submarines were possible because of
the communications facility established
there.
According to retired Rear Adm. Gene
LaRocque, the next step in the creation
of an infrastructure for increased naval
deployment is the development of a sup-
ply and repair base in the Indian Ocean.
That is what we are now being asked to
approve.
The Navy has already received $6 mil-
lion for dredging the harbor to accommo-
date submarines and aircraft carriers.
Reconnaisance aircraft and a submarine
tender for servicing nuclear submari ties
may soon be sent there.
And at that point we begin a naval
race with the Soviet Union. The sur-
rounding countries are alarmed. New
Zealand and Indonesia have already
raised questions about our intentions,
and Australia has called on the Soviets
and the United States to "exercise mu-
tual restraint."
According to expert testimony, we al-
ready have overall naval superiority. We
can quickly move sizable forces into the
region if some emergncy should arise.
That is highly unlikely, however. A re-
opened Suez Canal could as quickly be
closed again, leaving the Soviets vulner-
able without support facilities. There is
no indication, either, that the Soviets
intend to interfere with the shipment of
oil from the Persian Gulf. Oil could more
easily be "turned off at the wellhead" in
the Middle East before being shipped.
What then is the purpose of this
planned expansion? Some suggest that
it is to keep the Navy at present strength
and growing, to fill the gap left by the
pull-out from Asia. If this is the realm-
tent, it is a very dangerous gamble, and
one which the House should not approve.
ma
es
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES coutaarie
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $26,170,000.
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $9,742,000.
Fort Carson. Colorado, $27,731,000.
Fort Hood, Texas, $40,214,000.
Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $4,286,000.
Fort Lewis, Washington, $10,270,000.
Fort Riley, Kansas, $24,478,000.
Fort Stewart/limiter Array Airfield, Geor-
gia, $12,191,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND
DOCTRINX COMMAND
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $9,031,000.
Port Henning, Georgia, $36,827,000.
Fort Bliss, Texas, $13,704,000.
Fort Eustis, Virginia, $9,288,000.
Port Gordon., Georgia, $9,625,000.
Hunter-Liggett military Reservation, Cali-
fornia, $1,108,000.
Port Jackson, South Carolina, $19,073,000.
Fort Knox, Kentucky, $2,281,000.
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, $9,911,000.
Port Lee, Virginia, $5,218,000.
Port McClellan, Alabama, $17,341,000.
Presidio of Monterey, California, $3,107,000.
Fort Ord, California, $3,660,000.
Fort Polk, Louisiana $7,301,000.
Port Rucker, Alabama, $4,928,000.
Fort Sill, Oklahoma, $15,581,000.
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, $3,360,000,
UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON
Fort Myer, Virginia, $2,497,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND
Aeronautical Maintenance Center, Texas,
$541,000.
Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, $7,643,000.
Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsyl% anis,
$4,726,000.
Lexington/Blue Grass Army Depot, Ken -
tucky, $616,000.
Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, $2,820,000.
Red River Array Depot, Texas, $269,000.
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, $10,322,003.
Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, $2,731,000.
Sacramento Army _Depot California, $2,-
599,000.
Seneca Army Depot, New York, $815,000.
Sierra Army Depot, California, $717,000.
Watervliet Arsenal, New York, $3,256,000.
White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico
$1,542,000.
Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, $1,853,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY COMMUNICATION
COMMAND
Fort Huachuca, Arizona, $8,399,000.
Fort Ritchie, Maryland, $2,023,000.
UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY
United States Military Academy, West
Point, New York, $7,720,000.
HEALTH SERVICES COMMAND
Fort Detrick, Maryland, $486,000.
Various Locations, $16,600,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
kagust 9, /94,Pproved For etiNtitigiffup IFEIM/457511k93W000700050011-2
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Cold Regions Laboratories, New Hamp-
shire, $2,515,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY, ALASKA
Fort (treely, Alaska, $251,000.
Fort Richardson, Alaska, $1,732,000.
Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $11,473,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY; HAWAII
Schofield Barracks. Hawaii, $15,824,000.
Tripler General Hospital, Hawaii, $1,205,-
000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $1,356,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $16,358,000.
DINING PAM:1.MM MODERNIZATION
Various Locations, $10,723,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES, SOUTHERN
COMMAND
Canal Zone, Various Locations, $824,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY, PACIFIC
Korea, Various Locations, $1,663,000.
? KWAJALEIN MISS/LE RANGE
National Missile Range, $1,272,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY SECURITY AGENCY
Various Locations, $148,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY COMMUNICATION
COMMAND
Fort Buckner, Okinawa, $532,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY, EUROPE
Germany, Various Locations, $25,000,000.
Camp Darby, Italy, $4,159,000.
Various Locations: For the United States
share of the cost of multilateral programs
for the acquisition or construction of mili-
tary facilities and installations, including in-
ternational military headquarters, for the
collective defense of the North Atlantic
Treaty Area, $88,000,000: Provided, That,
within thirty days after the end of each
quarter, the Secretary of the Army shall
furnish to the Committee on Armed Services
and on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a description of ob-
ligations Incurred as the United States share
of such multilateral programs.
SEC. 102. The Secretary of the Army may
establish or develop Army installations and
facilities by proceeding with construction
made necessary by changes in Army missions
and responsibilities which have been occa-
sioned by: (1) unforeseen security considera-
tions, (2) new weapons developments, (3)
new and unforeseen research and develop-
ment requirements, or (4) improved produc-
tion schedules if the Secretary of Defense
determines that deferral of such construction
for inclusion in the next Military Construc-
tion Authorization Act would be inconsistent
with interests of national security, and In
connection therewith to acquire, construct,
convert, rehabilitate, or install permanent or
temporary public works, including land ac-
quisition, site preparation, appurtenances,
utilities, and equipment; in the total amount
of $10,000,000; Provided, That the Secretary
of the Army, or his designee, shall notify the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and House of Representatives, immediately
upon Teaching a final decision to implement,
of the cost of construction of any public
work undertaken under this section, includ-
ing those real estate actions pertaining there-
to. This authorization will expire upon enact-
ment of the fiscal year 1976 Military Con?
-
struction Authorization Act except for those
public works projects concerning which the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and House of Representatives have been noti-
fied pursuant to this section prior to that
date.
SEC. 103. (a) Public Law 93-166 is amend-
ed under the heading "OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES?UNITED STATES ARMY EUROPE," in
section 101 as follows:
With respect to "Germany, Various Loca-
tions" strike out "$12,517,000" and insert in
place thereof "$16,360,000.".
(b) Public Law 93-166 ia amended by
striking out in clause (1) of section 602
"107,257,000" and "$596,084,000' and insert-
ing in place thereof "$111,100,000" and
"$599,927,000," respectively.
SEC. 104. (a) Public Law 92-543, as amend-
ed, is amended under the heading "INSIDE
THE UNITED STATES," HI section 101 as fol-
lows:
With respect to "Fort Myer, Virginia,"
strike out "$1,815,000' and insert in place
thereof "$3,615,000.".
With respect to "Fort Still, Oklahoma,"
strike out "$14,958,000" and insert in place
thereof "$16,159,000.".
(b) Public Law 92-545, as amended, is
amended under the heading "OuTsrok THE
UNITED STATES?UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES,
SOUTHERN COMMAND" in section 101 as fol-
lows:
With respect to "Canal Zone, Various
cations" stirke out "$8,129,000" and insert
In place thereof "$9,238,000.".
(c) Public Law 92-545, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (1) of
section 702 "$444,767,000;" "$117,311,000;"
and "$562,078,000" and Inserting in place
thereof "$447,768,000;" "$118,420,000;" and
"4566,188,000" respectively.
(Bro. 105. (a) Public Law 91-511, as amend-
ed, is amended under the beading "Ixsroz
THE UNITED STATES," in section 101 SS fol-
lows:
With respect to "Rock Island Arsenal, Illi-
nois," strike out "$2,750,000" and insert in
place thereof "$3,850,000.".
(b) Public Law 91-511, as amended, Is
amended by striking out In clause (1) of
section 602 "$181,834,000" and "$267,031,-
000" and inserting in place thereof "$182,-
734,000" and 0267,831,000," respectively.
Sec. 106. Public Law 98-166 is amended in.
section 105 as follows:
Public Law 93-166, section 105(b), amend-
ing Public Law 92-145, section 702, clause
(1) as amended, having inserted erroneous
figures, Is amended by striking out "$404,-
500,000" and "$405,107,000" and inserting in.
place thereof "$405,000,000" and "$405,607,-
000," respectively.
Mr. PIKE (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
title I be considered as read, printed in
the RECORD, and open to amendment at
any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II
Skc. 201. The Secretary of the Navy may
establish or develop military installations and
facilities by acquiring, constructing, con-
verting, rehabilitating, or installing per-
manent or temporary public works, including
land acquisition, site preparation, appurten-
ances, utilities and equipment for the fol-
lowing acquisition and construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
FIRST NAVAL D/STRICT
Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine, $261,-
000.
. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery,
Maine, $2,332,000.
Naval Security Group Activity, Winter
Harbor, Maine, $255,000.
Naval Education and Training Center,
Newport, Rhode Island, $2,682,000.
11 7993
THIRD NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Submarine Base, New London, Con-
necticut, $2,364,000.
FOURTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air Test Facility, Lakeburst, New
Jersey, $7,350,000.
Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, $296,000.
NAVAL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON
Naval District Commandant, Washington,
District of Columbia, $2,883,000.
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington,
District of Columbia, $205,000.
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, $1,-
256,000.
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda,
Maryland, $14,943,000.
Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, $15,-
000,000.
FIFTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Regional Medical Center, Camp Le-
Jenne, North Carolina, $290,000.
Naval Air Rework Facility, Cherry Point,
North Carolina, $252,000.
Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training
Center, Atlantic, Dam Neck, Virginia, $2,-
034,000.
Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Vir-
ginia, $896,000.
Atlantic Command Operations Control
Center, Norfolk, Virginia, $633,000.
Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia, $2,-
900,000.
Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, $8,364,000.
Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia, $4,-
990,000.
Naval Air Station, Oceans, Virginia, $1,-
047,000.
Norfolk Naval Regional Medical Center,
Portsmouth, Virginia, $15,801,000.
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Vir-
ginia, $5,602,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Vir-
ginia, $3,438,000.
SIXTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida,
$6,893,000.
Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida.
$446,000.
Naval Regional Medical Center, Jackson-
ville, Florida, $12,113,000.
Naval Station, Mayport, Florida, $3,239,000.
Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida,
$4,569,000.
Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama
City, Florida, $620,000.
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, $20,-
948,000.
Naval Technical Training ()enter, Pensa-
cola, Florida, $4,478,000.
Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida,
$1,561,000.
Navel Air Station, Meridian, Mi.ssissippl,
$1,485,000.
Naval Hospital, Beaufort, South Carolina,
$7,112,000.
Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston,
South Carolina, $200,000.
Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina,
$15,352,000.
Naval Supply Center, Charleston, South
Carolina, $3,750,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South
Carolina, $2,564,000,
Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tennessee,
$4,284,000.
EIGHTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Support Activity, New Orelans, Lou-
isiana, $3,080,000.
Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas,
$1,830,000.
Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Texas, $1,-
428,000.
NINTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illi-
nois, $10,164,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
H 7994
Approved For itmeRini8Rfn: Eift.M3759198W00070005001'L-2
August 9, 1974
amended by striking out in clause (2) of
section 702 "8177,664,000" and "$518,881 000"
and inserting in place thereof "8484,293000"
and "$525,510,000," respectively.
SEC. 206. (a) Public Law 93-166 is amend-
ed under the heading "Iasi= THE Haman
STATES," in section 201 as follows:
With respect to "Naval Home. Gulfport.
Mississippi," strike out "9,444,000" and In-
sert in place thereof "$14,163,000.".
With respect to "Naval Hospital, New Or-
leans, Louisiana," strike out "$3,386,000"
and insert in place thereof "$4,157,000a.
With respect to "Naval Air Station, Ala-
meda, California," strike out "$3,827,000' and
insert in place thereof "$7,756,000."-.
With respect to "Marine Corps Supply
Center, Barstow, California," strike out
"$3,802,000" and insert in place thereof
"$6,210,000.".
(b) Public Law 93-166 la amended by
striking out in clam* (2) of section 602
"$511,606,000" and "$570,439,000" and insert-
ing in place thereof "$523,433,000" and
"$582,266,000," respectively.
Mr. PIKE (during the reading) . Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
title la of the bill be considered as read,
printed in the RECORD, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY =RS. SCHROEDER
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I
offer two amendments, one amendment
to title II and one amendment to title III,
and ask unanimous consent that they
may be considered en bloc since they
concern the same subject matter.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mrs. SCHROEDER:
Page laastrike lines 24 and 25.
Page 26, line 6, strike "$8,100,000." and
insert in lieu thereof the following: "$4,-
800,000, provided that no funds authorized
under this section shall be expended for
construction of facilities at Diego Carats
Naval Installation, Indian Ocean."
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
woman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
(Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman,
basically these two amendments consid-
ered together would delete $32,300,000
that is to be tised to improve and expand
the naval communication facilities and
aircraft accommodations located at
Diego Garcia, which is a British protec-
torate in the Indian Ocean.
I am asking at this time that the
committee consider deleting these finds,
for several different reasons, and I would
like to list them:
First of all, as I understand it, Great
Britain has not yet finally agreed to
the improvements and expansion.
Second, these plans are not new. The
Navy has had these plans on hand since
the early 1960's.
Third, we have no known military
commitments that have been explained
to us as to why we require the expansion
right now.
Fourth, our military allies In the area
? have not really been pushing us very
hard to come in there, and, in fact, they
are a little bit queasy about our moving
ELEVENTH NAVAL magma
Naval Regional Medical Center, Camp Pen-
dleton, California, $10,021,0000.
Naval Weapons Center, China Late, Cali-
fornia, $8,371,000.
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach,
California, $6,011,000.
Naval Air Station, Miramar, California,
$11,354,000.
Naval Air Station, North Island, California,
$12,050,000.
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port
Hueneme, California, $1,048,000.
Naval Electronics Laboratory Center, San
Diego, California, $3,238,000.
Naval Regional Medical Center, San Diego,
California, $26,375,000.
Navy Submarine Support Facility, San
Diego, California, $4,234,000.
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach,
California, $2,147,000.
TWELFTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, Cali-
' fornia, $1,638,000.
Naval Hospital, Lemoore, California, $333,-
000.
Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, Califor-
nia, $77,000.
THIRTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Station, Adak, Alaska, $4,605,000.
TRIDENT Support Site, Bangor, Washing-
ton, $95,000,000.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Bremerton,
Washington, $393,000.
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Wash-
ington, $2,201,000.
FOURTEENTH NAVAL mamma
Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahu, Hawaii,
$795,000.
Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $1,-
505,000.
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, $3,356,000.
MARINE CORPS
Marine Barracks, Washington, District of
Columbia, $1,874,000.
Marine Corps Development and Education
Command, Quantico, Virginia, $2,803,000.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, $13,864,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point,
North Carolina, $1,260,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, New River,
North Carolina, $499,000.
Marine Corps Air Station, 'Yuma, Arizona,
$3,203,000.
Marine Corps Supply Center, Berets:Oa
California, $1,463,000.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, Cali-
fornia, $7,271,00.
Marine Corps Base, Twentynine Palms,
California, $3,076,600.
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay,
Hawaii, $5,497,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $9,849,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $44,251,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
TENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Telecommunications Center, Roose-
velt Roads, Puerto Rico, $3,186,000.
Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto
Rico, $947,000.
Naval Security Group Activity, Sabana
Seca, Puerto Rico, $1,026,000.
FIFTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
Naval Support Activity, Canal Zone, $800,-
000.
ATLANTIC OCEAN AREA
Naval Air Station, Bermuda, $1,866,000.
Naval Sation, Keflavik, Iceland, $2,317,000.
EUROPEAN AREA
Naval Security Group Activity, Edzeil,
Scotland, $571,000.
Naval Activities Detachment, Holy Loh,
Scotland, $1,188,000.
INDIAN OCEAN AREA
Naval Communications Facility, Diego Gs
cia, Chagos Archipelago, $29,000,000,
PACIFIC OCEAN AREA
Naval Communication Station, Finegayan,
Guam, Mariana Islands, $355,000.
Navy Public Works Center, Guam, Mariana
Islands, $907,000.
Naval Air Station, Cubi Point, Republic of
the Philippines, $4,052,000.
Naval Hospital, Subic Bea, Republic of the
Philippines, 8278,000.
Naval Station, Subic Bay, Republic of the
Philippines, $3,741,000.
POLLUTION ABATAMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $1,059,000.
Various Locations, Watex Pollution Abate-
ment, $4,038,000.
Sac. 202. The Secretary of the Navy may
establish or develop Navy installations and
facilities by proceeding with construction
made necessary by changes in Navy missions
and responsibilities which have been occa-
sioned by (1) unforeseen security considera-
tions, (2) new weapons developments, (3)
new and unforeseen research and develop-
ment requirements, or (4) improved produc-
tion schedules, if the Secretary of Defense
determines that deferral of such construction
for inclusion in the next Military Construc-
tion Authorization Act would be inconsistent
with interests of national security, and in
connection therewith to acquire, construct,
convert, rehabilitate, or install permanent or
temporary public works, including land ac-
quisition, site preparation, appartenanees,
utilities, aad equipment, in the total amount
of $10,000,000; Provided, That the Secretary
of the Navy, or his designee, shall notify the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and House of Representatives, immediately
upon reaching a decision to implement, of
the cost of construction of any public work
undertaken under this section, including
those real estate actions pertaining thereto.
This authorization will expire upon enact-
ment of the fiscal year 1 a76 Military Con-
struction Authorization Act, except for those
public works projects concerning_ avhich the
Committees on Armed Services of .the Senate
and House of Representatives have been noti-
fied pursuant to this section prior to that
date.
SEC. 203. (a) Public Law 90-408, as
amended, is amended under the heading
"INSIDE THE 'UNITED STATES'", in section 201 as
follows:
With respect to "Naval Academy, Anna-
polis, Maryland," strike out "$2,000,000" and
insert in place thereof "$4,391,000.".
(b) Public Law 90-408, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of
section 802 "$241,668,000" and "$248,533,000"
and inserting in place thareof "$244,059,000"
and "$250,924,000," respectively.
SEC. 204. (a) Public Law 91-511, as amend-
ed, is amended under the heading "INSIDE
THE UNITED STATES," 111 section 201. RS follows:
With respect to "Naval Air Rework Fa-
cility, Jacksonville, Florida," strike out
"$3,869,000" and insert in place thereof
"$4,534,000.".
(b) Public Law 91-511, as amended, is
amended by striking out in clause (2) of
section 602 "$247,204,000" and "$274,342,000"
and inserting in place thereof "$247,869,000"
and "$275,007,000," respectively.
SEC. 205. (a) Public Law 92-545, as amend-
ed, is amended under the heading "INSIDE
THE UNITED STATES," in section 201 RS f011CWS:
With respect to "Navy Public Works Cen-
ter, Norfolk, Virginia," strike out $3,319,000"
and insert in place thereof "$7,019,000.".
With respect to "Naval Hospital, New Or-
leans, 'Louisiana," strike out "a11,680,000"
and insert in place thereof "$14,609,000.".
(b) Public Law 92-540, as amended, is
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 LCIA-RDP75B00380R000700050011-2
August 9, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
In in any greater numbers or force. Some
of our NATO allies such as France have
also expressed concern. They wish we
would hold back a while and consider
this a little longer.
Some of the nonalined nations have
been showing a little concern about what
we would be doing with the air base on
the island. They have some fears that
we might use it as a B-52 base and ex-
pand the aircraft servicing facilities and
Vietnam haunts them.
Mr. Chairman, I think one of the main
reasons I brought this matter up again
today, is in the Senate the Committee on
Armed Services has new testimony deal-
ing with this subject. As the Mem-
bers probably know, the CIA chief, Mr.
Colby, appeared before the Committee
on Armed Services in the Senate on the
matter of Diego Garcia. He was the first
person to appear counter to the Navy
position. Much of his testimony was
classified but the sanitized version was
put in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by
Senator SYMINGTON on August 1.,Iallas
sanitized version it came across very
many -triat- Mr. Colby ieit we am not
need to increase the facilities on Diego
Garcia at this time because of the So-
viet threat. The CIA, Mr. Colby's agency
is the agency which supposedly monitors
the Soviet threat, not the Navy. Colby
stated that the CIA felt that the Soviet
threat at that time was not so critical
that we should move ahead with this ex-
pansion with great deliberate speed.
The senior Senator from my State,
1
Senator Dommex, appeared at these
hearings, and he specifically asked Mr.
o ? -ther the enlargement cot the
ac21.-..vt:mg..:1?14..i.* an
slans increase
olb sal. 4I did not thi
t - -515ra ou ? respon , a
a MIR : raaition rejatini pnyr
en we reactea n The precedents
- ? 'ere e Pakistani war,
where the Russians sent in no additional
navaL forces until the British had first
sent in a carrier, and the Israeli or Medi-
terranean flare-up we had recently,
where the Soviets did not send in any
additional naval forces until we had first
dispatched the carrier Enterprise into
the area.
Mr. Chairman, what are we talking
about? The Members have all seen the
Defense Department map out in the hall-
way, and it makes it look as though the
Russians have us in their jaws, but let
us really talk about what we are con-
sidering. What do the Soviets have in
the Indian Ocean?
What is this great Soviet threat that
we are being asked to spend $33 million
to prepare a defense against?
In 1973 they had five surface ships, one
'diesel submarine, and six auxiliary sup-
port ships in the Indian Ocean. Today
they have increased their surface ships
by one. They now have six surface ships.
These are small, none of them are large.
They still have one diesel submarine.
The only major increase has been in
mine sweepers. They have increased the
number of mine sweepers in the area to
nine, because they have been trying to
clean out the Suez Canal.
es.
Mr. Colby, from the CIA, stated that
he feels that the Soviet presence in the
India Ocean will increase only by one to
two surface combatant ships per year at
the present level, and based upon CIA
observations of what has gone on before.
Further, 25 percent of the Soviet ships
in that area tend to be just cruising from
the Pacific territory over into the west-
ern ocean.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentlewoman has expired.
(By uanimous consent, Mrs. SCHROEDER
was allowed to proceed for one addi-
tional minute.)
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, in
summary, I think what Mr. Colby
presented?and I wish all of the Mem-
bers would read it because the CIA ex-
plains a very serious situation coupled
with Admiral Zumwalt's testimony, that
we are now no longer the No. 1 ocean
power; one wonders whether we should
spread ourselves any thinner and extend
our lines even further, when there ap-
pears to be no imminent Soviet threat
according to the CIA. Further, the CIA
says if we go ahead with Diego Garcia
plans we might trigger the escalation of
the Soviet threat in that area.
I think a lot of the people think that
the sun never sets on an American com-
mitment. Especially since this expansion
has not been fully authorized by the
British, this would be a good thing
to hold back on, and study more thor-
oughly. I really do not believe that one
Russian diesel submarine, six surface
combatant ships, and a few minesweepers
are any threat to the American people
in this country.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs.
SCHROEDER) .
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mi vise and extend his re-
r. Chairman, I congratu-
uished gentlewoman from
Co or her discussion of Diego
Garcia. But I disagree.
I am amazed that so many have ex-
pressed concern that a refueling station
of limited capacity?which obviously is
needed by the U.S. Navy in the Indian
Ocean?would trigger a U.S. arms race
with the Soviets.
First of all, I should think we should
be concerned with our own requirements.
I cannot comprehend this tender regard
for the sensibilities of the Soviets. They
look after their interests; we should look
after ours. The proposal to drop Diego
Garcia would not affect Russia's plans.
They already are in the Indian Ocean in
force. Does not Congress know the facts?
Everyone else does. The Soviets have
constructed a major naval base in So-
malia?on the horn of Africa. It com-
mands the approaches to the Red Sea
and the Suez. They are in South Yemen.
They have a base in Iraq. They still are
operating out of Bangladesh.
The Russians have over four times as
many combatant and support naval
ships as we have in the Indian Ocean.
We maintain a token force in Behran,
H 7995
but we have been told to get out because
we are too friendly to Israel. There are
but few places in all the Indian Ocean
where we are allowed to buy fuel.
Perhaps you would like some compari-
sons. In 1968 the U.S. forces had 1,786
ship days in the Indian Ocean. The So-
viets had 1,765. In 1973 the United States
had 1,550 ship days in that area; the So-
viets 8,544. Ours went down. Theirs ex-
panded nearly five times. That should
tell you all you need to know about
Soviet intentions in the Indian Ocean.
I have seen a "Dear Colleague" letter
which indicates the CIA does not feel
concern about Soviet naval activities in
the Indian Ocean. It just h
have ac
? :X : ' ' ' 110 014114180
riiTgADO COMM
? a a., - .1111nWriPINIMINe . ?
all to develop this capability
now we run the risk of being unable to
respond to threats to our national in-
terest because of our inability to support
deployed forces there. We had serious
problems providing support during the
October war. We had to transport fuel
all the way from the Philippines-4,000
miles away.
The Suez Canal soon will be reopened.
It will not benefit U.S. naval forces but it
will provide the Soviets with a far shorter
route from the Indian Ocean to the
Black Sea, and will enhance considerably
their surge capability, to position naval
forces in the vital Arabian Sea/Persian
Gulf area.
Do you want to see our ships stand idle
and helpless because they run out of fuel
during a crisis in the Indian Ocean? It
could happen.
There are American interests through-
out that part of the world: millions and
million in investments. Arab oil which is
essential to our friends in Europe and
badly needed by us.
You are being told that strong objec-
tions have been raised by other nations.
I have seen no authentication for these
statements.
We have a 50-year agreement with
Britain for the use of Diego Garcia with
the option for renewal. There is nothing
to indicate serious concern by the new
government in Britain. They want spe-
cific information on our plans. They have
said that they will review all their mili-
tary commitments. All new governments
do this. No serious concern.
I have been informed in recent days
by highest U.S. authority that some for-
eign governments say they have to object
publicly to some extent to military build-
ups in order to appease the more liberal
elements in their country, but in reality
they expect the United States to go ahead
on Diego Garcia. There are just as many
who want us to go ahead. And that is
what we should do without further de-
lay.
The funds in the bill are virtually all
that are considered to be required in the
foreseeable future for our forces in Diego
Garcia.
Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Alabama.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
I-1 7996
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050011-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 9, 1974
Mr. DICKINSON, Mr. Chairman, I just
wanted to anounce to the gentleman in
the well and the Members present that
we have a new Commander in Chief as of
right now, and a new President.
SMES. Mr. Chairman, I would say
the new Commander in Chief picked a
significant time to be sworn in?while I
have the floor and while tbe House de-
bates the Nation defense. We all wish
him well in his monumental task and our
prayers are with him.
Mr. PRICE of Texas. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the
amendments.
(Mr. PRICE of Texas asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I
take this time to rise in oppesition to thin
amendment to bring my thoughts to the
Members on this matter. As a member
of the Committee on Armed Services vire
discussed this issue quite thoroughly.
We discussed this quite thorough/Y,
and it is my belief, from the information
I have had that the Soviet 'Union began
continuous naval operationS in the In
than Ocean in 1968. It has bases on
Socotra Island in the ocean and at
nearby Aden, as well as easy access to
port facilities in India and elsewhere.
The Russians have no active combat
troops in the ocean, but their force there
is believed to include I large destroyer,
1 escort, 2 mine sweepers, 1 submarine,
and 10 support ships, along with 4 or 5
mine sweepers and support ships based
in Chittagong, Bangladesh.
By contrast, the United States is now
represented by a single amphibious com-
mand ship and two destroyers, supple-
mented from time to time with carrier
task forces from other areas.
I believe the United States must estab-
lish a genuinely counterbalancing naval
force in an area that controls the sea
lanes to Middle Eastern oil. Without a
presence in the Indian Oman, without
fuel and repair facilities, without logistic
support in the third largest ocean in the
world, the United States would forfeit a
large share of its naval position to the
Russians. There is continding concern
that the British and American presence
in Asia as a whole is leavfng a vacuum
that the Russians are intent upon filling.
In recent conversation with some of
the Iranian military people,- they tell me
West Afghanistan and Afghanistan itself
Is bristling now with Soviet military
hardware. They have had a roup in their
government which is nothing but a pup-
pet government for the Soviets. So there
Is no sense in hiding the idea, as the
Iranian military people have said, that
the Russians are wanting a corridor to
the Indian Ocean through these two
countries whenever they wish to do so in
the near future.
Admiral Zumwalt, the U.S. Naval Chief
of Operations recently testified that?
Events such as the Arab-Israeli war, the
oil embargo and ensuing prise rises show
that our interests in the Indian Ocean are
directly linked with our interests in Europe
and Asia and, more broadly, with our funda-
mental interest in maintaining a stable,
worldwide balance of power.
The implication is that a Diego Garcia
base would make a specific difference
to U.S. defense capabilities.
More importantly, the base would re-
duce U.S. dependence on Subic Bay in
the Philippines, 5,000 miles away, for
any action in the Indian Ocean. During
the Bangladesh war it took the U.S. air-
craft carrier Enterprise 7 days to San
from the Pacific to enter the ocean. From
Diego Garcia, a ship could reach any port
in the area within 48 hours.
More generally, experience has shown
that a heavy U.S. presence has a temper-
ing effect on nations locked in conflict
and makes easier the big power task: of
containing local conflicts.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I would
hope this amendment would be voted
down.
lii.resesHA11 Mr. Chairman, I
move lEs .rr/W-ts e the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise In support of the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from. Colorado to strike,these funds for
i
Diego Garcia.
The significance of this money Is far
In excess of the $30 some million
that are involved. The fact is that if we
vote for these funds we will be establish-
ing for the first time a major U.S. mili-
tary presence in an area of the world
where we have heretofore had a low
niilitary poSture and profile. An expan-
sion of this base would give us a new ca-
pability in a region of the world where
every significant Soviet military move in
recent years has been in response to
something that we have done originally.
I am persuaded that there-are several
good reasons for deferring action on this
request at this time and for keeping the
expansion of the facilities at Diego Gar-
cia under review.
We have had comments today about
the extent of the bases of the Soviets
in the Indian Ocean area. Two that are
mentioned most frequently are Socotra
and Berbera in Somalia. Mr. Colby in his
report says this about Socotra:
The barren island has no port facilities
or fuel storage and its airstrip is a small
World War II gravel runway.
With regard to the base
says that there are no re
ashore. They do have a sma
cations facility there.
One of the reasons we ought to oppose
the money for Diego Garcia is that we
should seek to avoid a naval arms race
competition in this part of the world. It
is the assessment of many of the experts,
including the CIA, that Diego Garcia and
the expansion of that base could have the
effect of escalating naval competition in
that part of the world.
In response to questions asked on the
Senate side, Mr. Colby testified:
I think our assessment is that the Soviets
would match any increase in our presencE, in
the area.
The implication of that remark sim-
ply is that if we go in here and expand
our facilities, then the Soviets will do
likewise and we will be launched upon an
arms race in a part of the world that
has heretofore been free of military cam-
Petition between the super powers. Our
expansion in Diego Garcia Is going to
attract like a magnet the Soviet presence
In that area of the world.
The second reason we can support the
amendment of the gentlewoman from
Colorado is because deferring action on
this will have no adverse impact on the
position of the United States in the In-
dian Ocean. We are able today, and we
can continue to be able, to protect our
national interest in that area with occa-
sional visits from the 7th Fleet statoned
in the Pacific Ocean.
We have naval superiority in the In-
dian Ocean today and there is no indica-
tion that we are going to lose it.
The gentleman from Florida in his ex-
cellent statement ceted the number of
ship daye in the Indian Ocean, but it
makes all the difference in the world
what kind of ships we are talking about
and the fact is that today naval superi-
ority rests with the United States in the
Indian Ocean area.
There is another reason we ought to
defer on this money, too, We should be
testing Soviet intentions rather than
testing Soviet capabilities to react to
what we might do he Diego Garcia The
most important testing of Soviet inten-
tions will come when the Suez Canal is
open. I think we all agree that opening
up that canal will add flexibility to the
Soviet Fleet, but it does not necessarily
follow that the Soviet Union can or will
automatically as a result of that, increase
significantly its Indian Ocean presence.
It is the opinion of Mr. Colby from
CIA, that?
If there is no substantial increase in U.S.
naval forces In the area, we believe the
Soviet inZrease will be gradual, say one to
two surface combatants per year. Should the
United States make a substantial increase
In its naval presence in the Indian Ocean,
a Soviet buildup faster and larger than I
have just described sipuld be likely, ,
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. HAMIL-
TON was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.)
Mr. HAMILTON. To continue the quo-
tation from Mr. Colby:
If the canal were open and available to
Russian ships, the task of responding would
be easier.
In any event, the Soviets would probably
not be able to sustain an Indian Ocean force
significantly larger than that presently de-
ployed there without reordering then pri-
orities and shifting naval forces from other
areas.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as the gentle-
woman from Colorado observed, we
should support her amendment, simply
because the new British Government,
the owners of the island, has not decided
whether to support or not support the
American request for expansion of facili-
ties.
I think in light of these observations
and several ethers that have been made
this morning, the prudent course would
be to hold back, to defer action for some
time yet to see what happens so far as
the Soviets are concerned.
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words, and
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
?
.Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
August 9, 197:4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
(Mr. BRAY asked and was given Per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks).
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, since last
October, the United States has been
maintaining naval forces in the Indian
Ocean on a more frequent and more reg-
ular basis than in the past. These forces,
which have included aircraft carriers
and surface combatant units, have de-
ployed on an intermittent basis from the
Pacific Fleet to augment the three ships
of the U.S. Middle East Force which
have operated in the Persian Gulf and
Indian Ocean for a quarter of a century.
To date, these forces have had to de-
pend on a logistical support chain which
extends more than 4,000 miles to estab-
lished U.S. bases in the Philippines. As
a result, in the event of an emergency or
crisis in the Indian Ocean area, these
units could find themselves at the ex-
posed end of a lengthy line of supply in
circumstances which would require a
massive commitment of tankers and
other support units from the Pacific
Fleet, thus seriously degrading our ca.
pabilities in the western Pacific.
The expansion of the support fac
ities available to our forces on the t
Island of Diego Garcia would s
nificantIy improve both the efficien
and effectiveness of the forces deplos,
to the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is
small atoll directly in the center of th
Indian Ocean. It has not native popul
tion, and it is the sovereign territory
Great Britain. At the present time Nv
already have a communications statio
on the island, with an airstrip and ye
limited port facilities.
The present bill proposes the authori
zation of $32.3 million to lengthen t
runway, improve the harbor by dredgin
a larger anchorage and lengthening th
pier, construct fuel storage tanks, en
large the quarters for personnel sta
tioned on the island, and otherwise
equip the island with the necessary fa
cilities to permit support of units de
ployed to the Indian Ocean.
The construction of additional facili
ties on Diego Garcia does not imply
larger 'U.S. military presence in the area
No operational forces will be based there
No ships will be horneported there. N
U.S. dependents will live there. On th
contrary, the effect of this constructio
will be to permit more efficient support of units which operate in that area from
--
time to time. It will shorten the lengt
of the supply chain and reduce th
chances that such operations will plac
sudden and unexpected demands on our
limited support resources in the Pacific
We are all aware of the growing im-
portance of this area to the United States
and its allies. The Indian Ocean is the
third largest ocean of the world, and
over its surface each day passes 50 per-
cent of all the oil transported by sea. The
stability of this vast region is inextrica-
bly linked to broader issues of interna-
tional security.
The Soviet Union has maintained a
permanent naval force in the Indian
Ocean since 1968, and that presence has
been growing steadily over the years At
the present time, the U.S.S.R. has al-
most 30 ships in the area, including 7
H 7997
conibatant units. For the most part, certain segments within the Russian
these units operate in the north- power structure will not view it to be
western corner of the Indian Ocean, that way. I think that Diego Garcia, if
where they have established regular ac- it is developed, could, in fact, act as a
cess to port facilities in the harbor of magnet in attracting Russian efforts
Berbera in Somalia. There they have a and presence in the Indian Ocean in the
communications station, fuel storage, future.
personnel quarters for the Soviet techni- Mr. Chairman, let me Just make a few
clans and their dependents, and floating comments. It was indicated, I think by
repair facilities, in addition to a run- the chairman of my subcommittee, the
way which is under construction. To gentleman from Florida (Mr. Silas),
date, the Soviet Fleet has been supported that the Russians have four times the
from the Soviet Pacific Fleet, but this amount of combatants and supply ships
lengthy supply line will be cut sharply in that area, most of the time, than we
when the Suez Canal opens and the dis- have. That is true, if you look at the
tance from the Black Sea to the Indian numbers; but as has been pointed out
Ocean is cut by more than 70 percent. several times previously, the important
There is no way to predict the course thing is not to look at the number of
of events in this area where the United ships in that area, but to look at the kind
States and its allies have a significant of ships in that area.
Investment bath in the political and the Of these questions, everybody has a
commercial sense. In the absence of cer- tendency to toss around references to
tainty, it would appear both prudent and classified sheets and wave them before
reasonable to insure that we can make the House. Well, we can all do that. If
our own presence known from time to anyone wants to look, I can show him
time. Such capability would be facili- here what the character of those ships
tated and rendered more economical by was in the Indian Ocean, should he want
the development of support installations to take a look at those sheets. I can show
MY legislation.
11- on Diego Garcia, as authorized in this other sheets provided me by the Navy. I
can show the Members sheets indicating
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in what the situation is as far as access to
cY support of the amendment. various ports within the Indian Ocean is
ed Mr. Chairman, I do somewhat regret concerned.
a the fact that an issue such as this?and We can all do that. But the point is
e It is certainly no one's error, it just has that the Navy will admit?under ques-
a- happened?but I do regret that an issue tioning, they have to me and they have
of like this has to be discussed on this day to others?that any time we want, we
e of all days, simply because I think we all can have greater fire power there?in-
n recognize when we look around this floor deed, we have had greater fire power in
rY that so many Members of this House are the Indian Ocean?than have the Rus-
occupied with other momentous mo- stens.
- ments in this country's history. I think The statement was also made by some-
he we know what will happen to this amend- one?I have forgotten which speaker it
g ment because this issue has not yet re- was?that the reason some of the coun-
e ceived much publicity, tries in the immediate area have pro-
- Mr. Chairman, I do want to rise, never- tested to our Government about our
- theless, in support of the amendment, be- plans in Diego Garcia is because they
to cause I think it is important to state my merely have to do that to mollify the
- doubts about it. I had opposed very leftists within their own country.
- strongly the inclusion of this amendment If that is true, then I would suggest
in the supplemental request for last fis- that it could indeed be a great mistake to
- cal year. I was somewhat ambivalent follow through with Diego Garcia, be-
a about it in this bill, but I thought long cause if one follows that same logic, he
? and hard about it, and I questioned the will recognize then that that would put
o ? Navy in our hearings in the Military Con- great pressure on the Indian Govern-
struction Subcommittee of the Appropri- ment.
o ations Committee, and I have come to The CHAIRMA/q pro tempore. The
II the conclusion, as the gentleman from time of the gentleman from Wisconsin
ndicated, that prudence
would dictate that for now We lay this
matter aside.
e I say this, not because I have any
great worry about the fact that the Navy
wants to use this refueling station, as it
? has been termed, as the foot in the door,
the camel's nose under the tent, to go on
to bigger and better thIngs, but rather
because I do think it could elicit an irra-
tional overresponse from the Russians.
If one has studied Russian history, I
think the one thing that becomes ap-
parent is that because of their history,
they really in a sense have almost a para-
noid outlook on any action which takes
place around the world which is any-
where near the Russian sphere of in-
fluence.
I think
e gentleman from
Indiana is correct that while our inten-
tions may be harmless a
as expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. OBEY was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional min-
utes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, to continue
what I was saying, that would put great
pressure on the Indian Government to
agree to Russian pressure for base rights.
We would have that same chain oc-
curring if we followed that logic, and I
do indeed believe that in this case the
Indians could feel under greater pressure
to give in, not only to the leftist political
groups in their own area, but also to a
Russian request as well, provided that we
have a visible new presence different in
character than we had before which can
be pointed to by those within the Soviet
Union and in who are only too anxious to
point to things of that nature.
It was also said by one
nd
above board, heard him right, and I may not have,
?Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050011-2
H 7998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE August 9, 1974
but if I heard him right, it was indicated be considered a threat under any circurn-
by one speaker that this would really be Stances. I think it is ridiculous to suggest
our only base from which to strike at that the Indians are now going to feel
China anti the Soviet Union. I do not compelled to succumb to the demands
think the Navy looks a this in those
terms. If it does, we would most certainly
be contributing to an escalation of mili-
tary efforts on both sides in that area.
of the Soviet Union for a base on Indian
territory because we improve this facility.
So I hope we do not buy the argument
that something is to be gained by post-
Mr. Chairman, if that is d wziat poning a decision. I think it is a reason-
the gentleman from Texas said, let me able suggestion that we go ahead and tin-
also point out that the Navy itself admits prove this facility, and I myself, see no
that there is nothing which would be adverse foreign policy consequences in
more vulnerable to attract during time connection with this.
of war than would be Diego Garcia.. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, will the
This is not any base which we can gentleman yield?
use in time of all out war; itis only good Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be
for us in time of relative peace. If we glad to yield to the gentleman from Min-
have war, it can be wiped out in 10 Min- nesota.
utes. I, do not think anYlscslY seriously Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, what
doubts that. - puzzles me is why we are doing this in
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest in the the first place.
Interest of prudence, in the intertist of Mr. FRELINGIBTYSEN. Well, as I said
giving our new President time to con- to the gentleman earlier, we held hear-
sides all the political ramifications of ings in our subcommitee, and we did
this problem that we lay it aside for a have considerable discussion then as to
year and see whether or nOt there can why we were doing it. The testimony is
be achieved negotiations which will re- available.
suit in agreement that the iticlian Ocean Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I am sure
ought to be a hands-off area for both the gentleman acknowledges that the
the Russians and ourselves. testimony suggests there Is no need for
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair- this.
man, I move to strike the requisite num- Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, that certainly is not true. I suggest
ber of words, and I rise in opposition to
the amendments.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEDT asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, it is easy enough to exaggerate the
significance of the facility which is to
be expanded at Diego Garcia. It was said
just now that should we proceed with
prudence?and I hope we cro?as we may
elicit an irrational response from the So-
viet Union.
I think we exaggerate the irrationally
of the Soviets if we think there is going
to be some irrational response. I do not
know what an "irrational response"
would constitute. I doubt very much If
It sends any tremors Up sand down the
spines of the Soviet military establish-
ment becomes we decide tolmprove a fa-
cility in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we are going to
reject the argument that somehoW nrtt-
dence dictates that we do_ not move. In
my opinion, prudence clictelaas that we do pointed out? - Mr. FRASER. Does the gentleman
a naval race or a possible military con-
frontation in the Indian Ocean, certainly
we are not advocating that.
Mr. FRASER. If the gentleman will
yield further, what interests of the
United States are at stake in the middle
of the Indian Ocean?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In my opin-
ion it is important that we maintain a
presence there. A question like that from
a member of the Costimittee on Foreign
Affairs who presumably is informed on
this surprises me. I -would assume that
what has been going on in the Middle
East would surely be enough to indicate
that we have a legitimate reason for a
presence in that area.
No one is suggesting, that I know of,
that We should move out entirely for
fear of adverse consequences if we do not.
I would think the gentleman from Dein-
nesota would understand that we have a
very major interest in the stability in the
Middle East.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
[Mr. FRASER addressed the Commit-
tee. His remarks will appear hereafter in
the Extensions of Reinarkg.I
FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRASER. I yield to-the gentleman
that the gentleman read the testimony, from New Jersey.
both in our own subcommittee and be- Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the
fore the Committee on Appropriations. gentleman.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, if the Mr. Chairman, Unless the gentleman
gentleman will yield further, the guile- pushes that kind of argument, why
man is familar with the testimony in the should anyone think that this is what we
record which was giver; by the Cenral are engaged in? What the gentleman
Intelligence Agency. seems to be saying is that we should not
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Of course, I improve a facility that the gentleman
might say to the gentleman I have read recognizes is neceseary. To me there Is
the testimony, and I come down firnly no logic in that, and unless the gentle-
= the side that there is nothing to, be man wants to make a mountain out of
gained by a delay or a mulling over of
the wisdom of doing this. To me, all the
cards are stacked in favor of this move.
I do not think it is against our national
Interest; I believe it is very much in our
national interest.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, does the
gentleman agree that if we Increase the
naval presence on the part of the United
States in that area, that will increase
the naval presence of the Soviets, as the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Oray)
a mole hill, I do not find our potnitial
adversaries, or those around the Indian
Ocean, really pushing very hard if there
is some imminent threat or a change in
the character of their interest in the
area by what we are proposing.
Mr. FRASER. The gentleman agrees
that the agents have asked the Indian
Ocean be demilitarizede Does he agree
with that fact?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think we all
would like to see demilitarization.
move. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair- agree that they have asked fox that
Obviously this is going to constitute a mall, I think that is s ridiculous argu- status?
decided improvement in the availability ment. I do not agree with the gentleman Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think it is
of facilities needed by our naval units. that this is necessarily going to increase a goal to be desired, and I think we
I see, as a member of the Committee our naval presence. It certainly is going would like to see less emphasis on Irma-
on Foreign Affairs, no far-reaching far- to make our operations in the Indian ments; but this is not an argument for
eign policy consequences that would be Ocean more economical, because we will us to say we should not improve the
adverse to our own interests, be able to do a lot more with a little im- facility.
I happened to lse In New Delhi in Feb- provement of our facilities. Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I
ruary when this issue was very much As the gentleman frsm Wisconsin has move to strike the requisite number of
a matter of headlines in the Indian news- already pointed out, there is already a words.
papers, and I heard no complaints from far greater naval presence on the part (Mr. HARRINGTON asked and was
any Indian officials. / did have time to of the Soviets in that area than there given permission to revise and extend
have some discussions with university is on the part of the United States. I his remarks.)
students, who expressed ooncern about think it is ridiculous for us try to de- Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
the development and the possible aggres- veiop some kind of a fear that we are go- do not know that I can make an effective
sive intentions of the United States be- ing to develop a rivalry on the part of the contribution to the factual side of this
cause of our desire to improve Diego Soviet Union because of this very mod- debate that has not been made very elo-
Garcia. est improvement made by the United quently already by the speaker who pre-
I said I would doubt very much that States. It is an absurd argument that the ceded me, but let me offer some observe-
& base over a thousand miles from the national interests of the Soviet Union tions, if I can, on the state of mind
territorial lands of India could possibly are involved, and that they will develop attendant to the Diego Garcia proposal.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Aproved For RleogisalaRib)%02i ?dkAliltFjs 5631138E1000700050011-2
H 7999
August 9,
This debate has all the trappings of a
hearing of Committee on Armed Services
hearing. We are replete with maps out-
side of the door showing the "threat" in
the now new-defined fashion. We have
so many references to secrecy, and cer-
tain Members being privy to knowledge
which no one else has, that I am sur-
prised we do not conclude this debate
by stamping the whole thing "secret"
and asking, once again, the American
Congress to act as an article of faith and
to take the word of those who claim to
know much more about the threat than
we do.
I served briefly, and I am sure con-
troversially as far as substantive con-
tribution made, on the committee
from which this proposal emanates. To
say that there is a balanced approach in
the committee is, I think, to do a dis-
service to reality, when it comes to an
objective effort at hearing the other side
of this argument.
I am reminded, as recently as last
night and as poignantly as this morning
in the valedictory of the last holder of
the Office of the Presidency, before Mr.
Gerald R. Ford took office at noontime,
that one of the hopes the previous oc-
cupant had for his administration, and
that he remembered historically, was the
contribution he made toward changing
foreign policy perceptions which had
been believed and adhered to for 25
years. Those perceptions are the sort of
things that I think are at stake in this
kind of debate.
We can argue the reasons for and
against Diego Garcia. We can question
whether or not our knowledge is roughly
equal to the knowledge offered by those
who have thought they had expertise be-
cause of service on the committee, or ac-
cess to secret information. But when do
we begin to take the step, to take the
challenge to give something more than
Just promises, and give some substance
to the questions of what we do, and when
do we demonstrate we are not going to
continue down that path which we so
often find ourselves following?
I sat through most of the debate on
the Defense appropriations bill the other
day. Ironically, it took only a day to get
rid of $83 billion of our wealth over the
course of the next fiscal year, and, the
same kind of circular reasoning?the
closed circuitry which characterizes the
kind of committee activity on these
things?again reemerges on this Friday
afternoon.
Last Friday it was Radio Liberty and
Radio Free Europe. This Friday it is
Diego Garcia and the military construc-
tion bill.
There has been testimony on Diego
Garcia, which has been clearly contra-
dictory. The Navy's spokesman, Admiral
Zumwalt, who has found popular sup-
port on the Republican side of the aisle
and with certain segments on my side of
the aisle, would like to have us believe
that there is a Soviet threat that would
justify a Diego Garcia base, while in
separate testimony CIA Director Colby
has cast severe doubt on the Navy esti-
mate. Despite these contradictions, we
cannot bring ourselves to stand here and
say we will renounce right now, in the
face of least conflicting testimony, the
dangerous course of unilateral expansion
in the Indian Ocean. The question now is
whether or not we trigger another arms
race by giving the Navy all they want to
spend over the next calendar year at
Diego Garcia, and by giving the Navy one
more ethic to justify its budget.
It seems to me, without attempting to
repeat the kind of factual groundwork
which has been gone over and over, that
the time has come for this country to
take a chance, in the direction of show-
, ing we can give something more than
false expectations to that gallery as to
what we are going to do with the re-
sources of this country, and foresake the
Diego Garcia Naval Base.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not hold up the
Committee unduly but I do think it is
time we got a little factual information
on this situation. Although many of the
Members have had the opportunity to
see the charts that were in the corridor,
I think it might be helpful to bring them
in and remind the Members once again
what we are really talking about and
what the situation is that actually con-
fronts us.
If these charts look familiar, Mr.
Chairman, it is because we have been
down this route once before. The gentle-
man from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) said
he thought it was last year. It was not
last year. It was last April. We had the
whole question of Diego Garcia before us
In April in the supplemental appropria-
tion bill, and on the fourth of April,
after these charts had been presented
and after the issue had been debated in
detail and after we had a chance to make
up our minds, this House voted 255 to
94 to go ahead with the construction at
Diego Garcia.
So we are not operating in a vacuum.
This is something that-We have consid-
ered carefully and we have voted on be-
fore.
So why is it back here again in this
Chamber? It is because the distinguished
body at the other end of the Capitol de-
cided they would rather handle the mat-
ter in the military construction bill, and
so very, very reluctantly the conferees
on the part of the House had to give in.
We have now come back with the same
proposal in the construction bill for the
consideration of Members of the House.
A :reat deal has been made about the
0 a r ? .
that regardless of what we do, if we do
not even put a sailboat in a bathtub in
the Indian Ocean, the Russians are going
to continue to increase their naval pres-
ence in the Indian Ocean steadily as they
have been for the past 5 or 6 years. He
also said that if we increase our naval
presence they will probably increase their
naval presence accordingly.
OK. Now what we have presented in
this bill is not an increase in naval "pres-
ence" at all. As a matter of fact we do
not even have any naval presence in the
Indian Ocean. We have to go into the
Indian Ocean temporarily from Thailand
or from the Philippines or from the Per-
sian Gulf or around the Cape of Good
Hope. We do not have a single base in
the Indian Ocean. We have only a com-
munications station.
Those hammers and sickles that the
Members see over there on that chart
are real live Soviet naval bases.
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. STRATTON. I will be glad to yield
after I have completed my remarks, but
now let us get the facts.
The one at the top for example is in
Iraq. They have POL facilities there and
they have got limited shore facilities. The
one in Yemen has extensive British
facilities which the Russians are now
using. They also have dry docks and they
have got storage and POL, which means
petroleum, oil, and lubricants. Down in
Berbera the Russians have a barracks
and they have a repair ship and they
have further POL storage. In Mogadiscio
in the Somalia Republic the Soviets
have been building, and I think by now
have almost completed, a whole new
military airfield. In addition to that they
have the two anchorages at Socotra and
one down in the Seychelles; and the
Socotra anchorage also contains POL
facilities, the kind of oil storage we seek
for Diego Garcia.
But we have no "presence" in the In-
dian Ocean. All we want to do, all we are
proposing in this bill, is to allow a fueling
station for those U.S. ships that may
occasionally, from time to time, come in.
This is not going to increase the num-
ber of ships at all.
We think that it makes some sense
that we should have at least one gas
pump, if you like, in the middle of the
Indian Ocean, a couple storage tanks
with aviation gas and naval fuel, and
that we ought to have a little pier, that
we ought to have some dredging done,
and that we ought to extend the runway
by 4,000 feet. All those actions are not
going to bring a single additional ship
into the Indian Ocean.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. STRATTON
was allowed to proceed for an additional
5 minutes.)
Mr. STRATTON. As I say, this con-
struction is not going to bring a single
additional ship into the Indian Ocean.
It simply is going to mean that the snips
that we have there from time to time
will have an opportunity to pick up a
little fuel.
Somebody asked a moment ago, what
kind of interest does the United Stater
have in the Indian Ocean?
Well, I would think if we had a Navy
It would certainly be in our interest to
have fuel facilities available for that
Navy in various places. Yet we do not
have now a single fuel facility in the
entire Indian Ocean for the Navy, in
comparison to all that the Soviets have.
That is all that is involved here. And all
it includes is an expenditure of $29
million.
Now, the last time we went through
this debate, we heard all this business
about escalating the arms race and the
naval competition in the Indian Ocean
which was now an area of peace.
Well, there are three things that have
changed since we last debated this ques-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
11 8000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 9, 1974
tion in April. Point one is Portugal. We
Pointed out at that time that if we
wanted to supply the Middle East in a
new emergency, and somehow Portugal
denied us the Azores, the only other way
to get supplies to the Middle East would
be by staging our C-5's at Diego Garcia.
We suggested then that perhaps there
might be a revolution in Portugal. And
now they have had one.
Second, the Indians complained last
spring that we were upsetting this beau-
tiful, peaceful area where everybody was
at peace. But what did they do shortly
thereafter? They exploded _ an atom
bomb since we last voted on Diego Gar-
cia. So the Indians cannot be too much
concerned about threats to the peace.
The third thing that happened, the
Air Force at titapao in Thailand has re-
cently been denied permission for any
flights into the Indian Ocean for re-
supply or anything of that kirid; so there
Is even more reason why we should build
these facilities to supply fuel for the very
limited presence that we have there now.
What is the point of having a Navy and
saying that we believe we ought to have
access to all the world's sea lanes, and
then say, however, we are not going to
supply any fuel to our ships?
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Colorado
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado Thank you
for yielding. The gentleman has always
been fair on this 'scant. It seems to me
what the gentleman and others are
talking about, this thing of putting a
$29 million filling station is at odds with
the report. Now, who is kidding whom?
The last report I read this year said
the chief advantage of Diego Garcia lies
in the ability to show the flag, to make a
major show of force...
The report this time says we may lose
politcal and diplomatic influenee by
default. That is at odds with what the
gentleman says.
Mr. STRATTON. It is not at odds at
all. During the Middle East war, for
example, the carrier Enterprise sailed
into the Indian Ocean. I suppose that
is what We mean by "showing the flag."
But the Enterprise is a nuclear ship. If
we do not have a nuclear ship available
then we must get oil for it from some-
where. It cannot operate very long or
over long distances without fuel.
The only reason we want ships in the
Indian Ocean are the same reason we
send ships everywhere; in other words,
to protect the sea lanes and provide
security.
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. RYAN. Let me see if I have this
right. The gentleman is saying, if I can
summarize his argument in favor of
Diego Garcia, we have been in effect then
a communications facility in the past, or
a kind of phone booth, and now we are
going to be a petroleum depot or a kind
of filling station. There are those who
say it is going to be a police station or
a much larger permanent base to be used
for American national defense interests.
I presume from all the gentleman says,
he would deny this is to be used for any
further purpose than aimply for petro.
leum and fueling purposes.
Mr. STRATTON. It would be used to
supply those ships of our Navy which
from time to time we would like to have
operate in the Indian Ocean. By having
the fuel there, it means that they can
operate longer and faster in the Indian
Ocean.
Mr. RYAN. It would be primarily for
fueling purposes, is that right?
Mr. STRATTON. That is right.
Mr. RYAN. Let me ask the gentleman
this: Would he then opeose, since the
argument seems to be not so much fuel-
ing as what It may become?would the
gentleman oppose a Pentagon request for
that island to become more than a fuel-
ing station?
Mr. STRATTON. At this point, I do net
see any need for any such request. I think
what we ought ultimately so do should be
based on what happens when the Suez
Canal is opened. If we see, as some people
tell us we will, that a great hegira of So-
viet ships will come down i!rom the Black
Sea into the Indian Ocean, then that
could conceivably create a new problem
and we would have to reevaluate that new
situation.
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words, and
I rise in opposition to the amendments.
(Mr. KING asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, the United
States has maintained a military pres.-
ence in the Indian Ocean area for more
than 20 years, consisting primarily of the
three ships of Middle East force operat-
ing out of Bahrain Island in the Persian
Gulf. During the past 8 months, the
United States has been conducting more
frequent naval deployments into the In-
dian Ocean, including the periodic de-
ployment of a carrier task force. Such
deployments provide tangible evidence of
concern for security and stability in a
region where significant U.S. interests
are located.
At the same time, we sh mild not ignore
the economic costs associated with such
deployments. The nearest U.S.-support
facility to the operating areas of our
forces in the Indian Ocean is in the
Philippines, some 4,000 m:les away. Con-
sequently, the Department of Defense has
requested the Congress to authorize the
expansion of the present communications
facility on the island of Diego Garcia into
a limited support facility. The requested
$32.3 million appropriation would permit
lengthening of the runway from 8,000 to
12,000 feet, expansion of the anchorage
area in the lagoon, extension of the small
pier to permit alongside berthing, and
construction of POL storage facilities
and additional personnel quarters.
The island of Diego Garcia is an mi-
inhabited coral atoll in the center of the
Indian Ocean. It is under British sover-
eignty as part of the British Indian
Ocean Territory?BIOT?which was
constituted in 1965. Since 1966 the is-
lands of the BIOT have been available for
the joint defense use of Britain and the
United States under the terms of a gee,-
ertunent-to-government agreement, and
there has been a joint United States.
United Kingdom communications station
on the island since 1973. The expansion
of facilities on the island would facilitate
the effective support of periodic depky-
ments into the Indian Ocean area and
would avoid many of the difficulties asso-
ciated with a 4,000-mile logistical "tail."
Neither the deployments nor the pro-
posed support facilities at Diego Garcia
represent a uniquely American concern.
Last fall, the French created a new In-
dian Ocean command which currently
consists of nine combatant units; the
British also regularly maintain up to
five cosnbatntT naval units with mari-
time air support from several sites in the
Indian Ocean; the Soviet Union, of
course, has maintained a permanent na-
val presence in the Indian Ocean since
1968 which at times has exceeded 30
ships, and in recent years has developed
its own communications and port facili-
ties at Berbera in Somalia. Several of
the littoral states also have sizable na-
vies, two of which?India and Iran--are
considerably larger in size than she
forces deployed to the area by any of 'the
external powers.
The Indian Ocean is no more a naval
vacuum than it is a political or economic
vacuum, and the periodic presence of the
U.S. naval ships in the third largest
ocean of the world can be considered
neither a remarkable event nor a threat
to any nation ha the area. On the con-
trary, a periodic U.S. presence in the
Indian Ocean provider; tangible evidence
of our concern for security and stability
in a region where significant U.S. inter-
ests are located. Our capability to main-
tain such a presence would be signifi-
cantly enhanced by the development of
a limited support facility on the island of
Diego Garcia.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendments offered by the gentle-
woman from Colorado (MES. SCHROE-
DER).
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mrs. SCHROEDER)
there were?ayes 28; noes 58.
So the amendments were rejected.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the first committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 11, inc
16, strike out the figure "1629,648,000" end
substitute the figure "920,948,000."
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 11 me
20, strike out the word "Feld" and substitute
the word "Field."
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the next committee amendment
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 19, dna
9, strike out the figure "$4,151,000" and sub-
stitute the figure "94,157,000".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
August 9, 1974, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE 11 8001.
AMENDMENT OFTERED ITT MR. ST GERMAIN
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sr GERMAIN:
Title II is amended by striking out on line
16 of page 9 "$2,582,000" and inserting in
place thereof "$4,153,000".
(Mr. ST GERMAIN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman,
yesterday, August 8, I sent a "Dear Col-
league" letter around to all of the Mem-
bers of the House. It set forth the justi-
fication for the amendment offered.
On April 17, 1973, the Department of
Defense announced a major realinement
which involved the consolidation, reduc-
tion or closing of 274 military installa-
tions in the United States. Fifty percent
of the impact fell on the State of Rhode
Island with the closing of Quonset Point
Naval Air Station and the transfer of the
Newport Fleet, consisting of 39 destroy-
ers and cruisers, to southern ports.
Revitalization of the economy of the
Newport area from the outset has de-
pended upon a full utilization of the va-
cated destroyer piers. Extensive negotia-
tions have proceeded for over a year be-
tween the State of Rhode Island, GSA
and the Navy with the assistance of the
Department of Defense Office of Eco-
nomic Adjustment.
The Navy has now solicited leasing
bids for utilization of the piers and adja-
cent warehousing facilities.
The facilities involved were excessed
last fall with the approval of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services.
Essential to this entire project is the
relocation base public works adminis-
tration building, which was struck from
the Navy's request by the committee and
placed in a deferred category.
Under the bill before us today, my re-
view of the hearings reveals totally in-
complete responses to questions, and
legitimate questions, raised by the mem-
bers of the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices, by Navy and Department of Defense
witnesses. The Sims Hall alterations
were described as a project for the sole
use and benefit of the Naval War College.
The facts are that the center serves the
fleet worldwide and accommodates nu-
merous other requests for war game pro-
gramming essential for strategic long-
range planning. Today, a number of
potential subcontractors are even at this
very moment inspecting the facility for
bidding on software components, and
equipment installation contracts are
currently being negotiated or planned.
Last spring, many Members on both
sides of the aisle expressed their sym-
pathy for Rhode Island's being required
to shoulder the burden of the DOD re-
alignment plan. With the loss of a mili-
tary population in excess of 15,000 offi-
cers and men in the Newport area alone
In little over a year, the Members can
well imagine the effect upon our econ-
omy. We have turned to the task of pull-
ing ourselves up by our bootstraps. All I
ask is that you support my amendment
to restore a total of $1,571,000 for the 2
items I have described, both requested
by the Navy. The decision to close or
substantially reduce our naval based was
a cruel and callous one. Our efforts to ob-
tain a review and reconsideration were
met by failure. The total costs of the
move are yet to be determined. But that
Is all water under the bridge.
I urge that the Members support, in
the name of simple fairness and equity,
my amendment to restore vitally needed
facilities. I deeply regret that my col-
leagues on the Committee on Armed
Services were not furnished accurate and
complete responses to their questions.
I am hopeful, frankly, that the com-
mittee will accept this amendment.
I might say this to my colleagues:
Newport does not just have scars from
what happened to us with the closing
down of the bases. We still have gaping,
wide-open wounds. We have not recov-
ered. The economy is in a very bad con-
dition.
I would like to make another point,
and that is that as far as the Navy re-
quests are concerned, the cuts totalled
$21,801.000. Here again, the cut for New-
port, Rhode Island, is practically 10 per-
cent of the overall cut.
I have no quarrel, as I say, with the
subcommittee members because they
did not get accurate answers to the ques-
tions. The Navy witnesses were delin-
quent or did not possess the information
they should have had.
No. 1, Sims Hall, as I say, will serve
the entire fleet. No. 2, the warehouse Is
an antiquated warehouse.
One of the Members asked a question
about whether there could not be a cor-
ridor built so that they could keep using
the warehouse which is located in the
area that had been excessed by the Navy,
by the piers, and still utilize it for the
War College and the schools that now
remain in Newport.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Rhode Island has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Sr GER-
MAIN was allowed to proceed for 2 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. ST GERMAIN. The cost of the cor-
ridor would far exceed the $600,000 re-
quested, and there would be a continuing
cost for security measures around this
warehouse, plus the fact that the Navy
is present right there at the piers that
are going to be leased to private industry
and private contractors.
I might say that over the years I have
supported military construction author-
izations and appropriations, year after
year after year, for 14 years.
We were hurt by the base closings, and
all I am asking here today is the restora-
tion of what was requested by the De-
partment of Defense as necessary to
them, because it will mean jobs for
Rhode Islanders and especially to those
in the Newport area who are out of jobs.
It will mean some small additional in-
come to the area, and It will help
strengthen the War College and the
school facilities existing in the area.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the subcommit-
tee and the committee will see fit to go
along with this amendment.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in op-
position to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment reluctantly, because I
certainly do recognize that the State of
Rhode Island did, in fact, assume a very
major part of the realinements in the
Defense Establishment when those were
announced some time ago.
I do wish to correct one thing that
the gentleman from Rhode Island just
stated. I was absolutely shocked last year
to find that when the final passage of
this same bill came along, the gentle-
man was not one of those who were sup-
porting it but was one of the 25 Mem-
bers who opposed it. I just happen to
have the RECORD here, if the gentleman
would care to check me on it.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to
state that as to the amount of cuts which
were going on in this bill in relation to
the State of Rhode Island, it is true that
the net cuts in the bill were only $21
million but the gross cuts in this bill
were $86.5 million.
So I do not think that the gentleman
from Rhode Island or the State of Rhode
Island is bearing an unfair proportion of
those cuts.
We had some add-ons that we had to
make. The Members just heard the add-
on of $29 million for Diego Garcia which
was transferred from the military con-
struction bill. I voted against that add-
on. But the net was there. We had add-
ons for deficiency authorizations of $21.5
million.
The gentleman asks that two separate
Items be added to the bill. The larger
item of $971,000 was the 27th item of
the bottom percentage in the priorities
of the Navy as they were presented to
the committee. That was for the altera-
tion to Sims Hall.
As to the public works administra-
tion building, the committee rejected
that because the Navy had assured us?
and they assured us not when the base
was closed but when they went to dis-
pose of the excess property?that the
disposal would not require any new con-
struction anywhere else. This is new con-
struction somewhere else, in contradic-
tion to what the Navy told us would
happen.
Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PIKE. I yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I would Just like to ask the
gentleman this: Am I right in assuming
that the committee made some more cuts
in Rhode Island in this bill?
Mr. PIKE. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. In ad-
dition to the meat ax cuts which were
exercised a few years ago?
Mr. PIKE. We put $2.5 million in for
Rhode Island in this bill, and there is
$1.6 million taken out in this bill.
Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. What
did the committee do to Massachusetts
this year?
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I cannot
answer overall; the only thing that jumps
to my mind is an addition to the bill in
the Reserve program for Massachusetts.
I cannot give the gentleman the overall
figure for the whole State because, hon-
estly, when I look at these bills when
we are marking them up, I look at them
by bases.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 ? CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
8002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE' August 9 1974
If the gentleman wants to ask me what
we have done for the First Congression-
al District in the State of New York, I
would be able to tell him. The answer
Is that there is not a dime in the bill
for that district, which is my own con-
gressional district.
Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I just want to make sure that
we do not exercise any morei cuts in fa-
cilities for the State of Massachusetts.
If more cuts were made, it would be a
tragedy after the meat-ax cuts that were
exercised a little over a year ago.
Mr. PIKE. Let us not confuse the ac-
tion of the Department of Defense in
closing the bases with the actions
Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. The
Committee on Armed Services would not
give us any hearing. We had to go over
to the other branch and get hearings.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I decline
to yield any more at this point.
It may have escaped the attention of
the gentleman from Massachusetts but,
honestly, I am not the chairtaan of the
Committee on Armed Services, and I do
not always vote the strict party line, as
far as the Committee on Armed Services
is concerned.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(On request of Mr. Sr GERMAIN, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. Pates was al-
lowed to proceed for 30 additional sec-
onds.)
Mr. ST GERMAIN. If the gentleman
would yield, I would say to the gentle-
man from New York that I appreciate
the gentleman's staff correcting me about
my vote last year. And my memory was
vague on that one, because last year I
must admit that my glands were pump-
ing very, very heavily, and my emotions
were very, very high. Frankly, in that
respect, that is not the way to act. I as-
sure the gentleman that, no matter what
the results are on this amendment, I
shall vote for the bill.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to
say to the gentleman from Rhode Island
that I have a great deal of sympathy for
the gentleman's position.
Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words,
and I rise in support of the amendment.
(Mr. TIERNAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Chairman, I think
that my colleague has clearly indicated
that this was a request by the Navy De-
partment; it is not an add-on, as the pre-
vious amendment was. I would like to
point out to the chairman of the sub-
committee and the chairman of the full
committee that I supported the add-
on just passed. My colleague and I voted
in support of that add-on when it was in
the military authorization bill.
So it is not just a question of consist-
ently voting for or voting against, be-
cause, as the chairman of the subcom-
mittee just admitted, he himself voted -
against that add-on that was supported
by most of the Members of the House
today, and was supported on April 4 in
the general Defense Department author-
ization.
What we are asking the Members to
support today is the amendment offered
by my colleague, the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Sr GEE MAIN) that the
_ Navy's request be honored by this com-
mittee. As the gentleman has pointed
out, we feel that the testimony presented
to the subcommittee members by the
Department of Defense was not adequate
because in their testimony they stated
that the $971,000 facility was for the use
of the Navy War College alone, when
in fact it is used for the support of the
entire fleet in war games, and also in the
training all of the line offieers for service
throughout the world in support of the
naval operations.
So I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment. It is a small amount; it Ls
$1.0 million. I think this is a cut that is
not necessary. I hope that the Members
will support this amendment today.
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. KING asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[Mr. KING addressed the Coinmittee.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is o:a
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Rhode Island (Mr. Sr GER-
MAIN).
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. Sr GERMAIN)
there were?ayes 15, noes 26.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CARNEY of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. CARNEY of Ohio asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CARNEY of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
as a sign of protest, I am going to regret-
fully vote against this bill. I realize that
we need a strong military defense. I real-
ize that there is much good in this bill,
but I think we have to start rearranging
our priorities.
:I come from a district which is a steel
mill district, the heart of America, the
Ruhr of America. It will take about $151)
million in my district to take care of
water pollution, probably another $100
million to take care of air pollution. The
plants in my district are older plants,
they are marginal, standby plants, and
the EPA is on our necks, quoting. the
rule/5 and regulations and laws that this
Congress passed which require the steel
industry to install up-to-date air pollu-
tion facilities and up-to-date water pol-
lution facilities.
The steel company officials in my dis-
trict are saying we just cannot afford it
and make a profit. There is no money
coming from Government. The chance;
are that thousands of Americans in my
district will be forced out of work.
One thing we have in here is $1,059,000
for pollution abatement outside of the
United States. There is $900 million for
water pollution abatement, one probably
In a populated area, which may be neces-
-sary. But it just does not make sense to
me, to spend this money somewhere else
when I think of our own taxpayers, our
own people.
I heard the very fine argument about
the island of Diego Garcia, the little spot
out in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
I do not want to argue with the great
naval genius, the gentleman, the captain
of the Navy. However, some experts tell
us that in case of a war, that little spot
will not last 10 minutes. It is out in the
middle of nowhere.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. CARNEY of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
If the gentleman wants to reorder his
priorities, this is probably the right bill
to reorder them on. He mentioned the
figure of $1 billion outside of the United
States for disposal services. Actually it is
only $4 million. I should not really eay
only $4 million. That is a substantial fig-
ure, but it is a lot different than $1 bil-
lion-plus, and I think the gentleman
should be corrected on his figures.
Mr. CARNEY of Ohio. No. On pollu-
tion abatement the committee approved
$1,059,000 for one air pollution abate-
ment facility located outside of the
United States?just one. $1 million for
one.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. It was not $1 billion.
Mr. CARNEY of Ohio. And $4 million
for the water pollution.
Mr. CHARLPS H. WILSON of Cali-
fornia. The gentleman has his billions
and millions mixed up.
Mr. CARNEY of Ohio. We have talked
about billions of dollars around here so
much, it is easy to do. I do know one
thing: Whenever there is something on
this floor for the American people, if we
want to feed school kids lunches, if we
want to provide safety for American
workers, if we want to give housing to
People, that side is lined up. I do not
see my friend, the gentleman from Iowa,
here, the great man on economy. What
Is the matter? I do not see the gentle-
man from California (Mr. ROUSSELOT )
who does not think we should spend 10
cents on an American. But now when
these things come up, billions of dollars
for war, we are not patriotic unless we
vote for them. We are unpatriotic if we
want to raise a question about it.
There he is, Mr. ROUSSELOT. Why does
he not get up here and let us talk about
some of these billions of dollars being
thrown away instead of 50 cents for some
American? That is what I am talking
about.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote
against this bill, realizing that my vote
will be a protest vote.
I want the people of my district to
know this, and also I want my steel-
workers when they start losing their
jobs to know this. We cannot afford the
water pollution facilities in these United
States, but in this bill alone there are
more than $5 million for water pollution
and air pollution facilities outside the
United States. We had better change cur
priorities.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
AUgust 9, /9424proved For ReggtIpaPAIMICVL: caktalt75019e#6,41000700050011-2
First of all I do want to get some
statistics in here as to what we are
spending for pollution control and where
We are spending for pollution control
total outside the United States of Amer-
ica, $4 million, and it is not billion, we
are spending $4,038,000 for the Navy and
$595,000 for the Air Force for a total of
$4,633,000?and that is not billion. On
the item of $1,059,000,000 that the gen-
tleman referred to, it is an item of
$1,059,000 and it is in Guam. It is out-
side of the continental United States
but it is in Guam. -
Before the gentleman votes against
the bill based on what we are doing for
pollution control and air control, I would
like to call his attention to the fact that
we are spending $7,717,000 in Ohio for
air pollution control and $537,000 in ghio
for water pollution control. I think that
the pollution control items in this bill
are not only justified but they are also
rather properly distributed among the
States of the United States of America
and its possessions.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to, if I may, ask on my
time a couple of questions of the distin-
guished chairman of the subcommittee.
On page 10, under "Naval District,
Washington" on line 7 we have for the
National Naval Medical Center, Be-
thesda, Md., $14,943,000. On lines 9 and
10 we have $15,000,000 for the univer-
sity. Are they same item or two different
Items?
Mr. PIKE. No; they are two different
Items. They are not the same.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Chair-
man, can the gentleman tell me what is
the relationship between the two?
Mr. PIKE. Yes. The first item is for
Improvement and modernization of the
existing Naval Hospital at Bethesda and
the second is for preliminary planning
and beginning of the new school for the
training of medical officers for the
services.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Then the $15
million would ' be only preliminary be-
cause this is to train more military doc-
tors, I believe
Mr. PIKE. It is only the beginning of
the project and what the total amount of
the project will be I do not think I ca
tell the gentleman at this time.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. That was my
concern, because-I did not feel that $15
million would be enough for such a
worthy project.
Mr. PIKE. $15 million, I guarantee, will
not be enough to build a new medical
university.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. So this would
really just be the beginning for us?
Mr. PIKE. That is correct.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. I thank the
gentleman very much.
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III
SEC. 301. The Secretary of the Air Force
may establish or develop military installa-
tions and facilities by acquiring, construct-
ing, converting, rehabilitating, or install-
ing permanent or temporary public works,
Including land acquisition, site preparation,
appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for
the following acquisition and construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Peterson Field, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
$5,426,000.
Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City,
Florida, $2,775,000.
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Grand-
view, Missouri, $805,000.
A/R FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah,
$11,894,000.
Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas,
$4,079,000.
McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento,
California, $7,017,000.
Newark Air Force Station, Newark, Ohio,
$1,977,000.
Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins,
Georgia, $792,000.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, $9,839,000.
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton,
Ohio, $10,371,000.
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Arnold Engineering Development Center,
Tullahoma, Tennessee, $48,240,000.
Edwards Air Force Base, Muroc, California,
$1,198,000.
Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, Florida,
$10,475,000.
Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, $232,000.
Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa, Florida,
$642,000.
Satellite Tracking Facilities, $832,000.
A/R TRAINING COMMAND
Chanute Air Force Base, Rantoul, Illingis,
$6,267,000.
Columbus Air Force Base, Columbus, Mis-
sissippi, $169,000.
Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi,
$7,297,000.
Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Texas,
$298,000.
Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado,
$7,885,000.
Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento, Cali-
fornia, $2,143,000.
Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio,
Texas, $790,000.
Reese Air Force Base, Lubbock, Texas,
$836,000.
Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls,
Texas, $8,631,000.
Vance Air Force Base, Enid, Oklahoma,
$1,998,000.
Webb Air Force Base, Big Spring, Texas,
$776,000.
Williams Air Force Base, Chandler, Arizona,
$536,000.
AIR UNIVERSITY
Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala-
bama, $3,753,000.
ALASKAN AIR COMMAND
Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska,
$310,000.
Various Locations, $14,962,000.
HEADQUARTERS COMMAND
Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs,
Maryland, $5,929,000.
Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, Dis-
trict of Columbia, $3,155,000.
MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND
Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delaware,
$1,373,000.
McGuire Air Force Base, Wrightstown,
New Jersey, $408,000.
Scott Air Force Base, Belleville, Illinois,
$5,451,000.
Travis Air Force Base, Fairchild, Califor-
nia, $8,800,000.
PACIFIC AIR FORCES
Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu, Hawaii,
$10 959 000
H 8003
STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND
Barksdale ' Air Force Base, Shreveport,
Louisiana, $641,000.
Blytheville Air Force Base, Blytheville,
Arkansas, $675,000.
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson,
Arizona, $3,009,000.
Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, South
Dakota, $10,105,000.
Griffiss Air Force Base, Rome, New York,
$1,774,000.
Grissom Air Force Base, Peru, Indiana,
$323,000.
K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Marquette,
Michigan, $7,050,090.
Kincheloe Air Force Base, Kinross, Michi-
gan, $835,000.
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls,
Montana, $3,740,000.
McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita, Kan-
sas, $3,038,000.
Minot Air Force Base, Minot, North Dakota,
$238,000.
Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, Nebraska,
$?5,595,000.
Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, $115,000.
Plattsburgh Air Force Base, Plattsburgh,
New York, $882,000.
Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Noster,
Missouri, $6,692,000.
TACTICAL AIR COMMAND
Cannon Air Force Base, Clovis, New Mex-
ico, $883,000.
George Air Force Base, Victorville, Cali-
fornia, $3,846,000.
Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, New
Mexico, $1,565,000.
Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, Virginia,
$3,056,000.
Little Rock Air Force Base, Little Rock,
Arkansas, $5,141,000.
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, $300,000.
Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nevada,
$6,495,000.
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, $730,000.
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Golds-
boro, North Carolina, $3,948,000.
Various Locations, $5,194,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Air Pollution Abate-
ment, $9,156,000.
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $13,700,000.
SPECIAL FACILITIES
Various Locations, $9,152,000.
AEROSPACE CORPORATION
Los Angeles, California, $9,000,000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Various Locations, $138,000.
PACIFIC AIR FORCES
Various Locations, $4,812,000.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCES /N EUROPE
Germany, $280,000.
United Kingdom, $884,000.
Various Locations, $63,081,000.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE SECURITY SERVICE
Various Locations, $4,135,000.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Various Locations, Water Pollution Abate-
ment, $595,000.
SPECIAL FACILITIES
Various Locations, $1,999,000.
SEC. 302. The Secretary of the Air Force
may establish or develop classified militari
installations and facilities by acquiring, con-
structing, converting, rehabilitating, or in-
stalling permanent or temporary publi
works, ,Including land acquisition, site prep-
aration, appurtenances, utilities and equip-
ment, in the total amount of $8,100,090.
? . SEC. 303, The Secretary of the Air Force
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
?
H 8004
Approved For ttisktrtiRM/R :0861:15'75EIRMR00070005001A,Aust 9, /974
may establish or develop Air Farce installa-
tions and facilities by proceeding with con-
struction made necessary by ehenges in Air
Force missions and responsibilities which
have been occasioned by: (1) unforeseen se-
curity considerations, (2) new weapons de-
velopments, (3) new and unforeseen research
and develOpment requirements., or (4) im-
proved production schedules, # the Secre-
tary of Defense determines that deferal of
such construction for inclusion in the next
Military Construction Authorization Act -
would be inconsistent with interests of na-
tional security, and in eonnectitin therewith
to acquire, construct, convert, ,rehabilitate,
or install permanent or temporary public
works, including land acquisition, site prep-
aration, appurtenances, utilitied, and equip-
ment in the total amount of $10,000,000:
Provided, That the Secretary of the Air
Force, or his designee, shall notify the Com-
mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives, immediately upon
reaching a final decision to implement, of
the cost of construction of any public work
undertaken under this Beetlea% including
those real estate actions pertaining thereto.
This authorization will expire upon enact-
ment of the fiscal year 1976 Military Con-
struction Authorization Act, except for those
public works projects concerning which the
Committees on Armed Services Of the Senate
and House of Representatives hieve been noti-
fied pursuant to this section prior to that
date.
S. 804. Not withstanding eitiy other law
or regulation to the contrary, the sum of
$8,0410 is authorized for the purchase and
Installation of material at the transmission
facility of KETV in San Jose, California, to
shield such facility from interferences With
its broadest signal caused by operation of
the radar facility at Almaden Air Force sta-
tion in California.
Sec. 305. (a) Section 301 of Public Law
93-3:66 is amended under the heeding "norms
THE UNITED STATES" as follows:
(1) Under the subheading "AEROSPACE DE-
FENSE COMMAND" with respect to Peterson
Field, Colorado Springs, Colorado, strike out
"$7,843,000" and insert in place thereof "$9,-
7.33,000."
(2) Under the subheading "Ant FORCE LOGIS-
TICS COMMAND" with respect to Robins Air
Force Base, Warner. Robins, Georgia, strike
out "44,628,000" and insert in place thereof
"17=4,000".
(8) Under the subheading "OR FORCE SYS-
TEMS COMMAND" with respect to Eglin Air
Force Base, Valparaiso, Fiore*, strike out
"$7,039,000" and insert in place thereof
"438,882,000."
(4) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to Keener Air Force
Base, Biloxi, Mississippi, strike out "$8,786,-
000" and insert in place thereof "110,733,000."
(5) Under the subheading "AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to Lackland Air Force
Base, San Antonio, Texas, strike out "$6,509,-
000" and insert in place thereef "$9.186,000.
(6) Under the subheading "era TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to Reese 'Air Force
Base, Lubbock, Texas, strike out "$4,211,000"
and insert in place thereof "66,461,000."
(7) Under the subheading 'AIR TRAINING
COMMAND" with respect to Vance Air Force
Base, Enid, Oklahoma, strike tent "$371,000"
and insert in place thereof "$895,000."
(8) Under the subheading 'leerier/ley AIR-
LIFT COMMAND" with respect to Altus Air
Force Base, Altus, Oklahoma, strike out "$1,-
078,000" and insert in place thereof "$1,440,-
000."
(9) tinder the subheading "STRATEGIC eta
COMMAND" with respect to Francis E. Was'-
sen Air Force Base, Cheyenne, Wyoming,
strike out "$5,834,000" and insert in place
hereof "$8,265,000."
(10) Under the subheading "TACTICAL ATE
COMMAND" with respect to Little Rock Air
Force Base, Little Rock, Arkansas, strike out
"$1,165,000" end insert in place thereof
"$2,200,000."
(b) Public Law 93-166 is eurther amended
by:striking out in clause (3) of section 602
"$238,430,000" and "$260,741 000" and Insert-
in e in place thereof "$256,094,000" and "$270,-
306,000", respectively.
Mr. PIKE (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
title III be considered 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 New
'York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amend-
ments to title III? If not, the Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IV
SEC. 401. The Secretary of Defense may
establish or develop military installations and
facilities by acquiring, constructing, convert-
ing, rehabilitating, or Instilling permanent
or temporary public works, including land
acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances,
utilities and equipment, for defense agencies
for the following acquisition and construc-
tion:
INS/DE THE UNITED STATES
DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY
Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center
(Saint Louis AVE), Saint Louis, Missouri,
$2,673,000.
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $670,000.
DEFENSE SUPPLY ?LGENCY
Defense Construction Supply Center, Co-
lurnbus, Ohio, $1,862,000.
Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pennsyl-
vania, $894,000.
Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee, e1,-
399,000.
Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, $527,000.
Defense Electronics Supply Center, Dayton,
Ohio, $572,000.
Defense Industrial Plant :equipment Facil-
ity, Atchinson, Kansas, $646,000.
Defense Personnel Support Center, Phla-
cielphia, Pennsylvania, $936,000.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,368,-
000.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY
Johnston Atoll, $1,458,000.
SEC. 402. The Secretary of Defense may
establish or develop installations and facili-
ties which he determines to be vital to the
security of the United States, and in connec-
tion therewith to acquire, construct, convert,
rehabilitate, or install permanent or tem-
porary public works, including land acquei-
tion, site preparation, appurtenances, utili-
ties, and equipment in the total amount of
$15,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary of
Defense, or his designee, shall notify ;he
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and House of Representatives, immediately
upon reaching a final decision to implement,
of the cost of construction of any public work
undertaken under this section, including
real estate actions pertaining thereto.
Mr. PIKE (during the reading) . Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
title IV be considered 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 New
York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amend-
ments to title IV? If not, the Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as fellows:
TSTLE V?MILITARY FAMILY PIOUS: NG
AND HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE Pao-
GRAM
SEC. 501. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to construct, at the
locations hereinafter named, family housing
units and mobile homelaellitees in the num-
bers hereinafter listed, but no family hous-
ing construction shall be commenced at any
such locations in the United States, until
the Secretary shall have consulted with the
Secretary of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, as to the availability of
adequate private housing at such locations.
M agreement cannot be reached with reelect
to the availability of adequate private hous-
ing at any location, the Secretary of Defense
shall immediately notify the-Committees on
Armed Services of the House of Represe itae
tives and the Senate, in writing, of such dif-
ference of opinion, and no contract for eon-
etruction at such location shall be entored
into for a period of -thirty days after such
notification has been given. This authority
shall include the authority to acquire land,
and interests in land, by gift, purchase, ex-
change of Government-owned land, or other-
wise.
(a) Family housing 'units?
(1) The Department of the Army, one
thousand nine hundred units, $58,614,631:
Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Air Fie: d,
Georgia, four hundred units.
Fort Riley, Kansas, Ane hundred uniei,
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, one thoutand
units.
Fort Eustis, Virginia, one hundred unie.
United States Army Installations, Atlantic
Side, Canal Zone, one hundred units.
United States Army Installations, Pacific
Side, Canal Zone, two hundred units.
(2) The Department of the Navy, two
thousand and fifty urfits, $68,049,919:
Naval Complex, San Diego, California, live
hundred units.
Naval Complex, Jacksonville, Florida, two
hundred units.
Naval Complex, New Orleans, Louisa/la,
two hundred units.
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Paint,
North Carolina, three hundred units.
Naval Complex, Charleston, South C aro-
line, three hundred and fifty units.
Naval Complex, Breirierton., Washington,
three hundred units.
Naval Complex, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
two hundred units.
(3) The Department of the Air Force one
thousand four hundred units, $44,651,442
United States Air Force Installations,
Oahu, Hawaii, two hundred units.
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire one
hundred units.
Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, one :ien-
dred units.
Misawa Air Base, Japan, two hurdled
units.
Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, three bur died
Units.
Clark Air Base, Philippines, five hoc dred
(b) Mobile home facilities?
(1) The Department of the Army, two
hundred and forty spaces, $960,000.
(2) The Department of the Air Force two
hundred spaces, $888,000.
SEC. 502. (a) Authorization for the con-
struction of family housing provided in sec-
tion 501 of this Act shall be subject, 'Under
such regulations as the Secretary of Defense
may prescribe, to the following limitations
on cost, which shall include shades, screens,
ranges, refrigerators, and all other installed
equipment and fixtures, the cost of the fam-
ily unit, and the proportionate costs of land
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Algust 9, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE H 8005
acquisition, site preparation and installation
of utilities.
(b) The average unit cost for all units of
family housing constructed in the United
States (other than Alaska and Hawaii) shall
not exceed $30,000 and in no event shall the
cost of any unit exceed $46,000.
(c) When family housing units are con-
structed in areas other than that specified
in subsection (b) the average cost of all
such units shall not exceed $40,000, and in
no event shall the cost of any unit exceed
$48,000.
am. 503. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to accomplish altera-
tions, additions, expansions or extensions
not otherwise authorized by law, to existing
public quarters at a cost not to exceed?
(1) for the Department of the Army,
$20,000,000.
(2) for the Department of the Navy,
$20,000,000.
(3) for the Department of the Air Force,
$20,000,000.
SEC. 504. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, is authorized to construct or other-
wise acquire at the locations hereinafter
named, family housing units not subject to
the limitations on such cost contained in
section 502 of this Act. This authority shall
include the authority to acquire land, and
interests in land, by gift, purchase, exchange
of Government-owned land, or otherwise.
Total costs shall include shades, screens,
ranges, refrigerators, and other installed
equipment and fixtures, the cost of the fam-
ily unit, and the costs of land acquisition,
site preparation, and installation of utilities.
(a) Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, two
hundred units, at a total cost not to exceed
$9,600,000.
(b) Two family housing units in Warsaw,
Poland, at a total cost not to exceed $120,000.
This authority shall be funded by use of
excess foreign currency when so provided in
Department of Defense Appropriation Acts.
Sac. 505. The Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, Is authorized to accomplish repairs
and improvements to existing public quarters
in amounts in excess of the $15,000 limita-
tion prescribed in section 610(a) of Public
Law 90-110, as amended (81 Stat. 2'79, 305),
as follows:
Fort McNair, Washington, District of Co-
lumbia, five units, $175,500.
Fort Sam Houston, Texas, one hundred
forty units, $2,352,800.
SEC. 506. (a) 'Section 515 of Public Law
84-161 (89 Stat. 324, 352), as amended, is
further amended by (1) striking out "1974
and 1975" and inserting in lieu thereof "1975
and 1976", and (2) revising the third sen-
tence to read as follows: "Expenditures for
the rental of such housing facilities, includ-
ing the cost of utilities and maintenance and
operation, may not exceed: For the United
States (other than Alaska and Hawaii),
Puerto Rico, and Guam an average of $235
per month for each military department or
the amount of $310 per month for any one
unit; and for Alaska and Hawaii, an average
of $295 per month for each military depart-
ment, or the amount of $365 per month for
any one unit."
(b) Section 507(b) of Public Law 93-166
(87 Stat. 661, 676) is amended by striking
out "$325", and "seven thousand five hun-
dred", and inserting in lieu thereof "$355".
and "twelve thousand", respectively.
SEC, 507. There is authorized to be appro-
priated for use, by the Secretary of Defense,
or his designee, for military family housing
and homeowners assistance as authorized by
law for the following purposes:
(1) for construction and acquiistion of
family housing, including improvements to
public quarters, minor construction, relo-
cation of family housing rental guarantee
payments, construction and acquisition of
mobile home facilities, and planning, an
amount not to exceed $245,386,000;
(2) for support of military family housing,
including operating expenses, leasing, main-
tenance of real property, payments of prin-
cipal and interest on mortgage debts in-
curred, payment to the Commodity Credit
Corporation, and mortgage insurance pre-
miums authorized under section 222 of the
National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C.
1715m), an amount not to exceed $935,-
515,000; and ?
(3) for homeowners assistance under sec-
tion 1013 of Public Law 89-754 (80 Stat. 1255,
1290), including acquisition of properties, an
amount not to exceed $5,000,000.
Mr. PIKE (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
title V be considered 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
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amend-
ments to title V? If not, the Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE VI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 601. The Secretary of each military
department may proceed to establish or de-
velop installations and facilities under this
Act without regard to section 3648 of the
Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529),
and sections 4774 and 9774 of title 10, United
States Code. The authority to place perma-
nent or temporary improvements on land
includes authority for surveys, administra-
tion, overhead, planning, and supervision in-
cident to construction. That authority may
be exercised before title to the land is ap-
proved under section 355 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended (40 U.S.C. 255), and
even though the land is held temporarily.
The authority to acquire real estate or land
includes authority to make surveys and to
acquire land, and interests in land (includ-
ing temporary use), by gift, purchase, ex-
change of Government-owned land, or other-
wise.
SEC. 602. There are authorized to be appro-
priated such sums as may be necessary for
the purposes of this Act, but appropriations
for public works projects authorized by titles
I, II, III, IV, and V. shall not exceed?
(1) for title I; Inside the United States
$490,555,000; outside the United States, $121,-
098,000; or a total of $611,653,000.
(2) for title II: Inside the United States,
$190,542,000; outside the United States, $55,-
331,000; or a total of $545,873,000.
(3) for title III: Inside the United States,
$317,203,000; outside the United states, $75,-
924,000; section 302, $8,100,000; or a total
of $401,227,000.
(4) for title IV: A total of $28,400,000.
(5) for title V: Military family housing
and homeowners assistance, $1,185,881,000.
SEC. 603. (a) Except as provided in sub-
sections (b) and (e), any of the amounts
specified in titles I, II, III, and IV of this
Act, may, in the discretion of the Secretary
concerned, be increased by 5 per centum
when inside the United States (other than
Hawaii and Alaska), and by 10 per centum
when outside the United States or in Hawaii
and Alaska, if he determines that such in-
crease (1) is required for the sole purpose
of meeting unusual variation in cost, and
(2) could not have been reasonably antici-
pated at the time such estimate was sub-
mitted to the Congress. However, the total
cost of all construction and acquisition in
each such title may not exceed the total
amount authorized to be appropriated in
that title.
(b) When the amount named for any con-
struction or acquisition in title I, II, III, or
IV of this Act involves only one project at
any military installation and the Secretary
of Defense, or hts designee, determines that
the amount authorized must be Increased by
more than the applicable percentage pre-
scribed in subsection (a), the Secretary con-
cerned may proceed with such construction
or acquisition if the amount of the increase
does not exceed by more than 25 per centum
the amount named for such project by the
Congress.
(c) Subject to the limitations contained
in subsection (a) , no individual project au-
thorized under title I, H, III, or IV of this
Act for any specifically listed military instal-
lation may be placed under contract if?
(1) the estimated cost of such project is
$250,000 or more, and
(2) the current working estimate of the
Department of Defense, based upon bids re-
ceived, for the construction of such project
exceeds by more than 25 per centum the
amount authorized for such project by the
Congress, until after the expiration of thirty
days from the date on which a written re-
port of the facts relating to the increased
cost of such project, including a statement of
the reasons for such increase has been sub-
mitted to the Committees on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
(d) The Secretary of Defense shall submit
an annual report to the Congress identifying
each individual project which has been placed
under contract in the preceding twelve-
month period and with respect to which
the then current working estimate of the
Department of Defense based upon bids re-
ceived for such project exceeded the amount
authorized by the Congress for that project
by more than 25 per centum. The Secretary
shall also include in such report each indi-
vidual project with respect to which the scope
was reduced in order to permit contract
award within the available authorization for
such project. Such report shall include all
pertinent cost information for each individ-
ual project, including the amount in dollars
and percentage by which the current working
estimate based on the contract price for
the project exceeded the amount authorized
for such project by the Congress.
SEC. 604. Contracts for construction made
by the United States for performance within
the United States and its possessions under
this Act shall be executed under the juris-
diction and supervision of the Corps of Engi-
neers, Department of the Army, or the Naval
Facilities Command, Department of the Navy;
or such other department or Government
agency as the Secretaries of the 'military de-
partments recommend and the Secretary of
Defense approves to assure the most efficient,
expeditious, and cost-effective accomplish-
ment of the construction herein authorized.
The Secretaries of the military departments
shall report annually to the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Rep-
resentatives a breakdown of the dollar value
of construction contracts completed by each
of the several construction agencies selected
together with the design, construction super-
vision, and overhead fees charged by each of
the several agents in the execution of the
assigned construction. Further such contracts
(except architect and engineering contracts
which, unless specifically authorized by the
Congress shall continue to be awarded in ac-
cordance with presently established proce-
dures, customs, and practice) shall be
awarded, insofar as practicable, on a competi-
tive basis to the lowest responsible bidder, if
the national security will not be impaired
and the award is consistent with chapter 137
of title 10, United States Code. The Secre-
taries of the military departments shall re-
port annually to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives with respect to all contracts awarded
on other than a competitive basis to the
lowest responsible bidder.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050011-2
11 8006
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE August 9, 194
SEC. 605. As of October 1, 2975, all author-
isoeiceei for military oublic Works Including
fvonily housing, to he acccuapeehed by the
Secretary of a Inilitary departtnent in connec-
tion with the establishmen.t or devektpment
of military Inatallations and facilities, and all
authorizations for Appropriations therefor,
that are contained in titles Ione, III, IV, sad
V of the Act of Noveraben29, 2073, Public Lexv
93-166 (87 Stat. 661), and all soich authoriza-
tions contained in Acts approved before No-
vember 30, 1.973, and not euperseded or other-
wise Jauxliflecl by a later authorization Are
repealed except-
(1) authorizations for publ* works and for
appropriatiens therefor that ore set forth to
these Acts in the titles that contain the
general provisions;
(2) authorizations for pulaiic works proj-
ects as to which appropriated funds haw
been olaligated for conetruction contracts.
land acquisition, or payments to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1u whole or In
part before October 1, 1.975, end authorize-
tions /or 9,pproterlations therefor;
(3) notwithstanding the repel' provisions
of election 605 of the Act of .November 29,
1973, Public low 93-1.86, 87 Stat. 661, 081),
sattleorizatines for the following items which
shall remain In effect until October 1, 1978r
(a) Sanitary sewer connection in the
amount of $2,200,000 at Fort -Belvoir, Vir-
gintes that is containedln title, section 103.
of the Act of October 26, 19'70 (4% Stat. 1204).
as amended and extended in *action 705(a)
(3) (A) of the Act of October_ 25, 1972 (88
Stet 1153).
(b) Cold storage warehouse construction in
the amount of $1,215,000 at Port Dix, Noe
Jersey, that Is contained in title, section 101
of the Act of October 25, 19'72 (86 Stat. 1135),
as amended.
(e) Enlisted men's barracks aomplex con-
struction in the amount of 01180,000 at
Fort Knox, reentucky, that is contained in
title I, section 101 of the Act of October 25,
1972 (88 Stat. 1135), as amendel.
(i) Enlisted women's barreok..e construc-
tion In the amount of $245,000 and bachelor
officer's quarters construction inthe amount
of $803,000 at Fort Lee, Virginia,,-that is con-
tained in title I, section 101 at the Act of
October 25, 1972 (86 Stat. 1125) ,8 amended.
(e) Chapel center construction in the
amount of $1,088,000 at Fort Benjamin Har-
rison, Indiana, that is contained in title I,
section 101 of the Act of Ootober.25, 1972 (86
Stat. 1135), as amended.
(f) Enlisted men's barracks oanstruction
Ill the amount of $7,996,000 at Fowl Ord, Cali-
fornia, that is contained in title I, section
101 df the Act of October 25, 1922 (86 Stat.
1135). as amended.
(g) Enlisted Men's barracks and mess con-
struction in the amount of $899,1200 at Sierra
Army Depot, California, that le contained
In title I, section 101 of the Act of-October 25,
1972 (86 Stat. 1136), as amended.
(h) 'rest facilities Solid State Radar in the
amount of $7,600,000 at Kwajalein National
Missile Range, Kwajalein, that le contained
in title I, merlon 101 of the Act of October 25,
1972 (86 Stat. 1137).
(I) lend acquisition in the emount of
$10,000,000 for the Naval Ammunition Depot,
Oahu, Hawaii, that is contained in title II,
section 201 of the Act of October 25, 1972 (86
Stat. 1140) .
(j Message center addition, el:reran fire
and crash station, aircraft maintenance
hanger shops, bachelor enlisted quarters,
mess ball, bachelor officers' quarters, ex-
change and recreation building, antl utilities
conseruction in the amounts of $110,000;
$199,000; $837,000; $1,745,000; $13'7'7,000, *829,-
000; $419,000; and *792,000 respectively for
the Naval Detachment, Scuds Bey, Crete.
Greece 'that is contained in title II, section
201 of the Act of October 25, 1972-(86 Stat.
1141).
(k) A.uthorization for exchange of lanele in
support of the Air Inst elation Compatible
Use Zones at Various Lonsid,ons in the
amount of 312,000,000 that is ciontained in
title III. section 301 of the Act of October Me
1972 (36 Stat. 1145), as amended.
(4) Notwithstanding the repeal provisions
Of Bedtime 7135(b) of the Act of 4ectober 25,
11372, Publie-Law 92-545 (36 Stat. 1135, 1158),
as modified by section 605(8) of -the Act of
November 29, 1973, Public Law -93-166 (87
Stat. 661, 681), the etuteorizetion to con-
struct 600 family housing units at Nava)
Complex, Norfolk, Virginia, contained in Otis
V. section 501(b) of the Act of October 25,
1972 .(86 Stat. 1148) shall remittal in effect
until October 1, 1975.
Sec. 606. None of the satliority conteneed
in titles I, II, HI, and IV of this Act shall
be deemed to authorize say building con-
struction projects Inside the United States
in excess of a unit cost to be determined in
proportion to the appropriate area construc-
tion cost index, based on the folbewing unit
cost limitations where the area construction
Index 10 1.0:
(1) $28.50 per square foot for permanent
barracks;
(2) $30.50 per square feet for bachelor of-
ficer quarters;
unless the Secretary of Defense. Or his des-
ignee, determines that because of special
circumstances, application to such project
of the limitations on imie costs vontaired
in this section is impracticable; Provided,
That, notwithstanding the limitations ccn-
talned In prior military construction author-
ization Acts on unit costs, the limitations
on such costs contained in this section shall
apply to all prior authorization for such con-
struction not heretofore repealed and Mr
which construction contracts have not been
awarded by the date of enactment of this
Act.
Sac. 607. Section 612 of Public Law 89-5,38
(60 Stat. 758, 757), is amended by deleting
the figure $150,000 whereve.: it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof $225,000.
Sac. 608. Notwithstanding any reeler pro-
visions of law, proceeds from the sale of rcs-
eyeleable material shall be credited first, to
the cost of collection, handling and sale Of
the material Including purchasing of equip-
ment to be used for recycling purposes anti
second, to projects for environmental en-
proeernern and- energy oenservation at
camps, poste, and bases establishing recycilos
programs lit accordance with regulations ap-
proved by the Secretary of Defense. The
amount expended for environmental Im-
provement and energy conservation =projects
Shall not exceed $50,000 per Installation pee
annum. Any balance shall be returned to the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. The Sec-
retary of each military department sisal;
make an annual report to Congress on the
operation of the program.
SEC. 609. (a) The Secretary of the Navy,
or his designee, is authorized to convey to
the Gulf Coast Council, Boy Scouts of Amer-
ica, for fair market value and nubject to such
terms and conditions as shall be determined
by the Secretary of the Navy, or his designee,
to be necessary to protect the interests of the
tinned States, all right, title, and interest
df the 'United States of America, other than
mineral rights including gas and oil which
Shalt be reserved to the United States, in and
to a eertain parcel of land co.ateining 12.46
acres, more or less, situated in Est:amble
County, Florida, being a part of the Naval
Education and Training Program Develop-
ment Center, Ellyson, Florida, more particu-
larly described as follows:
Commence at the southeast property cor-
ner of Naval Education and 'raining Pro-
gram Development Center (NETPDC), for-
merly Naval Air Station, Ellycon,
thence north 3 degrees 55 _minutes west
along the east boundary of NETPDC a Ws-
tames) of !Med feet more or less to the mint
of beginning; from said point of beginning,
contemns north El degrees -65 reireates west
along the east boundary of NETPDC a dis-
tance of 6291 feet more or lees to a point,
thence north 0 degrees 27 minutes west
along the ease boundary of NETPDC a doe
taros of 113ss feet more or less to a point,
thence aouth 45 degrees 25 minutes Scat
Approved Folealms%5RAOlk16011'7.1ffint,OR000700050011-2
August 9, 1974 8007
tion with the use of the property by the
military department"
Sm. 612. (a) The Secretary of the Army,
or his designee, is authorized and directed to
convey by quitclaim deed to the State of
Louisiana all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to that certain real
property located in Saint Tammany Parish,
Louisiana, containing one thousand seven
hundred and ten acres, more or less, known
as Camp Villere, being the same property
presently under license to the State for Na-
tional Guard use, and known as Audited
Installation Numbered 22975 in the ales of
the Office of the District Engineer, Corps of
Engineers, Fort Worth District.
(b) The conveyance required to be made
pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be made
without monetary compensation but shall
be in consideration of, and subject to, the
following terms ap.d conditions:
(1) The conveyed property shall be used
primarily for the training of the LONIBIRM
National Guard and for other military pur-
poses of the Louisiana National Guard.
(2) Any revenue derived by the State
from any other uses of the property shall
be used for the maintenance and improve-
ment of the property or be shared with the
United States as prescribed by the Secretary.
The State shall maintain such records and
furnish such reports with respect to such
revenue as are prescribed by the Secretary.
' (3) The State shall protect the .timber,
water resources, gravel, sand, soil mineral
deposits, and other natural resources of the
conveyed property in accordance with sound
conservation practices and to the satisfac-
tion of the Secretary.
(4) In time of war or national emergency
declared by the Congress, or national emer-
gency hereafter proclaimed by the Presi-
dent, and upon a determination by the Secre-
tary of Defense that the conveyed property,
or any part thereof, is useful or necessary for
national defense and security, the Secretary,
on behalf of the United States, shall have the
right to enter upon and use such property, or
ally part thereof (including any and all im-
provements made thereon by the State) , for a
period not to exceed the duration of such war
or emergency plus six months. Upon termina-
tion of such use, the property shall revert to
the State, together with all improvements
placed thereon by the United States, and
be subject to the terms, conditions, and lim-
itations on its use and disposition which ap-
ply without regard to this paragraph. The use
of the property by the United States pur-
suant to this paragraph shall be without ob-
ligation or payment on the part of the United
States, except that the United States, if re-
quired by the State, shall pay the fair market
rental value for the use of any improvements
on the property which are constructed with
State funds and, upon completion of such
use, will restore any such improvements to
the same condition as that existing at the
time of initial occupancy by the United States
under this paragraph. At the option of the
Secretary, cash payment may be made by
the United States in lieu of such restoration;
except that the value of any improvements
erected by the United States during its oc-
cupancy and left on the property shall be off-
set against the obligation of the United
States to restore improvements constructed
with State funds.
(5) There shall be reserved from the con-
veyance such easements and right-of-way
for roads, water flowage, soil disposal, water-
lines sewerlines, communications wires,
powerlines, and other purposes, as the Secre-
tary considers necessary or convenient for the
operations, activities, and functions of the
United- States.
(6) All mineral rights with respect to the
conveyed property, including gas and on,
shall be reserved to the United States, to-
gether with the right to permit such reason-
able exploration and mining operations as
will riot interfere with the primary use of the
property.
(7) Such other terms and conditions as
the Secretary may deem necessary to protect
the interests of the United States.
(c) Upon a finding by the Secretary that
the State is violating or failing to comply
with any term or condition imposed by sub-
paragraph (1), (2) , or (3) of paragraph (b)
of this section, the Secretary is authorized
Immediately to reenter and take possession
of the property described in paragraph (a),
whereupon title to such property shall revert
to the United States and control thereover
may be asserted by the Secretary without
any further act or legal proceeding whatso-
ever. Any improvements, fixtures, and build-
ings placed on the property by the State dur-
ing its period of use shall become the prop-
erty of the United States without payment of
compensation therefor.
(d) (1) Any surveying and related costs in-
curred incident to the carrying out of this
section shall be borne by the State.
(2) Appropriate provisions to implement
the terms and conditions of this Act shall be
included in the instrument of conveyance.
sEc.. 813. Titles I, II, III IV, V. and VI, of
this Act may be cited as 'Cho "Military Con-
struction Authorization Act, 1975".
Mr. PIKE (during the reading) . Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
title VI be considered 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 New
York?
There was no objection.
ComarrrEE AMENDMENT
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 37, line
18, strike out the figure $545,813,000" and
substitute the figure "$545,873,000".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further
amendments to title VI? If not, the Clerk
will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE VIE
RESERVE FORMS FACILITIES
SEC. 701. Subject to chapter 133 of title 10,
United States Code, the Secretary of De-
fense may establish or develop additional
facilities for the Reserve Forces, including
the acquisition of land therefor, but the cost
of such facilities shall not exceed?
(1) For the Department of the Army:
(a) Army National Guard of the United
States, $53,800,000.
(b) Army Reserve, $38,600,000.
(2) For the Department of the Navy: Naval
and Marine Corps Reserves, $19,867,000.
(3) For the Department of the Air Force:
(a) Air National Guard of the United
States, $26,000,000.
(b) Air Force Reserve, $14,000,000.
SEC. 702. The Secretary of Defense may
establish or develop installations and facili-
ties under this title without regard to section
3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended
(31 U.S.C. 529), and sections 4774 and 9'774
of title 10, United States Code. The author-
ity to place permanent or temporary
im-
provements on lands includes authority for
surveys, administration, overhead, planning,
and supervision incident to construction.
That authority may be exercised before title
to the land is approved under section 355
of the Revised Statutes, as amended (40
U.S.C. 255), and even though the land is held
temporarily. The authority to acquire real
estate or land includes authority to make
surveys and to acquire land, and interests in
land (including temporary use) , by gift, pur-
chase, exchange of Government-owned land,
or otherwise.
SEC. '703. Chapter 133, title 10, United
States Code, as amended, is further amended
by striking out the figure "$50,000" in para-
graph (1) of section 2233a, Limitation, and
inserting the figure "$100,000" in place
thereof.
SEC. 704. This title may be cited as the "Re-
serve Forces Facilities Authorization Act,
1975".
Mr. PIKE (during the reading) . Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
title VII be considered as read, printed in
the REcoao, and open to amendment at
any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amend-
ments to title VII? If not, under the
rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. STEED, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 16136) to authorize certain con-
struction at military installations, and
for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 1297, he reported the bill back
to the House with sundry amendments
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
passage of the bill.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I de-
mand the yeas and nays
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were?yeas 322, nays 30,
not voting 82, as follows:
[Roll No. 472]
YEAS-322
Abdnor Brinkley Collins, Ill.
Adams Brooks Collins, Tex,
Alexander Broomfield C,onable
Anderson, Brotzman Conlan
Calif. Brown, Calif. Conte
Anderson, Ill. Brown, Mich. Carman
Andrews, N.O. Brown, Ohio cotter
Andrews, Broyhill, N.C. Coughlin
N. Dak. Broyhill, Va. Crane
Annunzio Buchanan Cronin
Archer Burgener Daniel, Dan
Arends Burke, Calif. Daniel, Robert
Ashbrook Burke, Fla. W., Jr.
Ashley Burke, Mass. Daniels,
Aspin Burleson, TeL Dominick V.
Solana Burlison, Mo. Danielson
Barrett Butler Davis, S.C.
Bauman Byron Davis, Wis.
Beard camp Delaney
Bell Carter Dellenback
Bennett Casey, Tex. Denholm
Bergland Chamberlain Dennis
Bevill Chappell Dent
Biester Clancy Derwinskl
Blackburn Clark Devine
Boggs Clausen, Dickinson
Bol and Don H. Dingell
Bolling Cleveland Dorn
Brademaa Cochran Downing
Bray Cohen Duncan
Breckinridge Collier du Pont
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
H 8008
Eckhardt
Edwards, Ala.
Ellberg
Erlenborn
Eshleman
Evans, Colo.
Evins, Tenn.
Fascell
Findley
Fish
Fisher
Flood
Flowers
Foley
Ford
Forsythe
Fountain
Frelinghuysen
Frey
Froehlich
Gaydos
Gettys
Giaimo
Gilman
Ginn
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Green, Pa.
Gross
Grover
Gude
Gunter
Guyer
Haley
Hamilton
Hammer-
schmidt
Hanley Moss
Hanna Murtha
Hanrahan Myers
Hastings Hatcher
Hebert Nedzi
Heckler, MM. Nelsen
Heinz Nichols
Henderson Nix
Hicks Obey
Hillis O'Hara
Hinshaw
Holt
Horton
Hosmer
Howard
Huber
Hudnut
Hungate
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 9, 1924
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Lujan
McClory
McCloskey
McCollister
McCormack
McDade
McEwen
McFall
McKinney
Macdonald
Madden
_Roush
Rousselot
Roy
Runnels
Ruppe
Ruth
St Germain
Sandman
Sarasin
Sarbanes
Satterfield
Schroeder
Sebelius
Madigan Seiberling
Mahon Shipley
Mann 13houp
Martin, Nebr. . Shriver
Martin, N.C. Shuster
Mathias, Calif. -Sikes
Mathis, Ga. Sisk
Matsunaga Skubitz
Mayne Slack
Mazzoli Smith, Iowa
Meeds Smith, N.Y.
Mezvinsky Spence
Michel Staggers
Minish Stanton,
Mink _ Wllliam
Mitchell, N.Y. Steed
Mizell Steele
Moakley Steelman
Mollohan Steiger, Ariz.
Moorhead, Steiger, Wis,
Calif. Stratton
Moorhead, Pa. Stubblefield
Morgan Studds
Mosher Sullivan
Symington
Symms
Talcott
Taylor, Mo.
Taylor, N.C.
_Thomson, WiS.
-Thornton
Tiernan
Towell, Nev.
Traxler
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vander Veen
Veysey
VigoritO
-Waggonner
Walsh
Wampler
Whalen
White
Whitehurst
Whitten
Wilson,
Charles H..
Calif.
Winn
Wolff
Wright
Wyatt
Wydler
Wylie
Roberts 'Yates
Robinson, Va. Yatron
Robison, N.Y. IVoung, Alaska
Rodino Young, Ma.
Roe young, /11,
Rogers Young, S.C.
Roncalio, Wyo. Young, Tex.
Roncallo, N.Y. Zablocki
Rooney, Pa. Zion
Rose Zwach
Rostenkowski
O'Neill
Parris
Passman
Patman
Patten
Perkins
Pettis
Peyser
Hunt Pickle
Hutchinson Pike
Ichord Poage
Jarman Preyer
Johnson, Calif. Price, Ill.
Johnson, Colo. Price, Tex.
Johnson, Pa. Quillen
Jones, Ala. Rallsback
Jones, N.C. Randall
Jones, Okla, Regula
Jones, Tenn. Reuss
Jordan Rhodes
Karth Riegle
Kazen Rinaldo
Kemp
Ketchum
King
Kluczynaki
Koch
Kuykendall
Lagomarsino
Latta
Leggett
Lehman
Litton
Abzug
Badillo
Bingham
Burton, John
Burton, Phillip
Carney, Ohio
Clay
Drinan
Edwards, Calif.
Fraser
Addabbo
Armstrong
Baker
Biaggi
Blatnik
Bowen
Brasco
Breaux
Carey, N.Y.
Cederberg
Chisholm
NAYS-80
Frenzel Pritchard
Harrington Rangel
Heckler, W. Va. Rosenthal
Helstoski Roybal
Holtzman Ryan
Kastenmeier Stark
Landgrebe Stokes
Luken Va nik
Metcalfe Waldie
Miller Young, Ga,
NOT VOTING-82
Clawson, Del Tulton
Conyers Fuqua
Culver - Gibbons
Davis, Ga.
? ing
de la Garza Grasso
Dellums Gray
Diggs Green, Oreg.
Donohue Griffiths
Dulski Gubser
Esch Hansen, Idah0
Flynt Hansen, Wash.
Harsha Mitchell, Md.
Hawkins Montgomery
Hays Murphy, Ill.
Hogan Murphy, NY.
Holifield O'Brien
Kyros Owens
Landrum Pepper
Lent Podell
Lott Powell, Ohio
McKay Quie
hicSpadden Rarick
Mallary Rees
Maraziti Reid
Melcher Rooney, N.Y.
Milford Scherle
Mills Schneebeli
Minshall, Ohio Snyder
So the bill was passed,.
Stanton,
James V.
Stephens
Stuckey
Teague
Thompson, N.J.
Thane
Treen
Udall
Vander Jest
Ware
Wiggins
Williams
Wilson, Bob
Wilson,
Charles, Tex.
Wyman
The Clerk announced the following
p'airs:
On this vote:
Mr. Murphy of New York for, with Mr.
Mitchell of Maryland against.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey for, with
Mrs. Chisholm against.
Mr. Addabbo for, with Mr. Hawkins
against.
Mr. Teague for, with Mr. Conyers against.
Mr. Podell for, with Mr. Dellurns against.
Mr. Biaggi for, with Mr. Diggs against.
Mr. Kyros for, with Mr. Rees against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Montgomery with Mr. Baker.
Mr. Breaux with Mr. Each.
Mr. Carey of New York with Mrs. Green of
Oregon.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. ceder-
berg.
Mr. Rarick with Mr. Gubser.
Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Harsha.
Mr. Donohue with-Mr. Blatnik.
Mr. Flynt with Mr. Mallary.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Hogan.
Mr. McSpadden with Mr. Goodling.
Mr. Dulski with Mrs. Griffiths.
Mr. Hays with Mr. Owens.
Mr. Reid with Mr. Del Clawson.
Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Minshall of Ohio.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Maraziti.
Mr. Murphy of Illinois with Mr. O'Brien.
Mrs. Grasso with Mrs. Hansen of Wash-
ington.
Mr. Gray with Mr. Powell of Ohio.
Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Scherlit.
Mr. Culver with Mr. Lent.
Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas with Mr. Quie.
Mr. Holifield with Mr. Tree''',
Mr. McKay with Mr. Schneebeli.
Mr. Udall with Mr. Lott.
Mr. Melcher with Mr. Thone.
Mr. Bowen with Mr.,Snyder.
Mr. Fulton with Mr. Ware.
Mr. Gibbons with Mr. Wiggins.
Mr. Fuqua with Mr. Wyraan.
Mr. Mills with Mr. Williams.
Mr. Pepper with Mr. Bob Wilson.
Mr. James V. Stanton with Mr. Hansen of
Idaho.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that all Members nua,y have
5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and to include
extraneous material on the bill ;lust
passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objectio
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM TILE
SENATE
A further message from the Senate by
Mr. .Arrington, one of its clarke,, an-
nounced that the Senate had passed a
concurrent resolution of the following
title, in which the concurrence of the
House is requested:
S. Con. R. 108. Concurrent resolution
extending beat wishes to President Gerald R.
Ford,
PERMISSION FOR THE commirrEE
ON RULES TO FILE A PRIVILEGED
REPORT
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I ask talaan-
mous consent that the Committee on
Rules may have until midnight tonight
to file privileged reports.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
EXTENDING THE BEST WISHES OF
THE CONGRESS TO PRESIDENT
GERALD R. FORD
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the Senate concurrent
resolution (S. Con. Res. 108) extending
the best wishes of the Congress to Presi-
dent Gerald R. Ford.
The Clerk read the Senate conctaTent
resolution, as follows:
S. CON. RES. 108
Whereas Gerald R. Ford was a Member of
Congress for twenty-five years; and
Whereas he is known to the Congress as
a good and faithful friend; and
Whereas he assumes today the Of ice of
President of the United States: Now, there-
fore, be it .
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep-
resentatives concurring), That the Congress
extends to Gerald R. Ford its sincere best
wishes, its asSurances of firm cooperation
and its fervent hopes for success in office.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ari-
zona?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
Senate concurrent resolution.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-,
vice; and there were?yeas 329, nays 0,
not voting 105, as follows:
mon No 4781
YEAS-329
Abdnor Bennett
Abzug Bergland
Adams Bevill
Alexander Beater
Anderson, Bingham
Calif. Blackburn
Anderson, Ill. Boggs
Andrews, N.C. Boland
Andrews, Bolling
N. Dak. Bradernas
Annunzio Bray
Archer Breckinridge
Arends Brinkley
Ashbrook Brooks
Aspin Brotznian
Badillo Brown, Calif.
Befalls Brown, Mich.
Bauman Brown. Ohio
Beard Broyhill, N.C.
Bell Broyhill. Va.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Buchanan
Burgener
Burke, Fla,
Burleson, Tex.
Burlison, Mo.
Burton, John
Burton, Phillip
Butler
Byron
Camp
Carter
Casey, Tex.
Chamberlain
Chappell
Clancy
Clausen,
Don H.
Clay
Cleveland
Cochran
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700050011-2
April. 8, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Extensions of Remarks
Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon the
Navy today to cancel a sizable number
of the 30 DD-963 destroyers.
Careful reading of the GAO's analysis
discloses that Litton is trying to build
too many ships at one time. The ship-
yard is crowded, undermanned, and com-
pletely fouledup?the shipyard workload
must be reduced. The only way to do that
is to reduce the number of destroyers to
be built. Otherwise, the costs of each ship
will skyrocket upward as delays mount.
The GAO reported that if foulups in-
side the shipyard are not resolved it will
cause eventual slippage in delivery sched-
ule and increases in contract costs.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Navy concedes
in its latest report to Congress that some
of the destroyers may be up to 5 months
late.
Congress has already approved funds
for the ships and the Navy is seeking an
additional $463.5 million for the final
seven ships in this year's Defense Depart-
ment's budget. I believe Mr. Speaker, that
at least the last seven ships should be
canceled and possibly more. It is inter-
esting to note that the cancellation of
the last seven ships would only involve a
fee of $152,000 which is much less than
the probable cost overruns.
The potential $500 million overrun is
based upon estimates of the cost of so-
called electronic warfare equipment, a
decoy system, special sonar, new heli-
copters, missile and guns which are not
included in the current Navy estimate.
These various weapons are listed as
"space and weight"?systems that were
originally planned for inclusion on the
ship but are not in the Navy's budget.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe that the
Navy is hoping to cover up these cost
overruns by paying for the increased
costs from outside regular shipbuilding
funds. Eleven months after a ship is de-
livered to the Navy any additional costs
inch ding the installation of new weapons
are paid from appropriations other than
shipbuilding. After these ships are de-
livered the needed weapons will be added
but not counted as part of the cost of the
ships. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the Navy's
action is a cheap trick designed to deceive
Congress.
At another point in the report the GAO
said that certain parts of the ships, which
are theoretically built in large modules
are being completed out of sequence
which makes the orderly construction of
the ships impossible in Litton's so-called
mass production shipyard. In fact, in the
case of assembly work the situation has
become worse in the past year.
Mr. Speaker, there is now no question
that unless we cut the number of DD-
963's we are headed for full-scale disaster
on this program.
NO AMNESTY WITHOUT EQUITY
HON. LAWRENCE J. HOGAN
OF MARYLAND
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 8, 1974
Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Speaker, on
March 10, the House Judiciary's Subcom-
mittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the
Administration of Justice held hearings
on the question of granting amnesty to
those who evaded the draft during the
'Vietnam war.
This question has aroused a great deal
of controversy and I would like to insert
in the RECORD at this point an editorial by
Mr. Smith Hempstone which expresses
the views of the majority of the Ameri-
can people:
[From the Washington Star-News, Mar. 20,
19741
No AMNESTY WITHOUT EQUITY
(By Smith Hempstone)
In North Vietnam last week, the United
States was dickering for the return of the
mortal remains of the last 11 American pris-
oners of war known to have died under the
rigors of Communist captivity. At the same
time, half a world away, in obscene jux-
taposition, a House subcommittee chaired
by Rep. Robert W. Kastenmeier, D-Wis.,
was holding hearings on amnesty for those
who refused to serve in that war.
The arguments of the pro-amnesty lobby
remain basically what they have always been:
The Vietnam War was an unjust war, hence
those who deserted or dodged the draft were
justified in so doing; the artful dodgers' self-
exile has been punishment enough; amnes-
ty has always been granted after a war and
one is needed now to heal society's wounds.
To all of which one can only reply: Horse-
feathers!
The notion that the thousands. who de-
serted or refused to serve were somehow
endowed with a higher morality than the
millions who disrupted their lives, obeyed
their country's call and risked maiming or
death is both impertinent and illogical.
All wars embody a measure of injustice.
But the state has a right to insist on the
obligation of its citizens to serve it, and no
man has the privilege of picking his war.
Clearly an individual has the right to refuse
to take human life, but there are plenty of
stretchers to be carried on the battlefield
by those of such sensitivity.
It is even possible to admire those who on
principle chose jail or alternative service to
donning a uniform. But the gorge rises at
the suggestion that men who spent the war
comfortably living off remittances from Mom
and Pop in Toronto coffee houses are the
cream of their generation. It simply isn't so.
As for the argument that the gun-shy
streakers have suffered enough by their sepa-
ration from their native land, their exile was
of their own choosing. The penalty does not
begin to match that paid in blood by some of
those who had to go in their stead. One can
only hope, for their sake and for their
adopted country, that they make better Ca-
nadians than they did Americans.
Although the revisionist historians of the
left would have us believe amnesty has fol-
lowed every American war, this is not the
case. There has never been a general, uncon-
ditional amnesty?which is what the white-
feather gang is demanding?after any Amer-
ican war.
After World War H, President Truman par-
doned slightly less than 10 percent of 15,805
draft dodgers. After the Korean War, scarcely
a popular conflict, there was amnesty for
neither deserters nor draft-dodgers.
The main point is that the militant evad-
ers are less interested in forgiveness than In
vindication. They want America to accept
their image of themselves and their version
of history, and this no self-respecting nation
can grant.
This is not to say that society should be
harsh or unforgiving. The case can certainly
be made that an immature and perhaps low
IQ teen-aged draft-dodger from a home in
which obligations to one's country were not
stressed is less culpable than the middle-
aged radical chic professor, chaplain or
polemicist who, knowing the penalty, urged
him to switch rather than fight.
E2195
So as Sen. Robert Taft Jr., R-Ohio, and for-
mer Secretary of the Army Robert F. Froehlke
have suggested to the Kastenmeier subcom-
mittee, some form of conditional amnesty,
on a case-by-case basis and contingent upon
alternative service, would not dishonor the
dead or split the country.
Case-by-case treatment by amnesty review
boards such as those set up after World
War II would be a slow process. But the of-
fense, against their country and their peers,
of which the draft-dodgers and deserters
stand accused, is a grave one.
They and those who urged them to turn
their backs on their country have to under-
stand that America is big enough to give its
repentant sons a second chance. But not so
craven or misguided as to vindicate them, to
say that they were right and those other,
braver sons who fought and died were wrong.
THE DEBATE OVER DIEGO GARCIA
HON. JONATHAN B. BINGHAM
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 8, 1974
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the
debate and vote last week in the House
on the question of a base on Diego Garcia
did not settle the question. It remains to
be seen, not only what the Senate and
the conference committee will do, but
also what the Government of the
United Kingdom will do, since no agree-
ment for the expansion has been entered
into.
Last Thursday, April 4, the Wall Street
Journal carried an article by Richard J.
Levine which in my view fairly sum-
marizes the arguments for and against
the Diego Garcia base. Perhaps. I am
prejudiced, but it seems to me that the
negative arguments greatly outweigh the
positive ones.
The article follows:
THE DEBATE OVER DIEGO GARCIA
(By Richard J. Levine)
WASHINGTON.?Diego Garcia is a tiny coral
island in the middle of the Indian Ocean,
lying a thousand miles off the southern tip of
India and halfway around the world from
Washington.
Isolated and uninspiring, the small hunk
of British real estate would seem an unlikely
candidate for attention in this crisis-oriented
capital.
But a Pentagon plan to build a naval sup-
port base on Diego Garcia?unveiled in the
aftermath of the Middle East war and the
Arab oil embargo?has begun to generate a
lively though limited foreign policy-national
security debate here. Nixon administration
officials see the proposed base as a logical and
effective means of protecting America's
Interests in that part of the world, offsetting
growing Soviet naval power. But some in
Congress fear the base could lead to a U.S.-
Soviet naval race in the Indian Ocean, an
area that has been largely spared super-
power rivalry, and eventually add billions of
dollars to Navy shipbuilding budgets without
enhancing U.S. security.
While U.S. Senators call for Washington-
Moscow talks on naval limitations in the
Indian Ocean, many of America's friends and
foes denounce the Diego Garcia plan. In the
end, the debate could provide important
clues to how serious Congress is about play-
ing a larger, more forceful role in foreign
policy as America emerges from its painful
decade in Vietnam.
"From our experience in Indochina, we
know too well the cost of early, easy con-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
E 2196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --Extensions of Remarks April 8, 1974
gressional and State Department acquies-
cence to Pentagon demands," says Sen.
Claiborne Pell (D., R.I.), a leading opponent
of the base plan. "We must profit from our
past errors. Our handling of this authoriza-
tion request for Diego Garcia Offers such an
opportunity."
NARROW ISSUES
Unfortunately, much of the debate thus
far has focused on such relatively narrow
issues as the comparative number of U.S. and
Soviet "ship days" in the Indian Ocean and
the length of the runway on the island.
Often lost in the din of detail are the basic
questions raised by the Pentagon plan?
whether the U.S. should be involved in the
project at all; whether, or how, U.S. interests
are served by increasing the Navy's still lim-
ited presence in this far-off ocean; whether,
as one former Pentagon planner put it, "we
would be willing to let events take their
course around the rim of the Indian Ocean."
Specifically, the Defense Department is
asking Congress for $32.3 minion to expand
an existing communications station on Diego
Garcia into a base capable of refueling and
restocking U.S. warships, indluding aircraft
carriers, operating in the Indian Ocean. The
base would be manned by about 600 men
and would enable the Navy to increase its
Indian Ocean deployments--either routinely
or in a crisis?without weakening its forces
in the Western Pacific.
Yesterday the Senate Armed Services Com-
mittee postponed "without prejudice" a re-
quest for $29 million for Diego Garcia con-
struction contained in a supplemental bud-
get bill for the Pentagon?a setback that is
likely to be challenged by administration
supporters in the full Senate. And today the
House is scheduled to vote on a proposal to
delete the same $29 million from a compan-
ion measure.
To justify the U.S. buildup, the Nixon
, administration has stressed the expanding
operations of the Soviet Navy in the Indian
Ocean (which Navy men expect to acceler-
ate with the reopening of the Suez Canal)
and the increasing reliance of the U.S. on
Persian Gulf oil that must be transported
across the Indian Ocean. "Our military pres-
ence in the Indian Ocean provides tangible
evidence of our concern for security and
stability in. a region where significant U.S.
interests are located," declares James Noyes,
Deputy Defense Secretary for Near Eastern,
African and South Asian Affairs,
By Pentagon standards, the Diego Garcia
request is a mere pittance, less than one-
third the price of a modern destroyer. More-
over, Defense Department and State Depart-
ment officials have sought to downplay the
potential long-range significance of the
naval base by referring repeatedly to their
plans for a "modest support facility."
Still, a number of lawmakers and outside
experts remain uneasy, fearful that congres-
sional approval of the censtruction money
could prove a fateful step down an un-
marked road toward yet another expensive
and, conceivably, dangerous security com-
mitment. Adding to their concern is the
small-step-by-small-step pattern of U.S. in-
volvement in the Indian Ocean: first a few
warships; next a communications station;
then a support base. Where, they worry, is
it leading?
Despite administration assertions to the
contrary, U.S. interest in the Indian Ocean
has been rather limited until recently. Only
three years ago, Ronald Spiers, then director
of the State Department's Bureau of Poll-.
tico-Military Affairs, could tell Congress:
"The Indian Ocean area, unlike Europe and
Asia, is one which has been only on the
margins of U.S. attention. Never considered
of great importance to the central balance
of power, it has been on the edges of great-
power rivalry."
Since 1948, the U.S. presence in this
part of the world has consisted mainly of
the Middle East force?a flagship based in
the Sheikdom of Bahrain and two destroy-
ers that make periodic port calls. That
such a modest force was considered ade-
quate testifies to the low strategic impor-
tance Washington attached to the world's
third largest ocean.
U.S. interest began building in the early
1960s. One result was the British Indian
Ocean territory agreement between the
United Kingdom and the U.S. in 1966,
under which Washington acquired the basic
right to build military facilities on O.ego
Garcia. Washington's interest quickened in
1968, with the British announcement of
plans to withdraw military forces east of
Suez and the appearance of the first Scviet
warships. Since then, the Soviets have stead-
ily increased their nava:, forces, and cur-
rent navy estimates give them a four-to-
one advantage over the U.S. in the Indian
Ocean.
Soviet ships have also gained increasing
access to port facilities. For example, :Rus-
sian vessels currently use the expanded
Iraqi port of Umm Qair and the former
British base at Aden; meanwhile, the Scviets
are expanding their nasal facilities at the
Somali port of Berbera. ''The Soviets possess
a support system in the (Indian Ocean)
area thet is substantially more extensive
than that of the U.S.," asserts Adm. Elmo
Zumwalt, Chief of Naval Operations.
As the Soviet presence increased, the U.S.
responded by sending carrier task :forces
into the Indian Ocean twice in 1971, in
April and again in December, during the
Intio-Pakistan war. Last October, a few
months after the Diego Garcia communica-
tions station opened and as the Mideast
ceasefire was taking effect, the Defense De-
partment unexpectedly moved a task force
headed by the carrier Hancock into the
Indian Ocean.
On Nov. 30, Defense Secretary James
Schlesanger, disclosing that the Hancock
would be replaced ba the Oriskany, an-
nounced that in the future the Navy would
establish a "pattern Cf regular visits into
the Indian Ocean and we expect that our
presence there will be more frequent and
more regular than in the past." Since then,
major U.S. vessels have been in the ocean
without letup.
Why? Administration officials offer a vari-
ety of explanations?to counterbalance So-
viet "influence" on states around the Indian
Ocean; to maintain "continued access" to
vital Mideast oil supplies; to insure free-
dom of the seas; simply to demonstrate our
"interest" in that area of the world.
The State Department emphasizes the
diplomatic value of the Navy. "A :military
presence can support effective diplomacy
without its ever having to be used," says
Seymour Weiss, direcaor of State's politico-
military affairs bureau. Privately Pentagon
officials, not surprisingly, place greater
weight on the military value of warships in
the Indian Ocean. The increasing U.S. Navy
operations, a Navy man says, are needed "to
show we are a credible military power in that
part of the world."
But critics of the Diego Garcia proposal
are troubled by these explanations, which,
they believe, raise more questions than they
answer.
GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY
Some critics wonder whether the presence
of larger numbers ef U.S. Warships in the
Indian Ocean will, as Naval Chief Zumwalt
claims, help preserve "regimes that are
friendly to the U.S." in the area. "Gunboat
diplomacy doesn't really seem to work" in
this age, argues a government analyst. In-
ternal problems and economic assistance, he
believes, have a much greater bearing on the
political course followed by foreign gait ern-
ments. What is clear is that several states
in the area?including Australia, New
Zealand, India, Madagascar and Sri Lanka
(Ceylon)?have publicly opposed the Diego
Garcia support base, aeguing-that the Indian
Ocean should he a "zone of peace."
Furthermore, there are some military ex-
perts who doubt that Soviet ships in the
Indian Ocean pose a serious threat to West-
ern tankers carrying precious Arab oil. In
the opinion of Gene La Rocque, a retired rear
admiral who often criticizes Pentagon poli-
cies, an attack on, or interference with such
shipping "doesn't appear to be a plausible
action on the part of the Soviet Union when
one takes into account such important fac-
tors as relative military power, time and dis-
tance and the alternative means of exerting
influence and power at the disposal of the
Soviet Union."
Other military analysts have argued that it
is highly improbable the Soviets would at-
tack Western ships since such a hostile act
would likely trigger the outbreak of a major
War between the superpowers. Geoffrey
Jukes, an Australian analyst has written: "It
is difficult to envisage a situation, short of
world nuclear war, in which the Soviet gov-
ernment would be prepared to place the bulk
of its merchant fleet at risk by engaging to
'interfere' with Western shipping in the In-
dian or any other ocean."
Much more likely, critics of the Diem Gar-
cia plan stress, is a repetition of the recent
Arab oil embargo, a political act designed to
achieve political aims. It is argued that the
presence of sizable naval forces can, at best,
have only a minimal impact in such a
situation.
Finally, there is the unsettling prospect
that a base at Diego Garcia, coupled with
increased naval deployments in the Indian
Ocean, will provide the Navy in years to come
with new rationales for an "Indian Ocean
fleet" and ever-bigger shipbuilding budgets,
especially for carriers and escorts. The Navy,
a Pentagon insider notes, "has been panting
on the edges of the opportunity" represented
by enlarged Indian Ocean commitments.
A CALL FOR NEDOT/ATIONS
To prevent a costly U.S.-Soviet naval race,
which might not enhance either nation's se-
curity, Sen. Pell and Sen. Edward Kennedy
(D., Mass.) have jointly introduced a reso-
lution calling for negotiations between the
superpowers on limiting naval facilities and
warships in the Indian Ocean.
As in the past, the U.S. remains reluctant
to agree in writing to any restrictions on its
use of the high Seas. Moreover, U.S. ofacials
say efforts to follow up a Soviet hint in 1871
of interest in naval limitation talks failed
to produce a response from the Kremlin.
Still, in view of the potential long-range
costs and dangers involved in an expanded
naval presence in the Indian Ocean, it would
seem worthwhile to pursue the matter fur-
ther. For, as Sen. Kennedy has said, "It may
in time prove necessary and desirable for the
U.S. to compete with the Soviet Union in
military and naval force in this distant pert
of the globe. But before that happens we owe
it to ourselves, as well as to all the people
of the region, to try preventing yet another
arms race."
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
S4848
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE April 1, 1974
Senator CHURCH. I would want to hear it
from the Secretary, himself.
SHERMAN. The President seems determined
to go on with his trip to Moscow. Are you
worried that he may be timing his trip to
Moscow in June for maximum political ad-
vantage here in the fight over impeachment?
Senator CHURCH. Well, I don't know what
his motives are, but one would have to ob-
serve that as the impeachment proceeding
is now moving along, it's quite possible that
sometime in June the House would he vot-
ing on an impeachment resolution, assuming
that the Judiciary Committee recommends
such a resolution favorably to the House.
SHERMAN. Would you oppose his going at
a time like that?
Senator CHURCH. Well, I would tbink it
would be a very awkward time for him to
go, but I don't want to prophesy what the
House Judiciary Committee will do. I'm
merely speculating.
BENTON. I'd like to revert Mr. Sherman's
question. Is detente going to be a casualty
of the impeachment proceedings, do you
think, Senator?
Senator CHURCH. Not unless the Russians
choose to make it so. There is no reason in
this country why it should. We are dealing
here with the Presidency, after all, not the
man who occupies the Presidency, and if it
were to happen that Mr. Nixon were to be
removed from office, we'd have a President
of the 'United States stepping into his place.
So unless the Russians choose to use this as
an excuse, or treat it as a reason for not
going forward with detente, I don't think
that it should be, or need be, an obstacle.
HERMAN. Some of the observers in the So-
viet capital in Moscow have said that the
Russians now seem tor the first time to have
some understanding of congressional power
and Congress' part in our government, which
sounds like a healthy thing. Have you heard
anything to that effect?
Senator CHuacm. Well, I think that they
make their observations. There was a time a
few years ago when they didn't even believe
that the Senate actually had the power not to
ratify a treaty, so I believe that they are
beginning to have a better understanding of
our constitutional system, and that would be
healthy.
HERMAN. Thank you, Senator Church, for
being.with us today on Face the Nation.
ANNOUNCER. Today. on Face the Nation
Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho,
was interviewed by CBS News Correspondent
Nelson Benton, George Sherman of the Wash-
ington Star-News, and CBS News Correspond-
ent George Herman. Next week another
prominent figure in the news will Face the
Nati
DIEGO GARCIA
Mr! GOLDWATER. Mr. President, the
subject of the tiny island of Diego Garcia
Is becoming a rather major issue be-
tween those who are definitely opposed to
it and those who feel that we must have
it because of the strategic importance of
the Indian Ocean. Although my basic
reason for supporting the desire to have
this base in that ocean is based on mili-
tary need, I think I can defend it equally
as well by citing the cost savings to us if
we do not have to make the 4,000-mile
trip from Subic Bay to the Indian Ocean.
'Improving the logistic support facili-
ties in Diego Garcia will lead to substan-
tial cost avoidance in supporting our re-
newed naval deployments into the Indian
Ocean. These deployments, interrupted
by the Vietnam conflict, are conducted at
the direction of the National Command
Authority when our national interests so
require. The increasing importance of
our sea lines of communications in this
vital area make it imperative that we
have the ability to support a naval force
there when necessary. Although this sup-
port can come from Subic Bay, in the
Philippines, some 4,000 miles distant,
cost avoidance of $400 million to a $1
billion in 10-year logistics support costs
can be realized if Diego Garcia, only
2,000 miles distant, is equipped for logis-
tic support as currently proposed by the
Navy.
In addition to the fact that the United
States has vital interests in the area in-
dependent of Soviet actions, is the fact
that the Soviets already have established
a logistic support base in the Indian
Ocean far exceeding our own, and are
expanding it even more. This, coupled
with the major benefits accruing to them
from the opening of the Suez Canal, will
lead to a major strategic shift in the re-
gion which we can ignore only at our
peril. Provision of logistic support facili-
ties in Diego Garcia can, to some extent,
reduce our vulnerability to the strategic
implications of this ongoing Soviet ex-
pansion.
Finally, the Soviets have the added ad-
vantage of being able to bring substan-
tial power to bear in the area by land,
whereas any influence we may need to
bring to bear must principally be by sea.
We cannot afford to deny ourselves the
ability to deploy such naval forces as we
may need in the future.
What the Navy is proposing for Diego
Garcia is primarily a capability for logis-
tics support of forces that may be sent
into the Indian Ocean in contingencies,
or for periodic deployments. It is a pru-
dent precautionary move to ensure that
we have the capability to operate our
forces in an area of increasing strategic
importance to the United States and its
allies. Not only is it in our best interests
to be able to maintain the types of pres-
ence in the Indian Ocean which were
Interrupted by the Vietnam conflict, but
the increased dependence of our econ-
omy?and that of the Free World?on
the Sea Lines of Communications?
SLOC's?through the Indian Ocean
make it prudent for the United States
to maintain an option of protecting
those SLOC's.
The purpose of the improvements the
Navy has proposed for Diego Garcia is
simply to enable us to use it as a logis-
tics support base. Logistic support of our
ships in the Indian Ocean today comes
from Subic Bay in the Philippines, more
than 4,000 miles away. The improve-
ments to Diego Garcia, which would
have relatively low political visibility,
would enable us to shorten the logistic
line to 2,000 miles. For ait initial invest-
ment of approximately $35 million, plus
$1 of $2 million per year icnreased oper-
ating costs, we can avoid expenditures of
$400 million to $1 billion in additional
10-year logistics costs. At the upper limit,
provision of logistic support facilities at
Diego Garcia could save us the procure-
ment and support costs of one full un-
derway replenishment group.
Ow interests in the Indian Ocean
clearly require the ability to maintain
a U.S. presence there at the direction of
the National Command Authority,
whether or not the Soviets maintain a
presence of their own. Since 1968, we
have seen a pattern of steady buildup
both in the Soviet naval presence, and
in Soviet capabilities for the support of
military operations in the Indian Ocean.
We must presume that the Soviets'
plan for expansion of these capabilities
are based on perceptions of their own
interests and objectives in the region and
are not driven predominantly by U.S.
activity in the area. This is borne out
by the fact that the rate of Soviet
buildup has increased steadily through-
out the period, while our own activity
has remained at a relatively low level.
As a result of this Soviet buildup, the
Soviets possess a support system in the
area that is substantially more extensive
than that of the United States. For ex-
ample, they have established fleet
anchorages in several locations near the
Island of Socotra, where an airfield pro-
vides a potential Soviet base for recon-
naissance or other aircraft. In addition,
they have established anchorages in
other areas around the Indian Ocean
littoral as well.
They have built a communications
station near the Somali port of Berbera
to provide support for their fleet. At the
same time they have increased their use
of, and are expanding naval facilities at
Berbera, which currently include a re-
stricted area under Soviet control, a
combined barracks and repair ship and
housing for Soviet military dependents.
In addition, they engaged in building a
new military airfield near Mogadiscio,
which could be used for variety of
missions.
Soviet naval combatants and support
ships have had access to the expanded
Iraqi naval port of Umm Qasr, where
facilities are being built with the assist-
ance of Soviet technicians. Those facil-
ities appear to be considerably more
extensive than any which would be re-
quired for Iraqi needs alone.
The Soviets have been extended the
use of port facilities at the former British
base at Aden, and air facilities at the
former Royal Air Force field nearby.
They maintain personnel ashore in both
locations. In addition, they use the port
of Aden for refueling, replenishment, and
minor repairs.
Since 1971 Soviet naval unkts have
been engaged in harbor clearance opera-
tions at Chittagong, Bangladesh.
In addition to their regional support
facilities in the Indian Ocean, the
Soviets are embarked on a worldwide
program to expand bunkering and visit
rights for their naval, merchant, and
fishing fleets. Since Soviet merchant ves-
sels are frequently employed for logistics
support of Soviet naval forces, the estab-
lishment of merchant bunkering facili-
tieg expands the Soviet Navy's logistics
infrastructure. The Soviets have recently
secured bunkering rights in Mauritius
and Singapore and have made ap-
proaches to other Western and non-
alined countries.
In summary, Soviet support initiatives
and the tempo of their naval activity in
the Indian Ocean since 1968 have ex-
panded at a deliberate pace which can-
not be related, 'either in time or in scope,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : tIA-RDP751300380R000700050011-2
Ap rt 1 1974 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 4847
The Arab vernments have tilscueered that
oil' is a politlai weapon, The preseht price of
oil has nothlg to no with economics. It
costs twenty cefi41s a barrel to raise this oil;
they re selling it 4 a posted price of $11:65
a, baere1-350 per ci above what it was just
twelee months ago. is price is I politicalt
price. They found that ey can mere it stick
In the western world, ause we have to
have Arab oil, particular esteen Europe
and Japan.
So in that new retuation, 's -7oolish to
thin% that the companies can cessfully
bareain any more with the Arab g rnments
on oil prices. Anti the latest Indi ns are
those prices may go up again In Jithe ther
than come down. Under these circ-is es,
I believe our government which -has e
leverage with these Arab nations?our g
ernreent--must take a much more direct ro
in attempting to bring these prices down.
SHIMMAN. But then, are you in favor of
turreng the oil companies into, in fact, pub-
lic utilities, which would bypass the ques-
tion Di! antitrust laws anyway--
Senator CHURCH. No, I would be against
that, George, because that's just dodging the
issue. We'd be regulating monopoly, and that
never works very well. I would be in favor
of taking those measures that wthild inject
ari much competition, as much free market,
back into the system as possible.
BENTON. Senator, I'd like to ask you a phil-
osophical question along this free market
area, if I could. Secretary of the Interior
Rogers Morton was speaking alio-- week to
the National Petroleum Council Which, as
you know, is a group of industry advisors
to the government, and he said that the
government, and my inference from what
he says was that he meant the Congress is
becoming an adversary to the free enterprise
system.. Is it in such actions as you were
talking about?is the government becoming
an adversary to the free enterprise' system?
Senator CHURCH. By adversary, you mean
an opponent to?
BENTON. Yes.
Senator CHURCH. No, though in some ways
I think there is justification for that charge.
I'm pleading a different case. Instead of
treattng oil as a monopoly, which itiShouldn't
be, and then trying to regulate itOand then
finding, as we usually do, that the regula-
tion is soon indistinguishable from the in=
terests of the regulated?that the regulators
are taken in by the regulated--I lay make
It competitive instead, and make sure it stays
competitive. The government can do that,
the government can be a referee that makes
free enterprise stay free. But my eix- perience
has been that the bigger businesses get, the
more they preach free enterprise and the less
they want to practice it. It &hoard be the
government's job to see to it that they con-
tinue to practice it,
SHERMAN. But how do you?it seems to
me there is an inconsistency here, or per-
haps I just don't understand it--you're say-
ing that the oil companies themselves ad-
mit they no longer have the strength to deal
with the Arab governments, and they're tak-
ing over the oil, in fact. So that means they
are becoming less and less powerful. At the
same time, you say that somehow the U.S.
government should bolster them, without be-
coming intricately involved in their opera-
tions--in their negotiations?
Senator CHURCH. Well, let me explain. I can
undersatnd how you might have been led
to that confusion. First of all, the com-
panies have not only admitted that they
have no bargaining power left. They have no
econemic Incentive to bring down the price.
Why should they? They have discovered that
the more the price goes up, the bigger their
profits get. The profits of ARAIVICO went up
almost in the same degree. 350 percent, with
the actual posted price, and the profits of
the major oil companies in this country, the
owners of ARAMCO, have gone up to un-
precedented levels in the last year. So that,
It they are profiting as they are, so hugely
from the hijack prices, what incentive do
they have to bring them down? For that rea-
son alone, an obligation falls cn the govern-
men I, of this country to play a more direct
role in negotiating these prices downward
agol a, because they are political prices?they
are not economic prices. They don't operate
within the parameters of the marketplace.
HPRMAN. Just SO 1 enow where We stand
on tele because I have a rather simple mind.
Do you think that the world 13 running out
of oJ, and that oil is--and all energy forms
are becoming shorter, therefore perhaps
prices should be up a little?
Senator Comex. The world will run out of
oil no question about that. But right now?
Heateeer. In a foreseeable time?
Senator CHURCH. But right now, the world
not short on oil. The oil is there, the oil
uld supply the market. The problem Is not,
he immediate future, a shortage of oil.
roblem is price and we shouldn't pre-
tend at the lifting of the Arab oil embargo
has ged the problem one iota. It may
mean the shortage for a little while--
the eque on the United Seates?will be
less severe, t the price: think of its im-
pact on the astern World! it is geing to
increase the C ? of fuel supplies between $55
and $65 billion his year alone. Now that's
a price that Wes Europe and Japan and
the United States d the other industrial
nations will have to . Its effect, in terms
of inflation, its effect erms of the adverse
impact on our balance o ayments, its effect
in drying up the flow of Mal to the un-
derdeveloped world, is abs tely staggering.
Now that is the oil crisis; t is the eco-
nomic consequence of this re ess decision
to suddenly increase the poste rice of oil
in the Middle East 350 percent vet a year's
time
HERMAN. I'm not sure but that ter-
rupted you when you were giving u 'OW
recommendations.
Senator Conacer. Yes, well, where were
_ BERMAN. Well, we started with the gayer
merit should take a little bit more contro
Senator Crecrecre. I hope that it wouldn't
have to be for a long period of time, but as
long as the price of oil is going to be used as
a political weapon by the Ai ab countries
against the Western World, the United States
government has to see it in those terms, and
the United States has to try to do something
about it. After all, we presumably have more
leverage than the oil companies with the
Arab countries, We've given thsm $3 billion
Ill economic and military aid over the past
12 years, and we are now preparing to assist
Egypt in clearing the Suez Canal, and quite
pieseibly in other economic development pro-
grarne
HERMAN. So you are proposing some kind of
American government pressure against the
Arab nations?
Senator Commie. I'm proposing that we
recognize that this is a highjacked price with
disastrous consequences, and that the federal
government do something about negotiating
with the Arab countries in an effort to bring
this price down, since we have leverage that
the companies themselves have admitted they
no longer possess.
BERMAN, What's our leverage?
Senator CHURCH. I've just suggested part
of it.
HERMAN. But getting back eo what you
would do specifically, in terms ef your cbm-
thittee, in terms of the Congress, are you con-
sidering yourself a budding sort of trust-
buster in this sort of thing? Do you think
the congress of the United States should
enact legislation which is going to break up
this monopoly situation?
Senator Cnuacet George, first of all, we do
have antitrust laws on the bcoks, and we
want to make sure that the arrangements
in the Middle East, of American companies--
along with their pipeline arrangements and
marketing arrangethents in this eountry--dO
, not violate these laws. That's number one.
Secondly, NVe should pass new laws to deal
with the conglomerate problem The laws
that we presently have on i he books don't
deal with big companies that get into fields
other than their particular field. Now the oil
industry is getting into coal; the oil indus-
try is at work out west. You know what the,/
are doing out there, on the public domain?
They are getting leanes from the federal gov-
ernment on geothermal resources.
HERMAN. They are also way into uranium.
Senator CHURCH. Yes, they are way into
uranium. Now are we going to let oil buy up
all of its competition in this country'
Doesn't the government have some obliga-
tion to see to it that the free enterprise
system remains competitive where fuel sup-
plies are concerned? Certainly It does. Ann
then the third thing we must do is change the
tax laws so that the incentive will not be,
as It has been, to go abroad, and thus make us
dependent, ever more dependent upon foreign
sources for fuel?sources which we canno'
control, but to bring oil companies home
But, to turn the incentive of the tax laws
around, we'll have to do a lot trete than the
tap-on-the-wrist treatment that apparently
the Ways and Means Committee Is now con-
sidering for the oil industry.
HERMAN. When we consider problems of
this magnitude in this country, we have as
inclination to think of it in terms of the
polarization between the Soviet Union rine
the United States. Some people think that'
a preoccupation with us. Does this oil prob-
lem with the Middle East stand outside of the
question of detente and our relations with
the Soviet Union?
Senator CHURCH. Well, it doesn't stand out-
side but it stands at the periphery, I would
think. There are other questions between the
United States and the Soviet Union of much
greater magnitude that go to the heart of
detente--questions such as normalized trade
and the possibilities of seething some kind of
limitation on nuclear arms. Theo questione
go to the heart of detente; I would think that
he oil matter lies out somewhere near the
lphery.
AN. I note the Soviet Union's urginge
to ?e Arab countries to continue the em-
b r and its lack of effect upon them,
app. -'.tly. ?
Sena r CHURCH. Yes, the Soviet Union
wants t ep as much influence as it can
with the ab countries. After all, it has
invested a reat deal in supporting their
military fo and it has-hoped to increase
its Influence that part of the world. But
I commend Se tary Kissinger for his skill-
ful diplomacy, a I think that the chances
are better today some kind of settlement
between the Arab entriee. and Israel than
they have been for any years.
Berreore. Senator urch, Secretary Kis-
singer just got back m MoscOW, and we
first heard that his?
Senator CHURCH. And got married and
went to Mexico.
Berrron. That's true.
Senator CHURCH. Thus de nstrating he's
one of the few men in this ? ministration
with any energy to spare. (La liter.)
Bann:eq. First we heard tha the, nego-
tiations were not very good and t. n we start
hearing, well, they weren't so b In your
role as chairman of the suhcommit e. I be-
lieve, on arms control, do you have any intel-
ligence as to how the negotiations in Moscow
really went? Are we better off?
Senator Covathe I haven't yet had a chance
to discuss this with the Secretary. Until he
comes back from his honeymoon, we'll have
to wait for these details. Be's promised to
collie to the Foreign Relations Committee
and to give us a detailed accounting of what
transpired in Moscow.
HERMAN. Can't anyone else brief you?
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/OW ? QgiiINP7synicr000700050011-2
April 1, 1974 CONGRf ssioNAL tc S 4849
to any comparable expansion of U.S.
activity. The Soviets' logistics arrange--
meats are designed to support. their own
strategic objectives in the area.
Underlying all of this is rsemst recog-
nition that any nation which hes the
capability to project subetantial naval
power into the Indian. Ocean autainati-
cally acquires significant influence not
only with the littoral countries', but with
countries outside the area whose econ-
omies depend on the free use of its sea
lanes:
The Soviets' logistics infrastructure is
already suliiedent to support a much
greater Soviet Presence than the one
. which now exists in the Indian Ocean,
and Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean
can be expected to .continue to grow, ir-
respective of anything we do at Diego
Garcia,
The opening of the Suez will complete
the major actions necessary to making
the Soviet Union a major Indian Ocean
power. With the Suez open, the deploy-
merit distance for the Soviets will be re-
duced from about 5,600 miles from Vladi-
vostok or over 11,000 miles from the
Black Sea, to less than 4,000 miles from
the Black Sea. This reduction, ? coupled
with the proliferation .of actual and po-
tential support activities along the lit-
toral will enable the Soviets to expand
their Indian Ocean. force at will. The
opening of the Suez will effect a major
strategic change to the benefit of the Sot-
viets. Provision of logistic support fa-
cilities in Diego Garcia can, to a small
extent, reduce our vulnerability to the
strategic implications of this ongoing?
Soviet expansion into the area.
Finally, the geopolitical asymmetries
between the United States and the So-
viet Union must be kept in mind in as-
sessing the relative importance to the
two countries of the capability to oper-
ate naval .forces in the region. The So-
viet Union dominates the Eurasian land-
mass. It has borders with some key Mid-
dle Eastern and South Asian countries.
Its land-based forces can already be
brought to bear in the region. The United
States, on the other hand, can project
Its -military power into the area only by
sea and air, and over great distances.
The Soviet Union, in sum, has the geo-
graphical proximity necessary to influ-
ence events in the Indian Ocean littoral,
without the employment of naval forces
if necessary. We do not Limiting our ca-
pabilities to operate naval forces effec-
tively in the region would not be in U.S.
Interest; and would clearly put us at a
disadvantage in the region.
In summation, it is in our national in-
terest to have the .capability to support
naval forces in the Indian Ocean--at the
direction of the National Command Au-
thority?whether or not the Soviets con-
tinue to increase their forces there. It is
a wise investment to provide logistic sup-
port capability at Diego Garcia. Second,
the Soviets have already established a
logistic support base in the Indian Ocean
far exceeding our own, and are expand-
ing it even more. This, coupled with the
major benefits accruing to them from the
opening of the Suez Canal, will lead to a
major strategic shift in. the region which
we can ignore only at our peril. Finally,
the Soviets have the added :advantage of
being abaci to bring much power to hear
in the aca by land, whereas any nallu.
ence we may need to bring to bear in the
future must principally be by sea. 'Vie
should assare ourselves the ability to sup-
port our own naval presence in this area
to the extent necessary to protect our
own. interests, ?
COST AVOIDANCE SUPPLEMENTARY CALCULATIONS .
millianc?FY74
Diego Garcia costs:
FY/5 FY76
Initial 29 5 ?
Lower limit cosi avoidance
Farces/cost_ FY75 FY76 FY77
AO procureiiAint?.. _____ 1/55 1/35 1/55
Upper limit ctst ayoidaitcc
Foices/avt . FY75 FY76 FY77 FY7it FY76
AO procurement ------------1/55 1/55 1/55
At procurement 1180
PF procurement 1/60 1/60 1/60 1/20 1/60
Without improving the facilities st Diegn Gsrcia, the logistic
support for the increased peacetime capability for Indian. Ocean
deployments could be attained through procurenront 01 these
additional forces.
Procurement :MO only arc shown-. Operating costs of $7.51I4
per ship per year are intoned commencing at 10C.
Without iiiiproving the facilities at Diego Garcia, the logistic
support tar the increased wartime caribility for Indian Ocean
deployments could be attainsd through procurement of these
additional forces.
Procuremeut costs only are shown. Average operating tests
for ail ships of $8.0M per ship per year are incurred at IOC
SOLAR ENERGY AND THE FARM
Mr. ABOUREZE, Mr. President, my
senior colleague from South Dakota,
Senator McGovERN, recently testified bee
fore the Senate Committee on Aeronau-
tical and Space Sciences in support of
S. 2658, the Solar Energy Heating and
Cooling Demonstration Building Act.
As a member of that committee I was
impressed with Senator McGovERses sug-
gestion for accelerating solar research on
the farm. He proposed that a provision
be added to S. 2658 to establish a solar
energy agricultural research , center
which would provide for the investiga-
tion, monitoring, and analysis of the
many ways in which agriculture can
benefit from accelerated solar research.
He proposed that such a center be at-
tached to the EROS center in Sioux Falls,
S. Dale.
That idea is in line with the amend-
ment I have offered to S. 2658 which
would allocate 30 percent of the solar
demonstration buildings for construction
in rural areas. It is my view that, if solar
energy is to win the acceptance of the
average American citizen, it must first be
proven that it is both economical and
practical in daily application. Senator
McGovEresr's suggestion provides an ex-
cellent means of establishing that proof.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator
McGovEaw's testimony together with
supporting material be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the testi-
mony and material were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR. GEORGE MCGOVERN
Mr. Chairman, what the table game of
Monopoly was to the depression ravaged
America of the 1930's, the energy -crisis has
become to the profit hungry fuel industries
of the 1970's. Each industry is borrowing,
buying, expending, and ee-doubling its ef-
ions to grab a liten'e share of the profits for
oll, for gas, and for nuclear energy. Energy-
short Amcrieene ere flooded with assurances
that If they estil only pay e little More, gami-
nes, e little linger, and sueenit to just a little
more desteiceton of our meantains, plains,
and water. America can become self-entre:lent
in fuel by 19110. I, for one, are ssonvinced that
the people of tide cowl:try are fed rap with
playing games en energy. They want straight-
forwaad and economy-minded answers to the
fuel ahortege. That answer may be forth- ?
creatag if Congress adopts the solar energy
legislation we are coneiclering today.
I welcome the opportunity to add my son-
nen to S. 2658, the Beier Heating and Oool-
log Demonstration Building Act. This meas-
ure is practical in the sense that it puts the
advantages; of solar energy into immediate
orieration. And it is forward looking to the
extent that it provides on-going reeearch ef-
forts on which we can .make informed judg-
ments os future energy planning. In abort,
It is a respoosible means of dealing with the
energy crisis on an effective, forceful basis
while giving much needed support to solar
energy research. '
Solar energy is one of Use most sensible tn-
vestments we can make in solving the fuel
crisis. It Is in unlimited supply, it .is non-
polluting, and .it is available worldwide, right
now, if only we will come to terms With the
need for improved technology.
The enormous versatility of solar energy is
demonstrated by the quantity of projects
currently under way which harness the en-
ergy of the sins to domestic needs.
For example, a federal office building under
construction In Manchester, New Hampshire
. will use solar cells in a variable flow temper-
ature heating system The General Sande:ea
Administration and the National Bureau of
Standards; will monitor the solar technology
designed into the building and evaluate its
performance for future reference.
On the University of Delaware campus, an
experimental house "'Solar One," .is already
operating with a solar heating system. When
fully equipped, solar energy will provide -up
to 60% of the total energy requirements of
the house.
In Washington, D.C., Harry Thomason, -a
retired patent attorney, has earned wide Re-
claim for his solar powered homes. According
to news reports, his first solar home, built in
1959, had a three year average heat bill of
$6.30 per winter.
The Pennsylvania Power and Light Com-
pany has also developed a solar heating sys-
tem. It uses two heat pumps and a system of
solar collectors plus a series of heat ex-
changes to heat the two starry, 1,700 square
foot structure.
And, in Providence, Rhode Island, a 19th
Century foundry is being converted into an
office building with solar energy providing the
heat.
This is an impressive list of independent
Initiatives to make sunlight the more pro-
ductive servant of man. But the list goes on
in countries throughout the world, The Aus-
tralian Minister for Science, William Motel-
eon, has decided to coordinate all the more
or less casual investAgations of solar energy
into one integrated. imaginative program
under the Commonwealth. Scientific and In-
dustrial Research Organization. It is thought -
that 40 billion Australian dollars, equivalent
to $60 billion in U.S. currency, well be needed
to Provide :solar heat for 23% of the Am-
trailers hornet by the end of the century.
An excellent summary of solar research
initiatives Is contained in a television broad-
cast prepared by the BBC entitled, "The
Sunbeam Solution.' I have previously In-
serted a transcript of that broadcast in the
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD and I recommend it
to my colleagnes as an excellent statement of
what can be done when a Serious effort is
made to harness the energy of the sort.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
S 4850 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 1, 1974
In Arizona, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, this imaginative propcsal be included at
AMENDMENT TO S. 2858
California and New Mexico, projects ranging the conclusion of my remarks as an example On page 16 beginning on line 7 mil:
from a newsletter called "Solar Energy Di- of sound and sensible solar -agricultural Consistent with the emphasis of 'this bill
gest" to investigations inn) orbiting solar research, on the prompt development of practical sciar
energy collecting satellites and solar en- My investigation inter) farm related uses of energy application for domestic use $200e-
ergy farms are signs of the awakening in- solar energy has uncove:ed several other in- ON of the funds authorized in Seciion 12
interest in solar research Each of these dependent projects. For example, at Kansas shall be authorized for a feasibility study
projects gives added incentive to passage of State University, research has been con- exploring the design, location and objectives
the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstra- ducted into the use of the sun In drying sor- of a central research facility and informa-
tion Building Act. The work of the Conunit- ghum grain. Michigan State U iv -sit
tee on Science and Astronautics in the House
and the Committee on Aeronautical and
Space Sciences in the Senate, matched to the
pioneering efforts of NASA in developifng this
legislation, have given that, of us in Con-
gress the opportunity to produce a truly
useful energy solution.
One of the most signifletint features of
the legislation before us is -Section 7 which
provides for projects and activities with re-
spect to apartment buildings, office build-
ings, factories, and agricultural structures.
The projects I have alreadylalescribed, point
to the value of the legislation we are study-
ing. Private homes, factories, and office build-
ings are either under construction or reno-
vation which use the power of the sun to
make them cleaner and more efficient places
in which to live and work. -
But it seems to me that some further at-
tention must be given to agriculture in this
promising legislation. I wourd hope that the
suggestion I will offer will not only reinforce
the agricultural section of this legislation,
but Will help to increase general support fpr
the bill as well.
Earlier this year, I wrote to the Agricul-
tural Research Service to inquire about solar
energy application to farm needs. Mr. Gerald
E. Carlson, Laboratory Chief- at the Depart-
ment of Agriculture sent my office a letter
which said in part, "Because of your letter,
I intend to query .. . (our research reporting
service) to get a more complete and detailed
listing of solar energy research in the de-
partment." Mr. Carlton said in addition,
"In my opinion, solar eneiSey can be used
to alleviate demands on fossil fuels in a
number of ways in agricultural application.
Solar energy, in addition toT being used for
grain drying, could be used for low tempera-
ture storage and transport of agricultural
commodities, for heating and cooling of ani-
mal shelters as well as farm, residences and
for heating and cooling of greenhouses. As
technology develops on the use of solar
energy for production of electricity, then
other farm applications certainly will be
developed."
On January 9, 1974, G. W. /sauce, Head of
the Agricultural Engineering Department at
Purdue University, supported the Depart-
ment of Agriculture view in a letter to me.
He said, in part, "As you well know, we are
using large quantities of !basil fuel, par-
ticularly critically available LP gas for crop
drying. A major portion of this energy re-
quirement could be supplied by solar energy."
Mr. Isaacs included a prelisninary project
proposal entitled "Use of Soh& Energy to Re-
duce Fuel Requirements fors Corn Drying."
I ask that this proposal be included at the
conclusion of my remarks.
A further demonstration of the practical
application of solar energy to farm needs is
reflected in a preliminary proposal to the
National Science Foundation submitted by In light of these develooments, I have in-
two professors at South Dakota State lint- trodueed legislation in this Session of (ton-
varsity in Brookings, South Dakota. Dennis grass which deals specifically with solar en-
L. Moe, Head of the Agricultural Engineering ergy and the farm. My bill would establish a
Department at SDSU, together with Asso- solar energy agricultural research center, ex-
elate Professor Mylo A. Hellickson, have pand funding for solar-agricultural research,
drawn up a preliminary proposal which has and provide for the investigation of the pos-
three main objectives: (1) the application of siblilty of granting tax deductions for the
solar powered systems for corn drying; (2) installation of solar energy apparatus on
application of solar powered systems for the farm.
farrowing house heating using thermal stole- Today, I want to offer an amendment for
age and control systems to -optimize solar the Committee's consideration which, I be-
energy utilization; and (3) integration of neve, can directly benefit Oath the food pro-
these systems to maximize solar collector ducer and the food consumer. That amend-
utilization. I ask unanimous consent that ment is
tion exchange center for solar-agricultural
Agricultural Engineering Department has research.
conducted studies of solar energy ayailaaility, Desipte the growing interest in =lax en-
collection and storage for farm use. The Uni- ergy research and despite the continu:ng dif-
versity of Minnesota's Department of Ale- ficulty in providing adequate food 'or the
chanical Engineering has been working on
the design of solar collectors and th people of the world, the two subjects are not
e use being dealt with in combined fashion. The
of the energy for drying crops. In Brook- farmer must rely on chance discovery of
Ings,-South Dakota, Bill Peterson, Exten- developments in solar technology which
sion Agricultural Engineer at South Dakota might aid him in producing more food at
State University, has designed a system lower cost. My amendment would provide:
which uses solar heat :o dry shelled corn funds for the first steps in establishing a
in the bin. The system uses thin aluminum central clearinghouse for wiser-agricultural
lithographic plates from the DeSmet News data. The center itself could -be heated and
and transparent plastic to dry corn at a cooled by solar energy. Consistent with the
coat of 2.4 cents per bushel. thrust of thislegislation, the building might
One of the most exciting efforts into the
promise of solar energy is underway in Can- be located directly in the heart of the food
producing section of our country. One pos-
sibility where researchers at McGill University might be an addition to the EROS-
are clearly aware that the first beneficiary Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The
of solar energy development can be the EROS complex lies in the center of ths grain
farmer. According to a Brace Research In- producing northern plains and provides ready
stitute publication, they have aleeady
achieved access to thousand., of farmers and many
some significant results. They in-
elude: agriculturally oriented universities. Further-
--the development of an accurate low cost more, an addition to an already existing
building would be far more economical than
instrument for the measurement of daily
solar radiation; the construction of an entirely new facility.
Plenty of scientific talent is already hard
--the development of several large agri-
cultural crop dryers uti dzing solar energy; at work at the EROS Center and I am con-
-the development of a low-cost, small- fident that they would relish the opportunity
to take on an additional challenge.
scale, wind-powered water pumping mit; Mr. Chairman, I support the measure cur-
-the development of a 32 ft. diaraeter e one of the
windmill suitable for water pumping and rently before the Committee a
other applications; and wisest and Most sensible approaches to the
--the combination of solar stills with
energy crisis. The amendment I have offered
is intended to provide a useful and prompt
greenhouses for use in arid areas, to con-
serve fresh water, demonstration of solar energy both as a
means of heating and cooling and as a field
In addition, they intend to proceed with of study from which all of us can benefit
the development of sound and relevant engi- I hope that the Committee will give it ample
neering equipment for the resolution of consideration.
man's water and food requirements in rural,
arid regions.
The Brace Research Institute is currently NSF?PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
putting together a Manual on Solar Agri- SOLAR ENERGY FOR CROP DRYING AND FARROWING
cultural Dryers under a grant from the Ca- HOUSE HEATING
naclian 'International Development Agency. Abstract
The manual will consist of a theoretical (oval- Application of solar energy for drying of
uation of the air heating and drying proc- agricultural crops and heating of livestock
eases and will include illustrated deserip- confinement buildings is essentially non-
tions of different equipment which has been existent even though much of the basic tech-
developed all over the world. As a result, the nology needed to develop these systems is
reader, in whatever area a solar energy dry- currently available. The decrease La the
er might serve a function, might be able to availability of conventional fuels for many
construct models which fit both his require- applications and especially for agricultural
ments as well as those dictated by climate applications necessitates development of el-
and the type of material to be dried. These ternative energy sources, if the increasing
efforts were undertaken by the Brace List!, world demands for food and fiber are to be
tute in order to find a solution to the prob- satisfied,
lem of water desalinization in underdevel- Specific design criteria are needed for the
oped countries. But they have paid rich divi- development of efficient and economical solar
dends in solar technology and I am confident powered agricultural crop drying and live-
that similar efforts conducted in the United stock confinement building heatingeaftems.
States would benefit our country as well, Therefore, a research project, employing the
until recently one of the most underdevel- principles of similitude and dimensional
oped nations in terms of domestic solar en- analysis, is proposed with the following ob-
ergy research. jectives: (1) applicetion of solar powered
systems for corn drying, (2) application of
solar powered systems for farrowing house
heating using thermal storage and control
systems to optimize solar energy utilization
and (3) Integration of these systems to maxi-
mize solar collector utilization.
Research will be performed on scale models
and full size corn drying and farrowing house
units. Emphaais will be on development of
control systems to maximize energy ut" iza-
tion efficiency using low temperature rise
solar collectors for both systems and a ther-
mal storage unit for heating the farrowing
units. Continuous, time clock and thenno-
statically controlled air flow eystems will be
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 ? CIA-RDP751300380R000700050011-2
April 1, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 4839
to be decided. The IMF spokesman did, how-
ever, say that they would be prominent hard
currencies.
Once they have been chosen, their ayer-
age or mean movements would determine
the worth of the SDR. Apparently there is
more debate at the moment about the rate
of interest involved than any other aspect
of the arrangement. Some reports call for
an average market interest rate and others
for something less.
When you discuss an idea like this in
everyday business terms, even 'Including
fancy terminology, it has a down to 'earth,
practical sound. The only thing necessary
to expose this kind of thinking for what
It really is is to out it in another setting. For
instance take the SDR. It is' only useful if
you haven't anything else. It acts like a
sort of insurance against an overdraft of
your bank account. But as long as you are
solvent, not to say wealthy, you can't use
It, You can very easily imagine a fairy tale
that reads this way:
There was a young man who set out in
life to make his fortune. As he left, his fairy
godmother gave him a box. "It is a magic
box," she told him. "It will never let you die.
But you may only open it in utmost need."
Now the classic tale would have him for-
get all about the box until that moment of
dire need when it would save him at last. But
the Arabs might put another ending to the
story. They might say: "but then as the
young man traveled he found that the box
grew heavier and heavier. He was unable to
make a good living, and heeded the god-
aother's advice. But finally the weight of the
ox grew insupportable and he had to make
oke decision. Upon examination he found the
box to contain air." Like air, the SDR is use-
ful only when you haven't any.
When I asked the IMF about how the Arabs
could be expected to react to the SDR, I was
' told that making the SDR attractive to the
"new surplus nations" was a problem', but one
that had received very little attention.
In the mean time the various hopes and
fears build and fall about what the 'U.S.
Government means to do about the gold
problem which it fails to admit exists. Pessi-
mists think that gold ownership rights will be
returned to the people, and after a sufficient
time to allow for purchase and collection, the
FDR perfidy will be reenacted and the Treas-
ury will collect once more at the Citizen's
expense. Optimists (.so to speak) ? are guess-
ing that gold ownership will be allowed when
gold goes over two hundred dollars an
ounce or such price as the Treasury con-
siders too steep except for the very few.
There is a practical reason for not worry-
ing about an immediate flight of dollars if
gold ownership is permitted. Currency ex-
perts have long been telling us that large
amounts of gold are illegally owned by
Americans and stored abroad. In addition
there is a legal method of gold ownership for
the? big American investor. He can incorpor-
ate in Europe and buy gold in his corpora-
tion's name. It would be safe to assume that
those interested in and able to afford large
amounts of gold have already obtained it,
legally or illegally. The amount of money
spent on gold by the average family does not
look like something that would overturn any
Monetary system. The average family is just
about the only entity not permitted in law
,
? nd in fact to United .States businessmen.
ven foreign governments actually own the
.armarked gold which they store in Federal
:Reserve Banks. Any civil libertarian should
be outraged at the thought.
No case has been adjudicated by the Su-
preme Court which bears on the very mar-
ginal legal foundation upon which citizens
who buy gold become felons. The three ruling
decisions differ. The United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York,
in Campbell vs. the Chase National Bank,
decided that Congress had the Constitutional
power to control gold itself and subsequently
to delegate this control to the Executive
Branch in the persons of the President and
the Sec. of the Treasury. The Court stip-
ulated only that the Secretary and not the
President do the requisitioning. In another
case, (Pike et al vs. the U.S., 1962) the ap-
pellate court in California's Ninth Circuit
has ruled to uphold indictments against
gold owners on the theory that the specific
emergency powers cited by Roosevelt in 1934
provided the basis for any President to pro-
claim any emergency and thereafter to re-
strict the purchase or sale of gold.
The Southern District of California Court
came out strongly to the contrary in U.S.
vs. Bridle et al, dismissing indictments
against bullion owners. The government's
defense gave the court a multiple' choice?
a sort of "pick-your-favorite-emergency"
approach. The court was actually told that
President Roosevelt's 1933 banking crisis was
sufficient grounds, but if the court didn't
buy that it could opt for Truman's Korean
War emergency, Kennedy's Communist im-
perialism or a balance of payments emer-
gency. Judge Mathes gave a resounding
response:
"To hold that the existence of Communist
Imperialism authorizes the criminal provi-
sloes here in issue would be to condone the
methods of the enemy. For if the President
of the United States be permitted to create
crimes by fiat and ukase without Constitu-
tional authority of Congressional mandate,
there is little to choose between their sys-
tem and ours.
"The years since the 1933 enactment of 12
U.S.C. 95 A have seen wholesale abdication -
of power by the Congress to the President.
It is not the function of the Judicial De-
partment to sit in Judgement upon the wis-
dom of that trend, but it is both the func-
tion and duty of the courts to hold the ex-
ercise of delegated Congressional powers
strictly within the confines prescribed by the
congress."
One government official , was recently
quoted as saying at an international meet-
ing that "the price of gold is less interesting
than the price of hamburger." Allowing for
the fact that it might have been lunchtime,
the question is to whom? There is a basic
distinction between a credit vehicle like
poker chips or monopoly money which is
only good as long as the game players con-
tinue to participate, and currency which has
an intrinsic value.
It is basic to human nature to want cur-
rency which not only serves as an elcchange
rate, but which also provides a convenient
manner in which to accumulate, wealth. It
is for this reason that I strongly oppose
opening of the gold window. On the na-
tional level we have already seen $20 mil-
lion dollars in Treasury gold pass into the
hands of other nations at $35 an ounce. The
effect was to soften our currency while turn-
ing over a handsome erofit to other nations,
at the expense of the United States. Now the
United States is nothing more than the sum
of its people and those people are deprived
of gold ownership because they do not believe
in the unimportance of gold. This is the
Treasury's real, if unstated, position.
But they are going to have to start cop-
ing with the opinions of the rest of the
world. When Libya last year announced a
price for oil of $6 a barrel, there was an-
other condition for sale?unfortunately
overlooked. Payment was required to be in
gold-convertible currency, effectively ruling
out dollars. (Incidentally Libya recently an-
nounced a new price for its oil, $15 a barrel.)
This is not an isolated position in the
Arab world. The Arab Fund for Economic
and Social Development, a group of 16 Arab
Nations, has recently decided to investigate
the establishment of a gold-based interna-
tional Arab currency. The dinar, as the cur-
rency might be called, would be one possible
investment for the oil revenue which is
expected to accrue to the Arab nations,
amounting to billions of dollars over the
next 15 years.
Kuwait's Finance and Oil Minister, Ab-
dulrahman Al'Ateequ, who made the sug-
gestion at the group's second annual meet-
ing held recently in Kuwait, said the fund
could "issue bonds consisting of currencies
or units ? of accounts tide to the price of
gold at the date of issue and thus pro-
vide a guarantee of value and protection
against the possibility of devaluation for
the Arab investor who employs his funds
in these bonds."
The suggestion parallels a recent state-
ment by London banker Minos Zombanakis,
who said that Arab oil-producing nations
may insist that gold continue as the prin-
cipal monetary asset, Mr. Zombanakis said:
"The real problem is to find an asset ac-
ceptable to the Arab nations or otherwise
they may choose to keep their major asset--
petroleum?in the ground. Gold could be
the answer, especially if other countries be-
sides the United States make their curren-
cies convertible into gold."
In light of such statements, especially
when' viewed together with our current
energy situation, I find it difficult to under-
stand why the United States continues to
stake its financial future on strengthening
a system of special drawing rights, supposedly
to renlace gold as a monetary asset. As Mr.
Zombanakis points out, such special drawing
rights would be Meaningless to nations that
have continuous surpluses in their balance
of payments, which the Arabs may quite rea-
sonably expect to be their position for some
time to come, due to the growing dependence
of the world industrialized nations on Ara-
bian oil.
At another recent meeting, held in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia, economic and banking experts
from five Islamic countries discussed the
establishment of an Islamic Development
Bank. The functions of the Bank would in-
clude the granting of interest-free loans to
member countries, and the encouragement of
Investment in development projects in Mus-
lim countries arid communities. Of specific
significance, the conference approved an ini-
tial capital outlay of one billion units, each
equal to 0,88867088 grams of fine gold (SDI).
In the terms of current exchange rates, this
Is 81,350,000,900. At free market rates for gold,
it would amount to over $3 billion. Obviously
the Arabs consider the price of gold of more
importance than the price of hamburger.
But in this matter as in others, it is time
for the Legislative Branch of the Govern-
ment to take responsibility into its own
hands. The Executive has been holding the
reins, but the horses are running away. As I
recall, Treasury spokesmen were among those
who predicted that demonetizing gold would
force the price of gold downward . . . Not a
very clever _prediction. It would be fair to say
in retrospect, that virtually every official step
taken with regard to gold in the past decade
has been wrong. Is there any need to con-
tinue this devastating pattern? Now is the
time to redirect this country's domestic and
foreign monetary policies. And it seems to me
that a logical and fair first step would be to
rescind the prohibition against ownership of
gold
SO ET PRESENCE IN THE INDIAN
OCEAN
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, consider-
able concern has been voiced in the
Senate over plans by the Pentagon to
build up its facilities on the British-
owned island of Diego Garcia in the
Indian Ocean.
Thus, the purpose of my remarks today
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2
S 4840 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE April 1, 1974
is to begin addressing the reasons
behind our proposed response to the
Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean. Our
concern should not be based upon the
fact that the Soviets are increasing their
presence there, but rather, our concern
should be focused upon the very fact that
a world power has penetrated what was
once a vacuum. The most desirable situa-
tion would be if everyone kept out of the
Indian,Ocean. We have stayed out and we
did not initiate a buildup in that area
of the world.
I think it is imperative we keep the
balance in that area, a balance which has
tipped with the Soviet presence. How-
ever, even though the Indian Ocean will
never be a first-line defense for the
Soviet Union or ourselves, we must realize
the presence of a big power can influence
the climate of political affairs of all the
nations in the area. We would be foolish
and irresponsible to believe the Indian
Ocean can be dropped off the rolls of
world politics completely.
One recognizes that balance of power
has become a dirty term in our vocabu-
lary. However, I would hasten to add if
the world has changed so drastically in
the past 27 years that balance of power
Is an outmoded concept, someone should
advise the Soviets of this. The Soviets are
the classical example of the application
of balance-of-power techniques. This has
been true historically, whether Russia
was ruled by the czars or commissars. It
is an inescapable fact that Russia has
always been expansionist in her foreign
policy and has only paused in that
posture when she has been counter-
balanced. I am not suggesting that the
Soviets are attempting to take action
which would result in the physical con-
quering of territories. What I am sug-
gesting is that by extending her sphere
of influence, she will have a definite
impact on the stability and future polit-
ical course of this area of the world.
The Soviets have already built up a
sizeable presence in the Mediterranean;
and with the opening of the Suez Canal,
their capability to increase their presence
In the Indian Ocean will be enhanced
significantly. Already, they have in-
creased their naval activity and political
presence in the area. They have gained
use of port or air facilities in Iraq,
Yeman, South Yeman, Somalia, and
India. Attempts have been made at
negotiation for port rights in Singapore.
Therefore, the logical response for the
U.S. to make is to have a base at Diego
Garcia, an unpopulated and, therefore,
politically uncomplicated island in the
Indian Ocean It would allow us, in low
profile, to be able to balance off more
adequately the Soviet presence by our
presence.
I would conclude my remarks today by
noting the least costly method of avert-
ing future consequences which could be
highly detrimental not only to U.S. inter-
ests, but also the political stability of the
area, would be for Congress to approve
the administration's request for $20 mil-
lion to build up facilities on the island. I
do not believe the response is an exagger-
ated one aimed at so-called ghosts of the
past. The world is very real in this regard
and this fact should be recognized, rather
than ignored, in the hopes that our fears
might not be justified.
BRODER FINDS THE FEDERAL GOV-
ERNMENT IS DOING SOME THINGS
RIGHT
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, David
Broder has been one of the more critical
observers of the Congress and the ad-
ministration. He has been recognized for
several years now as one of the most per-
ceptive and thoughtful reporters in
Washington. He has also written excel-
lent books on what is wrong with Ameri-
can politics and our many shortcomings.
So with all this it was good to read his
column in yesterday's Washington Post
detailing some of the good things hap-
pening in our Government in recent
weeks.
Broder points to the budget reform
act, to the work of distinguished Ad-
ministrators?Henry Kissinger, James
Schlesinger, George Shultz, and John
Dunlop. He also refers to the fight to
resist retrogression in the environment
fight by Russell Peterson and Russell
Train and finds a good word to say for
recent action by the Supreme Court.
Praise from a critic is especially cher-
ished so I. ask unanimous consent that
the article be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
SOME GOOD NEWS
(By David S. Broder)
Were we not hard on April Pool's Day, one
would be tempted to begin this column in
a straightforward way and admit that it is
an argument for the unfashionable propo-
_ sition that there are some good things hap-
pening in Washington.
But since anything said in mitigation of
the Watergate Wallow is likely to be laughted
out of court, perhaps it is more prudent just
to cite the evidence and let you draw your
own conclusions.
If you accept the assumption that Water-
gate demonstrated not just the derelictions
of a specific set of officials but a breakdown
in the system of restraints on which a dem-
ocratic government rests, then the signs of
recovery must be sought in instances of
strengthened integrity and responsibility by
all Officials and agencies of government.
What we need, as political scientist Tom
Cronin has pointed out, is not just a strong
presidency, but a system that includes a
strong President, Congress, courts, parties
and people, all serving to discipline each
other to the demands cf democracy.
That is why it is of more than passing
importance that recent weeks have shown
signs of strong individual and institutional
response in all these areas:
Congress, after more than a year of effort,
has taken a very long step toward equipping
itself with a mechanism for competent man-
agement of future budget decisions.
The Senate last week passed a budget re-
form act similar in most ways to one passed
late in 1973 by the House. Once the two ver-
sions are reconciled in conference, work can
begin on gearing up the new system.
When in place, it should allow Congress to
do something that only the Chief Executive
has been able to do effectively for the last
50 years?examine and evaluate the nation's
fiscal situation and program-spending pri-
orities on a comprehensive basis and with
expert advice.
By creating budget committees, responsi-
ble to the party caucuses in each house, and
providing them with staff assistance com-
parable to that the President receives from
his Office of Management and Budget, the
new procedure should make Congress again
a full partner in the fiscal and spending
process.
And by requiring Congress, at the begin-
ning and end of each session, to consider
overall spending priorities, the new proce-
dure calls on the lawmakers to exercise a
higher degree of responsibility than is in-
volved in grabbing off projects for their
own districts.
That Congress accepted this added respon-
sibility with only 23 dissenting votes among
the 535 members after an arduous and gen-
uinely bipartisan legislative effort, says some-
thing very reassuring about the willingness
of senators and representatives to meet the
test of this time.
So does the performance of many mem-
bers of the administration. Although their
chief is up to his ears in legal and political
troubles, the four Ph.D's who are managing
crucial parts of the government?Henry Kis-
singer, James Schlesinger, George Shultz and
John Dunlop--continue to operate in a way
that may forever bury that tired cliche about
the ineptitude of professors in power.
A contribution of special significance in
the Watergate era is being made, almost
daily, by the two environmental Russells?
Chairman Russell E. Peterson of the Council
of Environmental Quality and Administrator
Russell E. Train of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
If one of the lessons of Watergate was the
danger of confusing loyalty to the Presidensa,
with loyalty to conscience and constitutioe -
duties, these two presidential appoin?
have shown they know how to placr .St
things first.
Despite evident White House bac' _ding
and trimming on past commitments to en-
vironmental causes, Train and Peterson con-
tinue to speak out for and advocate intelli-
gent national policies on land use and en-
vironmental protection?forcing the kind of
public debate that is badly needed, and oc-
casionally, winning a battle for those who
will inherit the earth from us.
As a final fillip, the past week found the
Supreme Court acting in the unaccustomed
role of a defender of the two-party system.
The justices, who have often in the past gone
out of their way to guarantee the political
unreality of their legal conclusions, showed
a rare sensitivity to the legitimate role of
the two-party system in the unwritten con-
stitution.
While knocking down as unconstitutional
stiff fee schedules which served to bar poor
people from places on the ballot, they upheld
California and Texas statutes giving nomi-
nee ? of the two major parties a preferred
status on ballot access and participation in
state political subsidies.
Developments like these?and they are not
unique?give you encouragement that this
200-year-experiment in self-government has
not yet run its course. No April Fool. We may
make it.
REPUBLICAN PARTY STRENGTH
IN ARIZONA
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. Presdent, anyone
reading the national press might think
the Republican Party is in shambles and
the GOP ranks are being decimated by
defections,
Anyone who believes this might want
to take a look at voter registerations in
Maricopa County, Ariz.
Republicans now have a voter regis-
tration lead of almost 20,000 over Demo-
crats. At the time of the 1972 election,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700050011-2