DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1975 - AMENDMENTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000700060018-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 40
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 3, 2005
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: August 20, 1974
• Content Type: OPEN

e ,e 4/j
August 20, lAproved ForeelitempViK)A9 itiebInf7_5_,RRA3M000700060018-4 8.15300
tive ways of using the energy content of
the refuse which would otherwise be
buried or burned with no ful return.
The city of Nashville, Tenn. ir instance,
provides heat and cooling all of the,
city municipal buildings, me of the
State buildings and some n rby private
buildings by using one-thir the city's
solid waste, plus some repr essed waste
oil, for fuel. Mayor Briley Id us that
the idea for doing this ca when they
were struggling with solid te disposal
problems at the same ti they were
trying to decide what fuel use for new
municipal buildings.
Since the Nashville fac ty is owned
and operated by a publi corporation,
they were able to flnan ts construc-
tion with general reven bonds. But
many communities cont t for solid
waste disposal with priv companies;
more than half of the N on's residen-
tial waste and nearly all ? the commer-
cial and industrial wastes e handled in
this way. If such towns, c es, and coun-
ties want to encourage esource and
energy recovery, tax-ex pt bonds to
reduce the capital invest ? nt needed for
the new facilities are a eful carrot to
be able to dangle in fro of the waste
.disposal industry.
Energy recovery does t have to be
limited to burning the bage as is. A
plant being built in San P ego will con-
vert solid waste to oil. er processes
are being tested which p. 'uce gas from
garbage. I have even be told of a sys-
tem in which bacteria pr uce electricity
directly from fermentin rice hulls. The
legislation we produce ould allow for
all of these, and others ot yet thought
of. The amendment I o r today would
have that effect.
Mr. President, I ask animous con-
sent that the text of endment be
reprinted at this point ? the RECORD.
There being no objecti the amend-
ment was ordered to be rinted in the
RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENT No. 1832
On page 2, line 1, after "of", insert ", or
recovery of energy from".
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
PRIATIONS, 1975?AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT NO. 1833
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on
the table.)
Mr. KENNEDY submitted the follow-
ing amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill (H.R. 16243), ma.king
appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1975, and for other purposes:
AMENDMENT No. 1833
On page 7, in line 3, strike "June 30, 1976"
and insert "August 15, 1974".
AMENDMENT NO. 1834
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the
table.)
Mr. 1VIUSKIE submitted an amend-
ment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill (H.R. 16243) supra.
AME,NDMENT NO. 1835
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on
the table.) .
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I sub-
mit an amendment for printing which
I intend to propose to H.R. 16243, the
Department of Defense appropriation
bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a
letter which I have prepared in connec-
tion with the amendment be printed at
this point in the RECORD, together with
the text of the amendment itself.
There being no objection, the amend-
ment and letter were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENT No. 1835
On page 50, line 21, insert a new section
as follows:
Sec. ?. (a) No funds appropriated for the
use or the Department or Defense by this
or any other Act in fiscal year 11? (b may 04
usea 'or rae purpose stocgplIing war
materials or equipment for use by any Asian
country except to the extent authorized by
title vn of this Act or by. the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign Military
Sales Act.
(b) Any materials or equipment stock-
piled by the Department of Defense on the
date of enactmentails Act for future use
by any Asian country may not be transferred
to any such country except to the extent
such transfer is specifically authorized by
law.
tallied substantial dangers of abuse in trans-
fers of war stocks to allies, without siifficient
accountability to the Congress.
(4) DOD maintains that these stocks can
be transferred to allies by the President
without the specific authorization of Con-
gress. This practice represents a serious loss
of control by Congress of a major part of its
powers in the area of foreign policy and
military aid.
If you would like to cosponsor this amend-
ment, or would like further information
about it, please call Joe Annunziata at X-,
54543.
Sincerely,
EDWARD M. KENNEDY.
AMENDMENT NO. 1836
(Ordered to be printed and
the table.)
Mr. GLETON (for himself, Mr. HAT-
FIELD, . PRoxmnnz, Mr. MATHIAS, Mr.
STEVENS , and Mr. KENNEDY) submitted
an amen ant intended to be proposed
by them j ntly to the bill (H.R. 16243),
supra.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C., Aug. 20,1974.
DEAR COLLE.A.GtrE? I intend to offer an
amendment to the FY 1975 Defense Appro-
priations Bill which would prohibit use of
defense funds to stockpile reserves for Asian
allies.
On May 6 of this year, the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee revealed that the DOD has
Included in its FY 1975 budget a request of
$529 million for "War Reserve Stocks for
Allies." These procurement funds are in ad-
dition to those which are specifically author-
ized and appropriated for U.S. forces. In FY
1973 and FY 1974, a total of $525 million was
similarly set aside by the DOD for such
stockpiling.
Last June, by voice vote, the Senate ap-
proved my amendment tp S. 3000, the DOD
authorization bill, prohibiting the stock-
piling of war reserves for allies out of FY
1975 Defense budget funds and requiring
that the $525 million previously earmarked
for such stockpiling be reserved for sole use
by U.S. forces. That amendment was dropped
in conference.
The arguments for prohibiting the use
of these funds for "War Reserve Stocks for
Allies" are:
(1) The DOD has been unclear in respond-
ing to Congressional inquiries as to the na-
ture, scope and transferral of these stocks.
At times, it says these funds will be used
to procure weapons for U.S. active and re-
serve forces. Yet they are labeled "War Re-
serve Stocks for Allies," and designated to
support South Korea, South Vietnam, and
Thailand in the event of a future conflict.
(2) If the $529 million in FY 1975 repre-
sent the value of supplies which the U.S.
may turn over to allies, then such stockpiling
should more properly be authorized in the
Foreign Assistance Bill, and not the DOD
bill.
(3) These "Wax Reserve Stocks for Allies"
are likely to become part of a highly-abused
"excess stocks" program to certain countries,
particularly South Vietnam, South Korea,
and Thailand, Where definite ceilings on mil-
itary aid have been established by Congress.
Under this procedure, the $529 million would
be used to purchase new equipment for
U.S. active and reserve forces; the replaced
equipment would go into the stockpile; and
the equipment in the stockpile would then
be declared excess and turned over to the
allies.
A GAO study last month concluded that
the "War Reserve Stocks for Allies" item con-
A
At the me
tor from MIs
added as a c
1553, intend
(S. 1361) to
COSPONSOR OF AN
MENT
DMENT NO. 1553
t of Mr. ERVIN, the Sena-
sippi (Mr. STENNIS) was
nsor of amendment No.
be proposed to the bill
vise the copyright law.
NOTICE OF
TIONAL P
VATION PR
Mr. JACKS?
to announce for
Members of the
ested parties that
tenor and Insular
open hearing on
1974, to take test
national park camp
gram and the award
contract by the Pa
known as the Park
The hearing will be
will be held in room 311
Office Building.
ING ON THE NA-
CAMPSITE RESER-
RAM
. President, I wish
e information of the
ate and other inter-
e Committee on In-
airs will hold an
esday, August 21,
concerning the
reservation pro-
g of a concession
ervice to a firm
rvation System.
at 2 p.m. and
Dirksen Senate
NOTICE OF HEARING ATING TO
EDUCATION IN TBE STRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. sident, on
Thursday, August 22, 1974 t 10 a.m.,
in room 6226, Dirksen S ate Office
Building, the Senate Corn ee on the
District of Columbia will h a public
hearing on H.R. 16543, a bill reorga-
nize public post secondary ation in
the District of Columbia, e blish a
Board of Trustees, authorize direct
the Board of Trustees to conso ' .te the
existing local institutions of pu post-
secondary education into a sin land-
grant university of the District Co-
lumbia, direct the Board of Tru to
administer the University of the k.trict
of Columbia, and for other pu
Persons wishing to present test ony
at that hearing should contact Mr n-
drew Manatos, associate staff di tor
of the committee, room 6222, Dir n
Senate Office Building, by 12 noo n
Wednesday, August 21, 1974. ?
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
S 15310
Approved For Release 2005/06/09-: CIA-RDP751300380R000700060018-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August 20, 1974
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
TH WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE
Mr. MPHREY. Mr. President, last
Septemb I offered an amendment to
the Forei ssistance Act of 1973 which
was subseq ntly incorporated in the
legislation signed into law calling
upon the Pres nt to "support the or-
ganizing of a w a d food conference un-
der United Natio auspices in 1974."
During the confir on hearings of Sec-
retary Kissinger, I u d him to lend his
support to the propos
In his first speech b e the United
Nations after becoming ecretary of
State, Dr. Kissinger asked at such a
conference be organized to ? uss ways
to maintain adequate food s ? les and
to concentrate the efforts of all tions
to meet hunger resulting from ural
disasters.
The United Nations formally adop
a resolution calling for a World F
Conference and Secretary General Wald-
heim appointed Mr. Sayed Marei of the
United Arab Republic as, the secretary
general of the conference.
The conference will take place in
Rome, November 5-15. The agenda for
the meeting focuses on national and in-
ternational actions to increase food pro-
duction, to improve consumption patterns
In the developing world, to strengthen
emergency relief and food aid, to develop
more effective food production and con-
sumption information and stockholding
policies and to improve the access of de-
veloping country exports to the markets
of the developed world.
This conference is most appropriate
and timely. Cereal production must in-
crease by an average of 25 million tons
each year to meet rising demand. In 1972,
Instead of increasing, world production
of cereals actually dropped 33 million
tons thereby creating havoc with prices
and the commodity markets. As a resul
of this shortfall, world stocks of cere
dropped from 49 million tons in 1971 2
to 29 million tons in 1972-73 leavin e
consumers of the world dependen a a
27-day buffer of the basis of wor con-
sumption as protection against roduc-
tion shortfalls.
The cereal "gap" of the eveloping
world is projected to reac 85 million
tons by 1975, a figure w represents
almost three times their a ss imports in
1969-72. This means the capacity
of the producing co s will become
evermore strained to et world demand,
and producers will b subject to the pos-
sibility of increas y wide fluctuations
In world demand e result will be an
ever-increasing certainty from year to
year in regard ? food availability.
We have n how Important the
weather can in influencing crop pro-
duction, a we must begin to share In-
formation an a world basis on weather
expectat s as well as crop forecasts.
Won, food security should be the
theme f the conference, and it requires
more an the good intentions of inter-
nati al statesmen. It is more than beau-
tif y worded resolutions and principles;
w Id food security is a commitment, and
I is only with a sense of commitment
that the leaders of the world will be able
to assure future generations of the avail-
ability of mankind's most precious ex-
ternal resource.
Delegates from over 100 nations will
gather in Rome to address the issue of
food security. The seriousness of their
task must not be eclipsed by short range
economic interests. Future generations
will not judge us kindly if the opportu-
nity to build a foundation for future
food security is turned into an arena of
myopic political concerns.
I am pleased to see the great outpour-
ing of interest in the World Food Con-
ference. The World Himger Action Co-
alition is a group of private organiza-
tions which was organized to highlight
the conference and build public and pri-
vate support for it. I hope others will
follow their lead in encouraging the
broadest possible interest and atter ti
to this most important initiative.
On September 4, Ambassador in
M. Martin, Coordinator of the U. . ar-
cipation in the World Food Co rence,
I hold a meeting with repr tatives
o ongovernmental organize s to dis-
cu he U.S. position in r rd to the
conf nce. I encourage e interested
indivi ? or organiza to contact
Ambass r Martin'sice at the De-
partment S
We must
ment that w
challenge of
now. This mea
tion to deal
suring foo
tate.
ke it
ear to our Gov ern-
epared to accept the
world food security
king constructive ac-
urgent issues of as.
for all people
throighonr. e wor
The U ed States he world's ma-
jor f oo surplus Natio us t take the
lead i dealing with th roblem We
have unique role to pla nd history
wil eat us harshly if we sh our duty
a turn aside.
ROUGHT AND MEAT PRICE ND
SUPPLIES
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President,
Impact and the implications of our
cent Midwest drought on meat prices an
supplies has only begun to sink into the
consciousness of our people. The Wash-
ington Post article, "USDA Says Drought
Will Boost Meat Prices in '75," provides
some understanding of what is expected
to happen.
The Department of Agriculture has an
explanation as to what that impact will
be although it has not been widely dis-
cussed. The main result is that producers
will begin to reduce their herds and feed
them less feed grains.
For this fall and early next year, the
prices for meat are expected to remain
about where they are now as herds are
sold off. The clear implication is that by
late 1975 meat will be less plentiful and,
of course, much more expensive.
This expected development on future
prices and supplies has received very
little attention, and the Department of
Agriculture refers to this as if it were a
minor adjustment.
Mr. President, this is a development
of major significance and I ask unani-
mons consent that this article be printed
In the REcoari.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the tORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington Post, A 15, 19741
USDA SAYS DROUGHT WILL Boa 555 IPeicss
IN 1975
(By Jack
Reduced harvest exp tions for coin and
soybeans because of drought and result-
ing higher feed pr "win have a suOstan-
tial impact on livestock and poultry
industry and c d set off a chain of events
that may re erate through the livestock
industry fo veral years," the Agriculture
Departme id yesterday.
The U A's livestock and meat situation
report edicted a continued drought will
for nchers to move large numbers of
co steers and heifers directly from grass-
pasture to slaughter for the rest of the
r.
This will increase meat supplies and lower
prices in the short run, but will substantially
reduce the number of animals and mean
higher beef prices in 1975.
Paradoxically, if last week's rains signal
an end to the drought, this will mean higher
meat prices this fall because more catale will
be kept on pasture and less forced liquidation
win take place. But meat prices in 1975 would
be lower.
Live cattle prices are currently around $48
per hundred pounds in Midwest markets,
The USDA's outlook report said this could
drop to the low 40s this fall in the event of
liquidation. But if the drought abates and
green grass is again available, the price could
get pushed over the $50 level.
The outlook summary predicted that retail
meat prices "will probably turn lower again
in the fall and remain 'below year-earlier
levels for most of the last half of 1914."
The farm price of livestock was down 7 per
cent in the first half of this year from the
comparable period ha 1973, according to the
report. But Wholesale meat prices were only
down 1 per cent, and retail prices were up to
10 per cent for the period, the report said.
The American Cattlemen's Association in
its monthly survey said the average :retail
price of beef this month is up 11 cents per
pound or 8 per cent from a month ago. But
the group noted that beef prices remain
below their highs reached earlier this year.
The Agricultude Department meanwhile
reported that the number of cattle on feed
in seven major beef-producing stales was
down 23 per cent from a year ago, although
tal cattle numbers are up significantly.
The sharp drop in the number of cattle
eed lots reflects the high level of feed
Farmers have preferred to kesa cattle
and send them directly to slaughter
eeding costs and prevent from being
on
toes
sque
Yeste
sold abov
for the se
Chicago B
rose the 10-
However, the
commodities wi
Tuesday was bro
wheat and soybe
There were repo
officials were consid
export controls becau
prospects, particularly
corn?a major feed ingredient-
4 a bushel in some cash markets
d consecutive day. And on the
of Trade, corn futures all
daily price limit again,
ck-step advance of sal other
corn that took place on
as profit taking hit the
its.
that Some government
g the impos tion of
f the bleak harvest
corn.
But again trader obse discounted the
possibility, claiming the e of corn would
be sufficient to ration s es and would
make export controls unnec
"If corn gees up -to $4 a bu I and stays
there, our exports Will be 50 pe nt off this
year," Hubert Dyke, vice presi t of the
U.S. Feed Grains Council, said.
On Tuesday, the USDA in its is supply
and demand situation report red 4 ex-
pected exports of corn for the next e year
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
/A /692443
Au 'lust 20, 19 740 p roved F ceasjeatESUIONOtetORECURIRDP-Ungarn RO 00 7 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 8-4 S 15389
The Senator from Arkansas is recog-
nized.
Mr. Mc a N. I yield to the distin-
guished Sena
from Colorado.
GEOTHERMA ENERGY ACT OF
1974 CO NCE REPORT
Mr. HASKELL. President, I sub-
mit a report of the mmittee of con-
ference on H.R. 1492 and ask for its
Immediate considerati
The PRESIDING CER (Mr.
HELMS). The report wi stated by
title.
The assistant legislative rk read as
follows:
The committee of conference the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Hou on the
amendments of the Senate to the (HR.
14920) to further the conduct of arch,
development, and demonstrations i eo-
thermal energy technologies, to estab a
Geothermal Energy Coordination and
agement Project, to amend the Natio
Science Foundation Act of 1950 to provi
par the funding of activities relating to geo
thermal energy, to amend the National Aero-
nautics and Space Act of 1958 to provide for
the carrying out of research and develop-
ment, in geothermal energy technology, to
carry out a program of demosntrations in
technologies for the utilization of geothermal
resources, and for other purposes, having
met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses this report, signed
by all the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the
objection to the consideration of the
ference report?
There being no objection, the S te
proceeded to consider the report.
(The conference report is pri d in
the House proceedings of the C GRES-
BIONAL RECORD of August 19, 19 at pp.
H8600-H8607.)
Mr. HASKELL. I would li to state
for the record that the confe cc report
has been approved by the ator from
Arizona (Mr. FANNIN), t senior Re-
publican member of the c erence com-
mittee.
Mr. President, on y 11, the
Senate took from th calendar H.R.
14920, the Geother Energy Re-
search, Development nd Demonstra-
tion Act of 1974 and ended the House
bill with the text S. 2465, the com-
panion Senate m .ure. Subsequently,
the committee o onference met and
reconciled the ? erences between the
two versions of measure. I would like
to compliment other members of th
conference c ittee for their fin
efforts in bri ng this important legis
lation to th floor of their respectiv
House for fi consideration.
It is my ief that the conference re-
port that have before us is an excel-
lent meld g of the strong points which
were co ined in each version of H.R.
14920. the Members will recall,. the
objecti of the two versions was almost
identi ; that is, bringing about the
timel development of geothermal en-
ergy sources for the benefit of all citi-
zens f our Nation, but the mechanics of
how his laudable goal was to be reached
di ed.
? Originally, the House version would
have established a "Geothermal Energy
Coordination and Management Project"
composed of the Federal Energy Ad-
ministration, the National Sc ce Foun-
dation, the Department of Interior,
the National Aeronautics a Space Ad-
ministration, and the ic Energy
Commission with the A nistrator of
the PEA as Chairman o e project. The
project was to have erall manage-
ment responsibility f geothermal re-
source inventory, re ch and develop-
ment and demonstr n programs.
The Senate vers called for the De-
partment of thetenor to carry out
a resource inv ory with assistance
from NASA an sted the authority.for
the research development of geo-
thermal ener technologies with the
Atomic Ener Commission.
The co ? tee of conference adopted
the House n for a management proj-
ect, but r mmends that the chairman
of the pr t be designated by the Pres-
dent. committee of conference also
pan the membership of the proj-
include an additional member
pointed by the President.
versions would have established
guaranty program to encourage
elopment of geothermal energy
by non-Federal entities. This
of course, was retained in con-
th conforming amendments
option of the House recom-
at the loan program be
by a designated agency
Department of the In-
oint out that this action
he Department of the
inistering the loan
ated by the chair-
ogra
erence
includin
mendation
administer
rather than
tenor. I shoul
does not exclud
Interior from
program if so d
man of the project.
I would like to co end the able ef-
forts of both the Se ir from Nevada
(Mr. BIBLE), who I th can be charac-
terized es the leader for ? development
of geothermal resources, the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. FANN who has
established a long and disti ished rec-
ord regarding efforts to brin bout the
timely development of this ortant
resource.
Mr. President, I move the ado n of
the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The q es-
tion is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from Colorado.
The motion was agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
PRIATION ACT, 1975
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 16243) mak-
ing appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, and for other purposes.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, today
the Senate considers H.R. 16243, the
Department of Defense appropriation
bill for fiscal year 1975. This is the largest
appropriations bill that the Senate will
be considering this year, and one that is
of vital interest to every American.
Although the Nation can be grateful
that we were at peace, peace can be
maintained and insured only through
vigilance and a strong posture. The com-
mittee has carefully examined this year's
Defense request and is convinced that
the bill before the Senate will maintain
the military strength we need at the
minimum feasible cost.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee recommends an appro-
priation of $82,079,358,000 for the De-
partment of Defense for fiscal year 1975.
This includes transfer authority of
$513.6 million.
This amount will provide: $20,094,-
875,000 for the Department of the Army;
$26,973,643,000 for the Navy Depart-
ment; $24,727,643,000 for the Depart-
ment of the Air Force; and $3,028,197,000
for the Defense Agencies and related
items.
By title, the committee's recommenda-
tions include: $24,138,858,000 for mili-
tary personnel appropriations; $6,040,-
600,000 for retired military personnel;
825,338,303,000 for operation and main-
tenance accounts; $16,955,016,000 for
procurement; $8,389,281,000 for research
and development; and $700,000,000 for
Military Assistance, South Vietnamese
Forces.
These appropriations do not include
funds for military construction, family
housing, foreign assistance, and civil
defense, which are included in other
appropriations bills.
RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS
The $82,079,358,000 recommended in
the bill is a reduction of $4,978,139,000?
or 5.7 percent?below the administra-
tion's budget request. It is $1,314,212,000
below the House allowance and $3,108,-
612,000 above the amount appropriated
in fiscal year 1974. This will result in a
reduction in actual outlays by $2.7 bil-
lion during fiscal 1975, which should
have a significant impact on reducing
inflation, and it will help us move toward
a balanced budget.
SUMMARY OF ITEMS IN THE BILL
The funds recommended in the com-
mittee bill buy two basic things?day-to-
day pay and operating costs of our mili-
tary forces and investment in new items
of military equipment, including both
research and developfnent of new weap-
ons and equipment, as well as actual pro-
curement.
All told, the committee is recommend-
ing $49,477,161,000 for the pay and oper-
ating costs of active duty military, Re-
serve forces, and DOD civilians. This
amount includes $24,138,858,000 for mili-
tary personnel, and $25,338,303,000 for
operation and maintenance?which in-
cludes the pay for most of the civilian
personnel.
In the first category, the recommended
funds will pay for an active Army of 14
divisions and 4 separate brigades; a
Navy with 508 commissioned ships in
the active fleet and 6,283 active aircraft;
3 active Marine Corps divisions, each
with an associated aircraft wing; and an
Air Force with 10,145 aircraft and 1,054
intercontinental ballistic missile launch-
ers.
Manpower funded in the bill is sub-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700060018-4
S 15390 Approved For RielmtAlig/t99/s19L 11tc1151E135_13.0SWARIOR0700060018A4Igust 20,797,
Ais weal: 2,127,912 in the Active Forces
old 939,647 in the Reserve components,
for a total of 3,067,559. This is still a
agnincant reduction from the fiscal year
1974 total of 3,140,527, 72,968 below the
number we had last year. In addition to
,he military manpower, funds are in-
cluded for a total of 995,000 civilian em-
iloyees of the Department of Defense.
It is important to keep in mind the
'Berl' substantial cost of malapower, which
Bs 56,1 percent of the fiscataear 1975 De-
ielise budget.
Now, as to the second aspect of this
budget-the development and procure-
ment of new weapons and equipment for
our Armed Forces. The committee rec-
ommends $25,344,297,400 for these pro-
- rams which are a key part of moderniz-
ing our military establishment-consist-
-mg of $8,389,281,000 for research and de-
velopment and $16,955,016,000 for pro-
curement.
I would like to highlight the funds in
the bill for major program, in procure-
ment and research and development.
A total Of $1,749,152,000 is recom-
mended for Army research and develop-
ment. This sum includes: $32.7 million
for the heavy-lift helicopter; $49.1 mil-
lion for the utility tactical aircraft sys-
tem, a new utility helicopter; $60.8 mil-
lion for the advanced attack helicopter,
a follow-on to the Cobra; $100 million
for the SAM-D, a new and complex
surface-to-air missile, a reduction of $11
million from the request; and, $60.8 mil-
lion is recommended for further work on
the Safeguard antiballistic missile de-
fense system.
For Navy research and development,
the committee recommends a total of
$2.979,612,000. This includes: $20 million
for the Navy's new fighter prototype, but
no funds for the F-401 engine. This en-
gine was originally to have powered the
F-14 aircraft, but the Navy seems to have
abandoned its use in that plane and can-
not decide where else to use this new and
advanced technology engine: $31 million
for the subreariiie launched cruise mis-
sile; $641.1 million forth- Trident missile
system; $63 million for the AEGIS sur-
face-to-air missile system; $45.8 million
for surface effects .ships; $107.2 million
for the Trident submarine system; and,
$15.7 million for the NATO patrol hydro-
foil missile ship.
For Air Force research and develop-
ment, the committee recommended $3,-
144,460,000. This includes: $400 million
is included for the B-1 bomber: $164.6
million for the F-15 fighter; $55.8 million
for an advanced medium STOL-short
eke-off and landing--aircraft; $32 mil-
lion for the air combat fighter; $123.9
million is included for Minuteman las-
sile squadrons; $119.9 million for devel-
opment of advanced ballistic reentry sys-
tems; and, $61.5 million for the air
launched cruise missile.
In the area of procurement, some of
he major programs include the follow-
For the Army, procurement of 25 new
helicopters, including six All-1 Cobra
attack helicopters and 19 CH-47 Chinook
.-argo transport helicopters. New missiles
procured include $80.3 million for the
anproved Hawk air defense missile: $86.5
million for the Dragon antitank missile:
$104.6 million for the TOW antitank
missile; and $64.4 million for the Lance
surface-to-surface missile. The bill in-
chides funds for 950 tracked combat ve-
hicles, including 510 M60A.1 standard
combat tanks and 151 M113A1 armored
personnel carriers. Over $720 million is
included in the bill for procurement of
Army ammunition, including funds to
modernize Army ammunition facilities.
For the Navy, the committee recom-
mends $2,745,200,000 for various aircraft,
including procurement of 191 combat
aircraft, 13 airlift aircraft, 18 trainers.
and 6 tanker aircraft. Some of the more
significant aircraft and their associated
funding are $118 million for 30 A-7E at-
tack aircraft; $617.3 million for 50 F--14A
fighter aircraft; and $388 million for 40
S-3A antisubmarine warfare aircraft.
Funds *are included in the bill for
procurement of a variety of Navy mis-
siles, including $48 million for 73
Poseidon submarine-launched ballistic
missiles and over 3,000 tactical missiles,
including $51.6 million for 300 Sparrow.
air-to-air missiles; $15.5 million for 800
Sidewinder heat seeking air-to-air mis-
siles, $93.2 million for 340 Phoenix long-
range missiles needed to support la-14A
aircraft deployments; and $78.2 million
for 150 Harpoon antiship cruise missiles.
The committee recommends $3,140,-
400,000 for shipbuilding and conversion
programs in the Navy, including pur-
chase of 23 combat and auxiliary m hips
as well as conversion and overhaul of
other ships. The bill includes $927 Mil-
lion for the second and third of 10 plan-
ned Trident ballistic missile -firing sub-
marines; $502.5 million for three ESN-
688 class high speed submarines; $457.1
million for seven DD-963 Spruance class
multipurpose destroyers; $152.3 million
for the fourth DLGN nuclear powered
guided missile frigate; $92.3 million for
four patrol hydrofoil missile slits; and
$186 million for three patrol frigates. In
addition, one destroyer tender, one fleet
oiler, and a fleet ocean tug are also
funded in the bill.
Funds for procurement of 110 aircraft
for the Air Force are included in the bill.
This includes $100.1 million for 24 A-7D
attack aircraft; $118 million for 20 A-10
close air support aircraft; $276.7 million
for four E-3A airborne warning and con-
trol system aircraft; and $690.7 million
for 62 al-15A air superiority aircraft and
trainers. In addition, $593.3 million is
included for modification and modern-
ization of in-service aircraft such as the
13-52, F-4, F-111, C-5 and others.
For Air Force missiles, a total of
$1,518,700,000 is recommended. This in-
cludes $298.4 million for 61 Minuteman
III intercontinental ballistic missiles:
$11.1 million for 300 Shrike antiradar
missiles; $57.7 million for 6.000 Maverick
air-to-ground missiles; and $43.3 million
for 300 Sparrow air-to-air missiles.
Finally, Mr. President. the committee
is recommending an appropriation of
$700,1)00,000 for military assistance.
South Vietnamese forces. This is a re-
duction of $750,000,000 from the budget
request and funds petroleum, ammuni-
tion, aircraft, and other items needed by
the South Vietnamese in fiscal year 1975.
The bill also includes $*,040,000,00 for
retired military personnel. There are over
1 million retired persons on ties rolls
for fiscal 1975.
csrLINGS OW APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. President, on February 27, 1974
at the opening of hearings by the Com-
mittee on Appropriations on the admin-
istration's record $304.4 billio a-plus
budget for fiscal year 1975, I anncunced
that the committee would, as it d-d last
year, establish tentative -ceilings for the
bills coming before it. As part of that
action, the Subcommittee on Defense
projected a reduction a $3.5 billion in
new budget authority from a total De-
fense request which. at that time. was
$85.6 billion.
Mr. President, in announcing this tar-
get, I said that it was a goal at ie
hoped to meet or exceed. The bill re-
ported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee has significanitly sur ia,ssed
this original objective. I point out. that, '
subsequent to submission of the fiscal
year 1975 budget, amendments adding
$1.5 billion were submitted, bringi ess the
total budget request forniscal year 1975
up to a total of $87.1 billion.
TWE RAPIDLY INCREASING COSTS OP DErEigsr
I am certain that the Senate is con-
cerned that Defense outlays hay( risen
from $78 billion in 196?i-when we were
fighting a war in South Vietnam-to
over $85 billion in fiscal-year 1975, when
we are no longer at war.
The reason for this phenomenon re-
sults principally from the very heavy
impact that inflation has had cn the
Defense budget.
Between 1968 and today's Defense
budget, military basic -pay rates have
more than doubled, adding costs of $9.9
billion.
Military allowances are up 41 pc reent
This represents an additional $1 9 bil-
lion to the Defense budget.
Civil service pay has risen 59 percent,
requiring an additional- $5.5 billion.
The cost of supplies has increased 54
percent, for an additional $13.7 billion_
Retired pay cost Increases total 42.5
billion.
In summary, between 1968 and 1975,
pay and price increases alone have added
about $34 billion to the Defense budget.
Even as we discuss the Defense a ppro-
priation today, inflation is taking its
toll.
We will lose $6 billion to inflation even
beforewe start to spend the money
appropriated in this bill.
We will lose $3 billion to inflation
from the money appropriated Curing,
prior years before We can spend it.
Indeed, if we wanted to stay even
with last year, it would- require a total
budget of $86 billion taking into al- eount
a yearly rate of inflation of 11_.5 percent.
During the last 2 years, purchas( price
inflation has eaten into Aefease insets at
a rate of 9 percent or more, compared to
the period from 1958 to 1964, when it was
less than 1 percent a year. There have
been substantial Mcreases between the
unit prices budgeted late year and the
price the military is paying today f sr the
very same item.
The cost of a mechinegun is ip 23
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Reletssesn5/T/ff? 61MDP7R9h3pOR000700060018-4 S 15391
August 20, 1974, CONGR A -
percent, for a dump truck 65 percent, for
a 105 millimeter shell 29 percent, and for
a pickup truck 38 percent.
With increases of this magnitude in a
single year, you can see what has hap-
pened to the purchasing power of the
defense dollar. Of course, a great deal of
this dramatic jump in defense costs is
due to the sophistication demanded in
modern warfare.
In World War II, a B-29 bomber cost
$680,000. On a similar basis, if we buy
the B-1, it will cost $48 million-almost
71 times as much.
- A P-51 fighter aircraft of 30 years ago
cost $54,000. An A-7D of today costs $3.3
million, more than 61 times as much.
Some more recent comparisons are:
A jeep has gone from $3,400 in 1964 to
$4,160 in 1973 and is projected to cost
$7,000 in 1976.
A 21/2 ton Army truck cost $8,700 in
1964. A similar truck costs $15,500 today
and is projected to reach $26,000 in 1977.
An M-60 tank produced in 1964 cost
$170,000, but today's M.-60A2 costs
$717,000.
A nuclear submarine of 1964 cost about
$81 million; today an SSN-688 costs $194
million.
A destroyer escort in 1964 cost about
$29 million; the DD-963 in the 1975
budget is estimated to cost around $101
million.
FOOD COSTS
As every housewife knows, food prices
have increased significantly in the last
few years. In 1967, it cost $1.30 a day to
feed a soldier. This rose to $1.52 in 1971,
to $1.65 in 1973, and in 1974 has jumped
to $2.28 a day. It is expected to go even
higher. As shown by the table which I
shall insert in the RECORD at this point,
everyday food items increased on the
average about 61 percent over the past 10
years.
I ask unanimous consent that the
table be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Cost of food items
Cost in
1964
(cents)
Cost
today 1
(cents)
Percent
increase
White bread, 1 lb
0.21
0.27
28.6
Round steak; 1 lb
1.04
1.75
68.3
Rib roast, 1 lb
.83
1.56
80.0
Chuck roast, 1 lb
. 57
1. 23
115.8
Pork chops, 1 lb
. 88
1. 80
104. 6
Bacon, 1 lb
. 67
. 90
34. 3
Hamburger, 1 lb
. 49
. 82
67. 4
Pork loin, 1 lb
.61
1.60
162.3
Milk, Yi gal
. 48
. 76
58. 3
Butter, 1 lb
.74
.80
9.5
.Coffee, 1 lb
. 82
1. 12
36. 6
1 August 1974. These are prices paid by the Department of
Defense.
INCREASES IN FUEL PRICES
Mr. McCLELLAN. Fuel prices continue
to increase despite diligent efforts of the
Defense Department to reduce petrole-
um consumption. Even though consump-
tion in 1975 will be 226 million bar-
rels-9 million less than last year's con-
sumption of 235 million barrels-petro-
leum costs have gone up $1,558,500,000
over the fiscal year 1974 cost. All told, it
will cost $3,472,600,000 for petroleum
products in fiscal year 1975-or 81 per-
cent more than it did during the previous
fiscal year, and we will be using less fuel.
For example, between the middle and
end of last year, Air Force jet fuel sky-
rocketed from $6.43 per barrel to $13.63,
while Navy distillate fuel, which is the
prime ship steaming fuel, increased from
$4.51 to $15.50 per barrel.
Mr. President, I would ask that my
colleagues take note of these increased
costs in all military operations, so that
they may be cognizant that when they
insist, that we ought to operate our de-
fense establishment on the same level
of costs under these inflated prices that
we operated it last year, that is tanta-
mount to insisting that we reduce the
military strength of this Nation.
It could not have any other effect,
INCREASES IN MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PAY
Certainly one of the principal reasons
for rising costs has been the huge jumps
in pay of our military and civilian per-
sonnel.
Mr. President, I mentioned earlier that
pay and related costs consume 56.1 per-
cent of the defense dollar in fiscal year
1975. During the past 10 years, civilian
salaries, including those for blue collar
wage board employees, have risen by
about 85 percent. Average regular mili-
tary compensation increased about 93
percent, almost double, during the past
10 years.
What effect do increases like this have
on our payroll? Ten years ago it cost
$14.7 billion for 2.7 million military per-
sonnel and $7.3 billion for 1 million ci-
vilians. Let us look at the contrast. To-
day-in fiscal year 1975-it costs $32.6
billion for 2.2 million military personnel
and $14.9 billion for 1 million civilians.
In the last 10 years, then, although the
number of military has declined signift-
cantly and the number of civilians has
remained about constant, their pay and
related costs have more than doubled.
Although good progress has been made
in achieving an all-volunteer force, it has
come at a high cost. The Department of
Defense estimates the additional cost to
be $3.7 billion alone during fiscal year
1975.
- THE HIGH COST OF RETIRED PERSONNEL
The cost of retired military personnel
which, unlike most other Federal agen-
cies, is funded in the Defense Depart-
ment budget, has also increased dra-
matically in recent yearS. In fiscal 1964-
10 years ago-retired pay was $1.2 billion.
In 1975, it will be well over $6 billion-
a fivefold increase in just 10 years. And
with annual or semiannual increases in
the cost of living retired pay will con-
tinue to rise each year. This increase in
retired pay is not unique to the mili-
tary-Federal civil service retirement has
gone up fivefold between 1964 and 1975,
and social security increased about four-
fold in the same period. All of this, Mr.
President, is a product of both increasing
numbers on the rolls as well as higher
annuities.
DEFENSE IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
Finally, I would like to address myself
for a moment to the charge made by
many that there has been no real re-
ordering of national priorities and no
significant decline in our defense costs.
An examination of the facts shows some-
thing quite different.
In the 1950's, outlays for national de-
fense were about 50 percent of the Fed-
eral budget of the Federal Government,
total spending.
In the 1960's, they were about 40 per-
cent of the Federal budget-45 percent
in 1968.
In the 1970's, they have dropped below
30 percent. In fiscal 1975 they will be
only 29 percent of the Federal budget.
In the past decade-the 10 years from
1964 to 1974-human resource programs
were increasing by the following
amounts:
Federal aid to education jumped 46.2
percent from $1.3 billion to $7.6 billion.
Public assistance increased by 365 per-
cent, from $3.1 billion to $14.5 billion.
Social security and related retirement
and disability programs increased by 283
percent, from $19.6 billion to $75 billion.
Health services, including medicare
and medicaid, increased by 4,418 percent,
from $496 million to $22.4 billion.
So, Mr. President, it is clearly evident
that contrary to the misconceptions of
many-including some Members of the
Senate-we are spending far less propor-
tionately to maintain our national secu-
rity than we are spending for human
needs and nondefense programs.
Looking at this problem from a slightly
different perspective, we find that be-
tween 1968 and 1975, total Federal
budget outlays rose from $178.8 billion
to proposed $304.4 billion-a rise of 70
percent. Defense costs during that same
period of time rose by 9 percent, but the
remainder of the Federal budget rose
121 percent, legislative functions rose
161 percent, judicial functions rose 231
Percent, executive direction and man-
agement rose 433 percent, human re-
sources rose 173 percent, and State and
local government spending rose 131 per-
cent.
Mr. President, I think it is obvious that
the rising cost of defense is part of a pat-
tern of increasing costs which affects all
goods and services-and in most cases
these costs all rose much more drama-
tically and much faster than defense
spending.
During fiscal 1975, national defense
will receive the lowest share of the Fed-
eral budqt-under 26 percent, and of
total public spending-under 18 percent
-since 1940, the year before Pearl Har-
bor when defense spending was 8.3 per-
cent of all public spending and under
16 percent of the total Federal budget.
During fiscal 1975, Defense will have
the lowest level of manpower it has had
since 1950.
During fiscal 1975, Defense will have
the lowest level in terms of real purchas-
ing power it has had since 1951. This
year defense spending will be less than
6 percent of GNP whereas in 1955 de-
fense spending was 11.2 percent of
GNP.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I am
aware that the amounts included in this
bill will not please everyone. No measure
that can be sent to the floor of the Senate
could do so. No measure providing ap-
propriations for the Defense Department
for the military establishment can pos-
sibly please everyone.
There will always be some Members
who will say that we have cut too deeply:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
s 15392 Approved For RelRase 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
LuNGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE August 20, 1974 _
there will always be others who will say
that we have not slashed-enough.
This bill represents the considered and
reasoned judgment of the Members of
the Senate most familiar with the issues
and problems involved in maintaining
our national security. In reporting this
bill, we have tried to provide security
without excess, muscle without fat.
I have been informed that efforts will
be made on the floor or May be made to
slash this appropriation even further--
to make across-the-boarct cuts-meateti x
cuts. Such a move would, in my view, be
misguided and irresponsible. The reduc-
tions we have already made are substan-
tial and represent the maximum that
can prudently be made, in my judgment,
In defense spending.
In fact, in an effort to hold down Fed-
eral spending and to balance the budget,
we may have cut too much already.
It is my hope, Mr. President, that since
we have tried to take a middle course,
have tried to balance out the necessity
for strong defense and also the impact
that spending has on defleits and on our
economy, that we have struck a balance.
It is my hope, Mr. President, that the
Senate will accept and support the rec-
ommendations of the corninittee.
I hone it will accept the recommenda-
tions we have made and pass this bill
without substantial changes.
Of course, during the debate, Mr.
President, I will be happy to answer any
questions Members may have.
I yield to the distinguished Senator
from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BARTLETT). The Senator from North
Dakota is recognized.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, the Use
guished chairman of the Senate Com-
mittee on Appropriations, Senator
MCCLELLAN, has already explained in
considerable detail the various provisions
of this defense appropriations bill. It in-
cludes the major items of expenditures
and other important provisions of the
bill. The views he expresses with respect
to the defense bill are much the same as
mine.
I recognize that this appropriations
bill will not satisfy everyone. Some of
our Members will want to teduce it even
more by a percentage cut, or other
means, to $81 billion or below, and
others may have serious concern that
the $5.5 billion reduction is much too
great.
The huge reduction of 45,491,739,000
in this defense appropriations bill rep-
resents the biggest cut in any appropria-
tions bill in my time. This big cut, I be-
lieve, is responsive to the economic dis-
tress we are experiencing in our country
today. However, this reduction in the de-
fense bill is not the only answer to our
economic problems. It is only one of
many actions that must be taken if we
are to again experience economic stabil-
ity. Reductions in other appropriations
have and should be accomplished in an
attempt to balance the budget and re-
duce spending as much as possible.
I have always strongly believed that
our Armed Forces should- be equipped
with the most modern and effective
weapons possible, even if it meant that
total troop levels would have to be re-
duced. It is because of my strong belief
in this principle that I am concerned
this $5.5 billion reduction may be too
much in some areas. I am particularly
concerned about the research and devel-
opment of newer and more modern
weapons.
This austere budget will provide con-
siderable funding for research and devel-
opment for the start of some new mod-
ern weapons and the continuation of
others. It certainly is inadequate to sup-
port all of what mighe well be necessary
in the development of new weapons of
the future that are emerging as ideas
today.
At the outset of almost every war in
which we have been Involved, our ene-
mies have had better, more modern, and
effective weapons. This was certainly
true of World War 1 and World War
II. The most recent example was the
Middle East war. The arms :supplied by
the Soviet Union to the Arab nations
were equal to or better than most of the
weapons we supplied to the Israelis. This
is but one clear example of the ability
of our potential enemy to equip his
forces with the most modern and sophis-
ticated weapons. It just does not make
sense for a nation as great as ours to be
second best in technology arid weapons
systems necessary to protect our na-
tional interests.
One of the major reasons why it is so
difficult to cut defense spending this year
Is the cost of our all-volunteer mil.tary
force. The average annual pay of mili-
tary personnel just 6 years ago was ap-
proximately $5,500. Now that average pay
for military personnel is considerably
beyond $11,000 a year.
This bill reduced military and civilian
manpower. Military manpower overall Is
reduced by 24,211 to a total strength of
2,127,912 by the end of fiscal year 1975.
This will be the lowest military strength
in this country since 1950 or before the
Korean war. This defense bill, as re-
ported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, requires that the military
personnel overseas be reduced by 25 000.
This overseas reduction is in no way in-
tended as a unilateral action on the part
of the committee to reduce troops in
Europe or prejudice the efforts of our
representatives to negotiate in Vienna
for a mutual and balanced force reduc-
tion.
This reduction in our overseas military
force is left to President Ford and the
Department of Defense.
Civilian personnel will be reduced
under this bill by 32,327 below the budget
estimate at a savings of an estimated
$403,000,000. Most of this reduction will
be by attrition and denial of personnel
increases.
There has been a very sizable overrun
in the cost of many of the important
weapons systems that are now being pro-
duced. Inflation is not only resulting in
higher costs of weapons systems, but al-
most everything that people have to buy.
The cost of much more simple farm trac-
tors has doubled or even tripled In the
last 10 years. To a large extent this is
true of automobiles and most things that
the housewife has to buy. Inflation hurts
the cost of military equipment evEn mare
severely because these weapons systems
are much more complex and sophisti-
cated than ordinary industrial goods.
Mr. President, every Ameriean is
acutely aware of the etect inflation has
and is having on our lives today. This is
compounded by the energy eris s. The
farmer, businessman, manufacturer--
and particularly the American famine--
are having to da without, delay or en
into debt to even continue to do the
things they were accustomed to doing
only a year ago. This is also true of
Government agencies.
The Defense Department faces thane
same problems. I belie that the $5.5
billion cut contained in this bill before
us today cuts right down to the bone and
any further cuts would jeopardize our
defense. I urge all of my colleae nes to
support this bill substantially as re-
ported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. I call
up my amendment No. 1810.
The PRESIDING Oren.CER. The com-
mittee amendments have not been dee-
posed of.
Mr. Pik0XMIRE. I beg the Chair's
pardon.
Mr. MeCLELLAN. Mr. President I ask
unanimous consent that the committee
amendments be agreed to en bloe, and
that the bill as amended be considered
as original text for the purpose cf fea-
ther amendment, with the understand-
ing that no points of order be considered
as having been waived bY reason thereof.
The PRESIDING CeeluCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments agreed to en bloc are
as follows:
On page 2, in line 10, strike out "47,875,-
013,000" and insert in lieu thereof "47,762,-
213,000".
On page 2, in line 18, strike out '15,720,-
230,000" and insert In lieu thereof "45.365,-
510,000".
On page 3, in line 10, strike out "$1,713,-
506,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$1,686,-
206,000".
On page 3, in liner 18, strike out "67.332,-
151,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$7210,-
881,000".
On page 4, in line 1, strike out -$498,-
600,000" and insert in lieu thereof '$485,-
800,000".
On page 4, in line 9, strike out "$216,-
200,000" and insert in lieu thereof '$202,-
900,000".
On page 4, in line 17, strike out "$68,-
500,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$5'7,-
800,000".
On page 4, in line, 25, strike out "$145,-
865,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$147,-
865,000".
On page 5, in line 7, strike out "1800.-
800,000" and insert in lien thereof "$361,-
300,000".
On page 5, In line 15, /strike out "$204,-
527,600" and insert in lien thereof "1205,-
027,000".
On page 6, in line IO, strike out "0,228,-
389,000" and insert in lieu thereof '1,137,-
532,000".
On page 6, in line 11, strike out "370,-
000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$343,-
000,000".
On page 6, In line 22, stake out "$7,177.-
915,000" and Insert in lieu thereof "$7,140,-
575,000".
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
August 20, 19744PPmved FrcfterZfRieffnicitvccditi6DPWIYMOR000700060018-4 S 15393
On page 7, in line 8, strike out "$451,-
624,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$449,-
284,000".
On page '1, in line 18, strike out "$7,113,-
254,0000" and insert in lieu thereof "$7,077,-
930,000".
On page 8, in line 2, strike out "$763,-
143,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$748,-
642,000".
On page 8, in line 4, strike out "$203,-
932,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$201,-
932,000".
On page 8, in line 1, strike out "$11,224,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "$10,924,-
000".
On page 8, in line 8, strike out "$14,772,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof 1314,356,-
000".
On page 8, in line 13, strike out "$757,-
453,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$765,-
153,000".
On page 8, in line 14, strike out "$2,357,-
375,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$2,350,-
159,000".
On page 9, in line 12, strike out _"$279,-
600,000" and insert in lieu thereof
600,000".
On page 10, in line 19, strike out "286,-
680,000" and insert in lieu thereof
580,000".
On page 11, in line 13, strike out
500,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$589,-
500,000".
On page 12, in line 9, strike out
500,000" and insert in lieu thereof
500,000".
On page 12, in line 11, after the word
"facilities", insert a colon and the following
language: "Provided, That not less than
ninety-two flying units shall be maintained
during fiscal year 1976".
On page 13, in line 5, strike out "$81,-
900,000" and insert In lieu thereof 456,-
900,000".
On page 13, beginning at line 17, insert
the following new language:
CONTINGENCIES, DEFENSE
"For emergency and extraordinary expenses
arising in the Department of Defense, to be
expended on the approval or authority of
the Secretary of Defense, and payments may
be made on his certificate of necessity for
confidential military purposes; $5,000,000.".
On page 14, in line 16, strike out "$224,-
300,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$265,-
700,000".
On page 16, in line 5, strike out "$341,-
800,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$343,-
500,000".
On page 16, in line 22, strike out "$726,-
500,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$720,-
200,000".
On page 17, in line 20, strike out "$669,-
600,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$689,700,-
000."
On page 18, in line 11, strike out "$2,814,-
000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$2,745,-
200,000".
On page 18, in line 23, strike out "$726,-
000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$748,-
600,000".
On page 19, in line 17, after $214,300,000"
Insert a comma and the following language:
"which shall be available only for construc-
tion of DLCIN 41 and for advance procure-
ment funding for DLGN 42, both ships to be
constructed as follow ships of the DLGN 38
class."
On page 19, in line 24, after "$116,700,000;"
insert the words "for a fleet oiler, $81,-
400,000;".
On page 20, in line 6, strike out "$3,059,-
000,000" and insert in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing language: "$3,140,400,000 and in ad-
dition $103,600,000 for escalation and cost
growth on prior year programs which shall
be derived by transfer from 'Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy 1973/1974,'.'
"$273,-
"$292,-
"$586,-
"$632,-
"$652,-
On page 21, in line 5, strike out "$1,602,-
600,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$1,582,-
600,000".
On page 22, beginning in line 12, strike
out the following language: "$3,190,300,000,
and in addition, $76,200,000, of which $49,-
400,000 shall be derived by transfer from
'Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1974/1976'
and $26,800,000" and insert in lieu thereof
the following language: "$2,706,700,000, and
in addition, $153,600,000, of which $106,800,-
000 shall be derived by transfer from 'Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force 1974/1976' and $46,-
800,000".
On page 23, in line 9, strike out "$1,555,-
200,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$1,518,-
700,000".
On page 24, strike out "$1,864,400,000"
and insert in lieu thereof "$1,7'72,000,000".
On page 24, in line 21, strike out "$102,
017,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$98,-
416,000".
On page 25, in line 9, strike out "$1,831,-
630,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$1,749,-
152,000".
On page 25, in line 17, strike out
"$3,065,121,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$2,979,612,000".
On page 26, in line 2, strike out
"$3,377,317,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$3,144,460,000".
On page 28, in lino 1, strike out the
semicolon and the following language:
"$622,600,000, and in addition, $77,400,000,
which shall be derived by transfer from
"Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1974/1976"
and shall be available only for the procure-
ment of F-5E aircraft" and insert in lieu
thereof a comma and "$700,000,000".
On page 31, in? line 5, strike out
"$204,343,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$202,343,000".
On page 42, in line 14, strike out the words
"or drycleaning facility" and insert in lieu
thereof the words "dry cleaning facility, or
purchase of bulk milk dispensing equip-
ment".
On page 50, in line 9, strike out the figure
"427" and insert in lieu thereof "436".
On page 50, in line 9, strike out the figure
"567" and insert in lieu thereof "576".
On page 50, beginning at line 15, insert the
following new language:
"Sec. 847. None of the fimds appropriated
by this Act shall be available for use after
March 31, 1975, to support United States
military forces stationed or otherwise as-
signed to duty outside the United States in
any number greater than 440,000, not in-
cluding military personnel assigned to duty
aboard United States naval vessels.".
On page 51, in line 4, strike out
"$1,100,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$800,000".
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the following
changes be made in the bill to correct
typographical errors:
On page 20, line 6, after the amount
"$3,140,400,000" insert a comma, and on
line 9, strike the year "1974" and insert in
lieu thereof "1977".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
AMENDMENT NO. 1610
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1810.
The PRESIDING OrleiCER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
On page 28, line 5, strike out "$700,000,-
000," and insert in lieu thereof, "41550,000,-
000,".
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the following
Senators be added as cosponsors: Sen-
ators KENNEDY, SCHWEIKER, HART, COOK,
HATFIELD, SYMINGTON, CRANSTON, MOSS,
CLARK, PELL, GRAVEL, ABOUREEK, MC-
GOVERN, HATHAWAY, METZENBNUM, BATH,
HARTKE, CHURCH, and STEVENSON.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Ron Tam-
men, of my staff, be permitted to remain
on the floor during the debate and vote
on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may suggest
the absence of a quorum without losing
my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER Without
objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
called the roll, and the following Sen-
ators answered to their names:
[No. 372 Leg.]
Bartlett Hathaway Stevens
Byrd, Robert C. Hughes Symington
Clark Inouye Tower
Cranston Mathias Young
Goldwater McClellan
Haskell Proxmire
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum
is not present.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, Mr. President,
I move that the Sergeant at /inns be
directed to request the attendance of
absent Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Sergeant at Arms will execute the order
of the Senate.
After some delay, the following Sen-
ators entered the Chamber and answered
to their names:
Abourezk Ervin Montoya
Aiken Fannin Moss
Allen Fong Muskie
Baker Fulbright Nelson
Bayh Griffin Nunn
Beall Gurney Packwood
Bellmon Hansen Pastore
Bennett Hart Pearson
Bentsen Hartke Pell
Bible Hatfield Percy
Biden Helms,Randolph
Brock HollingsRibicoff
Brooke Hruska Roth
Buckley Huddleston Schweiker
Burdick Humphrey Scott, Hugh
Byrd, Jackson Scott,
Harry F., Jr. Javits William L.
Cannon Johnston Sparkman
Chiles Kennedy Stafford
Church Long Stennis
Cotton Magnuson Stevenson
Curtis Mansfield , Taft
Dole McClure Talmadge
Domenici McIntyre Thurmond
Dominick Metcalf Tunney
Eagleton Metzenbaum Weicker
Eastland Mondale Williams
The PRESIDING 0.er iCER. A quorum
is .present.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives by Mr. Hackney, one of its
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75B00380R000700060018-4
S 15394 Approved ForRektatINAIP6105M130-4WPR7 g700060018-Au_ ,
ST 20, 1T7
reading clerks, announced that the
House has passed the bill (S. 1871) to
amend the Youth Conservation Corps
Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-597, 86 Stat.
1319) to expand and make permanent
the Youth Conservation -Corps, and for
other purposes, with an. amendment in
which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate.
The message also annostmced that the
House agrees to the report of the com-
mittee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ment of the House to the bill (S. 3783)
to authorize in the District of Columbia
a plan providing for the representation
of defendants who are financially unable
to obtain an adequate defense in crim-
inal came in the courts of the District
of Columbia, and for other purposes.
The message further manouncesd that
the House agrees to the report of the
committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Houseto the bill (S.
3703) to authorize in the District of Co-
lumbia a plan providing for the repm-
seritation of defendants who are finan-
cially unable to obtain an adequate de-
fense in criminal cases in the courts of
the District of Columbia, and for other
Purposes.
The message further announced that
the House agrees to the senendments of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 14402) to
amend the Act of Septeiriber 26, 1966
(Public Law 89-606), as aziended, to ex-
tend for 2 years the perioctduring which
the authorized numbers for the grades
of lieutenant colonel and colonel in the
Air Force are increased.
The message also annottaced that the
House agrees to the report of the com-
mittee of conference on tile disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
15842) to increase compensation for
District of Columbia policernen, firemen,
and teachers; to increase annuities par-
able to retired teachers in the District of
nolumbia an equitable tax on real prop-
erty in the District of Columbia; to pro-
eide for additional revenue for the Ma-
llet of Columbia; and for other
purposes.
The message further announced that
ihe House agrees to the report of Um
committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Muses on the
mendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 15581) making appropriatiops for
the government of the District of
Columbia and other activnies charge-
le in whole or in part against the rev-
enues of said District for the fiscal year
onding June 30, 1975, and for other put-
ones; that the House recedes from its
linagreNnent to the amendment of the
eenate No. 20 and concurs therein; and
tat the House recedes from Its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate
J. 5 and concurs therein with an
nnenciment in which it requests the con-
( irrence of the Senate.
The message also announced that the
reuse has passed the following bills in
?eich it requests the concurrence of the
F
11 11. 5507. An net to authoeive the con-
? van ^e to the city of Salem, IlL, of a statute
? Nilliena Jennings Bryan;
net 9054. An act to amend the act en-
titled "An set to authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture to execute a subordination agree-
ment with respect to certain lands in Lee
County, S.C.;
HR. 11796. An act to provide for the duty-
free entry of a 3.60-meter telescope and asso-
ciated articles for the use of the Canada-
France-Hawaii telescope project at Mauna
Kea, Hawaii;
H.R.. 12113. An act to revise and restate
certain functions and duties Of the Comp-
troller General of the United States, and
for other purposes;
H.R. 13157. An act to provide for the estab-
lishment of the Clara Barton National His-
toric Site, Md.; John Day Fossil Beds Na-
tional Monument, Oreg.; Knife River Indian
Villages National Historic Site, N. Dalt.;
Springfield Armory National Historic Site,
Mass.; Tusiregee Instituee National litatoric
Site, Ala.; and Martin Van Buren National
Historic Site. N.Y.; and for other purposes;
H.s. 14217. An act to provide for increases
in appropriation ceilings and boundary
changes in certain units of the National Park
System, to authorize appropriations for addi-
tional costs of land acquisition for the Na-
tional Park System, and for other puiposes;
and
H.R. 14600. An act to increase the borrow-
ing authority of the Panama Canal Company
and revise the method of computing interest
thereon.
HOUSE jerete REFERRED
The following House bills were each
read twice by their titles and referred as
Indicated:
H.R. 5507. An act to authorise the son-
veyance to the city of Salem, Ill., of a statute
of William Jennings Bryan to the Commit-
tee on Rules and Administration.
HR. 9054. An act to amend the Act ent.tled
-An Act to authorize the Secretary of IL,gri-
culture to execute a subordination agree-
ment with respect to certain lands in Lee
County, S.C.; to the Committee on Agricul-
ture and Forestry.
H.R. 11796. An act to provide for the d aty-
free entry of a 3.60-meter telescope and as-
sociated articles for the t-se of the Canada-
France-Hawaii Telescope Project at Mauna
Kea, Hawaii; to the Committee on Finance.
H.R. 12113. An act to revise and restate
certain functions and duties of the Comp-
troller General of the DM -exi States, and for
other purposes; to the committee on Gov-
ernment Operations.
MR. 13157. An act to provide for the es-
tablishment of the Clara Berton National His-
toric Site, Md.; John Day Fossil Beds Na-
clonal Monument, Oreg.; Knife RIvereInditan
Villages National Historic Site, N. Duke'
Springfield Armory National Historic Site,
Mass.; Tuskegee Institute Nation& Historic
Site, Ala.; and Martin Van Buren National
Historic Site, N.Y.; and for other purposes:
to the Committee on Interior and insular
Affairs.
HR. 14217. An ate to prcvide for increases
In appropriation ceilings and boundary
rhangee in certain units of the National Bark
System, to authorize appropriations for ad-
itional costs of land acquisitlein for the
National Park System, and for other pur-
poses; to the Committee on Interior and in-
.
s War Affairs.
E.R. 14600. An act to increase the borrows
lag authority of the Panama GanarCompany
and revise the method of ccrnputing interest
..ereon; to the Conunittee on commerce
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APP70-
PRIATION ACT, 1975
The Senate continued with the eon-
sideration of the bill (HR. 16243 ) mak.
tog appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, and for other purposes
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the pending
amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered_
AMENDMENT NO. 18111
LIMITARY AID TO BOWTH 'BETNA.kt
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. Presider.% way
should the Senate increase the amount
of funds it approved last year for the
South Vietnamese Armed Forces by 27
percent?
That is precisely what the bill before
us will do. It will increase the military
aid provided to Vietnam from the $550
million the Appropriations Committee
and the full Senate approved lint year
to $700 _million. That $150 million in-
crease represents the 27 percent.
Last year the festal amOunt appropri-
ated by the Senate for military assist-
ance service funded was $650 million.
This money was for two countries, South
Vietnam and Laos. Laos received a little
over $100 million. This left about $550
million as approved by the Senate for
South Vietnam.
BOLD TUE LINE TO LAST YEAR
My amendment would allow the same
appropriations for Vietnam as accepted
by the Senate lest year.?$550 trillion.
Money for Laos is now contailled ai the
military assistanee program?MAP--
under the foreign aid bill. It is net a
part of this bill and therefore the $100
million for Laos last year must be sub-
tracted from the $650 million that was
appropriated. This leaves $550 million---
the level established in my amendment.
Mr. President, I am well aware that
after the SMIlate approved the Slat' me -
lion for Laos and the $$50 million for
South Vietnam last year, the conference
committee with thg House compromised
at a much higher figure of $1,126 million.
Of that total, $266 million subsequently
has been charged to the fiscal year 1975
account to make up for deliveries and
expenses incurred in prior years, The
so-called bookkeeping was confined to
the fiscal year 1974 budget by the astion
of the Kennedy amendment on the iscal
Year 1974 supplemental. The practiera
effect of theenclusion of the charge of
this $266 million to the fiscal year 1974
budget is to reduce the amount of new
money in that budget by $266 million.
When the Laos money of $108 million
Is taken out of last year's final budget for
MASF, and the $266-million is subtractel
since it applies to prior_commitimints.
and some $69inillion is reduced for :Ray.
back of airemft shipped earlier, only
$683 million vats left for new programs.
Therefore, men ealging by the figures
that came outlet the conference commit-
tee, a Senate position of $550 mit ion
the same as last year, is practical and not
the reduction the administration would
have us believe.
Mr. President, I do not think it neees-
-sere to point cut just how inflation Is
affecting our economy. The stark facts
are that, due as increased cost of inte es
on the national debt, the Defense supple-
mental request, veterans educatic nal
benefits, arid a rise in court-released
Impounded funds, spending?that is r -
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
0700060018-4
August 20, 1974 Approved tfurtitilt/882:11M6LOBCORADR-107313633i3OROO S 15395
lays?will rise to the $310 billion level
this year. This is a cold fact of life that
will occur even though the total appro-
priations actions of Congress will prob-
ably be below the budget request bY
some $6 to $8 billion, and most of that re-
duction is in this bill. The distinguished
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLEL-
LAN) deserves great credit for having
made this kind of reduction. I know it
was not easy. He worked very hard on it.
He and the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG) deserve
great credit, in this inflationary year, for
being very sensitive to the need for
whatever reduction they could make.
Congress and the President now face
the fact that even with all of our hard
efforts, fiscal year 1975 spending will be
a mammouth $40 billion or 15 percent
over last year at a time when we face the
worst inflation in our peace time history.
What this means is that the President
and this Congress must now decide where
further spending can be cut, slowed
down, stretched out, or stopped. alto-
gether.
Of all the areas in the Federal budget,
there is less need for sending hundreds
of millions in military aid to Vietnam
than any other single item.
What I am proposing is not a cut in
terms of the Senate's position of last
year. It is the same appropriation as con-
sidered in the Appropriations Committee
and accepted on the floor last year.
Granted, inflation has had an impact
on this military aid to South Vietnam.
But should we ask the American public
to pay for their own inflation and add on
top the inflation in the goods we freely
give to South Vietnam?
The very least we can do is let the
South Vietnamese military forces ab-
sorb the impact of U.S. inflation with-
out asking the taxpaying American pub-
lic for another subsidy.
STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS
What about the strategic situation in
South Vietnam? By not increasing our
military commitment to that nation will
we be handing it over to the Commu-
nists?
Well, the Vietnamese war has been
going on for over 20 years. We have
joined in the history of that conflict
only in the last 10- or 12-year period. The
war was going on before we got there. It
Is going on even though we left.
? No one can say that our contribution
has been inadequate. According to the
Defense Intelligence Agency?DIA?U.S.
military aid to South Vietnam was eight
times greater?think of that, Mr. Presi-
dent; our aid to South Vietnam was
eight times greater than that given by
the two Communist powers to North
Vietnam in 1973.
Since 1966 the DIA estimates show the
United States spent 29 times as much
in Indochina as the Soviets and Peoples
Republic of China combined. This
amounts to $2.57 billion from the :U.S.S.R.
and $1.08 billion for the Peoples Republic
of China--PRC.
The United States on the other hand
spent $107.10 billion in the same period
including some $10.4 billion in direct
military aid.
This is not my estimate. It is the esti-
mate of the Defense Intelligence Agency
of our Government.
Estimates for U.S.S.R. and PRC sup-
port were said to be $290 million for
calendar year 1973 compared to $2.3 bil-
lion in military aid from the United-
States to South Vietnam.
While Chinese and Russian arms
shipments were reduced by more than
half from 1972 to 1973, the United States
Increased its shipments by $286 million
in the same 1-year period.
I ask my colleagues, has our contribu-
tion been inadequate? Have we spent
enough money? Did we lose enough
lives? Are we being foolish to try to hold
the line on further spending for SOuth
Vietnam?
I think the answer is obvious.
FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The maintenance of high levels of
military aid to South Vietnam could be
contrary to our long-term foreign policy
objectives in Indochina. We are com-
mitted to a policy of military disengage-
ment. Yet, the House has proposed an
appropriation $150 million greater than
that deemed proper by the Senate last
year?a sum actually larger than the
fiscal year 1974 final new appropriation
when bookkeeping reductions are made.
It has become more and more evident
in the past few months that South Viet-
nam does not need increases in military
aid in order to survive. Within the last
2 months, both Defense Secretary
Schlesinger and Admiral Moorer have
declared that the military situation in
South Vietnam is far from crtical.
On June 5, 1974, Secretary Schlesinger
told the House Foreign Affairs Commit-
tee that the United States no longer ex-
pects a major Communist offensive in
South Vietnam.
On July 8, Admiral Moorer, the 'former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
told U.S. News & World Report that he
saw no evidence of an offensive by the
North Vietnamese and that the "main
thrust of their effort has been directed
toward developing the infrastructure
and seeing what they could do to in-
crease their political influence with the
population."
Reports in recent weeks about a new
offensive have now died out, perhaps
spawned in the first place by a desire to
influence congressional consideration of
the military assistance request.
Congressional study groups returning
from recent trips to Vietnam, including
one led by Congressman PETER PRELING-
HUYSEN of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, have reported that the Thieu
government has done very well since the
cease-fire. His study group estimated
that Saigon has gained control over 779
more hamlets since the January 1973
Paris truce, while the Communists have
lost their hold on nearly 400 hamlets over
that same time span.
There seems little need to increase
military assistance to a nation enjoy-
ing such successes in the field.
The truth of the matter is that the
Thieu government and the North Viet-
namese have been on a limited warfare
basis since the Paris truce. The peace
agreements have been violated at will by
both sides. ?
WASTE AND CORRUPTION
What happens to the hundreds of mil-
lions that we give to South Vietnam?
Unfortunately much of our assistance
has gone to line the pockets of corrupt
officers and bureaucrats. Talk to anyone
who has served in Vietnam at any level.
They will tell you of the black market
operations, the U.S. military assistance
goods being sold on the same street as
the 'U.S. warehouses, the bribery and cor-
ruption that is expected at every level of
Government.
But we need not rely on second hand
evidence. We know about the thousands
of "ghost" soldiers added to military pay-
rolls for which the United States pays
about 40 percent of the salaries.
South Vietnam's 92 generals have only
recently been ordered to cut their per-
sonal staffs of chauffeurs, bodyguards,
and servants from 36 to 11 each. They
have also been told that they must make
do with two rather than four, motor ve-
hicles. That is ' where U.S. tax dollars
have gone. Think of it. O'nly 11 chauf-
feurs and servants each.
Evidence has also been uncovered re-
cently that a number of new American
A-37's worth $500,000 each?are being
dismantled and sold for scrap on the
black market in Saigon. A police raid on
an illegal scrap operation yielded the
wings of 15 planes as well as substantial
amounts of other U.S.-made military
equipment which were being readied for
foreign export.
We ship it to them. They tear it down .
and export it out of the country for a
profit. Not a bad deal some would say.
PLENTY OF ECONOMIC AM AVAILABLE
Mr. President, the passage of my
amendment would not leave South Viet-
nam "high and dry." In addition to the
$550 million I would provide in military
assistance, the United States will con-
tribute nearly $1 billion in economic aid
to South Vietnam?by far the largest
total allotted by us to any nation.
It is true that the Foreign Relations
Committee has just voted to reduce this
to $500 million. If it stays at that level, it
would still represent the largest total for
any nation. This $500 million is in addi-
tion to the $700 million that we have in
this bill.
The administration has requested
$911,553,000 in economic aid to South
Vietnam; $751 million will come out of
security supporting assistance and the
Indochina postwar reconstruction ac-
counts; $160,553,000 was requested for
Public Law 480, the commodity sales and.
food for peace legislation.
No other country in the world is sched-
uled to receive this much economic aid.
Not Central West Africa and the drought
stricken Sahel, not the war torn Ban-
gladesh, not Cambodia with its continu-
ing strife, not Indonesia, India, or Korea.
Not Pakistan, Egypt, or the entire eco-
nomic assistance package to Africa. It
surpassed the total economic aid planned
for all of Latin America or the Middle
East. It is one-fifth of all U.S. economic
aid worldwide.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
S 15396 Approved For ReleCONSREASORWRIROMISOP?Mfteff00060018-4Auvust A; 1974
No?we will not be leaving South Viet-
nam "high and dry." ?
To conclude, Mr. President, there is no
reason why the American taxpayer
ehould be called upon to pay $700 million
Leis year for supporting the South Viet-
namese military machine.
Keeping military aid to South Vietnam
t the same level as the 'Senate approved
lact year, when taken in the context of
our raging inflation at home, is the very
least we can do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. FELL. Mr. President, I am pleased
to cosponsor the amendment of Senator
PROXMIRE to the fiscal year 1975 Depart-
ment of Defense approptiations bill. The
amendment, which would reduce mili-
tary aid to South Vietnam to last year's
level of $550 million, is a necessary step
in the process of phasing out the Amer-
ican role in Indochina.
Those who oppose the reduction in
military aid claim that additional aid
will enable South Vietnam to turn the
corner and attain economic and military
self-sufficiency. Yet this. Is a refrain that
we have heard for too many years. The
United States has sacrificed 50,000 lives
and hundreds of billions of dollars to
prevent the imposition of a militaty solu-
tion in Vietnam. "Vietnamization" has
had ample opportunity to prove itself
the burden of defense must Increasingly
be borne by the South Vietnamese them-
selves.
By reducing American aid, we will be
saving precious funds we can ill-afford
to spare. More important, the United
States will be demonstrating its firm
conviction that political accommodation
must be found in Vietnam. Our aim
should not be military victory for the
south, but rather a political settlement
consonant with the Paris Accords of
January 1973. Reconciliation and recon-
struction, long overdue, require a context
of peace. The continuing war in Vietnam,
to a significant extent made possible by
American arms supplied to the south,
must come to an end.
RECESS FOR 30 MINUTES
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move that the Senate stand in
recess for 30 minutes.
The motion was egreed to; and, at
4:35 p.m., the Senate took a recess until
5:05 p.m.; whereupon the Senate reas-
sembled when called to order by the
Presiding Officer (Mr. Ttneeray).
DEPARTMENT OF DEraNSE
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1975
The Senate continued with the con-
siderationeef the bill (H.R. 16243) mak-
ing appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, and for other purposes.
Mr. CLARK obtained the floor.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
I ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ator from Iowa not be deprived of his
rights to the floor because of the quorum
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative cleric pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be reminded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I wish to
add my name as a cosponsor of amend-
ment No. 1810.
applaud the significant reductions
voted by the Appropriations Committee
under Senator McCeeeeen's leadership
in this appropriations bill. However, in
my judge-lent, there :s a need and an op-
portunity for additional reductions.
Specifically, Senator PROXMIRE has pre-
sented a most persuasive case for reduc-
ing the military assistance appropriation
to South Vietnam from $700 to $550 mil-
licae To get a complete picture of U,S.
assistance to South Vietnam, WE must
Include the $420 million for postwar re-
construction recommended by the For-
eign Relations Committee in the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1975 and the $160.5 mil-
lion in commodity sales and food-for-
Peace funds included in Public Law 480.
Total aid to South Vietnam then, with
the cuts suggested by Senator PROXMIRE,
Will still approach $1.13 billion. Surely,
this is more-than-generous support, to
a less-than-model regime, in these most
inflationary times.
There are positive and compelling rea-
sons for limiting our military assistance
to South Vietnam. Senator Peoxesme has
cataloged quite comprehensively the
groes imbalance between Soviet-Chinese
aid to the North and American aid to the
South?We provide eight times as much
aid to South Vietnam as the Communists
provide to North Vietnam?and he has
pointed out the waste and corruption
which our aid has generated.
The problem of a political settlement
in South Vietnam is a key argument in
favor of this amendment, because a re-
sponsible limitation of our aid can en-
courage such a long-overdue settlement.
With each new weapon we supply the
South Vietnamese, the incentives for the
two adversaries to negotiate are further
eroded. This is not to say that we should
blanie the South Vieenamese alone for
continuing the largest war on Earth or
that we shonld allow their army to be-
come weak. But by limiting our military
assistance, wedo signal ally and adver-
sary alike that it is time to negotiate.
The enormous and disproportionate
U.S. military assistance undermines the
Communist powers' belief in America's
peaceful intentions in Vietnam, and
despite a carefully built detente, the pos-
sibility of a cooperative American-So-
viet-Chinese effort to force both sides to
observe the Paris agreement is jeoPar-
dized. Only through this cooperative ef-
fort, with each side bringing pressure to
bear on both the North and the South
to abide by the Paris agreements, wel we
have peace in that land. Surely we should
have learned by now that there is no
military solution to the war in Vietnam.
Today, we can begin to change that.
By limiting the military assist ince ap-
propriated for South Vietnam to the
level approved by the Senate last year,
we will responsibly reduce Federal ex-
penditures, while encouraging a real
Peace in Vietnam.
Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. President, I
rise in opposition to the pending meas-
ure. In all due respect to the Senator
from Wisconsin, whose efforts to cut the
budget I applaud?as! generally go along
with him?I must *element that the
Committee on Appropriations has done
an outstanding job he reducing the de-
fense budget. I believe the cut is slightly
in excess of $5 bill/oil
I am not going to argue, as I normally
would, about that cut, because I think
there are places in the militare budget
that can be cut, and Z am sure the dis-
tinguished chairman from Arka isa.s has
carefully worked on that bill. I can
understand the desire of the Senator
from Wisconsin to cut the money that
we have promised to South Vietnam, but
I am afraid that son* of his informa-
tion, even though it .comes from high
members of the Defense Department,
does not jibe exactly with information
that I have from equally high people.
What the Senator does not realize is
that the North Vietnamese have been
preparing for this massive offensive for
a long time. That offensive is underway.
Contrary to what he may have been
told, the offensive is Underway end the
North Vietnamese are in better shape to
pursue a successful campaign at this
time than they have been at any time in
the 20 years that this long war has gone
on.
Even though the figure that he uses,
that we give eight times the aid that the
Soviets in Red China give to North Viet-
nam, I think if one reduces it to cost, one
will find that they prebably give a little
more than we do in actual equipment.
They have not only rebuilt the a r bases
that were used in the area Just south of
the DMZ; they have built new peved
runways north of the DMZ and south of
the DMZ.
They,have a petroleum pipeline that
now can service air units and reservice
ground units to the very close proximity
of Saigon. They have railroads halt to-
ward the south that they did not have
before and, as I have mentionece some
greatly improved roads.
So far, Mr. President, I feel that if
we renege on giving South Vietnam what
we told her we would give, South Viet-
nam is going to be in a very bad way.
It is true that there has been graft over
there. It is true that they have ntisused
our equipment. I have been in that part
of the world. In fact, in World War Ii
I served in that part of the world. Mis-
using equipment and haying dishonesty
among the military seam to be a way
of life for them. It has always been.
But the important thing, I believe, is
that?and 'lye cannot laugh this oft?
with the present ability of the North
Vietnamese to wage a successfie, war
the whole of Vietnam can become a
Communist part of this world. ihen 1
have to remind my colleagues that when
this happens, Laos undoubtedly will fall,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
_August 20.,':174 Approved b5/1$8ainiagria6w0iffj4.0133Thiati3BOR000700060018-4 S 15397
Cambodia will fall. Then we are going
to be confronted with a question of what
we do about our very valued allied, the
Thais.
Just to the south of Thailand, in fact,
on the Thai peninsula, is the opportu-
nity to build a canal or a pipeline across
the isthmus that will make the delivery
of oil to our own shores and to our ally,
Japan, that much easier. If we lose all
of Southeast Asia, Mr. President, because
we want to renege on the money that we
have promised them, then I think the
United States is going to wind up suf-
fering far, far more than the $150 mil-
lion that is involved in the Senator's
amendment.
Mr. President, for these reasons, for
the very great importance of Southeast
Asia, whether we like to believe it or not,
I hope that my colleagues will vote
against this amendment. I should not
want this to discourage my friend from
Wisconsin from offering further amend-
ments to cut. As he knows, I generally
go along with him. But in this one, I
think we are taking a risk that we can-
not afford to take.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator
yield briefly?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator
for a very fair and moderate statement
on this amendment. I should like to ask
the Senator, though, how long he would
expect us to go along with this billion
dollar aid, in effect, when we consider
the economic aid and the military aid,
because the average the Committee on
Foreign Relations is recommending is
that the Senate provide half a billion
dollars in economic aid. We are providing
$700 million here in military assistance,
so it will be well over a, billion dollars. It
Just seems to be endless. We just seem to
be going on forever.
It has been a 20-year war. We are now
out of it by a year and a half or so. It
seedis like an endless, hopeless expendi-
ture.
Mr. GOLDWATER. In answer to that
question, I think that we can reach an
agreement that if we do not show a
military ability to resist the enemy within
the next 12 months, we can well say that
is all we are going to do.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Does not the Senator
agree that the South Vietnamese have
done well enough, that all the indications
are, on the basis of the testimony of the
Secretary of Defense, of Admiral Moorer
and others, that they are doing extremely
well? They have taken more hamlets
than the North Vietnamese have taken.
Their position does seem to be strong,
and we are providing, with this sub-
stantial amount, far more than the other
side is providing; eight times as much.
Mr. GOLDWATER. As I mentioned
earlier, the eight times figure can be a
misleading one because of the difference
in their currency and ours, and the dif-
ference in the costs of building our
equipment and their equipment. But I
would accept the eight times figures.
However, I believe that in hardware,
they are probably getting as much, if not
a little more.
I related, when I think the Senator
was talking to someone else, the fact
that they have built roads, they have
built a petroleum line. They have built
airbases that will accommodate Mig's.
We have not given them anything,
really, in modern aircraft. Their best
aircraft that they use from us is the
A-37, which, at its best, is a very light-
weight, easily destroyed attack fighter,
while they are going up against Mig's,
that even we were not up against in
large numbers during our stay in that
country.
I think the test, to answer the Sena-
tor's question, will be what happens in
this present engagement. If the South
Vietnamese can resist it, then I think we
should take another look at it next year.
If they cannot resist it, then I certainly
would not favor throwing more money
into it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I hope we can come
to some kind of conclusion on this, be-
cause for so many years, as I say, this
has been going on, year after year. We
say, "We shall just continue it another
year, take a harder look at it next time."
In the midst of tremendous inflation,
it is a great burden on the American
people, and with the enormous contri-
bution we have made to South Vietnam,
compared to anything from the outside,
it seems to me that this is a limited,
modest request which I make of the
Senator.
Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator yield
to me?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I am happy to yield
to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, the
thing that bothers me is not so much
the money that is involved. The thing
that bothers me is the principle that is
involved.
I can remember only too well that cold
day in January of 1961 when President
Kennedy stood before the world and
said:
Let the world know, whether they bear us
ill will or good will, that we shall endure
any hard,ship, make any sacrifice, support
any friend, resist any foe, in the cause of
freedom.
That is what America believed.
That is what America is doing. That
is why we became involved in Vietnam.
That is why we became involved in
South Korea.
Now what do we find, in 1974? I picked
up a newspaper last week and read that
a Catholic bishop, a Protestant minister,
and several governmental officials in
South Vietnam, by the process of a secret
martial tribunal, had been put in jail
because they were enemies of the state.
Why were they enemies of the state?
Because they disagreed with the prin-
ciples of the man in power.
Is that what we are spending Ameri-
can taxpayers' money for?
Take South Vietnam. We have heard
about the tiger cages. We have heard
about political adversaries being put in
prison. I ask, what are we spending our
money for? What is this all about?
We have spent, up to today, $146 bil-
lion in Vietnam. We have suffered more
than 45,000 dead, 303,000 wounded, 2,600
paraplegics?young boys today in Amer-
ica who are in wheelchairs, who cannot
even light their own cigarettes. We have
13,000 missing in action.
What price must we pay for this in-
dependence and this freedom that we
are talking about, when there is no free-
dom in those countries?
I think the time has come when we
have to reassess ourselves and find out
where we are going. And I say to my
friends here in the Senate, yes, maybe
we cannot bring an abrupt closing to
this charade, to this imposition on the
American taxpayers, but something
needs to be done. I agree with the Sen-
ator from Vermont (Mr. AIKEN) , who a
long time ago said that all we have to
do is declare that we have served our
purpose and we are getting out of South
Vietnam. We would have been well off
if we had done it at that time.
Today we are having problems. We
are being told by the President of the
United States that we have got to say
no?no to housing for the elderly, no
to aid for elementary schools, no to all
of the things that we need here in
America, because we have not got the
money.
Here we are, meeting here today: We
are asked to shell out almost another
billion dollars to South Vietnam. And
let me tell you something: With the
evolution of time and the vicissitudes
that are involved, unless they stand up
and fight for their own freedom, and
stop the corruption in South Vietnam
which we have witnessed up to now, we
are going to be in a bad way.
We are in a bad way. Let me say very
frankly, I believe what we do for Ameri-
cans will never bankrupt this Nation, but
the way we are spending our money
abroad will bring us to bankruptcy, and
the sooner we begin to realize that, the
better off we are going to be.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend
to support the amendment of the dis-
tinguished Senator from Wisconsin, and
I have asked to be a cosponsor of the
amendment.
I know the arguments that have been
made here earlier in the afternoon, and
during the recent past. We have heard
talk about the buildup, the increased ac-
tivities of the North Vietnamese in the
South, the concentrations of military
equipment, and the threat of military
expansion by the North Vietnamese in
contradiction to the agreements that
were made in Paris. But I am also mind-
ful of the testimony that was given by
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell before the
Armed Services Committee earlier this
year, when he testified that outside some
so-called landgrabs in the immediate
post-cease-fire period, the overall control
of territory has not changed adversely to
the South Vietnamese; and in fact he in-
dicated that the Saigon forces have in-
creased their territorial and population
control since the time of the cease-fire.
He also testified earlier in the year,
when questioned about it, that the dan-
ger of a potential offensive by the North
Vietnamese was also no longer considered
an immediate threat.
But there is another factor, Mr. Presi-
dent. I ask the proponent of the amend-
ment whether he is aware of the state-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
S 15398 Approved For ReltrAMMAElikoPRir0s3E8NORAOTOE0700060018-4
August 20, 1974
ment that was made by the American
Ambassador in Saigon when he was
asked about what shmild be the eon-
tribution of aid and asisistance by the
United States, in its sport of South
Vietnam, as compared with the con-
tributions that would I* made by the
Chinese and the Soviet innion to North
Vietnam.
He indicated, as showd in a cable that
we placed in the proceedtags of the Sub-
committee on Refugees, that he "wOUld
completely agree that our intention all
along was to balance theatid being giVen
by the Soviet Union and the People's
Republic of China to linnth Vietnam."
And he "thought we should give material
and training?to Saigon?to match that
being given to North Vietnam by the
Soviets and the Chinese."
Mr. President, when you consider
what the whole direction, what the trend
has been over the period of recent
years?certainly in the last 3 years?you
find, according to Defense Intelligence
Agency estimates, that there has been
a dramatic decline in military assistance
being provided North Vietnam by the
Soviet Union as well as by the Chinese,
and that there has been a slight reduc-
tion in economic aid as well.
As a matter of fact, the Defense In-
telligence Agency estimates that in 1973
there was eight times as -much military
aid to Indochina provided by the United
States as that provided by the U.S.S.R.
and China. And any review of the last
year, as I understand recant estimates?
even though the figures have not been
developed comprehensively for the
whole year?would show that this trend
has continued. Reduction in military as-
sistance by the Soviet Unbsn and reduc-
tion in military assistance by the People's
Republic of China, but an increase in
total military assistance by the United
States to South Vietnam. It makes no
sense.
I want to commend the Appropriations
Committee for the job that they haVe
done in many different areas of the re-
quest for appropriations. Itio feel that in
this area, and in the few others which I
Intend to talk about as this debate con-
tinues, it makes very little sense for the
United States to be asked for an in-
crease in money, especiallY for military
assistance to South Vietnatn.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. Does the senator know
that in Paris they agreed that insofar
as the surveillance commission was con-
cerned, the North Vietnamese, the Viet-
cong, and South Vietnaixt would each
make a contribution to the commission?
The North Vietnamese hate not paid a
dime, and the Vietcong have not paid
a dime. And what do you think our
State Department has done? They have
tsked us to pay the whole bill,
How stupid can we become? This is an
-,naposition upon the American taxpayer.
All I am saying is that before we stop
building homes for the elderly in our
own country, let us cut out some of this
commitment abroad.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield very briefly on that
point?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Which I think is an
excellent point, that is, comparing our
aid to South Vietnam with the aid by the
Soviet Union and the People's Republic
of China to North Vietnam. The Sena-
tor's figures were the same figurer; that
I have seen from the Defense Intelli-
genee Agency. In addition, estimates of
the aid by the Soviet Union and the Peo-
ple'a Republic of China were said to be
$290 million for calendar 1973, compared
to $2.3 billion in military aid by the
United States to South Vietnam.
Furthermore, while the Chinese and
Russian arms shipments were reduced by
more than one-half from 1972 to 1973,
we increased our shipments by $286 mil-
lion in the same 1-year period.
So if there ever has been a case?a
clear, documented case on the basis of
the only record we have, from the De-
fense Intelligence Agency?foe us to
make a reduction, it is here.
And, as I say, I am not asking to elim-
inate this military assistance to South
Vietnam. I am asking tO make a reduc-
tion back to the level that the Senate
recommended last year. .
Mr. KENNEDY. I think this amend-
ment makes sense.
The American Ambassador in Saigon
has indicated that we, as a matter of
policy, ought to keep our aid in some kind
of balance. He did not indicate how long
this balance should go on, and I think the
Senator is quite correct in asking the
question about how long_ we should ex-
pect the American taxpayer to continue
to pay for what is a very substantial :mili-
tary assistance program.
But, be that as it may, we have seen
the dramatic decrease by these who are
supplying the North Vietnamese, while
we increase or maintain the levels of our
suppOrt to South Vietnam.
Fieally, I would say this, Mr: President.
When we compare this kind of military
assistance against our humanitarian as-
sistance to South Vietnam, we find it is
far less. Obviously, we have an ongoing
and continuing responsibility, I think, in
the name of humanitarianism, to provide
for the needs of the million-odd orphans
In South Vietnam, the thousands of
young children who have lost arms and
legs?and I believe that responsibility
even extends to a child who happens to
have lived north of the parallel and had
his legs blown off. We have these kinds of
responsibilities which aid based upon our
humanitarian concern for individuals
and people.
But we have had very little leadership
from our Government in that area. We
have had very little diplomatic initia-
tives to support these programs, or in-
crease our funding for them.
We do not even hear voices saying,
"We are going to be able to do the
humanitarian job and provide that ea-
sistance if we are able to provide this
level of military assistance as well." We
find a woeful lack of diplomatic initia-
elves or governmental concern in trying
to end the fighting for which we bear a
very heavy reepeonsibilitY.
It always amazes me to find that the
great majority of Americans believe this
war is over and ended, simply because
we are not shedding American blood. But
the war is continuing, and we have an
ongoing responsibility to bring that con-
flict to an end, and to help the victims
of that war. Yet we have seen shameful
little in new initiatiVes in this area,,
despite the brilliance of our diplomacy
in other areas?and I have commended
the Secretary of State for his actions in
the Middle East and in other areas of
the world. But the policy of d?nte and
negotiation ought to be renewed le Indo-
china, instead of endless support of end-
less war.
But, nonetheless, the war continues.
And it seems to me that for all of these
reasons the amendment of the Senator
from Wisconsin (Mr. Peoxsente) seauld
be agreed to.
All it is saying is that we should con-
tinue military assistance to South Viet-
nam?which is very substantial--at the
same rate as last year, and no more. I
think this is a responsible amendment.
I wish we had been able to win the
votes to see some gradual modification
and some reduction in-our militery aid'
program. I think that would have been
responsible indeed. But, it seems to me,
this amendment is the bare minimum,
and it certainly should be supPoited by
the majority of the Members of the Sen-
ate who are, I think, concerned about
peace in that part of the world an cl. who
have a sense of priority in terms of
humanitarian needs, and who ars con-
cerned about achieving a change Ii atti-
tude by the Government of South Viet-
nam in trying to reach some negotiated
settlement to end, once and for all, the
conflict in Vietnam.
Mr. SYlVIINGTON. Mr. President, I
support the amendment of the distin-
guished Senator from Wisconsin.
In 1961, on the famous trip oi Gen.
Maxwell Taylor and Mr. Walt Rostow,
I went to Vietnam; in 1965 I went aU
over the country; in 1966 I went all over
the country from top to bottom: E nd in
1967 I went all over the country.
I came back and told President ,John-
son that, in my opinion, every penny that
we spent from there on out was wasted
money.
In 1972 I went back and saw ncthing
to persuade me that I had not been nein
in 1967. I can remember making an ad-
dress in Kansas City in the fall of 1967
and, afterward invited questions from
the audience. A young man asked, "Ave
you saying that 13,500 of our best /Imes -
leans have died in vain?"
I said, "Well, my answer to you would
be by putting another question. Would
you rather kill 13,500 more than admit
that you made a mistake?"
Mr. President, that figure of the
number of men who were killed became
54,000, four times the number who had
died up until the fall of 1967.
I told the President at that time that
I felt all the money that we put into the;
country would be wasted because, with -
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Release 2005/06/09i CIA-RDP755100260R000700060018-4 s 15399
*August 20, 1974, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SEN A
out our heavy military support, as well
as our political influence, the govern-
ment in Saigon could not last.
I have never changed by mind since
1967. I have consistently supportedT all
those who worked for a reduction in
military aid to this country.
It is for those reasons that I am glad
to support the Proxmire amendment.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield to the Sen-
ator from South Carolina (Mr. Timm-
MONO) .
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
rise in opposition to the Proxmire amend-
ment.
The administration originally favored
a budget for South Vietnam of $1.6 bil-
lion. But this, I believe, was reduced to
$1.45 billion. The House authorized $1.126
billion. The Senate authorized $900
million.
The conference between the Senate
and the House agreed upon $1 billion.
Now there was appropriated by the
House $700 million.
The Senate Appropriations Committee
also authorized the same amount as the
House, $700 million.
Mr. President, any further reduction
will seriously cripple the South Viet-
namese capability to defend themselves
and will be a violation of the clear under-
standings they had from us at the time
of the cease-fire.
A level of funding of less than $700
million would be a drastic cut in support.
At fiscal year 1974 levels of enemy activ-
ity, a program of $550 million as proposed
In this amendment, will probably cause
the Government of South Vietnam to
abandon large segments of the country
and would weaken the prospects for a
negotiated political settlement.
The weaknesses such a reduction
would cause will be fully recognized by
Hanoi. This level invites increased, not
reduced, hostilities.
A ceiling of $700 million or less would
mean:
0. & M. funds would have to be used
primarily to support only selected opera-
tional requirements. Many critical opera-
tional requirements could not be sup-
ported.
Next, POL will be reduced more than
25 percent from the planned level. There
will be more than a 20-percent reduction
In current line-haul transportation ca-
pacity?essential to a viable defensive
posture.
Next, communications will be critically
weakened. Command and control will
decay from shortages.
Next, ground ammunition will be
funded at less than 50 to 60 percent of
the Defense-recommended program of
$401 million. There would be a dangerous
drawdown of incountry stocks. Ammuni-
tion provided at this level will not begin
to sustain the fiscal year 1974 level of
combat?a level dicated by Hanoi. Am-
munition restrictions already in effect
have begun to affect the morale of the
South Vietnamese soldier and have
caused a definite increase in casualties.
Now, Mr. President, many people who
did not favor the war at all in Vietnam
and have favored a smaller amount to
help South Vietnam since the war ended
have begun to reappraise the situation
and take another view of it.
For instance, the Washington Post?
and everyone knows that paper's position
on this matter?of August 11, 1974, con-
tains an editorial entitled "Aid For Viet-
nam." Even the Washington Post has
come out for adequate aid to South Viet-
nam. I congratulate this paper upon its
change in attitude in this matter.
I quote a paragraph here from the
editorial:
We now conclude that it is wrong to try
to make Saigon alone observe the agreement,
to its political detriment, when Hanoi is
under no similar pressure to observe its side
of the agreement. Unilateral pressure, fur-
thermore, preclude's a new American ap-
proach to Moscow and Peking?an approach
we believe should be made?to reduce fur-
ther all outsiders' roles, especially as arms
suppliers.
Another paragraph in the editorial
reads:
The only correct basis for phrasing out aid,
we now believe, is a determination that it
no longer is important to the United States
what happens in South Vietnam, A powerful
case for this can be made: the United States
has invested an immense amount of blood,
treasure and prestige in Vietnam, won that
country the opportunity to fend for itself,
and now has its own good reason to turn
aside. But if this determination is to be made,
we Americans owe to ourselves?and to the
Vietnamese and to others elsewhere who rely
upon us?to make it openly. To pledge
fidelity but to reduce our support progres-
sively or even precipitately is to undermine
both interest and honor. If the Oongress in
its fatigue or wisdom?whatever the mix?is
to pare aid this year and to threaten to cut
even more next year, it should have the cour-
age to announce that it no longer considers
the outcome in Vietnam as a matter of
American consequence.
Now, Mr. President, do we consider the
outcome in South Vietnam a matter of
serious consequence?
I should think we would. I should think
it is important that we want to see South
Vietnam remain free. We know if South
Vietnam goes down the drain, Cambodia,
Laos, maybe Thailand, and other coun-
tries in that part of the world will go
down the drain. The whole of Southeast
Asia will probably go down the drain.
That will place this country at a tremen-
dous handicap in that part of the world.
We know it is necessary for South
Vietnam to have aid if it is to deter Com-
munist aggression, and if we are going
to give meaning to the sacrifices made
in South Vietnam, the more than 55,000
men who died over there, the more than
300,000 wounded, casualties, over there,
and the billions of dollars we spent in
South Vietnam.
Mr. President, we have a policy there.
Are we going to live up to it? Are we
going to back down from it? Are we go-
ing to step aside and say to the world
that although we promised Vietnam a
tank for a tank and a gun for a gun that
now we will not deliver?
Well, we cannot deliver unless we pro-
vide for the aid that is needed. $700 mil-
lion is bare bones; it is a bare minimum.
_I would remind you again that the
administration feels that twice that
much is necessary. I would remind you
that the conference committee of the
Senate Armed Services and the House
Armed Services, the men who have
studied this matter in depth in confer-
ence, agreed on a billion dollars.
Now, the Senate Appropriations Com-
mittee cut it to $700 million, but the
amendment of the distinguished Sen-
ator from Wisconsin would now reduce
it to $550 million, $150 million less than
the Senate Appropriations Committee
agreed upon.
Mr. President, it would be a great mis-
take, in my judgment, if we do not pro-
vide a minimum, a minimum, of $700
million for aid to South Vietnam.
I hope that our colleagues will think
about this matter and not allow Vietnam
to go down the drain. I cannot see how
anybody could favor this amendment if
they want to see South Vietnam remain
free. Certainly it is to the advantage of
the Free World that South Vietnam re-
main free, it is? to the advantage of the
United States that South Vietnam re-
main free, and from our own selfish in-
terests, our oWn national interests, we
ought to favor SOuth Vietnam remaining
free.
Now, there is another paragraph in
this editorial that I want to quote from:
We think that Americans would not like
to live in a world where a small nation that
had strong reason to rely on American stead-
fastness had been let down.
Quoting again from another para-
graph:
We are convinced, nonetheless, that the
principle of American steadfastness deserves
to be honored as best we can.
Mr. President, does the honor of Amer-
ica mean anything, does our honor, our
commitment, mean anything, does our
promise to South Vietnam mean any-
thing?
Are we going to live up to it? We can-
not live up to it if we cut this appropria-
tion bill further and I believe that the
people of this country want to see us live
up to our commitment and help keep
South Vietnam free.
If South Vietnam goes down the drain
the people lose freedom there, and all the
fighting in South Vietnam has been in
vain. How do the mothers who have lost
their sons over there feel about this?
How do those 300,000 injured, 300,000
casualties, feel about it? Do they want
anything done?
Do they want to feel that their sons
lost their lives in vain?
I should think not.
Mr. President, I want to say that the
President of the United States is opposed
to this amendment I am informed, I say
to you that the Secretary of State is
opposed to this amendment I am in-
formed, I say to you that the Secretary
of Defense is opposed to this amendment
I am informed.
Mr. President, when the conference
committee of the Senate Armed Services
and the House Armed Services, who are
supposed to be experts in this field, go
along unanimously and favor $1 billion
for this cause, and when your President
and your Secretary of State and your
Secretary of Defense all come along and
say that they favor a reasonable amount
and oppose this amendment, then I think
it is time for the Senate, for my col-
leagues here, to hearken and to think
and appraise this situation and not allow
South Vietnam to go down the drain.
These brave people have fought and
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75B00380R000700060018-4
S 15400
Approved For Reltmanr6LQ9 ? CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
MONA', RECORD SENATE August 20, la ;;
they have suffered, probably like no peo-
ple in any other country. They belong to
the free world. Do we want to see them
put under the heel of the Commimist
dictator? Do we want Oa- see them lose
their right to freedom? I hope that we
rend not permit that.
Mr. President, Secretary Kissinger, in
a letter that he wrote tor the Honorable
JOHN C. STENNIS, Chairman of the Calla-
inittee on Armed Servicei of the Senate,
had this to say:
With regard to South Vietnam, I have a
very personal sense of obligation to do every-
thing I can to make go ct on our moral
cmmitment to assist that station in its !sur-
vival as an independent state. The adminis-
tration's request for $1.6 billion in military
assistance was made beast= of our conic-
tion that the survival of South Vietnam is
indispensable?
Mr. President, did we catch that, that
the survival of South Vietnam is indis-
Pensable7 That is what the head of the
Department of State says?
to the creation of an enduring structure of
peace in Southeast Asia. Without our mili-
tary assistance. south Vietnam's ability to
resist Communist military pressures, fueled
by an extensive flow of arnis and supplies
from, the North, would be critically endan-
gered.
In other words, it sirniffy means that
South Vietnam cannot servive if we do
not give them adequate assistance.
I hope, Mr. President, that my col-
leagues will think over this matter. I
hope that they will reach a conclusion
that we cannot let South Vietnam go
down the drain. I hope they will ap-
preciate the hard fighting and the suf-
fering that these people have done to
maintain their freedom and not now
throw up our hands and say to the World,
"We no longer have any liaterest In the
freedom of the people thitere. America is
no longer interested In thid part of the
world. It can just go, go to the winds."
Mr. President, I do not believe that is
the feeling of the people pf America._ I
know it is not in the best Interest of the
people of America as well as the peo
of Vietnam. I hope that the Senate will
s to kill this amendment.
FORMER SENATOR KARL muNta
Mr. cCLELLAN. Mr. President, Diet
Friday, ust 17, 1974, Zeal Mundt,
former Se and Representative from
South Dakota, a dear friend, passed
away after a ion fruitful career of
service to his comm State, and
his country. He had a sch
teacher, public schools _ istrat
college professor, and official i
ernment of South Dakota before
elected to the 76th Congress. He s
aye terms in the House of Repi
Lives and three full terms in the ? ate.
The character of a man, howev , can-
aot be fully gauged by the-en eration
of the offices which he has held lthough
hey do indicate a conside measure
of public esteem. Karl M as I knew
inni in the Senate, was a an of high
deals and great integr a man of
eision and noble purpos a man of true
(indication to the inter ts Of the people
with whom he identified and whom he
epresented so ably.
Karl Mundt's sphere of interests was
more extensive than most of the public
was aware. Although his accomplish-
ments In the fields of conservation fiscal
responsibility, and sound, government
operations were nubile knowledge, his ac-
tivities in the realm of foreign relations
were not so well known. One of his great
dreams was the establishment of a Free-
dom Academy which would prepare
young students as potential diplomats to
disseminate the philosophy of peace in
then' assignments to foreign countries.
He was not critical of the service schools
which trained young men in the skills
and science of defense. He realized this
was necessary for the protection of our
country. But he felt more emphasis
should be placed on diplomatic training
of our young people to insure peaceful
coexistence with other peoples or the
world.
One of his most cherished appoint-
ments was as a representative to NA
During the latter period of his SE-
with this organization, he became e
man of the Educational and Culture -
change Committee, a post whic de-
manded much of his rime and e Ties.
It was shortly after his return am a
meeting of this committee in se/s?
in Oetober of 1969?that he w stricken
by Use illness from which h ver fully
recovered.
Senator Mundt and I ed together
on the Government Ope ens Commit-
tee. While I was chair of the com-
mittee, he was for mar ears the rank-
ing minority member. e also served to-
gether for many y on the Senate
Permanent Subco ttee on Investiga-
tions?I as chai and he as ranking
minority member.: ring our tenure on
this subcommit we conducted more
Investigations d held more hearings
and made m reports to the Senate
than possibly ave ever been conducted,
held, and by any other investigat-
ing commi in the history of the Con-
gress. Our ervice together on the Sen-
ate AP betimes Comniittee was an-
other mining and vital interest
whichshared for some 17 years.
In performance cif his duties, both
in co ttee and in the Senate Cham-
ber,as able, vigorous, dedicated, in-
di s, and effective. His friendship was
a t to be treasured by those fortunate
ugh to be so blessed. I consider my-
among those thus designated, and
all keep his regard fait me in cherished
mernbrance. In this context and in
awareness of the lasting effect Karl
Mundt and his works and have on those
living after him. I recall the words of an
unknown poet as he spoke of greatness:
an is as great as the dreams he dreams:
as the love he bears;
e values he redeems,
he sha.-es,
the thoughts he
As gr
And the
A man is as
As the worth he h
As the, fountains at
And the insight he has gain
man is as great as the tru
As great as the help he elves;
,-'.s great as the destiny he s seks,
As great as the life he lives.
I believe these words are as applicable
to Karl Mundt as any I have aver read.
:le was a man?statesnian and Arneri-
ined;
drinks,
canenwhoni history
our Nation's great.
Mrs. McClellan ex
sympathy along wit
Mundt. We share wi
ator's devoted staff
loss in the pass
colleague,
d smartie
her deepest
to Mrs.
er and tie Sen-
e of personal
a dear friend and
ORDER OURNMENT UNTIL
9: ? TOMORROW
Mr. M IELD. Mr, President, I ask
unanimo consent that when tin Sen-
ate corn s its business today, it stand
in adi ent until 9:30 A.M. teener-
row.
T PRESIDING OrhICER. Without
obi on, it is so ordered.
DER OF BUSINESS TOMO:RROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, at
10 a.m. debate on the pending amend-
ment will occur, the time to be equally
divided between the distinguished Sena-
tor from Arkansas, the manager of the
bill, Mr. MCCLELLAN, and the disinguished
Senator from Wisconsin, the' sponsorof
the amendment, Mr. PROXIVIIRE, ant the
vote to occur at the how' of 11.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
ORDER FOR THE RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR BARTLETT TOMORROW
Mr. ROBERT C. Byar). Mr. Preildent.
I ask unanimous consent that en to-
morrow, after the two leaders or their
designees have been recognized under
the standing order, Mr. BARTLETT be rec-
ognized for not to exceed 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. W theist
objection, it is so otelered,
ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION OF
DEFENSE .ArteROPRIATION MIL
TOMORROW
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that at the
hour of 10 o'clock tomorrow morning
the Senate resume consideration of the
Defense appropriation bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoin
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCLEOLAN. We have 1 hoer, et;
I recall, equally divided in time.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That
correct.
Mr. President, t_suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESFDING OFFICER. The cle k
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
ROB I' C. BYRD. Mr. Presi ient,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded
The PRESIDING Oteeatee.at. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR PERIOD FOR TRANSAC
TION OF ROUTINE MORNING
BUSINESS TOMORROW
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous cement that aftex the
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Augurt 21, 19 7.4 p roved FOCERGRESSICESSERISEGM-EtDPME5114128D R00070006001 8-4
The PRESIDING OFFICER.. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and It
is so ordered.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
PRIATION ACT, 19'75
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 16243) mak-
ing appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 1855
_
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call
up rny amendment No. 1835.
The PRESIDING Or`FICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask
tmanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFIchat. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
fore these weapons could be turned over
to other countries.
In fact, when the General Accounting
Office reported its findings to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee last month,
the Defense Department objected to the
GAO's use of the word "authorization" as
being required prior to the transfer of
stockpiled items to these Asian allies.
The Department argued instead that
only "consultation" with the Congress
was required.
I find this appropriation objectionable
on two counts. First, it could mean that
congressionally established ceilings?on
aid to Vietnam, for example?could be-
come meaningless if the Defense Depart-
ment can circumvent those ceilings by
comingling U.S. and allied reserve stock-
piles, and thereby escape congressional
control over their distribution. Second, it
means that we are being asked?at a
time of difficult economic circum-
stances?to boost our own Defense budg-
et for the purpose of meeting the future
Mr. KENNEDY'S amendment (No. 1835) military_ needs of South Vietnam, South
is as follows: /Korea, and Thailand. Clearly, this major
On page '50, line 21, insert a new section / item should be considered as part of the
as follows: k foreign aid request, not as a disguised
SEC. .(a) No funds appropriated for the
use of the Department of Defense by this or account in the DOD appropriations bill.
any other Act in fiscal year 1975 may be used
for the purpose of stockpiling war materials
or equipment for use by any Asian country
except to the extent authorized by title VII
of this Act or by the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 or the Foreign Military Sales Act.
(b) Any materials or equipment stock-
piled by the Department of Defense on the
date of enactment of this Act for future use
by any Asian country may not be transferred
to any such country except to the extent
such transfer is specifically authorized by
law.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is
an amendment that deals with the war
reserve stocks for allies. The amendment
was initially accepted by the Senate last
June, as part of the Defense Authoriza-
tion bill, but it was dropped in confer-
ence because of the opposition of the
House conferees. Hopefully, they will
have a different attitude this time in
conference.
Specifically, Mr. President, this
amendment will prohibit $529 million
from being used for war reservd stocks
for allies. This ambiguous account is re-
portedly used to obtain weapons and
-ammunition on a contingent basis for
the support of forces in the event of a
future war involving South Vietnam,
South Korea, or Thailand.
This new ftinding account, quietly
built up in the last 2 fiscal years, has
not gone through the authorizing com-
mittees of the Congress. It is a back-door
means of bolstering increased procure-.
merits by the Defense Department.
When the disguised account was dis-
covered by Senator FOLDRIGHT last
spring, the Defense Department ex-
Piained it as being used for supporting
these three allies?South Vietnam,
South Korea, and Thailand. At the same
time, the Defense Department stated
that the equipment remained in stock-
piles controlled by the United States.
However, the Department would not
state that, inthe event of hostilities, con-
gressional authorization was required be-
The Defense Department now argues
that much of the new equipment pur-
chased by this account goes directly to
the U.S. active military forces and the
U.S. Reserves. If that is the purpose of
these funds, then they should not be cate-
gorized as "war reserve stocks for allies."
Moreover, the GAO has informed me
that there is a circle at work: Even if
some of these weapons go to U.S. troops
in the field, the weapons that are re-
placed go to the Reserves and/or to the
stockpile. Then, once in the stockpile,
there is a clear tendency for the supplies
to be declared excess and turned over to
South Vietnam, South Korea, and Thai-
land. Thus, the will of Congress can be
thwarted by the backdoor.
The process is misleading in another
way. For example, in fiscal year 1973, the
Defense Department listed $24,3 million
In excess stocks as going to South Viet-
nam, $6.4 million as going to Thailand,
and $8.3 million as going to South Korea.
But those figures are what the DOD calls
actual value, not the acquisition cost of
the supplies. The GAO found that the
Department of Defense was listing those
weapons at 8.9 percent of their acquisi-
tion cost. Thus, the acquisition of wea-
pons declared excess and turned over to
those countries in fiscal year 1973 was
approximately $390 million. In fiscal year
1974, the acquisition cost of equipment
declared excess and turned over to those
three countries was approximately $620
million. And in fiscal year 1975, the De-
fense Department plans, according to
the GAO, to turn over to those three
countries weapons and equipment whose
acquisition cost is approximately $738
million.
I see no reason for the U.S. Congress
to approve $529 million in an account
listed as was reserves for allies and des-
ignated for South Vietnam, South Korea,
and Thailand, at the same time that the
Department of Defense contemplates
turning over excess items costing an
estimated $738 million to those countries.
S 15553
If there are stockpile needs that are
not being met for U.S. active duty forces,
let the Defense Department ask specifi-
cally for that equipment as it usually does
In its normal procurement requests. If
this is a legitimate foreign military aid
request, then let it be properly con-
sidered under the foreign aid bill.
Mr. President, it is also important to
note what this amendment does not do:
First, it does not affect in any way the
Department's service-funded program of
aid to South Vietnam. The committee
has recommended $700 million for that
fund.
Second, it does not affect in any way
the level of assistance which may even-
tually be approved by the Congress under
the authority of the Foreign Assistance
Act or the Foreign Military Sales Act?
$300 million has been requested for
South Korea and Thailand under those
programs. This amendment is unrelated
to congressional approval or rejection of
those requests.
Finally this amendment does not affect
the approximately half-billion dollars
worth of stocks which have already been
set aside for these Asian allies in the
past 2 fiscal years. But it does put a halt
to adding another half-billion dollars
worth of weapons to that stockpile this
year, until the purposes of the stockpile
are more clearly explained to Congress,
and the implications of such foreign aid
have been properly deliberated.
Mr. President, I have grave doubts
whether such foreign aid should be au-
thorized at all. Certainly, it should not
be done without the consent of Con-
gress. But primarily, I wish to stress that
such foreign aid does not belong in this
bill. This is a budget bill to provide funds
for the operation and maintenance of
the Department of Defense. Foreign as-
sistance appropriations should not be
mixed with appropriations for the U.S.
armed services.
The only foreign assistance fund ap-
propriated along with funds for the serv-
ices in this bill is the assistance for South
Vietnam. All other foreign assistance is
authorized in the Foreign Aid bill, under
the military assistance program. This is
true even of the $2.2 billion in military
assistance authorized for Israel last year.
The Armed Services Committee report
on the Defense authorization bill strongly
emphasizes the same point:
As it did last year, the Committee is again
recommending reductions of the items in-
cluded for war reserves for allies. The Com-
mittee does not agree that these Items should
be procured for storage for allies in a title
that is intended for the procurement of
items for U.S. forces.
In this year of the war powers bill and
economic belt-tightening, Congress can-
not avoid its responsibility to guarantee
that such programs are fully justified
In terms of foreign assistance, and that
there are proper controls over transfer-
ral of these weapons. We have had
enough of Presidential wars.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
Sent that the recent study prepared on
this subject by the General Accounting
Office may be printed in the RECORD at
this point.
There being no objection, ?the study
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
S 15554
-A ugust 27, 1074.
Approved For ReownwpfeituclAttraibla(10A9pA3M700060018
was Ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
RS follows:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STOCKPILING OF WAR
RESERVE MATERIALS FOR USE BY UNWED
STATES ALLIES
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C.
Hon. J. W. FULBR/GHT,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This report is in re-
sponse to a May 6, 1974, letter requesting in-
formation on the stockpiling of war reserve
materials by the Department of Defense
(DOD) for possible future use by Asian allies.
Our study concentrated on the scope of the
program, the statutory authority being relied
on by DOD for stockpiling these materials,
and the authority under which they could be
turned over to any of the allied forces. Our
work was performed at DOD in Washington,
D.C.
Because of the short time allowed to meet
the Committee's needs, we have been unable
to verify the information provided by DOD
or to obtain a legal analysik of the propriety
of the program. However, we have included
our views and interpretations and believe
this report will be helpful during the up-
coming foreign assistance authorization
hearings.
We have not submited the report to DOD
for its official position; however, we have dis-
cussed the observations with DOD officials
and have considered their views.
SCOPE OF THE PILOGRAM
According to a DOD directive, the total
quantity of a defense itent authorized for
peacetime acquisition includes the quantity
estimated (1) to equip and sustain U.S.-
approved force levels in peacetime and in
wartime for periods specified in planning
documents, (2) to equip and sustain allied
forces by satisfying approved requirements
of the Military Assistance Program, the ap-
proved requirements of the Foreign Military
Sales Program, and approved wartime re-
quirements for those allies specified in cur-
rent program planning documents, and (3)
to provide support for other U.S. Government
departments and agencies. The term, used to
describe the above procurement requirement
Is approved force acquisition objective.
This objective includes a quantity to be
stockpiled abroad and in the United States
for future national emergencies?war re-
serves. These reserves are intended to sustain
operations until production can be expanded
to match combat consumption.
DOD believes that the war reserves are es-
sential to rapidly deployable combat forces
so that the United States has the future
capability to respond and be supported in
combat for whatever period the national in-
terest requires.
We determined from DOD planning and
programing documents that the approved
force levels used to plan future requirements
included the estimated number of allied
forces that might need logistics support in
future Asian hostilities. Estimated allied re-
quirements add to but do not replace U.S.
requirements.
DOD stocks of munitions and equipment
have traditionally been available for transfer
to allies pursuant to appropriate military as-
sistance legislation, as well as for use by
U.S. Forces. Specific identification of war re-
serve stocks for possible future transfer to
allies in DOD budget documentation plan-
ning begun with the development of the fis-
cal year 1972 Defense program. Some avail-
able assets were allocated for this purpose in
fiscal year 1973. However, funds were not re-
quested in budget submissions to the Con-
gress until fiscal year 1974.
Items held in reserve that are planned for
potential allied use are not segregated from
other reserve stocks, and almost all the same
kinds of items are also required as war re-
serves for U.S. Forces. If necessary, tee war
reserves for allied forces could be used to
support U.S. Forces.
DOD considers that war reserve stocks for
allies are not yet committed or authorized
for transfer to any nation. They are for "al-
lies" in theory only and, according to DOD
officials, will remain U.S. property until the
President, with appropriate congressional
consultation determines that such stocks
shonld be released to a specific ally. DOD
officials said that the portion of the total
war reserve stocks designated for future al-
lied use is based on an arbitrary decision and
it is the total (United States and allied) war
reserve requirement that has validity.
DOD planners for fiscal year 1973 allocated
$23 million of its reserve assets toward the
total allied requirement; for fiscal year 1974,
$494 million was allocated. For fiscal year
1975, $529 million of the total procurement
request has been proposed for application
toward allied requirements. Some of each of
the following types of items are proposed to
be procured from the fiscal year 1975 funds.
Army
Small arms ammunition.
Artillery ammunition.
Tank recovery vehicles.,
Portable radar sets.1
Minor miscellaneous terns.
Spares and repair parts.
Mortar ammunition.
Tanks.,
Machine guns.
Rocket launchers.,
Landing boats.1
Air Force
Air-to-ground munitions.
Tanks, racks, adapters, and pylons.
LEGAL AUTHORITY CITED BY DOD FOR ETC CKPIL-
ING AND TRANSFERRING STOCKS
We were told by officials of the Office of
General Counsel, DOD, that DOD's legal au-
thority to both stockpfle war reserve assets
and transfer these assets to allies is con-
tained in:
The annual DOD authorization and appro-
priation acts;
The Foreign Assistance Act of 11.,61, as
amended; and
The Foreign Military Sales Act, as
amended.
No specific sections of these acts were
cited.
AUTHORITY FOR STOCKPILING AND TRANSFERRING
ST0CK5-,--GA0 VIEWS
Time did not permit us to perform a
search for all possible means available to
stockpile war reserves and to transfer these
stocks. However, our brief look at the legis-
lation mentioned by DOD disclosed that the
general authority to procure U.S. defense
material is contained in the annual DOD
authorization and appropriation acts. This
authority does not pro vide for the procure-
ment of war reserves but rather for specific
defense items (for example, Procurement of
Ammunition, Army). Nevertheless, through
backup data submitted with appropsiation
requests and the testimony of witnesses, the
congressional committees responsine for
DOI? authorizations and appropriations were
aware of DOD's program of stockpiling for
All new procurement of these items will
go directly to U.S. Army active and reserve
units. The older pieces of equipment dis-
placed by the new procurement will go into
the war reserve stockpile that could be used
to replace U.S. or (with proper authoriza-
tion) allied combat losses in some future
conflict. Therefore, this procuremert, al-
thongh labeled as allied reserve, modernizes
the U.S. Army Force structure while increas-
ing the total assets available as war reserves.
possible future allied use. Thus, the legis-
lative history of the anneal DOD at them ins-
tion and appropriation acts suggests that the
committees intended to authorize the: stock-
piling.
However, the congressional committees re-
sponsible for authorizing military grant and
sales assistance to foreign allies apparently
were not aware of the stockpiling program.
We were informed that the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee was unaware of the
planned stockpiling, even though ransfers
to allies (as well as the transfer of any de-
fense articles to foreign governments, except
Vietnam) would go through programs under
the jurisdiction of the Committee.
Authority to transfer procured defense
stocks is separate from the authority to
stockpile war reserves. Authorizatio. is relat-
ing to transfers are contained in various sec-
tions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended; the Foreign Military Sales Act,
as amended; the Foreign Military Sales Act
Amendments, 1971, as amended; and the an-
nual DOD authorization and appropriation
acts (Military Assistance Service Funded).
Some of the pertinent sections of these acts
are discussed below. (See app. I through 111.)
Foreign Assistance Act?Military assistance
Section 503(a) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, as amended, gives the President
the authority to provide military assistance
to friendly countries and international orga-
nizations. Ln fiscal year 1974, the Congress
authorized the President to spent either
through loans or grants up to $512.b million
for this assistance, although actual appro.
priations amounted to e450 million
Section 503(c) provided that, teller. defense
articles are loaned to foreign countries or
international organizations, under section
503(a), the military assistance appropriation
will be charged only for out-of-pocket RID.
penses and depreciation. Da our report to the
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
in March 1973,1 we indicated that previously
DOD had leased defense articles on he basis
of different law (10 U.S.C. 2667).
This law authorizes leasing of nonexoese
defense articles when it is in the public in-
terest or will promote national defense. How-
ever, the law has no relation to foreign assist-
ance and was enacted to authorize ,he leas-
ing of defense plants and productiot equip-
ment to private commercial interests. In our
report, we specified that articles wese leased
under law (10 U.S.C. 2667) at no cost to for-
eign governments or international crganiza-
tions and that it appeared the use of thief
provision circumvented the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961, as amended. Our eiew was
that such loans or leases Constituted military
assistance and should be subject to ristraints
imposed by the act.
Additionally, under section 506(as , if the
President determines it IS in the see irity in-
terests of the United States, he may order tip
to $250 million in defense articles from
stocks?in addition to the $450 million ap-
propriated?and reimburserhent will he pro-
vided in subsequent appropriations available
for military assistance. He exercised this au-
thority during fiscal year 1974 by authorising
the transfer of up to $200 million in defense
articles to provide additional military assist-
ance to Cambodia.
Under section 614(a), the President also
may authorize assistance, in an amount not
to exceed $250 million, without regard to any
provisions of the act. However, the Eresident
may only use funds already appropriated
under other sections of the act. During fiscal
year 1974, the President exercised his author-
ity under section 614(a) five times for pur-
poses of military assistance. The total amount
1"Use of Excess Defense Articles and Other
Resources to Supplement the Military Assist-
ance Program," B-163742, Mar. 21, 11:73.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
1;i:we d Fobl5siteitEsNWROUrel6r8921?EIXIMR000700060018-4 S15555
Aitgust 21, 19APP
authorized by the President was $133.4 mil-
lion.
These and other related sections of the act
are shown in appendix L
Foreign Military Sales Act
Although the Congress placed a ceiling on
the total credit sales and guarantees under
sections 23 and 24 of the Foreign Military
Sales Act (see app. II), no similar restrictions
are placed on cash sales under sections 21 and
22 of the act. Thus, an unlimited quantity of
defense stocks could be sold under sections
21 and 22. During fiscal year 1974, DOD esti-
mates that credit sales will amount to $730
million, the authorized ceiling, and cash sales
will amount to approximately $7.2 billion.
Military assistance service funded authority
The provisions in annual DOD authorisa-
tion and appropriation acts (see app. III)
give DOD authority to use its appropriated
funds to transfer any defense articles, includ-
ing war reserve material, to support South
Vietnamese forces, stibject to the $1.126 bil-
lion ceiling.
Foreign Military Sales Act amendments?Ex-
cess Defense articles
Excess defense articles are items in excess
of DOD-approved force requirement level.
The authority to transfer excess defense ar-
ticles' is contained in section 8 of the For-
eign Military Sales Act Amendments, 1971, as
amended. (See app. II.)
In our report to your Committee in March
1973, we indicated that excess defense articles
were generated through modernizations of
forces and changes in authorizations of ar-
ticles to equip and sustain the approved
forces. The decision as to what portion of the
DOD inventory will constitute the approved
force requirement level and what assets may
be transferred as excess defense articles rests
entirely with DOD. Excess articles are con-
tinuously available in vast quantities and
have been used in military assistance pro-
grams since the inception of foreign aid. Use
of excess articles to supplement the regularly
funded military assistance program has in-
creased since 1968 because of reduced mili-
tary assistance appropriations.
At the time of our earlier review, "value"
was defined as not less than one-third of the
amount the United States paid when the
articles were acquired (acquisition cost).
Since then, the law has been changed and
value is now defined only as actual value
plus the cost of repairing, rehabilitating, or
modifying the article, which could range
from as low as salvage value to as high as
acquisition cost. A recent sampling by DOD
showed the actual value of excess articles
averaged only 8.9 percent of acquisition cost,
considerably less than the one-third mini-
mum required under previous legislation.
Orders for excess defense articles are to be
considered expenditures of military assist-
ance funds. However, those articles gener-
ated abroad are charged to the appropriation
only if the aggregate actual value during any
fiscal year exceeds $150 million. Under the
old definition of value this would equal about
$450 million (3 x $150 million) in excess
articles, based on acquisition cost. Now, how-
ever, if DOD decides to use the 8.9 percent
(1/11) figure as actual value, approximately
$1.65 billion (11 x $150 million) in excess
articles, based on acquisition cost, could be
granted to foreign countries without charge
to the military assistance appropriation. This
is over three times more than the value of
excess defense articles granted through the
military assistance program during any sin-
gle previous year.
The proposed Foreign Assistance Act of
1974 would further liberalize the use of ex-
cess items. Our analysis of the proposed act
showed that the theoretical ceiling of $1.65
billion could be increased to $4.4 billion. We
believe that consideration should be given to
providing more congreSsional control over
excess defense articles.
The stockpiling of defense assets for po-
tential use by allies adds another level to
the DOD procurement base. We previously
mentioned that new Army procurement
will modernize U.S. active and reserve
units and the older articles being re-
placed will make up the war reserve stock-
pile. It is conceivable that once these U.S.
Forces have been modernized, DOD will mod-
ernize the war reserve, and thus make large
quantities of defense assets excess and avail-
able for transfer to foreign governments, in-
cluding those for which the stockpile was
originally intended.
? More importantly, however, is the fact
'that DOD has the authority to decide what
'portion of the DOD inventory will make up
the approved force requirement level. Since
the war reserve for allies represents a por-
tion of the total war reserve in excess of U.S.
'approved force requirements, DOD can now
stockpile older items that would immediately
become excess upon replacement. If a future
'emergency arises over seas, DOD could reduce
'the approved force requirement level and im-
mediately make the war reserve for allies
'available as excess for transfer to whichever
'country may need them. All this could be
accomplished without adversely affecting the
'total U.S. approved force requirements.
'CONCLUSION
' In conclusion, we feel that the President
'and DOD at the present time have consider-
able statutory authority to transfer reserve
'materials to allies if they are needed. It
'should be pointed out that the authority to
'transfer U.S. defense stocks under these pro-
'visions applies to any defense item in the
'inventory, whether planned for future use by
'allies or 'U.S. Forces.
' The broad authority is especially prevalent
in the area of excess defense articles. Under
present authority DOD is permitted to trans-
fer vast quantities of excess items to foreign
governments with little or no charge to any
future increase in available excess items (1)
because of the modernization of forces and/or
'the reduction in the approved force re-
'quirement level and (2) because of the pro-
'posed liberalization of the no-cost transfer
Ceiling, the Committee may wish to con-
'aider tighter controls over the quantity of
excess articles that can be transferred to
foreign governments. This may include re-
taming section 8 of the Foreign Military
Sales Act Amendments of 1971, but modify-
ing it (1} to establish actual value at not
less than 333/3 percent of acquisition value
and (2) to require that excess programs be
stated in congressional presentation docu-
ments in terms of acquisition cost.
' We recognize that there is legislation pend-
ing on the DOD procurement authorization
bill that would forbid the stockpiling of
defense assets for possible future use by
'allied forces. Although passage would elimi-
nate the war reserve for allies, it would not
strengthen control over excess defense
articles.
We plan no further distribution of this
report unless you agree or publicly announce
its contents.
? Sincerely yours,
ELMER B. STAATS,
Comtprolier General of the United States.
EXCERPTS FROM FOREIGN ASSISTANCE Ac r OF
1961, AS AMENDED
MILITARY ASSISTANCE
Section 503?General Authority?(a) The
President is authorized to furnish military
assistance on such terms and conditions as
he may determine, to any friendly country
or international organization, the assisting of
which the President finds will strengthen the
security of the United States and promote
world peace and which is otherwise eligible
to receive such assistance, by--
(1) acquiring from any source and pro-
viding (by loan or grant) any defense article
or defense service; or
(2) assigning or detailing members of the
Armed Forces of the United States and other
personnel of the Department of Defense to
perform duties of a noncombatant nature.
(b) In addition to such other terms and
conditions as the President may determine
pursuant to subsection (a), defense articles
may be loaned thereunder only 1f?
(1) there is a bona fide reason, other than
the shortage of funds, for providing such
articles on a loan basis rather than on a grant
basis;
(2) there is a reasonable expectation that
such articles will be returned to the agency
making the loan at the end of the loan
period, unless the loan is then renewed;
(3) the loan period is of fixed duration not
exceeding five years, during which such
article may be recalled for any reason by the
United States;
(4) the agency making the loan is reim-
bursed for the loan based on the amount
charged to the appropriation for military
assistance under subsection (c); and
(5) arrangements are made with the
agency making the loan to be reimbursed in
the event such article is lost or destroyed
while on loan, such reimbursement being
made first out of any funds available to
carry out this chapter and based on the
depreciated value of the article at the time
of loss or destruction.
(c) (1) In the case of any loan of a defense
article or defense service made under this
section there shall be a charge to the appro-
priation for military assistance for any fiscal
year while the article or service is on loan
in an amount based on?
(A) the out-of-pocket expenses authorized
to be incurred in connection with such loan
during such fiscal year; and
(B) the depreciation which occurs during
such year while such article is on loan.
(2) The provisions of this subsection shall
not apply?
(A) to any particular defense article or
defense service which the United States
Government agreed prior to the date of en-
actment of this subsection to lend; and
(B) to any defense article or defense
service, or portion thereof acquired with
funds appropriated for military assistance
under this Act.
Section 504?Authorization?(a) There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Presi-
dent to carry out the purpose of this part
not to exceed $512,500,000 for the fiscal year
1974: PrOvided, That funds made available
for assistance under this chapter (other than
training in the United States) shall not be
used to furnish assistance to more than thir-
ty-one countries in any fiscal year: Pro-
vided further, That none of the funds ap-
propriated pursuant to this subsection shall
be used to furnish sophisticated weapons
Systems, such as missile systems and jet
aircraft for military purposes, to any un-
derdeveloped country, unless the President
determines that the furnishing of such weap-
ons systems is important to the national
security of the United States and reports
within thirty days each such determination
to the Congress. Amounts appropriated un-
der this subsection are authorized to remain
available until expended. Amounts appro-
priated under this subsection shall be avail-
able for cost-sharing expenses of United
States particiaption in the military head-
quarters and related agencies program.
Section 506? Special Authority--(a) Dur-
ing the fiscal year 1974, the President may,
if he determines it to be in the security in-
terests of the united States, order defense
articles from the stocks of the Department
of Defense and defense services for the pur-
poses of part II [military assistance], sub-
ject to subsequent reimbursement therefor
from subsequent appropriations available for
military assistance. The value of such orders
under this subsection in the fiscal year
1974 shall not exceed $250,000,000. (b) The
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
RVaniggLQ.6_/09 ? cIA-IIDE75130038QR000700060018
S 15556 Approved For -4
IONAT.: RECORD ? SENATE August .21, 19; .fr
Department of Defense is authorized to in-
cur, in applicable appropriations, obliga-
tions in anticipation of reinViursements in
amounts equivalent to the value of such
orders under subsection (a) hf this section.
Appropriations to the President of such snarls
as may be necessary to reitaburse the ap-
plicable appropriation, fund, or account for
such orders are hereby authorized.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 610. Transfer Betwden Accciunts.?
(a) Whenever the President determines It
to be necessary for the purpciees of this Act,
not to exceed 10 per centurn of the funds
made available for any provision of this
Act (except funds made available pursuant
to title IV of chapter 2 of pirt I [Overseas
Private Investment Corporation]) may be
transferred to, and consolicbted with, the
funds made available for any other provi-
sion of this Act, and may be used for any of
the purposes for which euchsfunds may be
used, except that the total la the provision
for the benefit of which the transfer is made
shall not be increased by mane than 20 per
centum of the amount of funds made avail-
able for such provision. *
Section 614. Special Authorities.?(a) The
President may authorize in Vetch fiscal year
the use of funds made available for use un-
der this Act and the furnishing of assistance
under section 506 in a total amount not to
exceed $250,000,000 and the use of not to ex-
ceed 8100,000,000 of foreign Aurrencies ac-
cruing under this Act or any other law with-
out regard to the requirements of the Act,
any law relating to receipts end credits ac-
cruing to the United States, any Act appro-
priating funds for use under Vais Act, or the
Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act Of
1951 (22 U.S.C. 1611 et seq.),Jn furtherance
of any of the purposes of suchnects, when the
President determines that svich authoriza-
tion is important to the security of the
United States. Not mere than $50,000,000 of
the funds available under this subsection
may be allocated to any one country in any
fiscal year. The limitation contained in the
preceding sentence shall not apply to any
country which is a victim of active Commu-
nist or Communist-supported aggression.
(c) The President is autherrized to use
amounts not to exceed $50400,000 of the
funds made available under this Act pursu-
ant to his certification that it is inadvis-
able to specify the nature of the use of such
funds, which certification shall be deemed
to be a sufficient voucher for such amounts.
The President shall promptly and fully in-
form the Speaker of the Rouse of Represent-
atives and the chairman and ranking minor-
ity member of the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate of each use of funds
under this subsection.
Section 662. Limitation Upon Exercise of
Special Authority.?The President shall not
exercise any special authority granted to
him under section 506(a), 61.110), or 61404
of this Act unless the President, prior to the
date he intends to exercise any such author-
ity, notifies the Speaker of the Rouse of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate In witting of-each
such intended exercise, the section of this
Act under which such authority is to be ex-
ercised, and the justification for, and the
extent of, the exercise of such authority.
Section 653. Change in Allocation of For-
eign Assistance.?(a) Not later than thirty
days after the enactment of any law appro-
priating funds to carry out any provision of
this Act (other than section 451 [Contin-
gency Fund] or 637 [Administrative Ex-
penses] ), the President shall manly the Con-
gress of each foreign country and interna-
tional organization to which the United
States Government intends Us provide any
portion of the funds under such law and of
the amount of funds under the law, by cats-
gory of assistance, that the United S-ates
Government intends to provide to each. Not-
withstanding any other provision of law, the
United States Government shall not provide
to any foreign country or international orga-
nization any funds under that law which ex-
ceeds by 10 per centum tie amount of mili-
tary grant assistance or security supporting
assistance, as the case may be, which the
President notified the Congress that the
United States Governmert intended to pro-
vide that country or organization under that
law, unless the President (1) detern ines
that it is in the security interests of the
United States that such aciuntry or organi-
zation, receive funds in excess of the amount
included in such notification for that coun-
try or organization, and (2) reports to Con-
gress, at least ten days psior to the date on
which such excess funds are to be provided
to that country or organization, each such
determination, including the name of the
country or organization to receive funds in
excess of such per centum, the amount of
funds in excess of the per centum which are
to be provided, and the justification for pro-
viding the additional assistance.
(b) The provisions of this section shall
not apply in the case of any law malting
continuing appropriations and may not be
waived under the provisions of section 614(a)
of this Act.
APPENDIX II?EXCERPTS FLOM FOREIGN MILI-
TARY SALES ACT AMENDMENTS, 1971 AS
AMENDED
EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES
Section 8. (a) Subject to the provisions of
subsection (b), the value of any excess de-
fense article granted to a foreign country or
international organization by any depart-
ment, agency, or independent establishment
of the United States Government (other than
the Agency for International Development)
shall be considered to be an expenditure
made from funds appropriated under the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for military
assistance. Unless such department, agency,
or establishment certified to the Comptroller
General of the United States that the excess
defense article it is ordering is not to be
transferred by any means to a foreign ccun-
try or international organization, when an
order is placed for a defense article whose
stock status is excess at the time ordered, a
sum equal to the value thereof shall (less
amounts to be transferred under section
632(d) [Reimburseiftent Among Agencies] of
the Foreign Assistanct Act of 1961) (1) be
reserved and transferred to a suspense ac-
count, (2) remain in the suspense account
until the excess defense article is either de-
livered to a foreign country or international
organization or the order therefor is can-
celled, and (3) be transferred from the :sus-
pense account to (A) the general fund of the
Treasury upon delivery of such article or
(B) to the military assistance appropriation
for the current fiscal year upon cancellation
of the order. Such sum shall be transferred
to the military assistance appropriation for
the current fiscal year upcn delivery of such
article if at the time of delivery the stock
status of the article is determined, in ac-
cordance with section 844 (g) and (m) (defi-
nitions of "excess defense articles" and "yal-
iae"1 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
to be nonexcess.
(b) In the case of excess defense articles
which are generated abroad, the provisions of
subsection (a) shall apply during any, fiscal
year only to the extent that the aggregate
value of excess defense articles ordered dur-
ing that year exceeds *150000,000.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term
"value" has the same meaning as given it in
section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961.
(d) The President shall promptly and
fully inform the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Fur..
sign Relations and the Committee on Ap-
propriations of the Senate of each decision
to furnish on a grant basis to any country
excess defense articles which are major
weapons systems to the extent such major
weapons system was not Included in Vie
presentation material previously subolitfed
to the Congress. Additionally, the Pre Sete at
shall also :submit a nuarterly report to the
Congress listing by country the total value of
all deliveries of excess defense articles, dis-
closing both the aggregate original aequisi-
tion cost and the aggregate value at the time
of delivery.
(e) Except for excess defense articles
granted under part 73 of the Foreign .assist-
ance Act of 1961, the provisions of this sec-
tion shall not apply to any excess defense
article granted to aouth Vietnam ptior to
July 1, 1972.
CASII AND CREDIT SALES
Section 21. Cash Sales From Stock --The
President may sell defense _articles from the
stocks of the Department of Defense and
defense services of the Department of De-
fense to any friendly country or international
organization if such country or international
organization agrees to pay not less than the
value thereof in United States dollars, Pay-
ment shall be made In advance or, as deter-
mined by the President to be in the best in-
terests of the United States, within s rea-
sonable period not to exceed one ht mired
and twenty days after the delivery of the
defense articles or the rendering of the de-
fense services.
Section 22. Procurement for Cash Sales.?
(a) Except as Otherwise provided in the sec-
tion, the President may, -without require-
ment for charge to any appropriation or con-
tract authorization otherwise provided, enter
Into contracts for the procurement of de.
tense articles or defense services for sale for
United States dollars to any foreign ccuntry
or international organization if such century
or international organization provides the
United States Government with a depends:10 le
undertaking (1) to pay the full amount of
such contract which will assure the United
States Government against any loss on the
contract, and (2) to make funds available in
such amounts and at such times as may be
required to meet the payments required by
the contract and any damages and costs that
may accrue from the cancellation of such
contract, in advance -of the time such pay-
ments. damages, or costs are due.
(b) The President may, when he deter-
mines it to be in the national interest, ac-
cept a dependable undertaking of a foreign
country or international organization with
respect to any such sale, to make full pay-
ment within 120 days after delivery cf the
defense articles or the rendering of the de-
fense services. Appropriations available to
the Department of Defense may be used to
meet the payments required by the connects
for the procurement of defense articles ant
defense services and shall be reimburssd be
the amounts subsequently received from the
country or international organization to
whom articles or services are sold.
Section 23. Credit Salcs.?The President is
hereby authorized to finance procurements
of defense arttcies and defense service by
friendly countries and international organi-
zations on terms of repayment to the 'United
States Government of not less than the value
thereof in United States dollars within a
period not to exceed. ten years aftex the
delivery of the defense articles or the render-
ing of the defense services.
Section 24. Guaranties.---(a) The Prea dens
may guarantee any individual, corporation,
partnership, or other juridical entity doing
business in the United States (etch:Alin;
United States Government agencies) agsinst
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Release 2005aritiatIBDP7REK3FER000700060018-4 S 15557
August 21, 1974 CONGRESSION
political and credit risks of nonpayment
arising out of their financing of credit sales
of defense articles and defense services to
friendly countries and international organi-
zations. Fees shall be charged for such guar-
anties.
(b) The President may sell to any indi-
vidual, corporation, partnership, or other
juridical entity (excluding United States
Government agencies) promissory notes is-
sued by friendly countries and international
organizations as evidence of their obliga-
tions to make repayments to the United
States on account of credit sales financed
under section 23, and may guarantee pay-
ment thereof.
(c) Funds made available to carry out this
Act shall be obligated in an amount equal to
25 per centum of the principal amount of
contractual liability related to any guaranty
issued under this section, and all the funds
so obligated shall constitute a single reserve
for the payment of claims under such guar-
anties. Any funds so obligated which are de-
obligated from time to time during any cur-
rent fiscal year as being in excess of the
amount necessary to maintain a fractional
reserve of 25 per centum of the principal
amount of contractual liability under out-
standing guaranties shall be transferred to
the general fund of the Treasury. Any guar-
anties issued hereunder shall be backed by
the full faith and credit of the United States.
Section 31. Authorization and Aggregate
Ceiling of Foreign Military Sales Credits.?
(a) There is hereby authorized to be appro-
priated to the President to carry out this
Act not to exceed $325,000,000 for the fiscal
year 1974. Unobligated balances of funds
made available pursuant to this section are
hereby authorized to be continued available
by appropriations legislation to carry out
this Act.
(b) The aggregate total of credits, or par-
ticipations in credits, extended pursuant to
this Act and of the principal amount of
loans guaranteed pursuant to section 24(a)
shall not exceed $730,000,000 for the fiscal
year 1974, of which amount not less than
$300,000,000 shall be available to Israel only.
APPENDIX III.--EXCERPTS FROM DOD AUTHOR-
IZATION AND APPROPRIATION ACTS
DOD APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1974
Section 801. Subsection (a) (1) of section
401 of Public Law 89-367, approved ,March
15, 1966 (80 Stat. 37), as amended, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"(a) (1) Not to exceed $1,126,000,000 of the
funds authorized for appropriation for the
use of the Armed Forces of the United States
under this or any other Act are authorized
to be made available for their stated pur-
poses to support: (A) Vietnamese and other
free world forces in support of Vietnamese
forces, (B) local forces in Laos; and for re-
lated costs, during the fiscal year 1974 on
such terms and conditions as the Secretary
of Defense may determine. None of the funds
appropriated to or for the use of the Armed
Forces of the United States may be used for
the purpose of paying any overseas allow-
ance, per diem allowance, or any other addi-
tion to the regular base pay of any person
serving with the free world forces in South
Vietnam if the amount of such payment
would be greater than the amount of special
pay authorized to be paid, for an equivalent
period of service, to members of the Armed
Forces of the United States (under section
310 of title 37, United States Code) serving
in Vietnam or in any other hostile fire area,
except for continuation of payments of such
additions to regular base pay provided in
agreements executed prior to July 1, 1970.
Nothing in clause (A) of the first sentence
of this paragraph shall be construed as au-
thorizing the use of any such funds to sup-
port Vietnamese or other free world forces
in actions designed to provide military sup-
port and assistance to the Government of.
Cambodia or Laos: Provided, That nothing
contained in this section shall be construed
to prohibit support of actions required to
insure the sate and orderly withdrawal or
disengagement of United States forces from
Southeast Asia, or to aid in the release of
Americans held as prisoners of war."
DOD APPROPRIATION ACT, 1974
Section 737. (a) Not to exceed $1,126,000,-
000 of the appropriations available to the
Department of Defense during the current
fiscal year shall be available for their stated
purposes to support (1) Vietnamese and
other free world forces in support of Viet-
namese forces; (2) local forces in Laos; and
for related costs on such terms and condi-
tions as the Secretary of Defense may deter-
mine: Provided, That none of the funds ap-
propriated by this Act may be used for the
purpose of paying any overseas allowance,
per diem allowance, or any other addition to
the regular base pay of any person serving
with the free world forces in South Vietnam
if the amount of such payment would be
greater than the amount of special pay au-
thorized to be paid, for an equivalent period
of service, to members of the Armed Forces
of the United States under section 310 of
title 37, United States Code, serving in Viet-
nam or in any other hostile fire area, except
for continuation of payments of such addi-
tions to regular base pay provided in agree-
ments executed priOr to July 1, 1970; Pro-
vided further, that nothing in clause (1) of
the first sentence of this subsection shall be
construed as authorizing the use of any such
funds to support Vietnamese or other free
world forces in actions designed to provide
military support and assistance to the Gov-
ernment of Cambodia or Laos. Provided
further, That nothing contained in this sec-
tion shall be construed to prohibit support
of actions required to insure the safe and
orderly withdrawal or disengagement of
United States forces from Southeast Asia, or
to aid in the release of Americans held as
prisoners of war.
(b) Within thirty days after the end of
each quarter, the Secretary of Defense shall
render to Congress a report with respect to
the estimated value by purpose, by country,
of support furnished from such appropria-
tions.
Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the con-
sideration of this amendment by my col-
league and friend from Arkansas, and I
hope that he will be willing to take the
amendment to conference and fight for it
there.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
have discussed this amendment with its
distinguished author, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) I have
considered it first in the light of the fact
that apparently it is legislation on an
appropriation bill; that was my first re-
action to it, and I think that is true, and
it might be subject to a point of order.
However, this same language, as I un-
derstand it, has been considered by the
authorization committee and was re-
ported out and passed here in the Sen-
ate?no, it was a floor amendment agreed
to in the Senate earlier this year, to the
authorization bill; am I correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. 1VIcOLELLAN. Therefore, the Sen-
ate having acted upon it legislatively, I
feel inclined, as I have said?and I do not
find any objection to it from those with
whom I have conferred?to go ahead and
accept the amendment and let it go to
conference and see what we can do with
it there.
I have no objection to the objectives
and purposes of the amendment, if it
can be accepted. It is an attempt to get
control and keep control of expenditures
and of materials and supplies that we
may be appropriating for and trying to
give away as assistance, and we have not
made a provision in this bill with respect
to even the sale of weapons, and so forth,
to other countries, to try to get better
control of that so we will know what is
going on, and requiring reports.
So I have no objection, unless there is
objection on the part of some other mem-
ber of the committee?and I hear none?
to accepting the amendment and doing
the best we can with it.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Massachusetts.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 11336
Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate re-
vert once again to the consideration of
amendment No. 1836.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HELMS) = The Chair will advise the Sena-
tor that that is automatic.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I yield
10 minutes to the distinguished junior
Senator from Illinois.
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, I
want, first of all, to commend the junior
Senator from Missouri for the extraor-
dinary effort with which he has in-
vested this amendment, and for bringing
it to the floor of the Senate, and I also
commend the chairman of the Appro-
priations Committee for his work and
the work of that committee. It has done
a good job of cutting excessive spending
from the defense budget, though it has
not, Mr. President, in my judgment, gone
far enough.
When it comes to national survival,
we all agree that such sums as are nec-
essary for national security must be
raised and spent. The tragedy is that we
stumble through our debates about na-
tional defense with no reliable definition
of national security and no reliable
standard for determining what is nec-
essary.
An adequate definition of national se-
curity includes not just military hard-
ware and personnel, but the confidence
of the American people in their Gov-
ernment; the confidence of the world
in our country for enlightened leader-
ship; a healthy domestic and world
economy, and the conditions of a good
life at home.
In order to rationally determine mili-
tary policy, we need a coherent foreign
policy. It is asking too much of the Con-
gress and the military to forge a rational
defense and military strategy if they do,
not have a clearly defined and articulat-
ed foreign policy.
We do not have such a foreign policy.
What we have had, instead in recent
years, are promises, slogans, contradic-
tory gestures, and personal diplomacy.
An opening by the U.S. Government
to the People's Republic of China, was
appropriate and long overdue. But Presi-
dent Nixon's Peking visit was handled in
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R0007000600184
S 15558 Approved For Reinsaiggiefa] VMP.75BQIIMR000700060018-4 .
u shiNATE A.ugzat 01, P
a way?by secret arrangements and
shock announcements?that demoralized
our Allies in Asia and undermined our
positeen in the United Nations with re-
spect to Taiwan. And whet the U.N. ac-
cepted the logic of his action, President
Nixon chastised the U.N.
President Nixon's visit this year to the
Poviet Union was at best unnecessary.
None of the heralded artns limitation
agreements materialized. And in order
to make some gesture of silecess for glo-
hal television, President Nixon signed a
limited nuclear test-ban treaty which
Implies that the United States and the
Soviet Union are not very serious about
stopping nuclear proliferation. This
comes at a time when worldwide inter-
est in obtaining nuclear reactors is rap-
idly accelerating. The visit?and the ad-
ministration's continuing conduct?sug-
gest American indifference to the re-
pression of personal freedom in the
U.S.S.R.
What the United States has gained
from these exercises in Presidential
diplomacy remains to be seen and, what-
ever it is, it could have been achieved
without President partedpation and
without the shocks we suffered in East
Asia, South Asia, and Europe, as a re-
sult of our bilaterial Maneuverings.
Presidential posturing is no substitute
for a prudent and thoughtful 'worldwide
foreign policy which reeognizes the
world's pluralism and the Nation's mul-
titude of interests in all its parts.
Drift Mad weakness in foreign relations
and economic policy have direct and dan-
gerous results in defense policy.
The notion persists that world power
and influence and national security are
directly related to the size of the defense
budget. As mistakes of foreign policy, or
more accurately the absence of a princi-
pled foreign policy, producesfrom South-
east Asia to Eurasia U.S. weakness, the
pressure increases to spend -more money
on the military?and so the wheel takes
another turn.
Military spending by itself does not
bring us added security in the world.
Each increased expenditure usually
brings a response from the other side,
leaving us by and large in the same rela-
tive positiori, but always poorer and a lit-
tle closer to the flash point.
The notion also persists that increased
defense spending can stimulate a trou-
bled economy. The idea that domestic
problems might be solved simply and
quickly by throwing dollars at them finds
no advocates. Yet, the Same notion drives
us to compulsive expenditures for weap-
ons, military personnel, and power.
Military spending does not stimulate
the economy. It is an unhappy fact that
excessive military spending contributes
heavily to inflation. It diverts resources
from productive uses?housing, health,
energy, transportation, education?to
nonproductive uses. Unlike most forms of
Government spending, defense spending
increases demand, without increasing
supply.
Other nations, notably West Germany
and Japan, rose from the ashes of World
War II to become our principal competi-
tors in the world marketplace by spend-
ing little, on the military?much on their
economies. Now, our heavily weighted
economy is crumbling. It is experiencing
inflation and recession. Consumer prices
are increasing at a rate of 12.6 percent,
while wholesale prices increased in July
at an incredible annual rate of 44 per-
cent. Unemployment in July was 5.3 per-
cent and rising. And productivity in-
creased only 1 percent 3ast quarter.
The economic consequences of run-
away military spending?inflation, the
diversion of funds from demonstrable
needs, declining productivity, unempley-
mente?,are as destructhe to the national
security as an Inadequate defense budget.
It 13 wrong to argue, as President Ford
does, that inflation can be halted by cut-
ting in the domestic sector but not in the
defense sector of the budget. Some Gov-
ernment spending in tune is deflation-
ary. Initiatives in health, housing, en-
ergy, and transportation could increase
productivity and supply demand. Agri-
cultural production can be increased in
part at Government expense?to meet
growing demands for food at home and
abroad with deflationary consequences.
President Ford, like his predecessor, ap-
pears to have his priorities mixed up. If
he offers more of the same, the Nation
will suffer more of the same.
The defense appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1974 as reported by the AP-.
propitiations Committee provides funds
for the Department of Defense over and
above those necessary for an adequate
military posture. Reductions can be
made without impairing the ability of
the military forces of the United States
to carry out those missions essential to
our national security.
The bill would provide $82,079,358,000
in new appropriations and transfers. On
December 20, 1973, the House and Senate
agreed to the conference report on the
fiscal year 1974 Department of Defense
appropriations bill providing a total of
$74,218,230,000. It was signed into law
by the President on January 2, 1974.
On February 4, 1974, about 1 month
later, the President transmitted to Con-
gress a fiscal year 1975 defense budget
totaling $85,582,297,000. This represent-
ed an increase of $11,364,067,000, a 15-
percent increase over the amount pro-
vided by Congress 1 month before. At
the same time, the President trans-
mitted a fiscal year 1974 defense supple-
mental request of $6,200,421,000, made
up of $3,412,741,000 for a so-called readi-
ness requirement due to the Middle East
crisis and $2,787,680,000 for pay :in-
creases. On May 30 and June 24, 1974,
the President transmitted budget
amendments totaling $1,475,200,000 for
fuel price increases and certain per
benefits, increasing the fiscal year
1975 Defense budget to a new total of
$87,057,497,000. Thus, between February
and June 1974, Congress was requested
to consider a. total increase of $19,039,-
688,000 for the Defense Department.
To date, the Congress has by law re-
duced this increase by a mere $4,873,-
032,000. The Rouse recently passed a
military appropriations bill of 483.4 bil-
lion for a further reduction of $3.7 bil-
lion. And the Senate Appropriations
Committee has reported- out a mileare
appropriations bill with an additional
reduction of $1.4 billion. Yet, we still
have left an increase of $11 billion.
This increase in defense appropria-
tions comes when the United States is
militarily powerful and not at was. The
involvement in Southeast Asia has been
wound down?yet the spending Winds up.
When President Nixon signed the mili-
tary procurement authorization bill into
law on August 5, he said that he was
not completely satisfied with the bill be-
cause "A number of provisions authorize
spending for unneeded _equipment and
could thus inflate defense spending un-
necessarily in a time when we all seoulcl
recognize the need to avoid waste!
This amendment to the defense ae-
propriations bill will establish a ceiling
on new budgetary authority of $81 be-
lion, and help eliminate some (X' the
wastes to which the President referred.
Next year the new Budget Committee
will establish ceilings such as the one
we are recommending. This method is
also used by the Office of Management
and Budget within the executive branch
to establish priorities for the Federal
budget. It Is an approach which has
been used extensively in the past to con-
trol and delimit the categories of the
Federal budget, and now has been
adopted by the Congress for the ft ture.
The Nixon administration asked that
the Federal budget be reduced by $5 bil-
lion in outlays to help control infletion.
President Ford has indicated that he
would seek reductions in Federal wend-
ing, and some predict that he will ask
for greater cuts. A reduction in outlays
of $5 billion woulderequire a reduteion
in budgetary authority of $11 to $12
billion. If this goal is to be reached, the
proportionate reduction in the deense
budget would be in the $6 to $7 billion
range. The $81 billion ceiling we pro-
pose is on the high side of such a for-
mulation.
If Congress is serious about reducing
the Federal budget as a means of con-
trolling inflation, it _cannot overlools the
fact that 70 percent of the controllable
portion of that budget is attributable to
the military and due to the nonproduc-
tive, demand-generating nature of de-
fense spending, reductions made in the
defense appropriations bill, dollar for
dollar, will be more effective in coun-
tering inflation than any other cute
Congress has appropriated snore
money over the past 4 years than the
delivery system?the defense industry?
can keep up with. This is illustrate i be
the steady increase in unexpended hal-
ancee?money obligated but not spent--
-
over the past 4 fiscal years. In effect the
delivery of goods and services cannot
keep up with the orders placed for them.
An $81 billion ceiling on this year's
budget can help rectify this unhealthy
distortion of the appropriations process.
Mr. President, the Senate Appropria-
tions Committee should be commet- dee
for the diligent job it has done in ex-
amining the defense budget. It has, after
months of work, reported out a bill
which cuts over $5 billion from the ad-
ministration request.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
September 24, ippfroved
9 00700060018-4 S 1741
)4.4e /-1.24/-1
documents be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There in ig no objection, the docu-
ments were rdered to be printed in the
RECORD, as f ows:
CAPITOL HILL TED METHOD/ST CHURCH,
Washingt D.C., September 24, 1974.
DEAR FRIEND: ? day as delegates from 30
of the United S es and Canada arrive in
Washington, D.C. assemble for the first
national conferen of Meals-on-Wheels,
Senator George S. Govern will introduce
for himself and Sen or Richard S. Schwei-
ker, the attached r lution which would
declare- the week of eptember 23-27 na-
tional "Meals-on-Whe week.
It is our hope that will join your fel-
low Senators in unani us support of this
resolution. It is design to draw the na-
tion's attention to a pro m which seeks to
meet?now?the needs o ose who are el-
derly and convalescent providing them
with home-delivered, hot n ltious meals.
These are mostly private ograms, spon-
sored by local religious a civic groups.
The programs work because unteers pre-
pare, cook, package, and de r the food
at cost.
It is a worthy program worth v recogni-
tion. We hope you agree with and will
give your support by unanimous sent to-
day when the resolution is introd d.
With warm wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
NEIL SCOTT,
Chairman, Greater Washington
on-Wheels Confederation.
HOME DELIVERED MEALS?A NATIONAL
DIRECTORY
SOUTH DAKOTA
Aberdeen
Aberdeen Recreation-Home Service.
Sponsor, if any: Aberdeen Senior Center,
Inc.
Meals served per week, 178. Different per-
sons served per week, 34.
Restrictions: 55 years and over. Other, un-
specified restriction.
Meals served: Hot lunch meal $.76-$1.00.
Provision for special diets: Flexible diets.
Minimum length of enrollment: No limit.
Maximum length of enrollment: No limit.
Age distribution of participants: Under
55, none; 55-64, 2 percent; 65-74, 23 percent;
75-84, 61 percent; 85 and over, 14 percent.
Brookings
.Meals on Wheels-Brookings Hospital A
iary.
Sponsor, if any: Hospital and Rest me
Auxiliary.
Meals served per week, 55. Diffe t per-
sons served per week, 11.
Restrictions: None.
Meals served: Hot lunch me $1.01-1.25.
Provision for special diets: exible diets.
Minimum length of enroll nt; No limit.
Maximum length of enro ent: No limit.
Age distribution of parti ants: Under 55,
9 percent; 55-64, 37 per t; 65-74, 54 per-
cent; 75-84, none; 85 an ver, none.
Cl
Meals on Wheels.
Sponsor, if any: L 1 churches.
Meals served per ek, 4. Different persons
served per week, 4
Restrictions: e.
Meals served: ot lunch meal $.76-1.00.
Minimum le th of enrollment: No limit.
Maximum 1 gth of enrollment: No limit.
Age distri tion of participants: Under 55,
none; 55-6 none; 65-74, 50 percent; 75-84,
50 percen 85 and over, none.
Madison
Meal n Wheels, Madison Senior Center.
Spo or, if any: Interlakes Community
Acti
Meals served per week, ?Different persons
served per week, 35.
Restrictions: 55 years and over.
Meals served: Hot lunch meal, $.51-.75.
Minimum length of enrollment: No limit.
Maximum length of enrollment: No limit.
Age distribution of participants: Not
noted.
Milbank
Meals on Wheels.
Sponsor, if any: Ministerial Association.
Meals served per week, '75. Different persons
served per week, 15.
Restrictions: None.
Meals served: Hot dinner meal, $.'76-1.00.
Provision for special diets: salt and sugar
sulAtitutes.
Minimum length of enrollment: No limit.
Maximum length of enrollment: No limit.
Age distribution of participants: Under 55,
none; 55-64, none; 65-74, 10 percent; 75-84,
90 percent; 85 and over, none.
Rapid City
Mobile Meals, Inc., 213 Berry Pine Road.
Sponsor, if any: Independent Corporation.
Meals served per week, 50. Different persons
served per week, 12.
Restrictions: Shut in, living alone.
Meals served: Hot dinner meal, $.'76-1.0
Provision for special diets: Special et
prescribed.
Minimum length of enrollment: imit.
Maximum length of enrollment:, limit.
Age distribution of participan nder 55,
none; 55-64, 10 percent; 65_7:0 percent;
75-84, 40 percent; 85 and ove one.
Sioux Fall
Meals on wheels.
Sponsor, if any: Luth ii Social Services.
Meals served per we 215. Different per-
sons served per week .
Restrictions: Poo utrition.
Meals served: lunch meal, $.76-1.00.
Provision for ecial diets: Special diet
rescribed.
Minimum gth of enrollment; 5 days.
aximu ngth of enrollment: No limit.
dist'- .ution of participants: Under 55,
5 cen 5-64, 24 percent; 85-74, 24 per-
ce 4, 29 percent; 85 and over, 18 per-
cen
Spear fish
on wheels.
if any: Spearfish Senior Citizens
r.
Meals ved per week, 20. Different per-
sons serv er week, 6.
Restrict s: None.
Meals se : Hot lunch meal, $.76-1.00.
Provision special diets: Flexible diets.
Minimum of enrollment: No limit.
Maximum 1 th of enrollment: No limit.
Age distrib n of participants: Under
55, 0 percent; 5 4 0 percent; 65-74, 80 per-
cent; 75-84, 20 cent; 85 and over, 0 per-
cent.
Meals on wheels.
Sponsor, if any: million Civic Council.
Meals served per ek, 60. Different per-
sons served per week,'".
Restrictions: 55 yea and over; other, un-
specified restriction.
Meals served: Hot d
Provision for special
Minimum length of e
Maximum length of e
Age distribution of part
0 percent; 55-64, 0 percent;
'75-84, 70 percent; 85 and
r meal $.76-1.00.
ts: Flexible diets.
lment: No limit.
ment; No limit.
nts: Under 55,
74, 10 percent;
r, 20 percent.
Watertown
Meals on wheels.
Sponsor, if any: None at p
Meals served per week, 110,
sons served per week, 22.
Restrictions: None.
Meals served: Hot dinner m
Provision for special diets: Fl
nt.
erent per-
$.76-1.00.
e diets.
Minimum length of enrollment: No limit
MRXIMUM length of enrollment: No limit.
Age distribution of participants: Under
55, none; 55-64, none; 65-74, 60 percent:
'75-84, 40 percent; 85 and over, 10 pe ent.
Yankton
Meals on wheels.
Sponsor, if any: Yankton Sen itizens.
Meals served per week, 60. erept per-
sons served per week, 15.
Restrictions: None.
Meals served: Hot lu meal $.76-1.00.
Provision for specie ets: Special diet
prescribed.
Minimum length enrollment: No limit.
Maximum leng f enrollment: No limit.
Age distribut of participants: Under 55,
20 percent; 55..-, 20 percent; 65-74. 30 per-
cent:. 75-84, percent; 85 and over, 10 per-
cent.
The ESIDING FiCER. The
clues is on agreeing to the resolution.
resolution was considered and
ed to. _
he preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 409) , with its
preamble, is as follows:
S. RES. 409
Resolution, designating the week of Septem-
ber 23 through September 27 as "Meals-on-
Wheels Week".
Resolved, Whereas, the World Hunger
Action Coalition has proclaimed the week of
September 22 through September 29 as the
"Week of Concern for World Hunger," and
Whereas, the thousands of Meals-on-
Wheels organizations in the United States,
Canada, and many other countries provide
hot, nourishing meals each day to the
hungry, housebound, elderly, handicapped,
and the disabled, without regard to race,
creed, color, or financal ability, and
Whereas, the vast majority of these Meals-
on-Wheels organizations are privately or-
ganized as activities of local churches,
temples, or concerned civic groups, and
Whereas, such Meals-on-Wheels programs
enable millions of individuals to remain in
their homes and maintain their health, and
Whereas, Meals-on-Wheels has grown to
serve the purposes previously listed since it
was first started in England in 1939 and be-
gun in the United States in 1954, and
Whereas, as elected public servants, we
welcome and encourage programs which
serve the less fortunate and are especially
grateful for efforts which originate on a vol-
unteer basis in the private sector, and
Whereas, those meals are planned, pack-
aged, and delivered by the enterprice, com-
passion and devotion of literally thousands
of volunteers who are helping to bring a
measure of human warmth and love to those
they serve: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the week of September 23
through September 27 be designated as
"Meals-on-Wheels Week" in the United
States in recognition of the selfless service
these Meals-on-Wheels units perform and in
honor of the first National Conference of
Meals-on-Wheels.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
PRIATIONS, 1975?CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. McCLE'LLAN. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of confer-
ence on H.R. 16243, and ask for its im-
mediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
DomENICI). The report will be stated by
title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
S 17446 Approved For R
ecitiNUMIRMiCA-M15_130ROARIT0700060018-4
se ember 24, 1974
The committee of eonfertiare on the Ills 1
agreeing votes of the two _Rouses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (1116.
16243) making appropriations for the De-
partment of Defense for the 'fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1975, and for -other purposes,
having met, after full and. tree onferenee,
have agreed to recommend and de recant-
mend to their respective Braises this report,
signed by a majority of the aponferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the consideration of the con-
ference report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the *port.
(The conference report ,ds printed In
the House proceedh*s of the Cormens-
SIONAL RECORD Of September 18, 1974, at
Page H9339.)
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that ihe requirement
that the conference reportbe printed as
a Senate report be waived, inasmuch as
under the rules of the House of Rep-
resentatives it has been prkited as a re-
port of the House.
The PRESIDING, OPPItER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. bilceLELLAN. Mr. President, on
Tuesday, September 17, 11174, the con-
ferees on the Department cif Defense ap-
propriations bill for fiscal year 1975
reached agreement 1712 the differences
between the two Houses ,after 2 days
of meetings and about 8 hours of delib-
erations.
The total amount agreed to was 282,-
576,297,000 in new budget authority, in-
cluding transfers of 2480 111111.1011.
This is 24.481,200,008-er 5.15 per-
cent - below the adasitlistraticee
amended budget request of $87.057,497,-
000.
It is also 2817,273,000 below the
amount approved by the House and
3478,439,000 above the ,aniount ap-
proved by the Senate,
The appropriation agreed upon by
the conferees will rerstdt ift it reduction
In actual outlays of $2.5 billion during
the 1975 fiscal year, which should have
a significant impact on helping to com-
bat inflation.
Although strong efftwts were made by
the House conferees to restore Sizable
appropriations which bad been cut by
the Senate, your tonfvsetz Were success-
ful in limiting add-ons to only 26..2 per-
cent of the Senate reduction.
There were 57 ansendesents made by
the Senate to the House bill, and in all,
a total of 368 individual line-item dol-
lar or language differences that needed
to be resolved.
I am convinced that the -conference
committee has produced a reasonable
compromise and that the amount ap-
propriated in this bill establishes a level
of funding that is a fair balance between
the requirements of the Nation's de-
fense and the need for reduced Federal
spending in order to deal with inflation.
Mr. President, I wish to point out
that the reductions made in The admin-
istration's budget request are significant-
ly greater than was thought possible
at the time that the Defense Appropria-
tion Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations forecast a reduction of
$3.5 billion in new budget authority.
We have, instead, by applying the most
rigid Standards, made savings of nearly
$1 billion more than the target amount
we set at the time the hearings were
opened on this bilL
FISCAL YEAR 1975 SUPPLEME/9TALS
Mr. President, I want to make it clear
to my colleagues that, althotigh large,
this bill will not fund all of the Nation's
military costs in fiscal year 1975. In
addition to the military construction,
family housing, military assistance, and
civil defense areas, which will be in-
cluded in other bills, there is $1,740 mil-
lion which will be reqaired in a Sinai
year 1975 supplemental to pay for mili-
tary and civilian pay raises to be granted
in October 1974 and wage board Pan
increaaes which are automatically re-
quired as wages in the private sector
rise. I want to make It very clear to
the Defense Department that, barring
exceptional and unexpected changes in
the security posture of this Nation, the
Congress will takes very dim view of sup-
plementals for anything other than
those statutory pay and wage board in-
creases.
We do not want a repetition of last
Year's "readiness supplemental," which
included many items that probably could
have waited for the fiscal year 1975 ap-
propriation. Of course, if there are com-
pelling reasons for funding a critical
item, they will be considered, but only
after all means of readjusting within
available funds and reprograming have
been exhausted by the Department of
Defense.
OEPARTMENT Of DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1975 (WR, 11243)
Appropriations (by Imactiasaal MILO
Revisa fiscal year
1975 budget
estimate
House Senate
aRewance allowance
TITLE 4--4111LITARif IllfiRSONNK
Military personnel, Army ....... . .
Military personnel, Navy ...I
Military parae? Remy 1211, lin Miellierdiee of
deficiencies). ? =,
Military parse Matins tarps_ .7.1
Military pen Air fence a
Reserve personnel, Army a
Reserve person
Repave per Co _.....a
Reserve *mama
National 'Guard personnel, Army----------e
National Guard personnel, Air Fott...._.-----a
Tom!, title 1-8otary
17, 963, 208,100
5, 809, 900,1100
51, 026,1300
1, 72,500, 000
7, 475, 700,000
418, 600, 000
209, 700, 000
73, 000400
/41, 565, OM
4321, 700, 000
IN, 577, 000
87, 875, 013, 000
5, 720,230, 000
43, 356,000
1, 713, 506, 000
7, 332, 151,000
498, 600, 000
216, /CO, ODO
48,100, 000
145, 865, 000
660, 800, 000
204, 527, 000
17, 762,213,308
5, 665, situ*
43, 356, 000
1,688,206,000
7, 210, Sat 000
485, 880,800
202,111000
I wish to emphasize, Mr. PreAdent,
that while some military authorities may
regard this is a lean budget, their objec-
tives will be met if they apply the same
diligent scrutiny 'to their programs as
the members of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations applied in maktag our
recommendations for spending (luring
fiscal 1975.
In view of the economic and fiscal dis-
array in which the United States pres-
ently finds itself, the most strenuous ef-
forts must be made at all levels of the
Department of Defense to become more
cost-conscious, to examine all Item n with
the view of eliminating or dispensing
with those that are unnecessary w- thout
unduly or adversely affecting essential
operations.
Perhaps one of the problems with
military spending is that the profes-
sional soldiers, the generals and ad-
mirals who manage programs and proj-
ects in the Defense Department, have
not had the experience of working n the
Private marketplace where profits-sand
not appropriations--determine expendi-
tures. We must get full value for every
dollar expended. Our generals and ad-
mirals must come to reelive that we do
not intend to appropriate for any pur-
pose unless it is fully justified.
I have asked each service secretens to
make a determined effort to save dollars
and personnel and to submit penodic
reports on these efforts and their results.
In conclusion, Mr. President, it is my
hope that we will soon enter a period in
which international tensions will be re-
duced. But until then, we must maintain
a defense posture that will be an ado-
quate shield for OW liberties and a de-
terrent to aggression-While taldne into
account the limitations of our resouroas.
I am certain that the appropriations
contained in this bill are adequate to
meet this challenge.
As George Washington said In his ftrst
Inaugural address:
To be prepared for war is one of the most
effectual means of preserving peace.
Mr. President, I ask unaninukus con-
sent that a list of major items in confer-
ence and a tabulation summarizinn the
actions of the House, the Senate and the
conference be printed in ,the RECOED at
this point.
There being no objection, the tabula-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Conference
aveement
conference compared with-
Budget
estimate
Howe
250WIRCS
3eparte
allowance
$7, 7111 163,000 -2182, 937, 000 -994, 750,500 +518, 050, 9110
5, 679, tie, feo -120,090,000 -48,420,900 +04,311,600
43, 356, 000 -7,670,000
1,695, 456, 000 -37,044,004 -18,050,000 +9,200,000
7, 229, 131, 000 -206,169,510 -102.610,000 +12.050,000
493,100, 000 +3,200,900 -4,800,000 +1,000,000
211,1101 000 +2, 200, 000 -4, 300,+0, 001i, 008
, 100,0111 66,100,000 -6, 200, 000 -1, 700, -1, 001, ODD
147,12000 147,115,000 -700,000 +2,804000
66L 301008 661100, 000 +39,100,000 -511, 030
205 127, 000 204, WI, 000 +5,151100 -501, DOD
24, 77A 468,aoa
2 478, 748, 000
24, 131851 0110 24, 214, 108, 000 -560, 360, 000 -264, 640, ON +75, 2sg,040
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Release 205/..06L0.9 '_CIA:RDUR:Ipi8OR000700060018-4
September 24, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECuitu- sr.
S 17447
Appropriations (by functional title)
Revised fiscal year
1975 budget
estimate
House
allowance
Senate
allowance
Conference compared with-
Conference
agreement
Budget
estimate
House
allowance
Senate
allowance
TITLE II-RETIRED MILITARY PERSONNEL
Retired pay, Defense
6, 040, GOO, 000
6,040, 600, 000
6, 040, 600, 000
6, 040, 600, 000
TITLE III-OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
,
Operation and maintenance, Army
7, 048, 500, 000
6, 228, 389, 000
6, 137, 532, 000
6, 137, 532, 009
-910,968,000
-90, 857, 000
Operation and maintenance, Navy "
7, 665, 900, 000
7, 177, 915, 000
7, 140, 575, 000
7, 151, 175, 000
-514, 725, 000
-26,740,000
+10, 600, 000
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps
457, 100, 000
451, 624,080
449, 284, 000
449, 284, 000
-7,816,000
-2, 340,000
Operation and maintenance, Air Force
7,855, 200, 000
7, 113, 254, 000
7, 077, 930, 000
7, 062, 030, 000
-793,170,000
-51, 224,090
-15, 900, 000
Operation and maintenance, Defense agencies
1, 881, 700, 000
2, 357, 375, 000
2, 350, 159, 000
2, 350, 159, 000
+468,459,000
-7, 216,000
Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve
281, 400, 000
279, 600, 000
273, 600, 000
276, 600, 000
-.4, 800,000
-3,000, 000
+3,600,000
Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve
247, 900, 000
245, 200, 000
245, 200, 000
245, 200, 000
-2,700,000
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve_ _
11, 700, 000
11,700, 000
11, 760, 000
11, 700, 000
Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve
288, 800, 000
286, 680, 000
292, 580, 000
286, 680, 000
-2,120,000
-5,900,000
Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard
614, 900, 000
586, 500, 000
589, 500, 000
589, 500,000
-25,400,000
+3,000,000
Operation and maintenance Air National Guard
628, 500, 000
632, 500, 000
652, 500, 000
642, 500, 000
+14,000,0011
+10,000,000
-10,060,000
National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice
178, 000
178, 000
060,000
178,000
Naval petroleum reserve
6, 900, 000
81, 900, 000
56, 900, 000
69, 400, 000
--I 62, 500,000
-12, 500, 000
+12,500,000
Claims, Defense
54, 600, 000
54, 600, 000
54, 600, 000
54, 600, 000
Contingencies, Defense
5, 000, 000
5,000, 000
2, 500, 000
-2, 500, 000
+2, 500, 000
-2, 500, 000
Court of Military Appeals
1, 065, 000
1, 065, 000
1, 065, 000
? 1, 065, 000
-
Total, title III-Operation and maintenance
27,049, 343, 000
25, 508, 480, 000
25, 338, 303, 000
25, 330, 103, 000
-1,719, 240, 000
-178,377,000
-8,200,000
TITLE IV PROCUREMENT
Aircraft procurement, Army
339, 500, 000
224, 300, 000
284, 200, 000
242, 800, 000
-96,700,000
+18,500,800
-41,400,000
Transfer from other accounts
(7, 000, 000)
(7, 000, 000)
(7, 000, 000)
(+7, 000, 000)
Missile procurement, Army
459, 200, 000
416, 500, 000
416, 500, 000
416, 500, 000
-42, 700, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(15, 000, 000)
(15, 000, 000)
(15, 000, 000)
(+15, 000, 000)
Procurement of weapons and tracked combat vehicles,
Army
385, 300, 000
344, 800, 000
343, 500, 000
344, 800, 000
-40, 500, 000
+1,300, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(3, 000, 000)
(3, 000, 000)
(3, 000, 000)
(+3,000, 000)
Procurement of ammunition, Army
1, 344, 800, 000
726, 500, 000
720, 200, 000
720, 200, 000
-624,600,000
-6,300,000
Transfer from other accounts
(170, 000, 000)
(170, 000, 000)
(170, 000, 000)
(+170, 000, 000)
Other procurement, Army
786, 200, 000
669, 600, 000
689, 700, 000
681, 100, 000
-105, 100, 000
+11, 500, 000
-8, 600, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(3, 1100, 000)
(3, 000, 600)
(3, 000;000)
(+3, 000, 000)
Aircraft procurement, Navy
2, 960, 600, 000
2, 814, 000, 000
2, 745, 200, 000
2,775, 400, 000
-185,200,080
-38,600,080
+30, 200, 000
Weapons procurement, Navy
833, 900,000
762, 000, 000
748, 600, 009
729, 500, 000
-104, 400, WO
-32, 500, 000
-19, 100, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(10, 000, 000)
(10, 000, 000)
(10, 000, 000)
(+10, 000, 000)
Shipbuilding and conversion, Navy
3, 562, 600, 000
3, 059, 000, 000
3, 140, 400, 000
3, 059, 000, 000
-503,600,000
-81,409,000
Transfer from other accounts
(103, 600, 000)
(70, 000, 000)
(+70, 000, 000)
, (+70, 000, OM)
(-33, 600, 000)
Other procurement, Navy
1,684, 500, 000
1, 602, 600, 000
I, 582, 600, 000
1, 582, 600, 000
-101,900,000
-20,000,080
Transfer from other accounts
(20, 800, 000)
(20, 800, 000)
(20, 800, 000)
(+20,800, 000)
Procurement, Marine Corps
228, 800, 000
207, 800, 000
207, 800, 000
207, 800, 000
-21,000, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(10, 000, 000)
(10, 000, 000)
(10, 000, 000)
(+10,000, 000)
Aircraft procurement, Air Force
3, 496, 600, 000
3, 190, 300, 000
2,705, 700, 000
3, 062, 800, 000
-433,8110, 000
-127, 500, 000
+357, 100, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(76, 200, 000)
(153, 600, 000)
(153, 600, 000)
(+153, 600, 000)
(+77, 400 000)
Missile procurement, Air Force.-
1, 610, 800, 000
1, 555, 200, 000
1, 518, 700, 000
1, 533, 700, 000
-77, 100, 000
-21, 500,000
+15,000, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(5, 000, 000)
(5, 000, 000)
(5, 000, 000)
(+5, 000, 000)
Other procurement, Air Force
2, 071, 800, 000
1, 864, 400,000
1, 772, 000, 000
I, 776, 500, 000
-295, 300, 000
-87, 900, 000
+4, 500, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(12, 600,000)
(12, 600, 000)
(12, 600, 000)
(+12, 600, 000)
Procurement, Defense agencies
102, 017, 000
102, 017, 000
,
98, 416, 000
98, 416, 000
-3, 601, 000
-3, 601, 000
Total, title IV-Procurement
19,866, 617, 000
17, 539, 017, 000
16, 973, 516, 000
17, 231, 116, 000
-2, 635, 501, 000
-307, 901, 000
+257,600, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(332, 600,000)
(513, 600, 000)
(480, 000, 000)
(+480,000, 000)
(+147,400, 000)
(-33,600; 000)
TITLE V -RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST,
AND EVALUATION
Research, development, test, and evaluation, Army
1, 985, 976, 000
1,831, 630, 000
1, 749, 152, 000
1,779, 339, 000
-206, 637, 000
-52, 291, 000
+30, 187, 000
Research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy__ _ _
3, 261, 933, 000
3,065, 121, 000
2, 979, 612, 000
3, 006, 914, 000
-255,019,1100
-58,207,000
+27,302,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation, Air Force_
3, 518, 860, 000
3, 377, 317, 000
3, 144, 460, 000
3, 274, 360, 000
-244, 500, 000
-102, 957, 000
+129,900, 000
Research, developmant, test, and evaluation, Defense
agencies ,
528, 700, 000
492, 057, 000
491, 057, 000
491, 057, 000
-37,643, 000
Director of Test and Evaluation, Defense.
27, 000, 000
25,000, 000
25, 000, 000
25, 000, 000
-2, 000, 000
Total, title V-Research, development, test and
evaluation
9,322, 469,000
8, 790, 125,000
8, 389, 281, 000
8, 576, 670, 000
-745, 799,000
-213,455, 000
+187, 389, 000
TITLE VI-SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM
Special foreign currency program
2, 900, 000
2, 900, 000
2, 900, 000
2, 900, 000
TITLE VII-MILITARY ASSISTANCE, SOUTH
VIETNAMESE FORCES
Military assistance, South Vietnamese forces
(1, 450, 000, 000)
622, 600, 000
700, 000, 000
700, 000, 000
+700,000,000
+77.400, 000
Transfer from other accounts
(77, 400, 000)
(-77, 400, 000)
TITLE VIII-GENERAL PROVISIONS
Additional transfer authority, sec. 834
(750, 000, 000
(750, 000, 000)
(750, 000, 000)
(750, 000, 000)
TITLE IX-RELATED AGENCY
Defense Manpower Commission
1. 100, 000
1, 100, 000
800,000
800, 000
-300.000
-300.000
New obligational authority
87, 057, 497, 000
82, 983, 570. 000
81, 584, 258, 000
82, 096, 297,000
-4,061. 200.000
-887.273,000
+512.039, 000
Transfers from other accounts
(410 000.000)
(513, 600. 000.
(480, 000, 000)
(+480, 000. 000)
(+70. GOO. OW)
( -33, 600, 000)
Total funding available
87. 057. 497. 000
83, 393, 570. 000
82. 097. 858.000
82, 576. 297. 000
-4, 481, 200.000
-817,273.000
+478.439,000
Transfer authority_
(750. 000, 000)
(750, 000, 000)
(750. 000, 000)
(750, 000, 000)
-
_
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
S 17448
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE September 24, 1974
MAJOR ITEMS IN THE OONFERENCE
TITLE I-MIL/TARY PERSONNEL
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, the
conference agreed to restore the $61 mil-
lion reduction made by the Senate in
support and headquaters staffing trans-
fers. The conferees agreed that, as
the military become more efficient in the
use of manpower, the savings must ulti-
mately be passed on to'the taxpayer;
however, they felt that fUrther study of
specific changes in force structure Pro-
posed by each service was needed prior
to taking further action fo reduce man-
power levels significantly.
The conference also agreed to reduc-
tions in terminal leave payments, supe-
rior performance pay, and junior en-
listed travel benefits as proposed by the
Senate.
TITLE IV-PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS
The conference agreed to inelude $18.5
million for the 48 UH-1H helicopters
for the Army as proposed by the Senate
and delete $41.4 million for 19 CH-47C
Army helicopters. A total of $118 million
for 30 A-7E Navy attack aircraft is in-
cluded in the conference 1 agreement as
proposed by the Senate, instead of $130.7
million for 34 aircraft as proposed by
the House. The conference agreement
provides $429.4 million for 45 S-3A
antisubmarine warfare aircraft as pro-
posed by the Home instead of $385.8
million for 40 aircraft as proposed by
the Senate. The conference agreed to in-
clude $138 million for procurement of
25 A-10 close air support aircraft, which
is midway between the 20- aircraft pro-
posed for procurement by the Senate and
30 proposed by the House. 'The conferees
also agreed on the appropriation of $328
million for six airborne warning and con-
trol system aircraft and $42 million
for advance procurement as proposed ha
the House, instead of funding only four
aircraft as proposed by the Senate. The
conference agreed to provide $756.9 mil-
lion for procurement of 72 F-15 fighter
aircraft as proposed by the House in-
stead of $690.7 million for'62 aircraft as
proposed by the Senate. The agreement
also provides $205.5 million for 12 F-
111F aircraft as proposed by the House,
but deletes $15 million for advance pro-
curement of future F-111%.
I cannot emphasize more strongly
that the conferees do not Intend to pro-
vide any further funds Dor the F-111
Program unless it is requested by the ad-
ministration and sufficiently justified
before the proper congressional com-
nsittees.
SHIPBUILDING
The conference deleted the $81.4 mil-
lion provided by the Senate for a fleet
oiler. The conference also agreed to pro-
vide $70 million for escalation and
cost growth associated with the procure-
ment of two submarine tenders instead
of the transfer of $103.6 nsillion as pro-
nosed by the Senate. These two sub-
marine tenders were funded in fiscal
years 1972 and 1973, but the sums appro-
priated are insufficient to construct
them. The additional $70 million will be
obtained by the cancellation of a de-
stroyer tender, but the conferees indi-
cated that if it is required, the destroyer
tender can be included in the fiscal 1976
budget request.
TITLE V-RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TSST
AND EVALV ATION
AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENTS
For the Navy, the conference agree-
ment provides $4.6 million for develop-
ment of the F-401 jet engine instead of
$21 million proposed by the House and
no funds as proposed by the Senate.
These funds are provided to pay only for
prior year effort and the conferees agreed
that further development should be de-
layed until the Navy adequately justifies
a requirement for this engine. The con-
ference agreed to provide $20 million as
proposed by the Senate instead of no
funding as proposed by the House for the
Navy VFAX fighter aircraft, but stipu-
lated that the development program
must make maximum use of the Air
Force's YF-16 and YF-17 fighters, and
indicated that future funding is to be
contingent upon the capability of the
Navy to produce a derivative of the se-
lected Air Force air combat fighter de-
sign.
For the Air Force, the conference
agreement provided $445 million for the
B-1 bomber instead of $400 million pro-
posed by the Senate and $455 million
proposed by the House. The conferees
also agreed to provide $2 million for the
advanced tanker/cargo aircraft which
may be required to keep our bomber force
viable in the future.
The conferees agreed to provide $210
million for the airborne warning and
control system instead of $190 million
proposed by the Senate and $219.7 mil-
lion proposed by the House.
MISSILE DEVELOPMENTS
The conference agreed to provide
$104.2 million for the Army's surface to
air missile development program?
SAM-ID, instead of $100 million as pro-
posed by the Senate and $111.2 million
as proposed by the House. The confer-
ence agreement provides $118 million
for the site defense antiballistic missile
system. instead of $123 million proposed
by the House and $100 million as proposed
by the Senate. The conferees also pro-
vided $2 million for the Pershing II mis-
sile system, instead of $95 million as pro-
posed by the House and no funds as pro-
posed by the Senate. The conference
agreement provides $27.7 million for the
advanced forward area air defense sys-
tem, instead of $30.7 million as proposed
by the House and $24.7 million as pro-
posed by the Senate. Of the total pro-
vided, $18.2 million is for the short range
air defense missile system.
In the area of cruise missiles, the con-
ference agreement provides $38 million
for the Navy's strategic cruise missile,
instead of $41 million proposed by the
House and $31 million as proposed by
the Senate. The conferees agreed to pro-
vide $66.5 million for the Air Force air
launched cruise missile instead of $61.5
million as proposed by the Senate and
$71.5 million as proposed by the House.
TITLE vo?sntrrsar ASSISTANCE
SOUTH VIETNAMESE FORCES
The conference agreed to appropriate
$700 million for Military Assistance
South Vietnamese Forces instead of
$622.6 million in new obligational au-
thority and $77.4 million by transfer as
proposed by the House.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The conference reached agreement on
a number of language differences in the
general provisions, providing as follows:
For a reduction of 12,500 in military
personnel stationed overseas, instead of
25,000 as proposed by the Senate and
none as proposed by the House.
That no funds may be used for site ac-
quisition or construction of the conti-
nental United States Over the Horizon
radar system. The original Senate pro-
vision had prohibited use of funds for
development of this system.
That no war materiels may be trans-
ferred to any foreign country unless such
transfer is specifically authorized by law.
The Senate provision had also originally
prevented the use- of funds for the pur-
pose of stockpiling war materiels for
equipment for Asian countries.
Mr. President, I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I support-
and concur in the remarks by the distin-
guished chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations (Mr. McCasanas) . Our
conferees strongly supported the Senate
position and sought to retain to the max-
imum degree the position of the Senate
on the specific- issues, as well as to main-
tain the maximum reductions possible.
The difference between the House bill
and the Senate bill was approximately
$1.5 billion. On balance the restoration
of $478,439,000, approximately one-third
of the difference between the two
Houses, indicates strong support of the
Sente's position.
I am certain that the Senate is con-
cerned that defense outlays have risen
from $78 billion in 1968?when we were
fighting a war in South Vietnam--to a
request of over $85 billion in fiscal year
1975. The reason for this results primar-
ily from the very heavy Impact that in-
flation has had on the defense budget.
Between 1968 and today's defense
budget, military basic pay rates have
more than doubled. Military allowances
are up 41 percent. Civil service pay has
risen 59 percent. The cost of supplies has
increased 54 percent. These items have
added $31 billion to the budget request.
Another way of explaining this De-
fense appropriations bill is to compare it
in constant fiscal year 1975 dollars to
past bills.
In 1964 approximately $50 billion was
appropriated bot When converted to fis-
cal year 197f. dollars it would be approxi-
mately $94 billion.
In 1968, the peak year of the war in
Vietnam, approximately $78 billion was
appropriated but in today's dollars that
would be almost $125 billion.
In 1972 approximately $75 billion was
appropriated which was the equivalent
of $95 billion in fiscal year 1975 dollars.
This was a reduction of $30 billion in
buying power, personnel, goods and
services.
In 1075, this conference report before
us today continues a downward trend in
the funds available for defense.
Overall this fiscal year 1975 appropri-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Se''ptember 24, / "Iproved ROIROREIRMACIWatCONERDFSMAQUOR000700060018-4 S 17449
ations bill is less in constant dollars than
the pre-Vietnam appropriations and
since 1968 has been decining each year.
Although in current dollars this is the
biggest appropriations for defense in our
history it will provide less purchasing
Power. In fact, this appropriation bill
will require the Department of Defense
and the Armed Services to reevaluate
and tighten their respective belts. This is
particularly true in the area of research
and development. However, the con-
ferees believe that the vital programs
contained in this bill will be preserved
or continued as appropriate and that no
high priority project or weapon system
has been dealt a fatal blow.
This bill reduces the budget request
significantly, as the chairman has indi-
cated, and will contribute to the reduc-
tions in Federal expenditures requested
by the President.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to
adopt this conference report.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me very briefly?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I com-
mend and also thank the Senator from
Arkansas and the Senator from North
Dakota for the long months, in fact 12
months, of work, attention, and effort
that they have put into this bill. They
have had to go over and over and over
the same instruments, the same weapons
systems, the same political questions, the
same hardware, and the Same manpower
questions, all these months, and I know
that they have already started work on
next year's bill.
I think few of us realize how much
there is involved here. I think we all rea-
lize that it is important. But they have
done an excellent job and, in my opinion,
the reductions have not cut into the bone
and muscle of this military program, and
the people of America can have the satis-
faction of knowing, as I see it, that we do
have a strong military protection, secu-
rity or whatever name we may call it.
I made a speech the other day of a
general nature, but about our Navy, the
naval power which we have, which has
been unfavorably compared by some
with the Soviet Navy.
I think the facts are to the contrary.
It is partly due very much to the work
these gentlemen have done.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Mississippi. I do
not think there is anyone in the Senate
who is more familiar with the military,
with its problems, its requirements, and
the need for our support of it.
He is also a very valuable member on
the Appropriations Committee, and has
given us his assistance as we mark up
these bills. His advice and counsel are
always very helpful to the distinguished
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. YouNc)
and myself. We value this assistance that
the Senator has given.
Mr. YOUNG. I, also, want to thank the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi
for his favorable comments. His advice
and counsel all through these months
was very helpful. I do not know anyone
In the Senate who has tried harder to
reduce military spending but, at the same
time, to maintain an adequate defense
than the Senator from Mississippi. He
has been most helpful.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield to the Sen-
ator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
want to take this opportunity to con-
gratulate the able distinguished chair-
man of the Senate Appropriations Com-
mittee, Senator MCCLELLAN, and the able
ranking member of that cohunittee, Sen-
ator YOUNG, for the hard work, the dedi-
cation, and effective manner in which
they have handled the defense appro-
priations bill. The defense appropria-
tions bill is one of the most important
bills to come before the Senate.
Some years ago it consumed?in fact,
in 1968?about 42.5 percent of the budg-
et. It is down now to about 27 percent
of the budget.
There is no piece of legislation that
can mean more to the survival of Amer-
ica than this defense bill. There are some
items in here that some may feel are too
low?and they probably are. There are
other items that some may feel are too
high. But I am pleased that these gen-
tlemen have brought to the Senate a bill
that we feel will protect the interests of
America, and protect the survival of this
country, and also that of the free world.
I just want to express my high approval
of their magnificent work.
Mr. McCLELLAN Mr. President, I
thank the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina. I know he is one of those
who believes strongly, as strongly as
anyone in the Senate, that it is impera-
tive that this country remain a first-rate
power militarily. I certainly share his
views.
It is true that, in some instances, we
may have cut a little too much, but we
are under the compelling necessity in
these critical times with respect to the
condition of our fiscal affairs to make
reductions wherever possible.
I do believe, Mr. President, I say again,
that we have struck a fair balance tak-
ing all attending circumstances and
conditions into consideration, and I hope
this bill will be, and I believe the funds
to be provided will be adequate to main-
tain the deterrent that is necessary to
make a contribution to the peace of the
world.
Mr. President, I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am
gratified to learn that the conferees to
the fiscal year 1975 Department of De-
fense Appropriations bill have agreed to
retain the essential spirit, if not the
exact wording, of my amendment to that
bill:
SEC. 850. No funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense in this Act may be
used to transfer war materials to any foreign
country, unless such transfers are specifically
authorized by law.
As you know, the Department of De-
fense, in its request for fiscal year 1975
funds, proposed to? procure $529.6 mil-
lion of? weapons and equipment for the
purpose of adding to the war reserve
stockpile in anticipation of future South
Korean, South Vietnamese, and Thai-
land requirements in the event of war
affecting those countries. Such a sum
would have been in addition to the $517
million in weapons and equipment al-
ready stockpiled by the Department of
Defense for such purposes during fiscal
years 1973 and 1974.
This excess in the U.S. war reserve
stockpile, which would have amounted
to over $1 billion, presents, according to
a July 17, 1974, GAO report, a situation
whereby the excess could be transferred
to foreign countries outside of the pur-
view of the foreign military assistance
ceilings as heretofore enacted into law.
I have several questions to address to
the manager with regard to his under-
standing of the import of this section of
the act.
Is it the manager's uriderstanding that
no funds in this act can be used to trans-
fer war materials to a foreign country
unless such a transfer is specifically au-
thorized in some other act, such as the
Foreign Assistance Act or the Foreign
Military Sales Act?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. In the absence of a
specific authorization to transfer U.S.
war materials to a foreign country, then
no such transfer can be made?
Mr. McCLELLAN. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the authorization to
transfer U.S. war materials to a foreign
country specifies that the costs of such a
transfer?including the value of the ma-
terials themselves as well as any inci-
dental transfer costs?are to be charged
to foreign military assistance accounts,
or to some other accounts, then such a
specification would have to be adhered
to?
Mr. McCT.RT,LAN. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. And there would be no
cost at all to the Department of Defense
budget as appropriated in this act?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Yes. That is right.
Mr. KENNEDY. By the use of the lan-
guage "specifically authorized," does this
section mean that the transfer must be
authorized on a country-by-country
basis, or in a general sense?
Mr. McCLELLAN. In a general sense.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is it your understand-
ing that the requirement for authoriza-
tion to transfer U.S. war materials in-
cludes any transfers, such as by cash
sales, credit sales, guaranties, grants,
loans and leases, excess, or scrap?
Mr. McCLELLAN. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is there current legis-
lative authority to transfer U.S. war
materials to a foreign country under the
various manners I mentioned above?
Mr. McCLELLAN. There is.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would you cite the
provisions covering each of those
manners?
Mr. McCLELLAN. The Foreign Assist-
ance Act and the Foreign Military Sales
Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is it your understand-
ing that the $529.6 million in war reserve
stocks which the Defense Department
has proposed to procure this year, as well
as the $517 million in such stocks pro-
cured in prior years, are over and above
the war reserve stocks requirements of
U.S. active and reserve forces?
Mr. McCLELLAN. No; the materials
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
S 17450 Approved ForReN9WERN9M9A1CREEIRIT9139giRM0700060,0151tmber $ /9 1-.4
are not identified within overall war re-
serve material stockpiles
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the chairman
consider requesting that a distinction be
made in the future between the United
States and the requirements of potential
allies?
Mr. McCLELLAN. The General Ac-
counting Office has been directed to make
an in-depth study of the matter and re-
port to the Committees on Appropria-
tions in 6 months. The committee will
explore the subject during its hearings on
the fiscal year 1976 Defense budget.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the chairman.
'UNWANTED WEAPONS XN erscsn YEAR Lava
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS DILL
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. Pmsident, there
are two defense items remaining in this
fiscal year 1975 Defense Appropriations
bill that were not requested by the De-
partment of Defense.
There is a little over $100 million for
24 A-'7D attack aircraft and $205.5 nnl-
lion for 12 F-111 fighter-bombers. )3y
placing money in this bill for both these
weapons, Congress hae once again
turned a deaf ear toward requests for
moderation and good sense.
There is no justification for these air-
craft to be in the budget. The Defense
Department did not request funding for
either plane. And yet for the second
year running, the conference report
turns out to have full funding for both
aircraft. It is somewhat amazing to see
how these two planes get full funding
while other programs requested by the
Pentagon are cut hack. The sense of
priorities seems distorted at best.
On August 7, I wrote the Secretary
of Defense asking for a Clear statement
that the Defense Department does not
need these aircraft and that they were
not requested. I told Secretary Schlesin-
ger that I would try to remove these ap-
propriations if I could get a strong state-
ment from him that they were not neces-
sary to the national defense.
In place of a clear ariswer from the
Secretary of Defense, I received a bu-
reaucratic whitewash from the As-
sistant Secretary on Defense John M.
Maury. Mr. Maury wrote on August 10
that:
There are specific categories in which we
might have wished to see larger authoriza-
tions and appropriations.
He went on to say:
While we concur in the high regard the
Committee on Armed Services of both the
House and Senate have for the F-111F and
A-ID aircraft, we believe these aircraft to
be of lower priority than a variety Of other
programs included in our original request.
Should the Congess desire to add funds for
these aircraft, we would hope that this
would not be done at the expense of pro-
grams which, we consider of higher priority.
For that statement, Mr. Maury should
receive the bureaucrat of the year award.
He could not even force himself to say
that the Pentagon had not even re-
quested funds for these two aircraft.
Mr. President, I ask Unanimous con-
sent that the letter from the Assistant
Secretary of Defense be printed in the
RECORD.
One can only conclude; Mr. President,
that once again Congress Will look the
other way and not question the most
obvious example of wasteful spending in
the defense budget.
There being no objection, the ]etter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF' DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., Aug. 10, 1974.
Hon. WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR PROXMTIE: The Secretary of
Defense has asked that I reply to your let-
ter of August 7 regardi:ag funds for 5=111F
and A-7D aircraft in the FY 1975 Appropria-
tions Bill.
With respect to the overall PT 75 Defense
budget, there are specific categories in which
we might have wished to see larger authori-
zations and appropriations. However, in pres-
ent circumstances, we believe it to be an
austere, but prudent budget.
While we concur in the high regard the
Committee on Armed Services of both the
House and Senate have for the F-111F and
A-7D aircraft, we believe these aircraft to
be of lower priority than a variety of other
programs included in our original request.
Should the Congress desire to add funds for
these aircraft, we would hope that this would
not be done at the expense of programs
which we consider of higher priority.
Thank you for your continued interest in
the Department of Defense.
Sincerely,
JOHN M. MAIM.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
move the adoption of the conference re-
port on H.R. 16243.
"The PRESIDING- OFFICER. The ques-
Mon is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The conference report was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OtaraCER. The clerk
will report the amendments in disagree-
ment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
ResolVed, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 7 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment, as
follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-
ment, insert: $66,800,000'
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate numbered 15 to the aforesaid bill, and
conc.ur therein with an amendment, as
follows:
In. lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-
ment, insert: $7,062,030 000
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate numbered 15 to the Aforesaid bill,
and concur therein lath an amendment,
as follows:
In lieu at the sun-, proposed by said
'amendment, Insert: $7,062,030,000
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate numbered 28 to the aforesaid bill,
and concur therein wits an amendment, as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said
amendment, insert:
CONTINGENCIES, DEFENSE
For emergency and extraordinary expenses
arising in the Department of Defense, to be
expended on the approval or authority of
the Secretary of Defense, and payments may
be made on his certificate of -hecessity for
e,onflderittal military purposes: $2,600,000.
Resolved, That the Manse redede from lts-
disagreement to the amendment of toe Siu-
ate numbered 34 to the aforesaid bill, and
concur therein with an amendment, as
follows:
In lieu of the sumproposed by said amend-
ment, insert: $729,500,000
Resolved, That the House recede from ts
disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate numbered 88 to 'the aforess id hill,
and concur therein with an amendment, as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed oy said
amendment, insert: and in addition $70,000,-
000 for escalation and coat growth cn prior
year prograras which shall be derived by
transfer from "Shiplouilding and Conversion.
Navy 1973/1977"
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate concur in the
amendments of the House to the amend-
ments of the Senate numbered 7, 15, 28.
34, and 38.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from Arkansas.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. McCLELLAN, Mr. President,
yield the floor.
ADMINISTRATION POLICIES TO-
WARD THE OIL-PRODUCING
CO NTRIES
Mr. URMOND. Mr. President, yes-
terday e administration addressed the
very se ous implications of the unre-
strained eonomic nationalism presently
being ex bited by many of the oil-pro-
ducing n ons.
In sepa te speeches, President Ford,
Secretary issinger, and Secretary Si-
mon accu ely warned that the artifi-
cial rigging if oil prices threatened the
structure world security a,nc could
bring disastr us consequences.
Mr. Preside t, I fully share the grave
concerns ex essed yesterday, and
pledge my sup rt to the necessary ef-
forts to meet th threat, not only to the
economic surviv of the United States,
but to the rest of e world.
President Ford tated five prnciples
which should be bodied in a compre-
hensive energy ram for the world:
increased productio decreased demand,
cooperation between roducers and con-
sumers. attention to poorer nations,
and fair pricing. I en rse these princi-
ples, and sincerely h e that negotia-
tion, cooperation,-com mise, and com-
mon sense will result in heir imrlemen-
tation. A stable and bi g understand-
ing of all concerned nett is essential?
and it must be obtained n.
Mr. President, I would e to add one
point. The AmericanDeo e are willing
to negotiate, to cooperat to compro-
mise, to use common sens and to sac-
rifice?to resolve the seve economic
problems that face the U ted States
and the world today.
However, the American peo e Nill not
stand idly by and watch our a: coun-
try destroyed by economic bl lima% I
caution all concerned nations recog-
nize and remember that the aerie=
k
s
people unite when their sec ty is
threatened, and that they will Li se to
meet any danger with. the appr nate
action.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
b443
;e4e /6.,44f
Approved For Releas_e_2Q05/0609 ? CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
W
NAL RECORD ?HOUSE HOUSE September -23 1974 iNC1K.ESS1.0
fe Tals and rescissions will be submitted
to
facto
under c
canxiot a
stimulate
further pre
not o
restraint unle
does so.
The responsible
gressional appropria
eral budget authorit
though often contro e
budget execution. Sc
?un
principles and common sen
Federal agencies spend mon
deny fashion and only to the e
essary to carry out the objec
which the spending authority w
vided. Current economic conditio
quire extra care to assure that Fe
spending is held to the minimum le
necessary.
The deferrals and rescissions describ
in the attached report represent an
sential step toward the goal of redu
spending and achieving the bala d
budget we seek by fiscal year 1976. "--?se
actions, by themselves, will r./ be
enough. Howeirer, failure to ta and
sustain this important step wou jeop-
ardize our ability to control ederal
spending not only during the c nt fis-
cal year but, more importantl or sev-
eral years to come.
GERALD . FORD.
THE WHITE HOUSE, Septe? r 20, 1974.
lie Congress soon.
getary restraint remains a crucial
n our -efforts to bring inflation
trol. In today's environment, we
w excess Federal spending to
mand in a way that exerts
res on prices. And we can-
expecters to exercise necessary
the Government itself
ortionment of -)on-
s and other Fed-
an essential-
1?element of
nanagement
ictate that
in an or-
nt nec-
es for
pro-
re-
al
CALL OF THE
Mr. SCHERLE. Mr.
the point of order that
present.
The SPEAKER. Evi
not present.
Mr. BRADEMAS.
a call of the House
A call of the Ho
The call was ta
vice, and the foll
to respond:
Anderson,
Calif.
Andrews, N.C.
Armstrong
Aspin
Barrett
Bell
Biaggi
Blatnik
Boggs
Brasco
Breckinridge
Brown, Ohi
Broyhill, N
Burgener
Carey, N.Y
Casey, Te
Chishol
Clark
Clausen
Don
Clay
Cochm
Comb
Conla
Cony
Cran
Culv
Day Ga.
del arza
Del s
Di s
Do
D an
fit
Ec
SE
aker, I make
quorum is not
tly a quorum is
Speaker, I move
was ordered.
by electronic de-
ing Members failed
o. 532]
rdt
ser
Mall
onzales
ay
unter
Hanna
Hebert
Heinz
Hicks
Hillis
Holifleicl
Horton
Hosmer
Hudnut Shuster
Johnson, Colo, Sikes
Jones, N.C. Smith, N.Y.
Leggett Snyder
Lehman Spence
McCloskey Stanton,
McFall James V.
McKay Steed
McSpadden Steele
Maraziti Steelman
Michel Stephens
Milford Symms
Neclzi Taylor, Mo.
Nichols
O'Hara
O'Neill
Owens
Patman
Peyser
Podell
Powell, Ohio
Pritchard
Rangel
Rarick
Rees
Reid
Rhodes
Rodin?
Roe
Roncallo, N.Y.
Rooney, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa,
Rousselot
Shoup
Thompson, N.J.
Tiernan
Towell, Nev.
Treen Widnall Wylie
Van Decant' Williams Young, ca.
Vigorito Wilson, Young, Ill,
Waldie Char
Wampler Cali
The SPEAKE ?n this rollcall 324
Members have orded their presence
by electronic d e, a quorum.
By unanim consent, further pro-
ceeding,s un the call were dispensed
with.
ANNOUN
ENT BY THE SPEAKER
The S AKER. The Chair desires to
annou that the Chair is going to take
unani ? s-consent requests, and then
will tinue with the business of the
Hon
ROADBUILDING NOT
INFLATIONARY
(Mr. BRINKLEY asked and was given
ermission to address the House for 1
mute, to revise and extend his remarks
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. Speaker, under
of September 20, 1974, President
proposes rescissions and deferrals
of $ 22,908,000. Included in the trans-
porta ? item are Federal aid highways
1975 an nor programs, $4,370,090,000,
and 197 ogram, $6,357,500,000, The
assertion ade that release of these
funds would highly inflationary and
would have to offset by cuts in higher
priority progra
First, the inflat ry rationale is only
one school of tho Another signifi-
cant viewpoint is to contrary?that
roadbuilding, being a s ductive factor,
with tangible returns ng from such
development, is not infia ary.
Second, the case of pri les is best
served when people interes are con-
sidered. The unconscionable lay in
completing the Interstate Syste as re-
sulted and will result in unacc table
lasses of human life upon our highways.
I am opposed, Mr. Speaker, to these
proposals.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 16243,
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FIS-
CAL YEAR 1975
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R.
16243), making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1975, and for other
Purposes, and ask unanimous consent
that the statement of the managers be
read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, at the proper time,
I propose to offer a motion to strike out
the funds in this bill for the F-111 plane.
There is some $205 million provided for
12 F-111 planes in this bill, military air-
craft that the Department of Defense
does not want and has not wanted for 2
years.
It would be unconscionable to provide
$205 million in this or in any other bill
for an aircraft that the Department of
Defense does not want. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I must object to the request of
the gentleman from Texas in order to
protect the motion to instruct the con-
ferees.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Septem-
ber 18, 1974) .
Mr. MAHON (during the reading) . Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
the statement be considered as read.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I assume that the
gentleman proposes to take some time
in order to explain the bill and that he
will yield some time?
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the' gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, the answer
is yes.
Does the gentleman from Iowa wish
to have some time?
Mr. GROSS. Yes, I would like to have
2 or 3 minutes.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I will be
glad to yield sufficient time to the
gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw
my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON).
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, the confer-
ence report before the House now in-
volves an appropriation of $82.5 billion
for the Department of Defense for the
current fiscal year, the fiscal year which
ends on next June 30.
This bill is the result of the action of
the House on the original bill, the action
of the Senate on the Senate version of
the bill and the action of the conferees.
In view of the fact that my friend, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gaoss), has
made reference to the F-111 aircraft, I
will make a brief reference at this mo-
ment and further reference at a later mo-
ment in regard to the F-111.
The F-111 aircraft has been in produc-
tion for a number of years. It is the only
aircraft in production in the free world
which is capable of performing a long-
range bomber mission, although not as
long-range as the so-Called B-1. The
F-111 production line has been kept open
for a period of years, and we propose to
keep it open for another year.
Mr. Speaker, there is no budget re-
quest, as the gentleman from Iowa has
pointed out, for the F-111. In the mili-
tary procurement authorization bill, the
Committee on Armed Services provided
authorization for the F-111. The House
Appropriations Committee followed the
leadership .of the Committee on Armed
Services and provided funds. The House
of Representatives followed the leader-
ship of the Committee on Appropriations
and provided the $220 million-plus for
the F-111. The Senate omitted funds for
the F-111.
In the House-Senate conference, the
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
September 28,197/, _ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE
tions, wit Senate amendments thereto,
disagree to e Senate amendbients, and
agree to a ci erence with theSenate.
The SPE R. Is there objection to
the request s the gentlettian from
California?
Mr. GROSS. Speaker,, reserving
the right to object, as unable to hear
the title of the bill, his a request to
go to conference or to curt
The SPEAKER. To go a nisnference.
Mr. GROSS. I withdra reserva-
tion of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there
the request of the gentleman
fornia? The Chair hears not,
points the following conferee:
HOLIFIELD, MOORHEAD of Pennsy
Sr GERMAIN, FUQUA, BORTOlf, W
and BROWN of Ohio.
ection to
m Cali-
d ap-
essrs.
ia,
SOUTH KOREA SHOWS COMPASSIO
IN COOPERATING WITH Ilia:
UNITED STATES
(Mr. WIGGINS asked anctwas given
permission to address the *use for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WIGCFINS. Mr. Speaker, approxi-
mately 3 years ago the gentleman from
California, Congressman Wainim, and
myself traveled to Korea in carder to in-
vestigate the circumstances Of two GI's
who had been tried for Murder in a South
Korean Civilian court, convicted and sen-
tenced to death. Our investig ion at that
time indicated that these tWo service-
men were properly tried by the South
Korean civilian court under the Status
of Forces Agreement then in effect. We
found that the trial was fairly conducted
In accordances with the la vis of South
Korea, but we felt that the Sentence of
these two men was excessive, although
lawful, in fhe circumstances that case.
On appeal, the death sentence w
commuted to life imprisonment.
Since that time both the: gentle
from California, Congressmen W
and myself have been carrying on d
sions with President Park and the
ter of Justice of South Koreato
early release of these two e
Approximately 6 weeks a
Park released one of the m
man unfortunately having
ural causes just a matter o
prior to his contemplate
This act, Mr. Spea
Park of South .Korea,
and was an act of
American people, a
edge publicly that
ment President P
and express my
generous act o
can people.
s-
nis-
ct an
cemen.
esident
the other
ed of net-
eral weeks
ase.
President
nded to be
endship to the
want to acknowl-
t. I wish to compli-
for his compassion
p appreciation for this
endship to the Ameri-
COMI ICATION FROM THE
K OF THE HOUSE
The AKER laid before the House
the fo ing communication from the
Clerk the House of Representatives:
WASVIINGT011, D.C.,
September 20, 1974.
HO CARL 4LRERT,
S. ker, House of Representatives.
asa. SPEAKER: I have the honor to
ansmit herewith a sealed envelope from
he White House, received in tale Clerk's Of-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700060018-4
lice at 12:10 P.M. on Friday, September 20,
1974, and said to contain a message nom the
President wherein he transmits a message on
Budget Rescissions and Defe^rals.
With kind regards. I am
Sincerely,
W. PAT JENNINGS,
Clerk, House of Re,oresentatives.
By W. RAYMOND COLLEY.
BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CON-
TROL ACT OF 1971,?MESSAGE
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF TaE
UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO.
93-3(31)
The SPEAKER laid before the House
the following message from the Presi-
dent of the United States; which was
read and, together with the accom-
panying papers, referred to the Commi
tee on Appropriations and ordered
printed:
he Congress of the. United S s:
e recently enacted Con sloths].
B et and Impoundment Co 1 Act cf
197 ovides new procedi or execu-
tive rting and congr onal review
of actis by the executi ?ranch affect-
ing the of Federal iding. It there -
by serves make Congress a full
partner in e co uing struggle to
keep Federal g under control.
The new la vides that the execu -
tive branch m k to alter the normal
course of spe 'ther through defer-
rals of spe ac s or by asking the
Congress cind thority to spend.
The use unds ma deferred unless
either of the ress enacts a
resol requiring tha hey be made
avai e for spending. xecutive re-
sc n proposals to take e t, the Con-
must enact rescission Is within
ys of continuous session.
Following these procedures, today
reporting the first in a series of rrals
and proposed rescissions.
As is often the case in the institut
new procedures, and in the impleme
tion of new laws, there are questions
to what the law may require of the execa
tire branch and what the Congress ma
expect. In this instance, the Attorney
General has determined that this act ap-
plies only to determinations to withhold
budget authority which have been male
since the law was approved.
However, I am including in today's
submission to the Congress reports on
some actions which were concluded be-
fore the effective date of the act. While
these items are not subject, in the At-
torney General's opinion, to congres-
sional ratification or disapproval as are
those addressed in the recent law, I be-
lieve that it is appropriate that I use this
occasion to transmit this information to
the Congress.
Reasonable men frequently differ on
interpretation of law. The law to which
this message pertains is no exception. It
is particularly important that the execu-
tive and legislative branches develop a
common understanding as to its opera-
tion. Such an understanding is both in
keeping with the spirit of partnership
implicit in the law and essential for its
effective use. As we begin management
of
statute, I would appreciate fur
ance from the Congress. The
formation on the status
subject to Congressional
made available with tin
also permit a better
status of some fun
under the earli
ing law.
Virtually al
in this repo
1975 budg
before J
came
actio
Ii
II
445
gull-
ded
li-
ds not
n is being
mind. It will
tending of toe
orted previouily
oundment report-
the actions included
ere anticipated in the
nd six of them were taken
2, when the new procedures
effect. Failure to take these
ould cause more than $20 bil-
dditional funds to become axon-
e or Obligation. The inixnediate re -
e of these funds would raise Fade -al
nding by nearly $1300 million in the
current fiscal year. More significantly,
outlays would rise by over $2 billion in
19'76 and even more in 1977, the first
year hi which the new procedures for
congressional review of the budget anil
be in full effect.
The deferrals of budget authority be-
ing reported today total $19.8 billion.
The major referrals are:
?Grants for waste treatment plant
construction ($9 billion). Release of
all these funds would be highly hi-
flationary, particularly in view of
the rapid rise in non-Federal spend-
ing for pollution control. Some of
the funds now deferred will be
loted on or prior to February 1,
1975.
?Federal aid highway funds ($4.4 hit-
lion for fiscal year 1975 and $6.4 nil-
lion for fiscal year 1976) . Release of
these funds would also be highly in-
flationary and would have to be off-
set by cuts in higher priority po-
groms. Some of the funds are being
withheld pending resolution of
court cases concerning the environ-
mental effects of proposed highway
construction.
?Various programs of the Deptina
merit of Health, Education, arid
Welfare ($39.6 million). Fencing
enactment of the 1975 appropna-
tons, HEW funds are being pro-
vided under a continuing resolution.
Amounts available under the con-
inuing resolution above the budget
quest are deferred to preserve the
ibility of the Congress and the
stration In arriving at a final
n on the funding levels for
grams.
of the two rescissions which
would write off the 43456
et authority provided for
d telephone loans at a
t rate. The release of
be inconsistent with
ted in 1973, which
of 2 percent loans
ed. Loans to oor-
specified criteria
funds provided
e Appropna-
the
The lar
I am prop
million of b
rural electric
2 percent in
these funds wo
the legislation
limits the availed)
to cases of special
rowers who meet
can be financed out
by the pending Agric
tions Act.
The deferrals and r ons covered
In this first report are th lieved to be
of particular interest to the gross and
which would have significan pact on
budget spending if released. ey are
summarized in the attached ta A sec-
of the Federal budget under this new ond report of a series on addit al de..
Approved_For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
September 23, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE
House conferees supported the House
position. However, in the conference, the
funds provided for the F-111 by the
House were reduced by about $15 million,
and $205.5 million was approved by the
conference. I will have more to say about
that matter at a later moment in the
discussion.
I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to pro-
ceed now to a discussion of the confer-
ence report.
I will discuss the F-111 at a later
moment.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report
provides $82.5 billion for the Department
of Defense. This is a decrease in the
budget of almost $5 billion?to be more
exact, $4.9 billion in new obligational
authority, and a net decrease of $4.5 bil-
lion, including transfers.
The conference agreement which is
before the House at this time provides
$817 million less than the amount pro-
vided by the House in the original ver-
sion of this bill. It provides $478 million
more than was provided in the defense
appropriation bill when it was before the
other body. The appropriation recom-
mended in this conference report is
$3,605,000,000 more than was made avail-
able for the Department of Defense for
comparable functions in the previous fis-
cal year.
The point is, however, that while there
are $3.6 billion more in this bill than in
the bill of last year, double digit inflation,
More than 10 percent annual inflation,
means that actually in constant dollars,
so to speak, this? bill is below the bill of
last year. -
It is true that in the next Congress
there will be $2 billion in pay increases
which have been provided by law, which
will be considered in a subsequent appro-
priation bill.
The House Committee on Armed Serv-
ioes took a hard look at the national de-
ftnse posture of our country. I think the
Muse Committee on Armed Services is
somewhat like the House Committee on
Appropriations; we listen to the people in
the Pentagon, we evaluate their judg-
ment, and we sometimes reduce the
funds they request, and we sometimes
increase the funds they request. We in
Congress have a very vital role in na-
tional defense. The Constitution imposes
that responsibility upon the Congress.
We are by no means a rubber stamp for
the Pentagon. We try to do, under our
oath as Members of the Congress, what
we consider to be in the best interest of
the national defense of the United States,
and we consider the requests of the De-
partment of Defense very thoroughly.
The Senate takes similar action.
There were about 500 program differ-
ences between the Senate version of the
bill and the House version of the bill. In
conference we discussed each and every
one of these 500 differences in the pro-
grams which had been approved by the
separate Houses, and came to an agree-
ment.
In connection with this, Mr. Speaker, I
shall provide for the RECORD appropriate
tables showing what this conference re-
port does, along with an appropriate nar-
rative in regard to further information
about the conference report. But I think
what the Members want to know basidal-
ly now is that the bill is less than it was
when it was before the House. It is $4.9
billion below the budget. It is above the
Senate figure in the Department of De-
fense bill, and it is regarded by the
conferees as being the best that can
reasonably be done at this time for na-
tional defense.
It is unfortunately true that the great-
est percentage of every defense dollar
does not go toward modernization, does
not go toward new weapons and ammuni-
tion and new aircraft, and so forth; we
just buy a handful of aircraft in this
bill, relatively speaking, and relatively
few modern weapons. Some 56 cents of
the defense dollar is taken up in per-
sonnel costs.
This is partially the result of the all-
volunteer force which was inevitable
since the draft had been discontinued
but, nevertheless, it is a fact of life that
we are getting more and more in a de-
ficiency position with respect to the mod-
ernization of the military forces of the
United States, and this situation cannot
continue indefinitely. The Soviet Union is
building up rapidly, more so than the
United States. The Soviet Union has
more intercontinental ballistic missiles
than the United States.
It could have more submarine-
launched ballistic missiles than the
United States is permitted under present
agreements. We have more warheads, I
agree, but we are in a very difficult sit-
uation.
The $82 billion that is included in this
bill is a considerable sum of money. The
necessity is certainly evident that we
ought to find ways and means of bring-
ing the arms race to a conclusion, or at
least slow down the arms race.
Of course, we are continuing the SALT
talks, the strategic arms limitation talks.
Some progress has? been made in that
field. Other progress is anticipated, but
until a realistic and acceptable slow-
down of the arms race can be achieved,
we have got to continue to provide the
vast sums of money required to main-
tain the defense posture of the United
States.
So it is not with apology that this bill
Is presented.
Mr. Speaker, I will take no further
time at this moment.
Under permission granted, I include a
summary of the bill and certain tabula-
tions:
SUMMARY OF THE BILL
MILITARY PERSONNEL
A total reduction of $560,380,000 was made
to the budget request for military personnel
and related activities. The amount appro-
priated is about $24 billion. The major issue
before the conference was whether enlisted
personnel in grades r--3. to E-4 should be
provided full travel allowances. The travel
allowances would primarily pay for the cost
of moving the enlisted man's family when
he is ordered to Make a permanent change
of station move. The House conferees con-
sidered this new entitlement with great care
before deciding to recede and accept the
Senate position?deleting the funds for this
new entitlement. Our reasons include not
only the cost aspect (8177 .millon had been
requested), but that the number of de-
H 9447
pendents in overseas areas would be in-
creased substantially if the benefits were
approved. In addition, the services generally
obtained the needed number of new acces-
sions in 1974, thus this new entitlement is
not essential to the all volunteer force.
A major point that we wish to make is
that the substantial savings in the military
personnel appropriation were made without
significant strength reductions in this year's
bill. For example, the Senate made a reduc-
tion of $61 million in the personnel assigned
to support and headquarters areas, but this
was restored and the positions saved are to
be assigned to combat units. Overall, over
a $500 million reduction was made, yet we
have made an end strength reduction of
20,000 or less. It is very difficult to estimate
end strength because this occurs at one
particular point in time (June 30, 1975).
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
A total reduction of about $1.7 billion was
made in the requests for Operation and
Maintenance. The amount appropriated is
$25.3 billion, an increase of $1.4 billion over
the prior year's appropriation.
A major reduction in this appropriation
resulted from the authorizing legislation re-
duction of 32,327 civilian personnel positions.
A total of $8.1 billion was requested for civil-
ian personnel pay, and this was reduced to
$7.7 billion. We wish to point out that the
majority of the civilian employee positions
deleted were not yet filled, thus there will
not be any major reductions in force.
Another major issue involved the Army's
hometown canvasser program. This is a
program in which enlisted personnel (can-
vassers) are sent to their hometowns to re-
cruit people who will generally be assigned
to the canvassers own unit. This has been
the most successful recruiting program that
the Army has established. The House posi-
tion prevailed and $8 million of the $10 mil-
lion reduction made by the Senate was
restored.
The largest reduction in Operation and
Maintenance is the $574.4 million transfer
from Operation and Maintenance to the new
title for support of South Vietnam. This
reduction will have no impact on the U.S.
forces. ?
PROCUREMENT
The conference agreement provides $17.7
billion for procurement of military hard-
ware. This is about $2.2 billion less than the
budget amount and $180 million above last
year's appropriation. A larger portion a the
reductions from the budget request was
mandated by the authorizing legislation.
The major actions of the conferees relative
to the Army request include deletion of $41.4
million for CH-47 helicopters as proposed by
the House, and restoration of $18.5 million
for UH-1H helicopters which had also been
deleted from the House bill.
The conference agreement for Navy Pro-
curement provides the entire $429.1 million
for S-3A anti-submarine aircraft and no
funds for the AH-1J helicopters as proposed
by the House. A $30 million reduction in
Fleet Satellite Communications was agreed
to as proposed by the Senate. However, the
RDT&E request for this program was in-
creased by $15 million. The House position
on the deletion of $81.4 million for an oiler
was upheld. However, the House agreed to
the transfer of $70 million required to fund
the construction of two submarine tenders.
The major Air Force procurement programs
include $72.7 million for Maverick missiles,
$138 million for 25 A-10 aircraft, $328.7 mil-
lion for six AWACS aircraft, $756.9 million
for 72 F-15 aircraft and $205.5 million for
12. F-111P aircraft. While some reductions
were agreed to, none will require renegotia-
tion of existing contracts. The original Sen-
ate proposal would have required that a
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
II 9418 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -? HOUSE September 23, 1974
number of major productinn Contracts be
terminated and then ren.egoldrated. The House
conferees contended that this would only in-
crease the cost of the proper= and possibly
even delay them.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, -TEST, AND
EVALUATIOH,
The conference agreenientjarovides 68,516,-
670,000 for research, develcgiment, test and
evaluation. This is $745.8 *Ilion below the
budget request and $400 'Millen above the
appropriation for last year The appropri-
ation is $213.4 million below the bill as it
passed the House. Of the -total reduction,
over $400 million was made by the Congress
in acting on the authorizing legislation.
The conferees considered about 190 indi-
vidual line items during the conference for
the RDT&E appropriation alone. In total,
more than 600 line item differences had to
be discussed. One of the easier issues con-
sidered was the Senate reduction of 455
million in the B-1 leambee program. The
House conferees felt _that this action wohld
seriously impact upon the 'ogram and *45
million of the Senate reduction was restored.
The House conferees were successful in
restoring the amount in tete House bill_ or
the amount in the DOD redlama for major
programs like the F-16A atrcraft, AWACS,
Electroaic Warfare program .% in the Artily,
and the F-4 Wild Weasel program. Most of
the additional Senate redudions agreed to
by the House conferees' were made to level
of effort type technology programs. The con-
ference agreement allows the Department of
. Defense to reprogram funds into these pro-
grams if neessary.
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO 'sou= VIETNAM
By far, the most controversial item In the
Defense Appropriation Bill this year is mill-
tary assistance to South Vietnam. ThIs has
been a major issue in Congress most of this
year. Let me review with you what the
budgetary situation is. In presenting the
budget in January, the President requested
a $1.6 billion program for military assistance
for South Vietnam. He proposed to fund
this with $1.4 billion in new appropriations
and with carry-over amounts of $200 trillion.
In the authorizing legislation, Congress re-
duced tolls amount to $ t billion. In the ap-
propriation bill, the Appropriation Corarnit-
tee recommended the appropriation of the
$1 billion authorized- in a new appropriation
_which isolated and set aside the furies for
assistance to South Vietnam in -a very spe-
cific way and ended the procedure which had
been followed for some years under which
the Department of Defense couli provide as-
sets of United States mlitary forces ta the
-South Vietnamese. The new peacetime also
terminated the availability of prior year ap-
propriations for aid to Vietnam.
On the House floor, an amendment by the
_gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Flynt, was
adopted which reduced the amount provided
for military assistance to South. Vietnam
to a total of $700 million of Which $622.6
million was in new appropriations and $77.4
Million was the reappropriation of unobli-
gated funds from prior years.
The Senate deleted the ,reapproprietion
prior year funds and made an appropriation
of $700 million in new oblIgational authority.
The conferees agreed to the Senate amend-
ment. Some of the, Members of the confer-
ence from both Rouses expressed a desire to
see the amount provided for Vietnam fur-
ther reduced, perhaps to the $622 million
amount of hew obligational authority pro-
vided by the Nouse.
Let me point out that Congress has dras-
tically reduced the Administration's request
for FY 1975 for military assistance to South
Vietnam. The total amount oblige ed for
support of South Vietnam in FY 1E78 was
$2.2 billion. In FY 1974 the obligations
totaled just over $1 billion. For FY 1 975 we
are providing $700 _Million, Now, of the $1
billion provided in FY 1974, certain wnounts
were obligated on a statistical basis for as-
sistance actually provided in prior years. Tile
total obligations in YY 1974 for current year
programs was $675 million.
However; we must not lose sight of the
fact that in EY 1974 there was a consider-
able pipeline from previous fiscal years of
goods delivered to South Vietnam. It is esti-
mated that $990 million in actual delivertee
of goods and services was made in FY 1974
and that in 1975 approximately $863 million
in deliveries will be provided. We have an
actual reduction of more than $100 million
and when you consider the rate of inflation,
we had a sizeable reduction in actual WELT
materiel.
DEFENSE APPROPRIATION 13111. 1975-SUMMA1Y OF APPROPRIATIONS
'Amounts in thousar ds of dollars]
Functional title
Appropriation,
iscal year
1974 (new
valuational
euihorIty)
Revised
budget
estimate,
fiscal year
1975 (new
obligational
authority)
Passed
House
Passed
Senate
Conference action compared with-
Conference 1974 Budget
action appropriation estimate Rouse Senile
Title f -Mil Rai,/ personnel
Title II-Retired military personnel
Title III-Operation and maintenance__ ,,,..
Title IV-Pracureeent
Transfer from other accounts
Title V-Research, development, test, aneevaluation_ _
Transfer from other accounts
Title VI-Special foreign currency program
Title WI-Military assistance, South Vietnamese
forces
Transfer from other accounts_
Title 4111-General provisions (additielial transfer
authority, sec. 834) 025, MO)
Title IX-Related agency-Defense Manower -Coin-
mission 400
24, 183, 264
5, 150, 700
923, 702
030, 922
4499,800)
0-175, 688
2, 600
(1,018100)
Total, Department of Defense (N04)
78, 467, 446
Transfer from other accounts (503, SOO)
Total funding available 70,970, 746
Transfer authority
.4625,000)
Distribution by organizational componen4_
Army - 246660, 497
Transfer from other accounts (232, 550)
Navy 260 73,264
Transfer from other accounts /156, 86e) - - -
Air Force 24,428, 492
Transfer from other accounts_ (114, 000)
Defense agencies/OSI) 8,153, 603
Retired military personnel 5,150, 700
Military assistance, South Vietnamese forces (1, 018, 000)
Transfer from other. accounts_ _,,,.,
Related agency-Defense Manpower Commission__ 400
Total, Department of Defense (NOSt 78,167, 446
Transfer from other accounts__ 03, 300)
Total funding available 370, 746
Transfer authority 25,000)
Mr. MILISHALI, of Ohio, Mr. Speaker,
the brief outline the distinguished chair-
man of the Defense Subeinnmittee and
the Committee on Appropriations has
given concerning the conference on this
year'S defense bill has hit the high spots
of what I think was a very successful
24, 774, 468
6, 040, 600
27, 049, 343
19, 866, 617
9,322,468'
Z900
(1,458,000
24, 478, 748
6,040, 600
25, 50e8 480
17, 5390l7
(332, 600)
8,790, 125
2,910
622,600
(74400)
24, 138,353
6, 041V600
25, 330,303
15, 973,116
(513.600)
8, 389,281
2,100
700,4100
21, 214, 108
f,040, 600
21,330, 103
11,231, 116
(486,000)
8,576, 670
2,900
700,000
+30,244
+889, 900 _
+1.406, 401
+200,194
(-19,800)
-1-400,812
(-3,500)
+300
+708,000
-560,380
-I, 719, 240
-2, 635, 501
(+480, 000)
-745,799
+700,000
-264,640
-178, 377
-307,901
(+147,400)
-213,455
+77,400
(--71,400)
75, 250
-3, 200
+25 /, t011
(--33, 600)
+10/.399
(750, 000)
(750, 000)
(750,000)
(750, 000)
(+125,000)
1, 100
1, 100
100
800
+400
-300
-300
87, 057, 497
82, 983, 570
81, 584,258
82,096, 297
-1 3,628,851
-4, 961, 200
-487, 273
+512,039
(410, 000)
(513,600)
(480, 000)
(-23, 3130)
4+480, 060)
(+70.000)
(--33,601)
87, 057, 497
83, 393,570
82, 097,858
82, 576,297
+3,505, 551
-4, 481, 200
-117, 273
+478, 439
(750, 000)
(750, 000)
(750;1160)
(750, 000)
(+125,000)
22, 321,454
20, 342,410
20, 113,175
20, 121, 412
-537,085
-2,198,042
--,218, 998
-1-10, 037
(198, 000)
(198,000)
(198, 000)
(-34,900)
4-1 198, Me
28, 797, 959
27, 240, 652
26, 973,8.13
26,985, 295
+911,541
-1, 812,664
-.2.55,351
-1-11,652
__ -
.24.3, -46-2
(40, 800)
(144,400)
(110, 800)
(-46,000)
_(+110, 800)
(+70.000)
(-33, 600)
ii,
25, 702,194
24, 727,443
25,220, 493
+792,001
-2,072,909
-481, 701
+192, 8i3O
(93, 800)
(171,2o0)
171,200)
(+57,200)
( 1 I n, 200)
(+77, 400)
2, 602, 982
3,034, 014
2, 028,197
3, 025, 697
+872,094
+422,715
- 8, 317
-2, 510
6, 040, 600
6, 049, 600
6, 040,600
6, 040, 660
+889, 900
(I, 450, 000)
622,600
700,000
70,0000
+700,000
-4-700,000
+17,800 _ _
_ .
(7/, 400)
(-71,400
1, 100
1, 100
800
800
+400
-31)
-300
87,057, 497
82, 983,570
81, 584,258
82 096, 297
+3,628,851
-4,961, 200
-187, 273
+5,12,039
(410,000)
(513,900)
2480, 000)
(-23,300)
(4-480, 000)
(+70,000)
(- 33, 600)
87, 057, 497
83, 393, 570
82,097. 858
82, 576, 297
+3,605, 551
-4,481,200
-817, 273
+478, 439
(750, 000)
(750,000)
(750,000)
(750, 000)
(+125,000
conference. I do not have to remind the
Members of the House-and I think
most of them have served on confer-
ences-that the conference action is as
a result of compromise, a little push, a
little pull, a little take, and a little give.
At all times when we compromise, Just
by the nature of the notion, it is not, sat-
isfactory to either side. But I think in
this case after spetding 2 full clays in
conference with the distinguished /Amu-
bers of the other body, we have come
up with what I believe, as I said earlier,
Is a very satisfactory conference report
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 CIA-RDP75B00380R000700060018-4
September 23, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 9119
There are certain facets of it that do
not please me. I am certain there are
other parts that do not please some
members of the committee. I know that
some objections will be brought out here
this afternoon by some of my distin-
guished colleagues on the House side, and
I respect these people for their views.
They have a right to be heard, but we
are limited in our time today to 1 hour.
We have consumed nearly one-sixth that
time already by just outlining the high
spots. But I certainly hope in its wis-
dom the House will go along with this
conference report and not move in any
drastic direction to disagree from what
we have agreed to in conference with the
other body.
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I shall be
glad to yield to the gentleman from In-
diana.
Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I ask this question, or make his re-
mark, not in any critical sense but in a
sense of concern. We have the same
thing, of course, every year, and I never
hear anything different. What, if any-
thing, is anybody contemplating doing
at any time in the future about the sit-
nation where almost 60 percent of this
$82 billion buys nothing but personnel?
I, frankly, wonder how long we can keep
on doing that. I just wonder if anybody
has given it any real thought leading to
possible action in the future.
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I do not have
to remind my colleague, the gentleman
from Indiana, that one of the reasons
for the cost of personnel is that we are
trying to employ an all-volunteer force.
To combat that, we are cutting down on
our civilian personnel in Defense. We are
cutting down a small amount of the mili-
tary, personnel in this bill, and even-
tually we hope to get it down to a more
reasonable percentage than this bill
presents.
Mr. DENNIS. If the gentleman will
yield further, I realize that problem, and
I voted for the volunteer force and I
voted for the pay raises. I am not wiser
than anyone else, but it bothers me. Every
year we get the justification that more
than half of this does not buy us any
more hardware, and look at the Rus-
sians. Where does it end? Where do we
go from here?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. The gentle-
man says it bothers him. 1 bothers all of
us, especially on the Defense Appropria-
tions Subcommittee. The Department is
making a new study of the entire military
personnel on the compensation require-
ments, and I hope in the not too far
distant future we can come up with a
more reasonable personnel ratio to hard-
ware than we have in this bill.
Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio, I yield to the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CEDERBERG. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
They are very simple facts, I will say
to the gentleman from Indiana. There
is not any solution except going back to
the draft and paying recruits $75 per
month instead of paying $400. So if we
want to go back to the draft in order to
reduce the amount, that is the only way
I know.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
' Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I will be glad
to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I have a matter that relates to this re-
port. It is one of great concern to the
Kleinschmidt Corp., which is located in
Lake County, a large part of which I
represent. A great many of the personnel
employed at Kleinschmidt reside in my
congressional district. There they are
manufacturers of teletypewriters?
known by the Department of Defense as ,
forward area tactical typewriters, FATT.
The funds for this equipment were origi-
nally deleted. and then reinserted with
the requirement that there should be
competitive bidding. I understand Klein-
schmidt is the only present manufac-
turer. Several of the other earlier con-
cerns that developed similar equipment
have dropped out of the field. Klein-
schmidt has continued its research and
development, and is now producing a
most sophisticated and vital product.
The only question is, with the com-
petitive bidding, will the competitive
bidding take place at an early enough
date so that they will have a chance to
bid and stay in business; because if there
are substantial delays, it could be very
detrimental. I think maybe the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. STRATTON) has
some comment on that.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
I am glad the gentleman raised that
point because this is one I have been
interested in too. I have been in touch
with the Army Materiel Command this
morning on this very matter. I am very
disturbed by the wording contained in
the conference report that says that we
have got to have competitive bidding on
this teletype equipment. The Army Ma-
teriel Command presently tells me that
our troops in the field have teletype
equipment that was first developed in
1950 and 1952. It is wearing out very
badly. They had planned to award a con-
tract for the production of new equip-
ment on the first of October. As the gen-
tleman says, this -new equipment will
come from Kleinschmidt.
If this requirement for competitive
bidding is insisted on then our troops in
the field will not get this new equipment
for 4 more years. It will not get into
the field until 1981 or 1982.
I think it is a serious mistake for the
conferees to put this kind of wording
into a report and thereby tie the hands
of our forces for modern communications
equipment by a period of 4 years.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio, I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. McCLORY. I think the gentleman
has explained it more eloquently than I
could, the precise problem that is in-
volved here. I 'hope the interpretation
of the language in the conference report
will be such that there will not be any of
these delays. It would seem to me quite
inconsistent with the Defense Depart-
ment's needs to delay bids on a contract
for FATT until some other concern which
is not now producing teletypewriters may
decide to enter the field. Delays beyond
a few months would be detrimental to the
Defense Department and perhaps critical
as far as Kleinschmidt is concerned.
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. WHITTEN. I appreciate the prob-
lems of my colleagues who have military
facilities in their areas or even contracts.
This is one of the problems that we are
going to have from here on and one that
everybody is going -to be faced with. I
think one of the greatest problems we
have in the committee is the temptation
to have source procurement, which is
putting it in somebody's particular dis-
trict. After World War II, I remember
the Secretary of the Army said he had
pump-primed the country by purchasing
$100 million worth of trucks. We had
trucks running out of our ears in this
country; so this is the biggest source of
waste in the military.
While I can appreciate the interests
of our friends and many others here, I
think we have to insist that we have
competitive bidding on all these items.
I will tell the Members, when we have
competitive bidding, it often speeds up
the total time used from start of devel-
opment to completion of production, I
will tell the gentleman that the- extra
time taken to complete this contract will
be closer to 4 months than 4 years.
Mr. McCLORY. If the gentleman will
yield further, let me say I am not oppos-
ed to competitive bids; but with respect
to this equipment, there are four differ-
ent companies which no longer have the
ability to bid on this. If we are going to
hold this period open for inviting bids
for 2, 3, or 4 years in 'order to en-
able somebody else to develop their
own capabilities, I think we are doing a
disservice to our military as well as to a
legitimate and worthy supplier. If we
are going to to be able to have competi-
tive bids ready within a month or two,
then I say that is fine, why not have
competitive bids?
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I" yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. Actually, the situa-
tion is not as bad as the gentleman
from Mississippi has indicated.
Kleinschmidt has been developing this
particular type of teletype equipment. As
I understand it, nobody else ever came
up with any proposal that came close to
meeting the Army's needs. The money
in this bill is not intended to finance final
production. Rather it is to finance pre-
liminary production, to get some prelimi-
nary production going, in other words,
to see whether the promises of the de-
velopmental phase are carried out in pro-
duction. Then later on, if the Army
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
H 9450
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE September 23
wanted to go into open bidding, the prin-
ciples mentioned by the gentleman from
Mississippi would apply.
But, we cannot realistically expect to
get a new conipany in now to do the
production of something which another
company has developed ind hope to save
either time or money. We are just going
to louse up the whole procedure, in a.
product which our NATO forces desper-
ately need.
Mr. McCLORY. The gentleman is ttb-
solutely correct. This is not an item of
standard equipment In inev sense at all.
Kleinschmidt has been making FATT
for the military; they have developed
very sophisticated techtdques and ad-
vancements and ireprolitements which
have been to the benefit of the military,
and this respected concern wants to con-
tinue to carry on in that area.
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WRITTEN. Mr. Speaker, I started
on this committee in 1943, and one of the
problems we had then was the one which
seems to be described right here now.
Research and development funds should
be used to develop these items.
If we contract with one company to
develop plans and spectlications, they
in turn are obligated to turn it over to
the Defense Department so that tlaey
can have competitive bidding. This is a
$300 or $400 million contract, but I can
see why they are trying toget their hands
on it. In doing it, we are throwing a
whole lot of money down the drain when
If we do not complete this award and we
are going to have to find more money
when it is scarce.
Mr. McCLORY, We are talking about
$15 million.
Mr. WHITTEN. That is just the start
of it. It will be $300 or $400 million.
Mr. McCLORY. If there is no delay no
problem should occur. If there is delay
I think the Kleinschmidt Co. may go out
of business, and of coulee that would
be bad.
Mr. WRITTEN. I do not know how far
we can go in keeping conabanies in busi-
ness. That is one of the biggest prob-
lems we will have in scaling down the
Defense Establishment and getting back
to defense.
(Mr. McCLORY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENSHALL of Ohio Mr. Speaker,
I understand the problem of the gentle-
man from Illinois. He talked to me
earlier about it and expressed rightful
concern.
At the same time, I think the con-
ferees were correct on Insisting upon
competitive bidding. I only hope the
Army can get the contract out for com-
petitive bids before the company goes out
of business.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Con-
necticut (Mr. Gieneo).
(Mr. GIAIMO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I was
member of the conference-committee on
this legislation, and I objected and re-
fused to sign this conference rep art- I
think the Members should understand
my main reason as to why I felt that I
could not in good conscience sign this
conference report.
I was displeased with the fact that the
conference committee added, in my
opinion, $77,400,000 in additional mili-
tary aesistance to South Vietnam, and
that the conference committee continued
the war reserve program, which totals
about a half billion dollars a year. I think
these actions were mistakes.
These however were not my reasons
for failure to sign the conference report,
although I was dissatisfied with the con-
ference committee's decisions in these
areas. The real reason for my refusal to
sign the conference report is that I can
no longer in good conscience vote for a
Department of Defense appropriation
which includes in it concealed funds?
concealed funds for the operations of the
Central Intelligence Agency, and possibly
other agencies.
I think the American people ought to
understand clearly that what we are
voting on here today is an appropriation
bill for the Department of Defense which
has in it CIA funds we do not know
about. Neither the American people nor
we here in the Congress know about these
unknown amounts of moneys whichlund
covert intelligence operations of the CIA.
We just do not know. We are not privy
to this information.
In my opinion, this is no way for us to
assume our responsibilities as Congress-
men. This concealment is not fair to the
American people, it is not fair to the
Congress, and in fact, it is not fair to the
Department of Defense itself.
Neither I, as a member of the DOD
? Subcommittee on Appropriations, nor
any Member of the House, with the ex-
ception of a select few Members whose
identity itself is uncertain to me, is privy
to where in the budget these funds are.
what they are supposed to be used for,
and the total amount of these funds.
I am demanding, as I think all Mem-
bers must demand, better disclosure of
the amount of funds requested for the
CIA and other similar agencies, as well
as the nature of these budget requests,
and I demand better proposals for proper
accountability for the use of these funds.
We cannot any longer tolerate the con-
cealment in appropriations of this kind,
and while we insist on this accountability
to the Congress and to the American-peo-
ple, I think it is time that we also ask
the greater question: Can and should the
United States, both morally and diplo-
matically, continue to employ covere in-
telligence operations that work to
overthrow governments philosophically
and operationally dissimilar to ours,
using methods that rely on intrigue and
stealth and perhaps guerrilla warfare to
conduct the foreign policy of the United
States?
I think it is shameful, and I think the
time has come to terminate it now.
Therefore, I intend to vote against this
appropriation today.
Mr- YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
1914
Mr. GIAIMO. I will be delig? o
yield to the gentleman from Illinoe
Mr. YATES. I commend the gentle-
man for his very constructive speech
The genineman is a member of the De-
partment of Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, and we are informed that
the funds for the CIA appromialion are
In that budget.
Mr. GIAIMO. But I cannot del errr ire
where they are.
Mr. YATES. Was there any gre.een-
tation made of cm funds to the gentle-
man's subcommittee during the hear-
ing?
Mr. MALMO. No: they have not been.
In all fairness, I am told that if I want
to-know where the funds are, they would
tell me, but they wouldtell me in secrecy
and then no one else In this Cengreee
would be entitled to knew.
Mr. YATES. Does the gentleman know
whether there is a review by the Depart-
ment of Defense Appropriations Sub-
committee of the activities of the CIA?
Mr. GIAIMO. I cannot tell the gentle-
man that. I understand that we have a
committee 'within our committee, but I
am not even priiw to this information.
I understand that certain ranking mem-
bers of this subcommittee are involved
with the CIA. What they do and do not
do, I do not know; but I do know this:
Recently there has come out in the
newspapers the story about our involve-
ment, the CIA involvement, in Chile. I
assume that was done with funds from
this appropriation or appropriations
similar to this. I find this outrageous,
and I say that the time has come when
we must stop this type of activity in the
United States, this secret type of ac-
tivity.
Mr. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, a could
not agree with my colleague from Con-
necticut (Mr. ammo) more. I fled the
conference report on DOD's appropria-
tion unacceptable.
The reasons to me are so clear the t I
will simply express them here in a lim-
ited outline.
I am appalled that at a time in our
Nation's history when we are tailing of
nothing but cutting the budget, that this
budget should be so high, almost one-
third of the future budget of the jnitEd
States. Where is the increase of pro-
ductivity in our military? Where r re the
plans for efficieney and cost et, tting ?
Why are there more ranking office n now
than in World War II when we had six
times the amount of men under arms?
Mr. Speaker, the Nation wanes de-
fense, but it wants intelligent defenes,
the best at the loweet cent. The Deleme
Establishment must be required to share
equally with the rest of our Goverinneat
in tightening its belt.
I also agree with Mr. GIAIMO that it
is unconscionable that we must vote out
a spending bill filled with hidden money
for the CIA. Incredible, particularly at
this time when terrible charges are
leveled that our Government, through
this agency, was not just gathering in-
telligence but in many *stances in fact
subverting and tryine to overthrow the
governments of foreign nations with
whom we diaagree.
We certainly need an intelligence arm
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
September 23, 1974, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
and I would hope one of the best. We
are not a nation, however, with a his-
tory of fifth column sabotage.
I do not even think that we need to
know where in essence the money is being
spent, we certainly do not want to tele-
gragh our actions to the Russians, but
every Member of Congress has a right
to know what type of operation the CIA
is involved in, and they certainly have
a right to know the gross amount they
spend.
In essence, I do not find that the con-
ferees have made any effort to give
Americans the best defense for the least
amount of money. Nor can I see where
they have given the American people
the amount of oversight that I feel they
have every right to.
Congress is not going to make its ob-
jective of $300 with a cut of this size in
the Defense Department. And the tragedy
is that we are not talking about defense
production jobs, because modern defense
weapons would in fact make our defense
cheaper and more productive per dollar.
What we are talking about is waste, du-
plication, and the necessity for all
branches of Government to show equally
in austerity.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, we, of
course, do not want to telegraph to the
Kremlin the innermost secrets of the U.S.
Government.
Members of Congress who need to
know should be provided with informa-
tion with respect to the CIA and will be
provided-with information, upon request;
but the law provides the procedure for
keeping this type of information secret.
We cannot give it out wholesale to the
American people without giving it to
every other nation in the world.
Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield to me?
Mr. MAHON. I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
chairman. As one of the conferees on the
conference report and as one of the man-
agers on the part of the House, I signed
the conference report, with certain reser-
vations which I have set forth.
Mr. Speaker, I have special exceptions
and reservations as to amendment No. 47
because I feel that it increases title VII of
the bill by $77.4 million. In addition,
there is the possibility of transfer au-
thority in another section providing for
stockpiling of war materiel in an unspeci-
fied amount and which would substan-
tially increase the dollar volume of mili-
tary assistance, South Vietnam, contrary
to the expressed mandate of this body.
Overall, while I am pleased that the
conference report reflects a reduction of
$4.481 billion under the amount which
the administration requested in its
budget, I would have preferred a further
reduction of $3.605 billion, and I believe
that such further reductions could have
been made by the deletion of certain un-
budgeted items which were added to the
bill and by further reducing many
budgeted items.
Mr. Speaker, residents of my district
are becoming increasingly aware of the
extra use of military aircraft, carrying
one or two passengers on nonmilitary
missions. During a period when- there are
widespread calls from the man on the
street to the White House for fiscal re-
straint, many people are beginning to
question the validity of what they believe
to be unnecessary special air missions
and courier service for and to individuals
who hold no official position with the
U.S. Government. I wish that this cpn-
ference report contained prohibitions
against such excursions. I hope that next
year's DOD appropriation bill will con-
tain such a provision. The use of high
performance military aircraft on long
distance flights to fly unofficial personnel
cannot be justified when such flying time
reduces the number of authorized flying
hours for training and operations pur-
poses.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of
what was said earlier by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Gitamo) . I do not
propose that classified information be
released on an unrestricted basis, but I
do believe that the appropriate congres-
sional committees should exercise more
control and oversight of certain agencies
of Government.
Mr. Speaker, we have been told that
we should expect an increase in annual
budget requests for the purposes covered
by this conference report of more than
$6 billion in order to keep even with the
appropriation for the previous fiscal
year. This statement if true is all the
more reason why we need to exercise
more and more fiscal restraint in the
battles against inflation. This is true not
only in this appropriations bill but in
each and every appropriations bill which
we report.
With some reluctance and several
reservations, I Shall vote for this confer-
ence report.
Mr. JONES of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Oklahoma for a question.
Mr. JONES of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker,
I thank the chairman of the committee
for yielding for the purpose of asking a
question.
Relative to the strategic bomber pene-
tration program, $5,504,000 is provided
by the conferees instead of the $10.6 mil-
lion provided in the House bill. How much
Is included for the advanced strategic
air launch missile technology project?
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I will say to
my friend, the gentleman from Okla-
homa, that we do not have a firm figure
as yet on the amount for this one project.
However, the committee strongly sup-
ports the advanced strategic air launch
missile technology project in which the
gentleman is interested and understands
that the majority of the funds provided
in this bill will be used for it. This in-
cludes complete support of the long-range
flight test program which I believe the
gentleman is concerned about.
Mr. JONES of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker,
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from New Hampshire.
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman.
With regard to the statement which
11 9451
was just made concerning the CIA and
the necessity for not telegraphing our
action to the Kremlin as to how this
issue is to be handled and exactly what
the United States is doing in regard to
counter-intelligence activities, I would
like to ask the gentleman this:
Do we not have within the Committee
on Appropriations a subcommittee of
members that handles the CIA and to
which the CIA reports and which does
know exactly how much money is in this
Joill for the CIA?
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is cor-
rect.
Mr. 'WYMAN. Therefore, there are re-
sponsible Members in this body who are
aware of such matters, and if they are
out of order or if they are wrong, those
Members would have an obligation to
tell us?
Mr.' MAHON. The gentleman is cor-
rect.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Mississippi for a question.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have two questions pertaining to the
Air Guard, if the gentleman will be so
kind as to help me with answers to these
questions.
As I understand it, in the bill before
the Congress today there are 24 A-7 air-
craft funded and they are earmarked
for the Air National Guard; is this cor-
rect?
?Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is correct
in his statement.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to commend the chairman of
this committee. This is the first time
that I have known about that any new
aircraft has been funded for the Na-
tional Guard. Usually they get handed
down to them. I certainly wish to com-
mend the chairman of the committee for
that action.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman.
Normally the Air Guard and the Re-
serve get the old aircraft and the old
equipment, but we are now finding it nec-
essary to rely more and more on the
Guard and the Reserves, and we are
trying to make them able to respond to
their responsibilities. In my statement,
I am making reference to all of the
Reserves.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right Mr.
Speaker, I understand that.
On page 23 of the report, the confer-
ence report mentions that 71 F-5E's
have been procured and have been
funded. These aircraft were purchased
for the use of the South Vietnamese Air
Force. As I understand it, they will not
go to South Vietnam and they will be
in the inventory of the regular Air Force.
My comment to the chairman of the
committee is this: that these aircraft
could be used by the Air Guard. They
now have antiquated F-100's, and I think
the Air Force would be looking for mis-
sions for these F-SE's. We could put them
into the Air Guard, where it would cost
much less to operate them, about half as
much, and they could perform the same
missions as the regulars would with them.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
H 9452
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE September 23, 1971/
I think it would just make sense to do
that.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I will say to
my friend, the gentleman from Missis-
sippi, that the committee feels that these
aircraft must first go to the regular Air
Force. The gentleman does raise a good
point, and we hope the time will not be
too distant when this aircraft will be
available to the Guard as well.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I
certainly hope they will consider giving
some of these aircraft to the Air Guard.
I thank the gentleman from his re-
sponse.
Mr, WHITTEN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Mississippi.
Mr. WHIieraN. Mr. Speaker, I too, In
line With what my colleague, the gentle-
man from Mississippi (Mr. Moerecomeer)
said, think that the economy of this
country must be taken into considera-
tion. And everybody does not agree, but
I do not believe that any nation in the
history of the world has been able to
stand up to spending this much money
in the name of defense and I take the
personal view that it is not all for de-
fense; it is for a Military Establishment?
and I think eventually the economy of
this country is going to require us to
maintain a more mobile and smaller
regular force with a, trained guard and
reserves. But in order to do this, we can-
not train them with old and obsolete
planes and equipment. So I hope that
this committee in the future?and I am
a member of the committee?can pay
more and more attention toward giving
first-rate equipment to the National
Guard and Reserve units because in a
few years we are really going to have to
look to them for the defense of our
country.
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. GROSS) .
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, as I pre-
viously stated, at the proper time I pro-
pose to offer a motion to recommit the
conference report with instructions to
the managers on the part of the House,
with respect to the amendment num-
bered 40, to recede from the conference
agreement and delete all funds for the
F-111 aircraft.
I do this, Mr. Speaker, for the reason
hat some 2 years before the death
of our late colleague, the gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Rivers, he told
the House that would be the last request
the House Armed Services would make
eor funds for the F-111. It is still with
us and apparently will continue for-
ever.
This year Secretary of Defense Schle-
eineer appeared before the subcommit-
tee of the Committee on Appropriations
chaired by the distinguished gentleman
rrom Texas (Mr. MAHON) and told Mr.
MAHON as well as the members of the
subcommittee that the Department of
Defense was not asking for a continua-
tion of the F-111 at a cost of $205.5 mil-
lion for 12 planes, or at the rate of $17
million each. Under the circumstances.
I am utterly unable to understand why
the Congress continues to appropriate
money for this plane. What is the deal,
anyway?
Moreover, we are about to embark up-
on the production of a new plane known
as the ACF at a cost of approximately $4
million each. In other words, approxi-
mately four of the new planes for one
of the F-ill's. There will be no better
time in this session of Congress to save
$205 million than here today in the re-
committal motion with instructions to
the conferees to take out the F-111's
which, I say again, the Department of
Defense does not want, and so told the
Committee on Appropriations in Febru-
ary of this year.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the
committee would put language in the re-
port such as this, I read at the top of
page 23:
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 2 additional minutes to the gen-
tleman from Iowa (Mr. Geoss).
Mr. GROSS. The report states:
The conferees do not intend to provide
any further funds for this program (F--Iii)
unless it is sufficiently justified before the
Congressional Committees
That is almost an insult to the Intel-
ligence of the Members of the House. It
was not justified several years ago and it
is not justified now.
As long as Congress is willing to spew
out $205 million a year to produce 12 un-
wanted airplanes of course certain in
ests will be back, and they will need no
real justification. I suspect we will hear
from the Texas delegation very shortly
in behalf of the continuation of this--
I would call it highway robbery?that the
Department of Defense has tried to out-
law.
Mr. Speaker, there was never a time
when it was more vitally necessary that
this country stop unnecessary and ex-
travagant spending. This aircraft was
never designed as a substitute for a heavy
bomber and any argument to that effect
is nonsense. Moreover, if it was designed
to fulfill the mission of a new fleet of
heavy bombers why only 12 of them?
The TFX F-111 has been steeped in
scandal beginning with the first con-
tract award made by former Secretary
of Defcnse Robert Strange McNamara.
It is time to put an end to it and I
urge approval of my motion to recom-
mit to do just that.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. STRATTON) , Et member of the
Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. STRATTON asked and was given
Permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, I
thought I had already talked to my good
friend, the gentleman from Iowa, and
explained this point to him, but he has
been so busy on so many other things
that maybe we did not spend enough
time on it. There is really no great secret
on this F-111 matter. The story is com-
pletely different from what the gentle-
man from Iowa has said, and if there is
anybody to be blamed, it is the Commit-
tee on .Armed Services.. if there is any
member of that committee to be blamed,
I am the guy. I do not have General
Dynamics in my hometown. I have no
interest in it except that I do not believe
yet that the Air Force has sold us on the
B-1 bomber. And I am the guy who in-
sisted we keep the F-111 production line
In operation until a final decision on
production of the F-111 could be made.
Mr. GROSS complains that the F-11.1
costs $17 million a copy. Well, the B-1
bomber is up now to $60 or $70 million
a copy, and the Air Force has not yet
made a decision on it. Some peopie say
the ultimate cost could go to $100 million
a copy.
I, as one member of that committee,
having sat at the feet of the gent men
from Iowa, have always been a little bit
dubious of whether, when the Air Force
finally gets around to saying they want
us to build this B-1 bomber, I am going
to be willing to say, "OK, go ahead and
build a bomber at $70 million a copy."
The F-111 aircraft production line is
being kept open for this year?and for
last year?for one reason and one rea-
son only. That is to retain for the Ameri-
can taxpayers a viable alternative to the
B-1 when the Air Force finally conies in
and asks us to authorize B-1 production
at a price that might be as high ale $100
million a copy.
If at that time we have no other plane
that can carry bombs to the Soviet
Union at supersonic speeds, we are going
to have to say, "OK. I guess we will have
to take your new plane even at that
fantastic price."
But as long as we have the le-111
production line in production, capable of
turning out the FB-111 bomber, we are
going to say, "No, we do not have to
take that costly B-1; We have got an
alternate bomber here for only $17 mil-
lion that can do almost as much as the
B-1 can do, namely, the FB-111. That
is the reason this money for the F-111
production line is in this bill and fr no
other reason.
To say that this is putting money
down a rathole is a complete distoetion
Sure, the Department didn't ask for the
money. But why was that? The reason
is that the big bomber boys over in the
Air Force who really run the Air Force
are just scared to death that when the
chips are down next year maybe they
will not get their B-1 bomber that they
want so bady, their dream plane of the
future. They do not want us to have any
alternative to the B-1 available whe the
time for decision comes next year, or
maybe Congress will not vote for such an
expensive plane. Mr. Speaker, the facts
are that the big Air Force generals had
to be dragged along, kicking and
screaming, before they were willing even
to accept funds for the F-111. They are
still worried they may have to settle for
a less costly new bomber, the F-111, the
real Cinderella of the Air Force.
So the reason that we are exter dine
the F-111 production this year is that
after we had already extended the line
last year so we would have the FB-111
available as an alternative for the B-1
when the decision came to be made this
year, the Air Force told us the schedule
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
September 23, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE
had slipped and that no decision would
be made until 19'75. So we have had to
keep the production line of the alternate
plane open for 1 additional year?till
the hour of decision rolls around next
year.
So these funds are in the bill again
for 1 more year and the Air Force is
going to have to make up their minds
next year one way or the other. As long
as we keep the F-111 production line
going there is a viable and less costly
alternative to the B-1. I think that is
sound economy. Any time we can keep
open the option of selecting a $17 mil-
lion plane in place of a $100 million
plane we are doing the taxpayers a read
favor.
Mr, MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Waronr).
Mr. WRIGHT. I thank the gentleman
for yielding, and I shall make only four
points in regard to the F-111. I think
It is important that all members under-
stand the importance of these four basic
facts.
? First, the F-111 is the only strategic
? aircraft currently in production any-
where in the free world and the only
supersonic bombing plane in the active
Air Force inventory.
Second, it has established in 350,000
hours of actual flight the very best safety
record?fewer accidents for the number
of hours flown?of any military aircraft
built in this country in the past 20 years.
It performed with spectacular effective-
? ness over heavily defended targets in
North Vietnam and established a truly
superior record of survivability..
Third, if Congress should for some rea-
son decide that the B-1 should not go
Into production?the per unit cost is now
estimated at about $70 million or more?
it would leave an extremely dangerous
gap in our defenses to shut off the only
? alternative which is the F-111.
Finally, if the B-1 should go into pro-
duction on schedule, at least a substan-
tial part of that aircraft in all probabil-
ity will have to be built in the very plant
In Fort Worth which is now building the
F-111. To allow the active production
line to die before B-1 production begins
Would cost the taxpayers an estimated
$250 million in startup costs. In other
words, it actually would cost more to
crank up the idle plant than to keep it
alive for another year's production of
F-111's? This obviously would be false
economy.
For all of these reasons, I earnestly
hope that a substantial majority of the
Members will join me in opposition to
the Gross motion which would delete all
money for the F-111 fleet.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, the decision
of the conferees supports the House po-
sition. The House voted to fund the F-111
in the authorization bill, and in the ap-
propriation bill. The House managers
were able to maintain the House posi-
? tion.
Mr. Speaker, the X3-1 is in trouble.
Business Week magazine, I under-
stand, has quite a story about the B-1
In this week's issue, pointing out that
considering the rate of inflation we are
experiencing, this plane could cost about
$100 million per copy. I do not think the
Congress and the country will tolerate
this kind of cost for an aircraft. I do not
want to see this country put in the posi-
tion of having to take the B-1 or nothing.
There should be the possibility of an
alternative.
That is one of the reasons the funds
are in this bill for continuing the hot
line for the F-111.
Some have complained that the F-111
Is a Texas project?that claim does not
take into account the relevant facts.
I should add that the F-111 plant in
Fort Worth is located several hundred
miles from my district.
I would point out that 35 percent of
the money that goes into the F-111 is
spent in California; 10 percent in Texas;
9 percent in Connecticut; '7 percent in
Massachusetts; 6 percent in New York;
5 percent in New Hamphire; 4 percent in
Pennsylvania, and the remaining 24 per-
cent in other areas of the Nation; but re-
gardless of where the funds are expend-
ed, the factor here that deserves consid-
eration is the security of the United
States.
Let me make this further statement.
The B-1 bomber was scheduled to fly
last year and it is now scheduled to fly
late this year. It is my understanding
that the first flight may slip further.
While we support the B-1 as a replace-
ment for the aging B-52 aircraft, I do
not think we should abandon the only
strategic aircraft production line in the
whose free world, at Fort Worth, Tex.,
until we are certain that the B-1 will be
added to the inventory of the Strategic
Air Command.
I believe the Congress must at all times
be willing and able to fund programs
which are not recommended in the budg-
et of the Executive if Congress feels that
such action is in the Nation's best in-
terest. A rubberstamp role for Congress
in defense is indefensable. The Consti-
tution gives Congress a big responsibility
in national defense matters. You and I
are not willing to agree that all wisdom
resides in the executive branch. As Con-
gress acts in an independent way as a
coequal branch of the Government to
deny funds which Congress does not be-
lieve are required, Congress also has the
responsibility to add funds where it is
convinced that the funds are needed.
Would we not agree that many Members
of Congress are widely experienced in the
military field? Many are as knowledge-
able or more so as to the overall situa-
tion than some of the top personnel in
the Pentagon.
We have spent billions developing the
F-111 aircraft. The bugs have been
worked out of it. It has an unparalleled
safety record and is highly praised by the
men who fly it. There is no question
about it, the addition of the 12 aircraft
proposed will be welcomed by the Air
Force and will add strength to our mili-
tary forces at a time of world turbulence.
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, talking
II 9453
about the cost of the B-1 program, 244
B-1's at $100 million would be $24.4 bil-
lion.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. ASHBROOK).
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I want
to point out something that Members
may not realize. This happens to be the
last time one of our colleagues, the man-
ager of the bill, will be reporting back
to the House, because our friend, the gen-
tleman from Ohio, my colleague (Mr.
MINSHALL) has announced his retire-
ment.
Many of us could extol the virtues of
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mm-
? SHALL) over the years as the ranking Re-
publican member on the committee.
I merely point out that in bringing this
last bill to the House floor, he has kept
Intact the record for trust we on this
side have placed in his effort in behalf
of not only the Congress, but the strong
defense of our country.
I know that I speak for every Mem-
ber of this House when I tell him that
his 16 years on that committee has been
most beneficial to all of us.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. Yes. I am de-
lighted to yield.
Mr. MAHON. I think the gentleman
has more time than I have.
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. Yes. We have
14 Minutes.
Mr. MAHON. I just want to say as the
spokesman for the 55-member Commit-
tee on Appropriations, we have the pro-
foundest respect for the gentleman from
Ohio and we pay tribute to him for his
contribution through the years to the
cause of national defense. His objectivity,
devotion, and loyalty to the work in the
Congress has been very notable.
I just want to speak for all of us, if I
may, a word of good cheer to this friend
of ours who has served so faithfully and
so well. We are going to miss him in the
next session. It has been good to work
with him shoulder to shoulder in the
best interest of the United States through.
the years.
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from
Michigan (Mr. CEDERBERG).
(Mr. CEDERBERG asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, Mem-
bers of the House, I first want to say
that I rise in full support of the con-
ference report. Completing a conference
on an appropriation of this size is not an
easy task. There were many differences of
opinion between the House and Senate
on many items, as the distinguished
chairman has already said.
We have gone through these items one
by one, and we think we have come up
with a bill that is in the best long-term
Interests of the country. There is always
room for disagreement on a conference
report of this kind with its many and
complex issues. Thus a conference report
of this type is not an issue ?on which
everyone can totally agree.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
H 9454
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE September 23, i97
Mr. Speaker, I want to join with others
in paying tribute to the ranking minority
member of the subcommittee, the gen-
tleman from Ohio, Mr. MINSHALL, who
has labored long and hard over the years
on our programs for national defense.
It is not easy to serve on the defense
subcommittee. One does not have a lot
of constituents, and sometimes it is
easier to be in opposition to some of these
things than it is to be for them.
But, not only are we losing the distin-
guished ranking minority member of the
subcommittee, but also the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Dens) who has
also made a great contribution. The
gentleman from New Hampshire (Atr.
Wynaew) is also leaving to run for the
other body. I do no know why, but he has
some reason he wants to run for the
other body. We wish him well in that
endeavor, but we will miss him here.
As a matter of fact, on the Republican
side of the subcommittee we are only
going to have one present member who
will be returning for the next session.
He is certainly going to have a difficult
task. I refer to the gentleman from Ala-
bama (Mr. EDWARDS) .
To those who will no longer be on
this subcommittee, I, as ranking minor-
ity member of the full committee, want
to express my appreciation to all of
them for the hard work they have done.
Sitting on this defense subcommittee day
after day after day is not an easy task.
Reaching the right decisions for the
good of the country, even though others
may disagree, is not always an easy task.
As these members leave us, we are go-
ing to miss them because they have made
a tremendous contribution to the secur-
ity and best interests of the country.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CealaERBERG. I yiekl to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I want to join with the gen-
tleman from Michigan, not only in pay-
ing tribute to the ranking minority
Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
MINSHALL) but to a Member who has
been so long on this subcommittee and
on the full committee, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. DAVIS).
His loss is one that makes me particu-
larly sad. I would want to join with the
gentleman from Michigan in thanking
him for what has been done, the work
that has been done by thoSe who served
on this cominittee, and commend the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Davis)
for his years of leadership and expertise.
Mr. CEDERBERG. The gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. STEIGER), ilea said
it well. When he came to the Congress,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. De-
m) was on the Appropriations Commit-
tee then. I served when he was the rank-
ing minority member on what we used
to call the Military Construction and
Civil Functions, Corps of Engineers Ap-
propriation Subcommittee.
Over the years, I cannot think of any-
one who has worked harder and more
diligently and who has been willing to
take the kind of hard positions that are
necessary in order to serve on the Ap-
propriations Committee.
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank all my colleagues foe the
most generous remarks which they have
delivered on my behalf. All I can say Is
that to have served on this subcommit-
tee and the full committee on appropri-
ations has been an experience which has
been very rewarding, and one which I
shall never forget.
I cannot help but rephrase a quote
from a statement my good friend, DAN
FLOOD, made when we were first consid-
ering this bill on the floor. He walked in
a little late and looked around and heard
all this extolling of Bite Marvin'. going
on. He looked around and he said,
"Didn't see you. I thought you had died"
But thank you, DAN, for all the wonder-
ful things you have said about me. Also,
I want to thank the chairman of the sub-
committee, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. MAHON) for all his assistance over
the years. I would be remiss if I did not
mention the other able members of the
subcommittee who have helped bring a
strong defense to this country. Boa antes,
JOE ADDABBO, JOHN MCFALL, JOHN FLYNT,
BOB Comma and JAMIE WHITTEN and the
other side of the aisle. On this side GLENN
DAVIS, LOUIS WYMAN, and JACK EDWARDS.
Above all, we have one of the most
wonderful staffs on the defense subcom-
mittee in my 16 years service there. They
have been of immeasurable help to us in
their guidance and their counsel. As I
said before, we need more of them, but
I am sure a little extra pay would help
them as well.
I should remind the Members that I
am not returning, I just decided net to
seek reelection to the House.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker. I rise in
opposition to the conference report on
H.R. 16243, which appropriates $82.5 bil-
lion for the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1975. I intend to vote against
this legislation simply because it will al-
low an unconscionably high level of
spending for our military forces, a level
which is e.3.6 billion more than the raili-
tary was able to spend last year. My op-
position does not mean that I oppose
every item in the bill. In fact, there are
some useful limitations in this legisla-
tion, such as the ceiling on DOD person-
nel in South Vietnam which I proposed
as an amendment when this appropria-
tions bill was first considered on the floor
of the House. I am also convinced that
the United States must maintain its mil-
itary strength for the foreseeable future,
and that strength is inevitably expensive.
But this level of spending is reckless
and wasteful. It will allow the Depart-
ment of Defense to undertake such ill-
advised programs as nuclear counter-
force, which involves the retargeting and
improved accuracy of our ICBM's. This
program threatens a dangerous escala-
tion in the strategic arms race. This bill
will also continue the deployment of ex-
cessive numbers of U.S. troops abroad.
It will continue to provide for the swol-
len support forces and civilian bureauc-
racy of the Pentagon, which, exclueing
the Postal Service, employs roughly as
many civilians as all other Federal
agencies combined.
We must get off the treadmill of con-
stantly rising defense expenditures, a
treadmill many of us expected to aban-
don when the United States withdrew
from active military inenlvement in the
Indochina war. I still *ant to see the
"peace divic*nd," an actual reduction in
our military expenditutes, and until I
do I will continue to oppose these mas-
sive military budgets.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, this mili-
tary appropriation bill, H.R. 16243,
amounts to $821/2 billion. It is said to be
$41/2 billion under the budget request
but it is $31/2 billion more than last year.
Since it is our custom to pass supple-
mental appropriations, and since the
distinguished chairman of the Home Ap-
propriations Committed has already pre-
dicted a $2 billion supplemental, we all
know that the comparisons in the report
of the conference committee are not
especially hapful.
If we estimate another $2-plus billion
for e Pay ntse, already mandated, this
military bill- to the taxpayers becomes
nearly $85 billion, only $11/2 billion under
budget and $5 1/2 billion-8 percent--over
last year.
In my judgment, those numbers are
too big at this critical stage of our battle
against inflation. We must make cuts to
reduce the budget at least to $300 billion,
Unless this bill is reduced further, I do
not see any Chance to reach $300 billion.
I do not oppose the *eneral level of
weapons development. I would vote
against specific systema and develop-
ments, notably the F-111, but basically,
the real problem lies in personnel cost,
Therefore, I have urged,und do so again.
that force levels, especially overseas, be
reduced.
In addition to the dangers of spending
at this high level in an inflationary
period, I have a specific complaint about
our knowledge of, and oversight of, CIA
activities. my negative vote here is based
on objections to unnecessarily high
spending levels, but I am also seriously
concerned about the lack of congres-
sional control over the -CIA. It is well
past time for the Congress to exercise its
authority.
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against this
bill. I am not indifferent to national
security needs. I am not mad at the De-
fense Department. I only know we have
to make budget reductions, and this ex-
pense center is one that stands further
reduction.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I view the
conference report on defense appropria-
tions for fiscal year 1975 with mixed
emotions. I must be frank in stating that
I believe the conferees cut too deeply in
many areas. Cutting defense funds ap-
pears to be the order of the day in Con-
gress. We pay very little attention o se-
rious cuts elsewhere. In. fact, Congress
habitually increases funding for some
agencies. It makes token cuts in most,
But the yearend result is not an impres-
sive showing for economy advocate 3, ex-
cept in defense. I see instance after in-
stance where Government agencies come
to Congress asking for substantial toosts
in personnel year after year and the rule
alway seems to be to give them pert of
the additional personnel and appropria-
tions they request. it seldom seems to oc-
cur to cengressional committees to de-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIMRDP751300380R000700060018-4
September 23, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 9455
mand cutbacks in personnel and oper-
ating costs except in the Department of
? Defense. I find it difficult to understand
? the reasoning that defense is less essen-
tial to America than welfare or foreign
aid or many other agencies of Govern-
ment.
Be that as it may, the Department of
Defense must accept part of the blame
for the cuts which are made in the con-
ference report now before the House. De-
spite cuts all along the line made by the
Senate which resulted in a substantial
reduction in the House-approved bill, the
Department did not see fit to appeal a
majority of the Senate cut. This left the
House conferees in poor position to in-
sist upon the House figures in the in-
? stances where they were higher. The
Department strongly urged the adoption
of the House figures and, in fact, in most
cases, asked for more money than the
House allowed. I cannot believe the De-
partment of Defense has changed its
? mind to that extent between the time the
budget levels were justified to the De-
fense Subcommittee of the House and the
time of the conference action. Wheth-
er the Department of Defense was direct-
ed by the administration to compromise
for significantly less money, regardless
of its effect upon defense programs, I do
not know.
The conferees in most instances only
partially funded the amount of the ap-
peal. The result may well be a general
cutback in effectiveness in key areas such
as operations and maintenance and re-
search and development.
The fact is the defense appropria-
tions bill is 5.7 percent below the budget
recommendations. The ' original request
for funding for the Department of De-
fense for fiscal year 1975 was $87,057,-
497,000. The House bill provided $82,-
983,570,000 new obligational authority.
The conference report has approved
$82,096,297,000. In my opinion, the
House cut should not have been ex-
needed in the final version of this bill.
There could have been adjustments in
funding levels to accommodate more re-
cent inputs from the Department of De-
fense on actual need. But I am convinced
that we are cutting deeper than is ap-
propriate if we are to assure our Na-
tion the defense capability which is
needed in today's troubled world. It
means that defense is expected to ab-
sorb most of the $5 billion cut which has
been recommended by the administra-
tion in the overall budget of $305 billion.
I have felt that Congress can cut the
budget more than $5 billion, but I feel
that all agencies should share in the re-
duction.
Mr. BADILLO. Mr. Speaker, this
morning I spent several hours in New
York City listening to? a very timely and
indepth discussion of the state of the
economy by a distinguished group of
economists from throughout the Nation.
This gathering?a continuation of a
conference inaugurated at the White
House on September 5?was one of the
various meetings being held in advance
of the summit conference on inflation
scheduled for Washington later this
month.
The economists debating the many
and varied? factors which have Initiated
and are feeding the rampant inflation
now being experienced represented a
number of different schools of economic
theory. These experts deliberated over
certain steps which could be taken, to
combat inflation by reducing Federal
spending. Particularly discouraging was
the almost complete lack of attention
given to reducing nonessential and ques-
tionable defense programs and the
wealth of suggestions as to the domestic
social and State and local aid programs
which could be trimmed.
There is little question that the in-
flation is the No. 1 economic problem
confronting our country today. However,
there is no reason why essential domes-
tic programs must bear the brunt of any
reductions in Federal spending. I am
disturbed that the administration re-
fuses to follow its own suggestiOns when
it comes to the Defense Department and
that the only substantive cuts being
taken and contemplated are in those ef-
forts which would assist those most in
need?the underfed, the unemployed
and underemployed, the uneducated, the
minorities, the disadvantaged, the el-
derly, and others.
The measure before us is not so sacro-
sanct as to be immune from reductions
beyond those already made by the House
and Senate. Although the $82.58 billion
appropriated by this legislation is 5.1
percent below the DOD's original request,
it is still $3.61 billion more than the sum
appropriated for the last fiscal year. In
addition to such highly questionable pro-
curement programs as the B-1 bomber,
how much money is going to be allocated
to support covert intelligence activities
overseas to destabalize foreign govern-
ments and how much has the overall
budget been padded in a vain attempt to
stimulate the economy? Why should this
Nation spend some $700 million to con-
tinue to support a corrupt and ineffective
regime in South Vietnam? Have we not
yet learned that no amount of money will
ever buy peace and security for that
strife-torn area of the world? How can
we Justify supporting a defense measure
of this enormity when we are supposedly
at peace and are actively seeking d?nte
and a reconciliation with our potential
adversaries in various parts of the world?
Mr. Speaker, once again the defense
appropriations bill represents a complete
distortion of our country's spending pri-
orities. While the administration seeks
gigantic increases for military programs,
millions of Americans live in inadequate
and substandard housing, millions more
are undernourished, almost 5 million fel-
low citizens are out of work, the air and
rivers are befouled and the Nation's roads
are clogged with cars while commuters
are unable to reach their jobs.
I will agree, Mr. Speaker, that there
must be important reductions in Federal
spending but not at the cost of the
health, welfare, education and general
well-being of our citizenry. An Important-
step in the fight against inflation can be
taken by further reducing the measure
before us?an action which can be taken
without jeopardizing our national secu-
rity or defense posture one iota. Certainly
this is a recommendation which at least
warrants the highest priority at the eco-
nomic summit later this week.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question or the conference re-
port.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the con-
ference report.
There was no objection.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. WDADE
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. McDADE. In its present form, I
am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will re-
port the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MCDADE moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 16243 to the committee of conference.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the motion to re-
commit.
The SPEAKER. The question is on or-
dering the previous question on the mo-
tion to recommit.
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I have a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GROSS. Is the vote on the pre-
vious question?
The SPEAKER. The vote is on order-
ing the previous question on the motion
to recommit.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were?yeas 228, nays 125,
not voting 81, as follows:
Abdnor
Alexander
Anderson, Ill.
Annunzio
Archer
Arends
Bafalis
Beard
Bennett
Bevill
Blackburn
Boland
Bolling
Bowen
Bray
Breaux
Brinkley
Brooks
Broomfield
Brotzman
Broyhill, Va.
Buchanan
Burke, Calif.
Burke, Fla.
Burleson, Tex,
Burlison, Mo.
Butler
Byron
Camp
Carter
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Chappell
Clancy
Clark
Clausen,
Don H.
Clawson, Del
Collier
Collins, Tex.
Cotter
Coughlin
Daniel, Dan
[Roll No. 6331
YEAS-228
Daniel, Robert Hanley
W., Jr. Hanrahan
Daniels, Hansen, Idaho
Dominick V. Hansen, Wash,
Danielson Harsha
Davis, S.C. Hastings
Davis, Wis. Hebert
Delaney Henderson
Dennis Hicks
Dent Hillis
Derwinski HinshaW
Devine Hogan
Dickinson Holt
Donohue Hosmer
Downing Hungate
Duncan Hunt
du Pont Hutchinson
Edwards, Ala. /chord
Erlenborn Johnson, Calif.
Eshleman Johnson, Pa.
Findley Jones, Ala.
Fish Jones, N.C.
Flood Jordan
Flowers Kazen
Forsythe Kemp
Fountain Ketchum
Frelinghuysen King
Froehlich Kluczynski
Fuqua Kuykendall
Gettys Lagornarsino
Gibbons Landgrebe
Gilman Landrum
Ginn Leggett
Goldwater Lent
Gonzalez Litton
Goodling Long, La.
Grasse Long, Md.
Gray Lott
Green, Oreg. McCiory
Griffiths ? McCollister
Grover McDade
Gubser McEwen
Haley McKinney
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
14 9156
Macdonald
Madigan "
Mahon
Mann
Maraziti
Martin, Nebr.
Martin, N.C.
Mathias, Calif.
Mathis, Ga.
Matsunaga
Metcalfe
Miller
Mills
Peinshall, Ohio
Mitchell, N.Y.
Mizell
Montgomery
Moorhead,
Calif.
Moorhead, Pa.
Morgan
Moss
Murphy,
Murphy,
Murtha
Myers
Matcher
O'Brien
O'Hara
Parris
Passrn an
Patman
Patten
Pepper
Perkins
N.Y.
Abzug
Adams
Addabbo
Andrews,
N. flak.
Ashbrook
Ashley
Badillo
Baker
Bat} mart
Bergland
Biester
Bingham
Brademas
Brown, Calif.
Brown, Mich.
Burke, Mass.
Burton, John
Burton, Philip
Carney, Ohio
Chisholm
Clay
Cleveland
Cohen
Collins, Ill,
Conte
Corms n
Cronin
Dellenback
Denholm
Dingell
Drinan
Edwards. Calif.
Eilberg
Evans, Colo.
Evins, Tenn.
Fascell
Flynt
Ford
Fraser
Frenzel
Fulton
Gaydos
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? EIOUSE September 23.
Pettis
Peyser
Pickle
Poage
Preyer
Price, Ill.
Price, Tex,
Quillen
Railsback
Randall
Steed
'Steiger, Ariz.
,Stratton
Stubblefield
-Stuckey
Sullivan
Symington
Talcott
Taylor, NC.
-Teague
Regula -Thomson. Wis.
Roberts -Thornton
Robinson, Va. Tiernan
Robison, N.Y. -Ullman
Rogers Veysey
Rooney, Pa. ."Waggonner
Rose _Walsh
Rostenkowski Ware
Runnels -White
Ruth
Sandman
Sarasin
Satterfield
Scherle
Schneebeli
Sebelius
Shipley
Shriver
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
1Wh1telaurst
Whitten
Wiggins
'Wilson, Bob
we son,
Charles, Tex.
Winn
-Wright
Wyatt
:Wyman
Young, Alaska
Young, Pie..
Young, B.C.
'Young, Tex.
Zablocki
Zion
NAYS-125
Giaimo Mosher
Green, Pa. Nix
Gross Obey
Gude Poke
Guyer Pritchard
Hamilton Quie
Hammer- Rangel
schmidt -Reties
Harrington Riegle
Hawkins _Rinaldo
Hechler, W. Va. Roncalio, Wy0.
Heckler, Mass. Rosenthal
Heinz Roush
'lel stoski Roy
Hol ifield Roybal
Holtzman Ruppe
Horton Ryan
Howard St Germain
Huber Sarbanes
Jarman Schroeder
Jones, Okla. _Seiberling
Jones, Tenn, Shuster
Barth Skubitz
Kastenmeier Stanton,
Koch James V.
Kyros Stark
Latta Steiger, is.
Lulan Stokes
Luken Studds
`McCormack Thompson, N.J.
McSpadden Thone
Madden Trd all
Mallary Vander Jagt
Mayne Vander Veen
Mazzoli Vanik
Meed s Waldie
Melcher Whalen
Mezvinsk'y Wolff
Minish Wydler
Mink Yates
Mitchell. Md. Yatron
Moakley Zwacli
Mollohan
NOT VOTING-81
Anderson, Culver
Calif. Davis, Ga.
Andrews, N.C. de la Garza
Armstrong Dellums
Aspin Diggs
Barrett Dorn
Bell Dulski
Biaggi Eckhardt
Blatnik Esch
Boggs Fisher
Brasco Foley
Breckinridge Prey
Brown, Ohio Gunter
Broyhill, N.C. Hanna
Burgener Hays
Carey, N.Y. Hudnut Ilooney, LY.
Casey, Tex. Johnson, Colo. Rousselot
Cochran Lehman Shoup
Conable MeCieskey Sikes
Conlan McFall Snyder
Conyers McKay Spence
Crane Michel Steele
Milford
Nedzi
Nelsen
Nichols
O'Neill
Owens
Podell
Powell, Ohio
Rarick
Rees
Reid
Rhodes
Rodino
Roe
'toucan?. N.Y.
Steelniah
Stephens
Symms
Taylor, Mo.
Towel, Nev.
Traxl er
Treen
Van Deerlin
Vigorito
Wampler
Widnall
Williams
Wilson,
Charles N.
Wylie
Young, Ga.
Young, Ill.
So the previous question Was ordered.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. O'Neill for, with Mr. Eckhardt against.
Mr. Rodin? for, with Mr. Conyers against.
Mr. Carey al New York for, with Mr. Diggs
against.
Mr. Hays for, with Mr. Dellums against
Mr. McFall for, with Mr_ Rees against.
Mr. Slices for, with Mr Young of Georgia
against.
Until further notice:
Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Podell.
Mr. Biaggi with Mr. Culver.
Mr. Vigarito with Mr. Duiski.
Mr. Fisher with Mr. Reid.
Mr. Gunter with Mr. Aspin.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Dorn.
Mr. Roe with Mr. Blatnik.
Mr. Nedzi with Mr. Davis of Georgia.
Mr. Foley with Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Lehman with Mr. McKay.
Mr. Owens with Mr. Michel. _
Mr. Breckinridge with Mr. McCloskey,
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Conable.
Mr. Anderson of California with Mr.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Bell.
Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Conlan.
Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California with
Mr. Esch.
Mr. Rarick with Mr. Brown of Ohio.
Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Frey.
Mr. Casey of Texas with Mr. Broyhill of
North Carolina.
Mr. Millard with Mr. Crane.
Mr. Traxler with Mr. Nelsen.
Mr. Nichols with Mr. Powell of Ohio.
Mr. Rhodes with Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Spence with Mr. Rousselot.
Mr. Taylor of Missouri with Mr. Shoup.
Mr. Widnall with Mr. Steele.
Mr. Young of Illinois with Mr. Steelman.
Mr. Treen with Mr. Symms.
Mr. Wan:Wier with Mr. Towell. of Ne coda.
Mr. Wylie with Mr. Williams.
The result of the vote was announced
as ahove recorded.
The SPEAKLIC. The question is on
the motion torecommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the conference report.
Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Speaker, on
that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken, and there
were?yeas 293, nays 59, not voting 82,
as follows:
Abdnor
Adams
Addalib0
Alexander
Andeason,
Andrews,
N. flak.
AnnuiziO
Archer
Arends
Ashbrook
Befalls
Baker
Bauman
Beard
Bennett
Bergland
BevIlt
Bleeter
Blackburn
[Roll No. 5341
YEAS-Min
Boland
Bolling
Bowen
Brademas
Bray
Breaux
Brinkley
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Calif.
Brown, Mich.
Broyhill. Va.
Buchanan
Burke, Fla,
Burleson, Tex.
BUTI1S011, Mo.
Butler
Byron
Camp
Carter
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Chappell
Clancy
Clexk
Clausen,
Den H.
ClIEWsOLI, Eel
Cleveland
Cohen
Collier
Collins, Tex,
Conte
Carman
Cotter
Coughlin
Cronin
Daniel, Da
Daniel, toDert
W.. Jr.
Daniels, Jones, Okla.
Dominick V. Jones, Tenn,
Danielson Jordan
Davis, S.C. Barth
Davis, Wis. Kazen
Delaney Kemp
Denholm Ketchum
Dennis King
Derwinski Kluczynski
Devine Kuykendall
Dickinson Kyros
Donohue Lagornarsino
Downing Lanagrebe
Duncan Landrum
du Pont Latta
Edwards, Ala, T.eggett
Eilberg Lent
Erlenborn Litton
Eshleman Long, In.
Evans, Colo. Long, Md.
Eying, Tenn. Lott
Fascell Lujan
Findley Luken
Fish McCiory
Flood McCollister
Flowers McDade
Flynt McEwen
Foley McSpadden
Ford Macdonald
Fountain Madden
Frelinghuysen Madigan
Froehlich Mahon
Fulton 1VIal 1 ary
Fuqua Mann
aydos Maraziti
Gettys Martin, Nebr.
Gibbons Martin, N.C.
Gilman Mathias, Calif.
Ginn Mathie, Ga.
Goldwater Matsuriaga
Gonzalez Mayne
Goodling Mazzoli
Grasso Meeds
Gray Melcher
Green, Oreg. Mezvilasky
Griffiths Miller
Grover Mills
Gubser Mlnish
Gude
Guyer
Haley
Hamilton
Hammer-
sehmicit
Hanley
Hanrahan Calif. Vander Seen
Hansen, Ittaho Moorhead, Pa. Veysey
Hansen, Wash. Morgan Waggonr em
Mamba Moss Walsh
Hastings Murphy, Ill. White
Hebert Murphy, N.Y, Whitehuret
Heinz Murtha Whitten.
Henderson Myers Wiggins
Hicks 'catcher
Hillis Nelsen
Hinshaw O'Brien
Hogan O'Hare
Holifleld Pelage
Holt Passman
Horton Patrneal
Hosmer Patten
Howard Pepper
Huber Perkins
Hunt Pettis
Hutchinson Peyser
Ichord Pickle
Jarman Pike
Johnson, Calif. Poage
Johnson, Pa, Preyer
Jones. A's. Price, Ill.
Jones, N.C. Price.Tex.
NAYS-5D
o 4
Quie
Quillen
Railsbaca
Randall
Regula
Rinaklo
Roberts
Robinson, Va
Robison, N.Y.
Rogers
Roncalio, taryo.
Rooney, Pa,
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roush
Roy
Runnels
Ruth
St Germs al
Sandmar
Sarasin
Sarbanes
Satterfield
Scherle
Schneebell
Sebellus
Shriver
Shuster
Sisk
Skulaitz
Rack
Smith, Tcwa
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Stanton,
James J.
Steed
Steiger, Ariz.
Steiger, Wei.
Stratton
Stubblefield
Stuckey
Sullivan
Symington
Taicott
Taylor, N
Teague
Mink Thomsor, , Viris,
Minshall, Ohio Thone
N.Y. Thernteei
Mizell Tiernan
Mollohan Udall
Montgomery Ullman
Moorhead, Vander Jagt
Abzug Giaisr
Ashley Green. Pa.
BartilbO Gross
Bingham Harririgton
Burke, Calif. Hawkins
Burke, Mass, Hechler, W.
Burton, John Heckler, MasS
Burton, PhilLip Heistnski
Carney, Ohio Holtzman
Chisholm Kastenrn eier
Clay Koch
Collins, TU. McCorinack
Dellenback McKinney
Dent Metcalfe
Dingell Mitchell, Md.
Drinan Moakley
Edwards, Calif. Mosher
Forsythe Nix
Fraser Obey
Frenzel Pritchard
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
Wilson,Williams
Rob
Wilson,
Charles, Tex,
Winn
Wolff
Wright
Wyatt
Wydler
Wyman
Yatrori
Young. Alaska
Young. El a.
Young, S.C.
Young, Tex,
ZablOcki
Zion
Rangel
Reuss
Riegle
Rosenths1
Roybal
. Ryan
Schroeder
Seiberling
Shipley
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompscn, N.J.
Traxler
Vanik
Waidie
Whalen
Yates
Zwaoh
Approved For Release 2005/06/09__CJA-RDP75B0038nR000700060018-4
September 23, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL REcoltD --poiusli H 9457
Anderson,
Calif.
Andrews, N.C.
Armstrong
Aspin
Barrett
Bell
Biaggi
Blatnik
Boggs
Brasco
Breckinridge
Brooks
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Burgener
Carey, N.Y.
Casey, Tex.
Cochran
Conable
Conlan
Conyers
Crane
Culver
Davis, Ga.
de la Garza
Dellums
Diggs
Dorn
NOT VOTING-82
Dulski Roncallo, N.Y.
Eekhardt Rooney, N.Y.
Esch RousselOt
Fisher Ruppe
Frey Shoup
Gunter Sikes
Hanna Smith, N.Y.
Hays Snyder
Hudnut Spence
Hungate Steele
Johnson, Colo. Steelman
Lehman Stephens
McCloskey Symms
Taylor, Mo.
Towell, Nev.
Treen
Van Deerlin
Vigorito
Wampler
Ware
Widnall
Wilson,
Charles H.,
Calif.
Wylie
Young, Ga.
Young, Ill.
McFall
McKay
Michel
Milford
Nedai
Nichols
O'Neill
Owens
Podell
Powell, Ohio
Rarick
Rees
Reid
Rhodes
Rodin?
Roe
So the conference report was agreed
to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. O'Neill for, with Mr. Eckhardt against.
Mr. Rodino for, with Mr. Conyers against.
Mr. Carey of New York for, with Mr. Diggs
against.
Mr. Hays for, with Mr. Dellums against.
Mr. 1VIcrall for, with Mr. Rees against.
Mr. Sikes for, with Mr. Young of Georgia
against.
Until further notice:
Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Podell.
Mr. Breckinridge with Mr. Dulski,
Mr. Vigorito with Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California with
Mr. Reid.
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Hanna,
Mr. Biaggi with Mr. Culver.
Mr. Brooks with Mr. Davis of Georgia.
Mr. Casey of Texas witli Mr. Dorn,
Mr. Nedzi with Mr. Gunter.
Mr. Nichols with Mr. Anderson of Califor-
nia.
Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Aspin.
Mr. Roe with Mr. Blatnik.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Bell.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Conable.
Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Esch.
Mr. Owens with Mr. Brown of Ohio.
Mr. Ranch with Mr. Prey.
Mr. Milford with Mr. Conlan.
Mr. Lehman with Mr. Broyhill of North
Carolina.
Mr. McKay with Mr. Crane.
Mr. Hudnut with Mr. Rousselot.
Mr. Hungate with Mr. McCloskey.
Mr. Michel with Mr. Ruppe.
Mr. Rhodes with Mr. Smith of New York,
Mr. Shoup with Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Spence with Mr. Steele.
Mr. Young of Illinois with Mr. Ware.
Mr. Widnall with Mr. Symms.
Mr. Taylor of Missouri with Mr. Treen.
Mr. Roncallo of New York with Mr. Wylie.
Mr. Towell of Nevada with Mr. Wampler.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the first amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 7: Page 4, line 21,
strike "$68,500,000" and insert "$67,800,000".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
_ Mr. MA.now moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 7 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of
the sum proposed, insert "$68,800,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 15: On page 7,
line 21, strike "$7,113,254,000" and insert
"$7,077,930,000".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 15 and concur
therein with an amendment, as follows: In
lieu of the sum proposed, insert "$7,062,-
030,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 28: On page 13, line
22, insert:
"CONTINGENCIES, DEFENSE
"For emergency and extraordinary expenses
arising in the Department of Defense, to be
expended on the approval or authority of
the Secretary of Defense, and payments may
be made on his certificate of necessity for
confidential military purposes; $5,000,000."
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 28 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of
the matter proposed, insert:
"CONTINGENCIES, DEFENSE
"For emergency and extraordinary ex-
penses arising in the Department of Defense,
to be expended on the approval or authority
of the Secretary of Defense, and payments
may be made on his certificate of necessity
for confidential military purposes; $2,-
500,000."
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate Amendment No, 34: On page 19,
line 1, strike "$762,000,000" 'and insert
"$748,600,000".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 34 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of
the sum proposed, insert "$729,600,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the last amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate Amendment No. 38: On page 20,
line 8, insert "and in addition $103,800,000
for escalation and cost growth on prior year
programs which shall be derived by transfer
from 'Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
1973/1977',"
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 38 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of
the matter proposed, insert "and in addition
$70,000,000 for escalation and cost growth
on prior year programs which shall be derived
by transfer from 'Shipbuilding and Conver-
sion, Navy 1973/1977' ".
The motion was agreed to,
A motion to reconsider the votes by
which action was taken on the several
motions was laid on the table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous con nt that all Members may
have 5 leg lative days in which to ex-
tend their emarks, and include extra-
neous matt and tabulations, on the con-
ference re rt on H.R. 16243, making
appropriati s for the Department of
Defense, fis 1 year 1975.
The SPE ER. Is there objection to
the reques of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was objection.
A TRIBU TO COUNT BASIE
(Mr. ADD 0 asked and was given
permission to ddress the House for 1
minute, to rev and extend his remarks
and include e neous matter.)
Mr. ADDAB ?. Mr. Speaker, on Sun-
day night, Sep 2, a constituent of mine
for many year as honored by the peo-
ple of New Yo City, New York State,
and the Natio or years of dedicated
service.
Count Basie honored on his 70th
birthday by a s to attended by many
of the entertain nt world's brightest
stars and by man f the Nation's prom-
inent citizens.
Among the aws presented to Mr.
Basie were the ke o New York City, an
honorary doctora presented by the
Philadelphia Musi cademy, a plaque
from New York Sta locality mayors for
the years of work behalf of retarded
children by Count sic and his lovely
wife, Catherine. An ov. Malcolm Wil-
son proclaimed Sep ber 22 as Count
Baste Day, as did the i yor of Red Bank,
N.J., the Count's birt e.
There have been f who have ever
had the impact on Am an music to the
degree that Count Be-:has. For that
alone, he has earned s place in the
hearts of everyone t horn he has
brought joy and entert' 'ent.
But for those of us in eens to whom
the Count and Cather Basie have
been friends and neigh s for many
years, we remember most he concerns
that these two people h shown to
others. We appreciate the p e as much
as we appreciate the perfor For those
of us in Queens, we are wi to share
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
H 9458
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE September 23, 19
the music of Count Basle lth the world:
we hold close to our however, the
rsonal relationships welave hail with
unique and woredertul people who
h in the words of poet Robert Frost,
"In good neighbors."
As people from ing congressional
distric n with others in honoring
Count for his maw years ot star-
dom, we a salute Mr. and Mrs. Basle
for being d Mrs. Rosie, our good
and true frien
Mr. Speaker,
the New York
to Count Basle:
A "ROYAL SALUTE"
(By John S.
Possibly because Count
to reduce the art of leading
to the casual flick of a finstar
keyboard, he has rarely rtheiv
recognition as he should fOr his
tions to jazz.
Last night, in boner of his 70th b
(Which was actually Aug. 21), some
Base's friends began Taft.10Pg up for
lack.
At a "Royal Salute" in the Waldorf-Az
Hotel, jazz musicians, show business per-
sonalities, political figures, friends and fans
gathered to pay tribute to thm at a dinper
dance that was a benefit nor the United
Negro College Fund, the Cathgrine and Count
Baste Scholarship Fund and the Queens
women's division of the National Confer-
ence of Christians and Jews,
The energy that his frtencie showed in ar-
ranging the tribute eonteasteevith Mr. Basie's
style.
With him, music appears So easy. He sits at
the piano, a short, round, Impassive man,
his hands moving tentativeW over the key-
board as he watches the band_play. He passes
signals to his men with a qdipt, un.obtrusive
nod, a lifted eyebrow or a piano key touched
In passing. His solos are models of spare suc-
cinctness, built as much on silence as on
sound.
He is not, as Duke Ellington was, a prolilic
or distinguished composer. The tunes that
carry his name as writer are almost invaria-
bly blues based on a simple Jut catchy riff.
Nor is he known as an arranger as are such
of his peers as Mr. Ellington er Stan Kenton.
And he is certainly not the flamboyant Per
sonality that Mr. Ellington was or that
Kenton and Lionel Hampton are,
SET HIGH STANDAIDS
And yet, in his quiet, self-effacing w .
Baste has shaped and inateffained band
that sets standards for a swinging en-
semble that have never been eq ?. When
Benny Goodman was "the lra wing," it
was the Baste band that pr the illus-
trative definition of the wor e Ellington
band may be full of exotic c . The Ine.utort
band, Maynard Ferguson's d or Woody
Herman's Herd can blast y t of a concert
hall or even a football sta
But they don't swing th the facility or
the consistency, much the subtlety, that
the Basle band has ? to since 1936. This
ability to swing is a essential quality that
Mr. Ellington recog several years before
Mr. Basle had eve rrned his band. "It don't
mean a thing," . Ellington wrote in 1932,
"if it ain't got swing:"
Simplicity i keynote of everything Mr.
BaSie does. H piano style is dietillatIon of
the rolli "stride" style made familiar
by James Johnson and Pats Waller, the
style in I Mr. Baste started out.
The band that he brought out Of
Kane ity in 1936 had the flexibility and,
as J Jones, his drummer, Mice said, "the
tee I a small combo. It was a loose, relaxed
d with a repertory made up largely of
hide in the RECORD
of the salute
BASTE
n)
as seemed
jazz band
the piano
much
day
"head" arrangements on the tame that left
plenty of freedom for the barsra eolcietS?
Lester Young, Herschel Evans, Buck Clayton,
Harry Edison and Mr. Basis.
SENSE OP' DThreTIORT
But despite his positive sensteof direst/On.
Mr. Basle has not been limited to one ap-
proach. When the big-band tmstles yams
tumbling down at the end of the forties,
most of the bands disappeared and the hand-
ful that held on clung almost desperately to
whatever it was that had made them success-
ful in the first place.
The Basle band appeared to be heading
for oblivion then. The Count cut down to a
septet in 1950 'and 1951. But then he came
back with a band that had the same basis as
his earlier band?a swinging, blues-playing
band?but otherwise it was exactly the op-
posite. Instead of being loose and solo-
oriented, the second Baste band was so slick
and impersonal that it hs constantly been
referred to as a machine.
And although it has had notable soloist
none Of them approached the individuality o
the stars of the early Beide band?except
the pianist. He is the connecting link.
or loose, it is Count Basle who remains
stant factor in his band. Another con .t is
the down-to-earth simplicity of eve Basis
?achine." There are no eancy arra dents,
far-out effects. It is straight n-nome
unication.
he heart of it is that dec'rely simple
pia tyle and an adhere . . that basic
f Jazz, the blues. . Basle showed
tehleamt .h
. w exactly w'. e he was going
right fr. he start w he called one of
his band rds "Swingin' the
Blues."
SIX CHEERS
MITTEE?
DUST?
(Mx.
permissi
minute
and
We
THE RULES COM-
BILL BITES THE
LIN
to addre
revise and e
de extraneous
GOODLING. Mr.
esday of last week th
ee by a completely bip
? vote refused to great a r
26$, the rice subsidy bill r
? orted by the Agriculture Co
I wish to commend the Rules Co
tee for its action.
This bill was very controversial in
Agriculture Committee, having be
cleared only after surviving an 18-to-1
vote On a motion to send it back to the
subcommittee from whence it came on
a 4-to-3 vote.
The bill was strongly opposed by the
American Farm Bureau Federation, the
National Farmers Union, and the Na-
tional Farmers Organization; by the rice
growers in most areas of the United
States; and by the administration un-
less it were drastically amended.
Now we hear that the proponents of
this bill are going to try to reverse the
Rules Committee's decision.
I certainly hope they are not success-
ful because this bill is no way to fight
inflation through holding down Govern-
ment expenditures. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture estimates it will cost tax-
payers $1.687 billion during the next
years with the one amendment it seeks
and $4.075 billion in the form it was nar-
rowly approved by the Agriculture Com-
mittee.
Consumers should not be deluded into
-ed and was given
e House for 1
d his remarks
tter.)
aker, on
es Com-
6-to-6
H.R.
re-
thinking they will get any
prices than they can expect
present rice program, Prop
istered. Under this bill, If ric
too low, the Secretary Ivo
ized to pay rice grower
ments to idle their la
aside" program.
This exercise . . point up the fu-
tility of tryhog t s ito agricultural leg-
islation withou t reaching son e kind
of a reasona consensus both within
the coimni and with the at:Minis-
tration.
I per y hope that the proponents
of H.R. 68 would concentrate oat mak-
ing t needed reforms in the rresenl.
pr m to make it both equitable and
wi able for all concerned rather than
ting on bringing art obvious:y bad
I to the floor.
In order to more fully set ford) my
reasons for opposing this bill, I i iclude
at this point in the RECoRD thy state-
ment before the Committee on Rules:
REMARKS OP' aSORGE A. GOOD:UN;
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the oppoi -
tunity to appear today.
I don't expect you will be seeing rr e at e.
more in this capacity as I am retinal g at
the end of this session. This probably be-
ing my last apeparance before you, I Mope
it will be a useful one not only for you but
for our wonderful country as Well.
I'm here first, as a 50-year farmer she has
never taken a thin dime from the Depar
ment of Agriculture, to plead with you to
kill a bill that can only lead to millions of
dollars being paid to rice farmers fox grow-
ing rice . . . or not growing rice . . what-
ever the case may be,
I'm here second as a member of tae mi-
nority of the Agriculture Committee. This
Isn't an unusual position for me, ht t it Is
unusual for the leadership ttf the Agriculture
Commitee . . Bob Poage . . Bern e Stlt
? . ? Frank Stubblefield . , Walter 301*
. . . Bob Mathias . Bob Price . . . and
John Zwach . . to name a few, to be in
that minority with me.
Of course our minority is a prett thi
one . . . only one vote . . . as this bill es-
caped being sent back to subcommittee by
an 18-17 vote of the Committee.
But third, I'm here today as a Congren -
man who has always tried to look a Imes
legislation in the light of what's best lor
our country.
And that's how I know this Committee
s to look at things.
is very controversial bill, which comes
? at the 11th hour of the 93rd Congree
imply change the rice program from
tem to a payment system.
1 it does.
t give farmers any mor 'pc---
w rice than the present pr,
low?
Ce
the
dmin-
to get
e author-
0 owr allot-
rough a "set-
Scot a ba
The
d?
ttlnity t?
gram d
It does
bitlowerth
All it does
meat system u
ers . . . not al
just those with al
ments.
They will get two
The first are subsid
these are called price-s
they are desorlbed in
Sand 6 of the hill. _
The second are subsidi
rice . . these are called
ments . . . and are descrI
6(A) on pages 9 and 10 of the b
But, you say, there's a ff20, payment
limit. Is there, really? Look at subsecticn (el
on page 5 of the bill and you will see the
e prices to consume a ce 3
y are now.
set up a government, pa / -
which certain rice fare.-
them, mind yoi .
'sits . . will ge pa --
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700060018-4
cls of paymer ts.
growing rie .
paymeet ?
102 on pee et
not gr earth g:
-aside" pa,,-
in Stetter!,