SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 69

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190022-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 14, 2005
• Sequence Number: 22
• Publication Date: May 28, 1975
• Content Type: MF

SENDER WILL CHECK CLASSIFICATION TOP AND BOTTOM
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL SECRET
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
Office of Legislative
Counsel
2
7D 35, Headquarters
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks :
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
TE
Director of Personnel
SE 58, Headquarters
pv ~- 4j a se
1100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144R0011b'b1b00'22=9-_*
2 8 h1AYY 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: Office of Legislative Counsel
SUBJECT Senate Joint Resolution 69
1. Senate Joint Resolution 69 calls for an insistence
"that the United Nations take all necessary and appropriate
steps to obtain an accounting of members of the United States
Armed Forces missing in action in Southeast Asia" but apparently
does not include civilians in this accounting. It would appear
that a broadening of this resolution to include civilians would
be appropriate, both in the interest of personnel of this Agency
and those of other government agencies, as well as U. S. civil-
ians without government employment affiliation.
2. It is therefore suggested that appropriate action be
taken to include civilians in the accounting called for by Senate
Joint Resolution 69.
F. W. M. ann y
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
94TH SESSION CONGRESS C!
1sT SE89ION
S+ ~
JOINT RESOLUTION
Relating to obtaining a full and accurate ac-
counting for members of the United States
Armed Forces missing in action in South-
east Asia and United States contribution to
the United Nations.
By Mr. DoaIENICi, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BEALL, Mr.
BUCKLEY, Mr. CuRTIS, Mr. EASTLAND, Mr.
FANNIN, Mr. GARN, Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr.
llELiIs, Mr. MCCLURE, Mr. STEVENS, Mr.
STONE, and Mr. TIIURMOND
ArRIL 9, 197J
Read twice and referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12-/1kL.gl&-RQP77lVl00144
E"3& E C R E T
JOURNAL
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Thursday - 22 May 1975
1. Tim Hardy, Presidential Commission
staff, called to determine what success we have had in getting released
to the Presidential Commission a copy of the 27 June 1947 hearing before
th Committee on Expenditures and the Executive Departments on the
IA section of H R. 2319, unification of the armed forces. This document
would he helpful in provi ing authoritative legislative history on certain
77
of the Agency's authorities.
~t L. I
I uaLLeU .oLLL LIugc tt, v JULLDcLy J.1141 Lll~l li
ui bcommittee, House Armed Services Committee, regarding the possiblity
that the hearing of 27 June 1947 before the Committee on Expenditures and
the Executive Departments was transferred to the House Armed Services
from the Committee on Expenditures and the Executive Departn-i.ents.
Hogan will look into this possibility and will also provide guidance on the
general problem of further distribution of an executive session hearing
of a congressional committee which is in the possession of a Federal agency.
3. I I Called Jack Blum, Subcommittee on
Multinational Corporations staff, Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
and suggested Tuesday, 27 May 1975, at 11:00 a. m. for a briefing on. the
political situation in Korea. OCI, has been identified as
the briefer.
4. I I Talked to Clark McFadden, General Counsel,
Senate Armed Services Committee, who said the Newsweek article on Agency
proprietaries is on Chairman John C. Stennis '(D. , Miss.) reading list and
r- I
asked if we could provide an appropriate fact sheet.
C /GCS, 25X1
In another conversation with McFadden, I explained to him that we
were prepared to continue the NID at least through the recess and McFadden
was relieved at this and said that as a result he will not have to take the matter
up with Chairman Stennis at this time.
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
 25X1 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190022-9
 Ap , _-"PPlease 1005/1 /14 ? CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190022-9
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE -- PROCUREMENT AND RDT&E AUTHORIZATION
($ Thousands)
Budget
Request
House
Bill
House Bill
Under Budget
Senate Committee
R
d
i
Senate Committee
Recommendation
ecommen
at
on
Under Budget
Fiscal Year 1976
9,855,388
26,545,023
- 3,310,365
(-
11.1%)
25,012,535
- 4,842,853
(-
16.2%)
Fiscal Year 197T
5,863,737
5,474,417
386,320
(-
6.6%)
5,271,798
- 591,939
(-
10.1%)
Includes $1,293,000,000 for Military Assistance, South Vietnam
May 21, 1975
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100190022-9
ITEMS :FOR MR. CARY FOR THE DCI 9:00 MEETING ON: 21 May 1975
SUBJECT:
The House further considered/the Military Procurement Authorization bill
for Fiscal 1976. Four votes were taken on amendments to delete funds
from the bill for specific projects. The narrowest vote came on an amendment
to delete B-1 bomber funds, and this was defeated by 227-164. The other
amendments on which there was a recorded vote were defeated by about
2-1 margins.
Depite the liberal cast of the 94th Congress and all the talk about reducing the
defense budget, it appears the votes are still there on defense (and hopefully_
i
t
l i
) ---- -----
n
e
gence
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
ITEMS FOR MR. GARY FOR THE DCI 9:00 MEETING ON: 21 May 1975
Date
'Senator Mansfield has introduced S. Res. 160, which would deny funds
for the construction of military facilities on Diego Garcia. His statement
in the RECORD is attached.
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
May 19, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
Vermont (Mr. LEAHY), the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. LONG) the Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE), the Senator
from Montana (Mr. METCALF), the Sena-
tor from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. MoR-
GAN), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss),
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH), and the Senator from Geor-
gia (Mr. TALMADGE) are necessarily ab-
sent.
I also announce that the Senator from
New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) is absent
on official business.
On this vote, the Senator from Wyo-
ming (Mr. McGEE) is paired with the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss). If pres-
ent and voting, the Senator from Wyo-
ming would vote "yea" and the Senator
from Utah would vote "nay."
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
CLARK), the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH), the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS), and the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. HASKELL) would
each vote "nay."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS) is
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) is absent on offi-
cial business.
The result was announced-yeas 41,
nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]
Bartlett
Garn
Muskie
Bellmon
Goldwater
Nunn
Brock
Griffin
Packwood
Buckley
Hansen
Pearson
'Bumpers
Hart, Philip A.
Scott, Hugh
Byrd, Robert C. Hatfield
Sparkman
Cannon
Helms
Stafford
Case
Hruska
Stennis
Chiles
Huddleston
Symington
Curtis
Johnston
Taft
Domenici
Mansfield
Thurmond
Fannin
Mathias
Tower
Fong
McClellan
Young
Ford
McClure
NAYS-40
Abourezk
Eagleton
Nelson
Allen
Glenn
Pastore
Bayh
Gravel
Pell
Beall
Hart, Gary W.
Percy
Bentsen
Hartke
Proxmire
Biden
Hollings
Ribicoff
Brooke
Jackson
Roth
Burdick
Javits
Schweiker
Byrd,
Kennedy
Scott,
Harry F., Jr.
Laxalt
William L.
Church
Magnuson
Stevenson
Cranston
McGovern
Stone
Culver
McIntyre
Tunney
Dole
Montoya
Weicker
NOT, VOTING-18
Baker
Inouye
Morgan
Clark
Leahy,
Moss
Eastland
Long
Randolph
Haskell
McGee
Stevens
Hathaway
Metcalf
Talmadge
Humphrey
Mondale
Williams
So the bill (S. 846) was passed, as fol-
lows :
S. 846
An act to authorize the further suspension
of prohibitions against military assistance
to Turkey, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
620(x)'of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
and section 6 of the joint resolution of Octo=
ber 17, 1971 (Public Law 93-448, as amended
by Public Law 93-570) are each amended by
striking out "until February 5, 1975, and
only if, during that time," and inserting in
lieu thereof "if during such suspension".
SEc. 2. Section 62O(x) of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 is further amended by
designating the present subsection as para-
graph (1) and by adding at the end thereof
the following new paragraph:
"(2) The President shall submit to the
Congress within thirty days after the enact-
ment of this paragraph, and at the end of
each succeeding thirty-day period, a report
on progress made during such period toward
the conclusion of a negotiated solution of
the Cyprus conflict.".
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I move to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, today I
was regrettably forced to cast my vote
against the bill to renew American arms
assistance to Turkey. I say regrettably
because Turkey has been an old and, re-
liable ally, whose friendship and in
ity of interest with the United
the past three decades.
Turkish forces have partici ted
proudly alongside the forces of the U ted
States, Great Britain, France, and e:r-
many, and other alliance partne in
preserving the security of Western u -
rope and the Mediterranean. With ap-
proximately half a million men in s,
Turkey has NATO's second largest and
force. In addition, it occupies the st te-
gically vital position between the die
East and the Soviet Union. There no
doubt that any withdrawal of T key
from the NATO would seriously d age
its effectiveness.
Nevertheless, I feel compelled ob-
ject to the restoration of America arms
assistance because I feel the r uire-
ments set forth when the embar was
first passed that there be "su antial
progress" in the negotiations an a par-
tial withdrawal of Turkish troo from
Cyprus have not been met. The andate
of the Foreign Assistance Act o , 1961 is
clear-American arms are not td be used
by allies in aggressive actions. The rea-
son for that law was equally obvious--
it was meant to encourage self-defense,
not the imposition of foreign policy views
by military flat. That reasoning is as
vital today as It was 14 years ago. No al-
liance can long endure if one ally is free
to use indiscriminate force to settle its
disputes with another ally.
I had hoped that progress on the Cy-
prus problem would have come more
quickly. However, while it is true that
today negotiations are again underway,
it seems as though we are no closer to a
resolution to the problem than we were
6 months ago. The U.S. Government has
not even received private assurances
that Turkish withdrawal would proceed
once aid was renewed. This situation can
hardly be described as representing sub-
stantial progress.
Under the circumstances, I feel that
the arms embargo must be continued un-
til the talks on Cyprus progress or un-
til, as a minimum, we have received as-
surances from the Turkish Government
58651
that If arms assistance is renewed there
will be a new flexibility on the part of
Turkey.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest' the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I seek
recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
recognizes the Senator from Montana.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may the
Senate be in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ators will keep order in the Chamber.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, there
will be no further votes this evening. We
ake up the supplemental
down this evening for tomorrow, plus
the Butterfield nomination tomorrow.
SENATE RESOLUTION 160-RESOLU-
TION DISAPPROVING CONSTRUC-
TION PROJECTS ON THE ISLAND
OF DIEGO GARCIA
(Referred to the Committee on Armed
Services.)
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
May 12, 1975, the President of the United
States, by letter, certified to the Con-
gress that the construction of naval fa-
cilities on the island of Diego Garcia in
the Indian Ocean is vital to the national
interests of the Government of the
United States. The text of the President's
letter to the Congress reads as follows:
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with section 613(a) (1) (A)
of the Military Construction Authorization
Act, 1975 (Public Law 93-552), I have eval-
uated all the military and foreign policy im-
plications regarding the need for United
States facilities at Diego Garcia. On the basis
of this evaluatlon'and in accordance with
section 613(a) (1) (B), hereb certifg hat
the constructio~n~ o; guc~ =Agntial
#o the national interest of the United States.
THE WHITE Houss, May 12, 1975.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, may we
have order? I cannot hear the Senator's
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
The Senate may proceed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Under the provi-
sions of Public Law 93-552, 93d Congress,
2d session, section 613, I am laying before
the Senate lx resolution of disapproval in
aCCOP a ys iffi Q nrz siai3~ cst e~rfion
ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of my remarks section 613
from the public law be printed in order
that Senators may have an opportunity
to read this section of law and know ex-
actly how this resolution of disapproval
will be handled in the Committee of the
Armed Services and on the floor of the
Senate.
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE May 19, 1971
Th+ PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objec ;ion, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
was ?ery surprised that the President
the United States would send this
soli lion to the Congress at this time
in vik w that we have been told by the
a;dmi iistration that the President Is in
die n idst of a reappraisal of our foreign
polic' because of the debacle of Viet-
nam, Cambodia, and Southeast Asia.
I t. pink in the debate of this resolu-
tion. When it is returned from the Armed
Servt.es Committee, a number of very
impo.-tant questions should be examined
during the debate.
WI y, in the face of the fact that all
the l rations bordering on the Indian
Ocea:l have asked the United States and
the aoviet Union not to escalate the
arms race in the Indian Ocean area,
has the administration forwarded this
letter of certification? At a meeting
in New Delhi on November 17, 1974, 30
ratio as issued a policy statement op-
posin ; the United States building a
naval facility on the island of Diego
tare: a.
Wi .y does this administration persist
in tl e face of a staggering deficit in
our budget insist on building a naval
lacili :y that will cost approximately
$175 million? I contend that the money
that the administration is requesting
to sts rt building naval facilities on Diego
Garc: a, amounting to $14 million for the
Navy and $3.3 million for the Air Force,
is on. y a downpayment. Already in the
fiscal year 1976 budget, the Navy is ask-
ing for an additional $13 million for
opers tional facilities on Diego Garcia.
Mr President, are we going to engage
In ar adventure of Southeast Asia and
Vietnam all over again? Is there an ex-
tension of a policy of the United States
tryinic to be policeman for the world
in the face of our bitter experience in
Vietn am?
An we not scattered throughout the
work enough by having military person-
nel o n all five continents-perhaps, if
nta -ctica is considered a continent,
on air six continents-and naval ships on
all the oceans of the world and on a good
inane seas?
in noting the naval base on the island
of Di sgo Garcia, are we going to vote a
three-ocean Navy? The Navy contends
thlat they will be able to operate car-
riers in the Indian Ocean with only a
12-ai-plan carrier force. However, will
it rer.lly have to be 15 carriers to fulfill
our c )mmitment in the Atlantic, Pacific,
and tae Indian Ocean?
I 4ieve that the role of the carrier
In set warfare should be a part of the
debar e on the island of Diego Garcia. I
submit that the aircraft carrier is now
obsol lte with the technical advancement
of th = new cruise missiles. I submit that
in tie Mediterranean Sea, the Soviets
alwa"s know exactly within a few hun-
dred yards where our carriers are op-
erati ig. Can a carrier task force ade-
ciuatt ly protect itself in Its operations
In tl: e Indian Ocean?
Wl.at are our so-called vital inter-
ests in the Indian Ocean? Certainly,
havir:g a task force in the Indian Ocean
had no effect on the oil situation during
the Yom Kippur war in October 973.
In fact, our naval vessels were complete-
ly cut off from Arab oil and the Ur;ited
States could do nothing about the Arab
action.
Incidentally, I understand that there
is an interesting article in this week's
U.S. News & World Report, which once
again raises the specter of war in case
of another oil embargo. I hope that that
does not come to pass.
Mr. President, the question of Diego
Garcia and allowing the Navy to build
anaval operating facility on this island
some 1,200 miles south of the tip of In-
dia is a vital policy question. I urge upon
my colleagues to take due notice of this
action and to study all of the facts that
are available. I urge my colleagues to
give serious consideration as to whether
this Nation should support a naval base
thousands of miles from Our shores
which will amount to nothing more Than
"showing the flag" in an area of the
world where the nations have requested
that we not have our Navy there in force.
For the information of my colleai;ues,
on December 5, 1974, CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD, 520742, I delivered a speech setting
forth reasons for my opposition to the
building of naval operating facilities on
the island of Diego Garcia.
I ask unanimous consent that that
speech be printed in the RECORD at an
appropriate point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. MANSFIELD. Finally, I point out
that the Senate has 60 legislative dais to
act upon this resolution and the Aimed
Services Committee should report It back
to the floor of the Senate within 20 days
with its recommendation. I urge the
Armed Services Committee to report this
resolution of disapproval favorably in
order that the United States will-not em-
bark upon another adventure in the
southern part of Asia.
Mr. President, I send to the desk the
resolution of disapproval and ask that it
be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The r eso-
lution will be stated. ,.._..-..-
The legiskettvil` -i@i'k ibad as 1 follows :
9(Res.160 J
Resolved, ;4~enattqy(loeslnot approve
the proposed construcion project on the
island of Diego Garcia, the need for which
was certified to by the President and the
certification with respect to which was re-
ceived by the Senate on May 12, 1975.
FXHTHrr 1
SEC. 613. (a) None of the funds authorized
to be appropriated by this Act with re=pest
to any construction project at Diego Garcia
may be obligated unless-
(1) the President has (A) advised the
Congress in writing that all military and
foreign policy implications regarding the
need for United States facilities at Diego
Garcia have been evaluated by him, and (B)
certified to the Congress in writing that the
construction of any such project is essential
to the national interest of the United States;
(2) 60 days of continuous session of the
Congress have expired following the da-.e on
which certification with respect to such
project Is received by the Congress, ant.
(3) neither House of Congress has adopted
within such 60-day period, a resolu-Ion die -
approving such project.
(b) (1) For purposes of this sec- Ion, the
continuity of a session of Congress 13 broker
only by an adjournment of the longres
sine die, and the days on which either House
is not in session because of an adjo-irnment
of more than three days to a dai certain
are excluded in the computation of suet
60-day period.
(2) For purposes of this section, "resolu-
tion" means a resolution of either Hoes,
of Congress, the matter after the esolvin.z
clause of which is as follows: "7 hat th+
Senate does not approve the propo;ed con-
struction project on the island cf Dieg.
Garcia, the need for which was ce; tified t,
by the President and the certificat on witi:
respect to which was received by the Senate
on May 12.", the first and second blanks
being filled with the name of the -esolvin
House and the third blank being fixed wit::
the appropriate date.
(c) Subsections (d), (e), and (f of thi
section are enacted by Congress-
(1) as an exercise of the rule-makin<
power of the Senate and as such hey ar
deemed a part of the rules of the Set ate. but
applicable only with respect to the p :ocedur :
to be followed in the Senate in the case e"
resolutions described by subsection. (b) (2,
of this section; and they Supersede other
rules of the Senate only to the extent tha
they are Inconsistent therewith; anc
(2) with full recognition cf the constitu-
tional right of the Senate to char ge such
rules at any time, in the same mar ner an-l
to the same extent as in the case of an
other rule of the Senate.
(d) A resolution with respect to a >roposed
construction project of the island if Dieg
Garcia shall be referred to the Comn ittee of
Armed Services of the Senate.
(e) (1) If the Committee on Arm A Serv-
ices of the Senate to which a resoltrton witsi
respect to a proposed construction project on
the island of Diego Garcia has been referred
has not reported such resolution at the end
of 20 calendar days after its intrcduction
not counting any day which is 'xclude'l
under subsection (b) (1) of this secton, it 1
in order to move either to discharge' he com -
mittee from further consideration of ' th= .
resolution or to discharge the ccmmitte':
from further consideration of any of ter reso-
lution introduced with respect to tae same
proposed construction project which ha:
been referred to the committee, exc lpt tha
no motion to discharge shall be n order
after the committee has reported f resolu-
tion of disapproval with respect to I he sam^=
proposed construction project.
(2) A motion to discharge und, r para-
graph (1) of this subsection may 'ee made
only by a Senator favoring the re: olutior.
is privileged, and debate thereon hall b"
limited to not more than 1 hour, t be di -
vided equally between those favor .ng anc
those opposing the resolution, the ti ne to b,,
divided in the Senate equally betw, en. and
controlled by, the majority Leader ind th.,
minority leader or their designees. An amend -
ment to the motion is not in order, nd it is
not in order to move to reconsider he vote"
by which the motion is agreed to or tits
agreed to.
(f) (1) A motion in the Senate to proceed
to the consideration of a resolution shall b.
privileged. An amendment to the motion
shall not be in order, nor shall it be in orde-
to move to reconsider the vote by w itch tht,
motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(2) Debate in the Senate on a resolutior
and all debatable motions and ap seals In
connection therewith, shall be limited to no
more than 10 hours, to be equally divided
between, and controlled by, the majority
leader and the minority leader or their desig-
nees.
(3) Debate in the Senate on any d abatable
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190022-9
 May 19, 1975 Approved For R e sr SI0IV.4L/ 4r DPTJK%Q~, 4R001100190022-9 S 8653
motion or appeal in connection with a res-
olution shall be limited to not more than 1
hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the mover and the manager
of the resolution, except that in the event
the manager of the resolution is in favor of
any such motion or appeal, the time in op-
position thereto, shall be controlled by the
minority leader or his designee. Such leaders,
or either of them, may, from time under
their control on the passage of a resolution,
allot additional time to any Senator during
the consideration of any debatable motion or
appeal.
(4) A motion in the Senate to further limit
debate on a resolution, debatable motion, or
appeal is not debatable. No amendment to,.
or motion to recommit, a resolution is in
order in the Senate.
EXHIBIT 2
STATEMENT BY SENATOR MANSFIELD
Mr. President, I feel compelled to speak
out on the issue of Diego Garcia, the pro-
jected naval operating facility in the Indian
Ocean. As we move toward the final days
of this second session of the 93rd Congress,
Senators are receiving a great deal of pres-
sure from both the Department of Defense
and the Department of the Navy to approve
$14,802,000 as a down payment on naval
facilities that will enable the Navy to oper-
,ate carrier task forces from the Island of
Diego Garcia. In addition, the Air Force is
requesting Air Force facilities on Diego Gar-
cia that will enable KC135 tankers to refuel
B52's operating out of Thailand over the
Indian Ocean. First of all,.I would like to
briefly give you some background, both his-
torical and legislative, which bear directly
upon the Navy's efforts to make the Island
of Diego Garcia an operating base.
Diego Garcia is an atoll located within
the Chagos Archipelago in the middle of
the Indian Ocean approximately 1,000 miles
due south of the tip of India. The heavily
vegetated island consists of 6,700 acres with
average elevations of three to seven feet.
It is horseshoe shaped with a^40-mile perim-
eter. The enclosed lagoon is 51/a miles wide
by 13 miles long with average depths of 30
to 100 feet. The annual rainfall is approxi-
mately 100 inches. The United States Gov-
ernment became interested in Diego Garcia
in the early Sixties, particularly when the
British Government announced that it was
withdrawing its naval forces from Singapore
and indications were made public that Her
Majesty's Government intended to greatly
reduce its Indian Ocean naval squadron. At
about the.same time, the Russian navy be-
ga i operations in the Indian Ocean and
making port calls 3 to nations bordering on
the Indian Ocean. It must be pointed out
that for years the United States Navy has
been traversing the Indian Ocean with car-
riers and other auxiliary combatants when
the transfer of aircraft -carriers was made
to the Pacific fleet.
Beginning in the early Sixties, as afore-
mentioned, with the announcement that the
British were greatly reducing their naval
activity in the Indian Ocean, the United
States has in a more frequent manner stepped
up its operations in the Indian Ocean and
the Persian Gulf, which Is a part of the
Indian Ocean. At the present time, naval
presence is maintained at Bahrein consisting
of a supply ship and two destroyers. The
Russians have not matched this naval
strength. However, since 1968, the Russians
have greatly increased their presence in the
Indian Ocean, sometimes -having as many as
30 combatant ships, which include a large
number of mine sweepers.
The United States sometime in calendar
year .1966 began negotiating with the British
Government for a lease to establish a com-
munications station and an operationnl base
on Diego Garcia. This base was to be an
austere logistic support activity which was
mainly a refueling stop for naval units op-
erating in the Indian Ocean. In 1965, the
British formed the British Indian Ocean Ter-
ritory which comprises the Chagos Archi-
pelago which, of course, includes Diego
Garcia. The United States Navy stated that
the selection of these islands was predicated
in unquestioned UK sovereignty in the ab-
sence of a population. A bilateral agreement
was signed in December 1966 between the
British Government and the United States
which granted base rights for a period of 50
years to the 'United States Government to
the Indian Ocean territory.
The Navy came to the Congress in the
Fiscal Year 1970 Military Construction Pro-
gram with a submission for the first con-
struction increment of a proposed logistic
facility on the Island of Diego Garcia. The
logistic facility was approved by the House
and Senate Armed Services Committees and
the House Appropriations Military Construc-
tion Subcommittee. When presented to the
Senate, there was strong opposition from
within the Senate Appropriations Committee
to the United States becoming committed to
another naval operations base within the In-
dian Ocean. Senator Richard Russell, chair-
man of the Senate Appropriations Committee
at that time, was very much opposed to the
United States committing the Navy to sus-
tained operations within the Indian Ocean
and so stated in Committee meetings on a
number of occasions. The Military Construe-
tion Subcommittee also strenuously opposed
the appropriation of money to construct the
operating facility and the Military Construc-
tion FY 1970 conference committee debated
this matter through a number of meetings
lasting over a two-week period. Finally, an
oral agreement was reached wherein the
Navy was to be instructed to come back in
FY 1971 for a new appropriation which would
support only a communications station, and
all of the logistic support facilities were to be
deleted from the FY 1971 program. The ra-
tionale at that time for the communications
station was that, in time, the United States
would have to withdraw from the main con-
tinent of Africa the large communications fa-
cility that the United States Government had
at Asmara, Ethiopia. (Kagnew Station Com-
munications Center, Asmara, Ethiopia, is now
being phased out and the Navy will centralize
its African communications facilities at
Diego Garcia).
In support of the FY 1971 appropriations
for the communications facilities on Diego
Garcia, the Navy stated the following:
"The requirement to close the gap in reli-
able communication coverage. which exists
today in the central Indian Ocean/Bay of
Bengal area was a major consideration in
developing the initial concept for a support
facility on Diego Garcia. Fatabl!ishment of a
communications, support capability in this
area is an immediate requirement and is a
requirement which exists independent of the
modest logistics support facility which was
rejected by the Congress. The purely passive
role and Image of a oomsmunications facility
should not raise the same concern of active
commitment which had apparently been as-
sooiated with the logistics support aspects
of the original concept."
As previously mentioned, the Navy was in-
structed to come back in the 1971 military
construction program with a communica-
tions package only and to ail intents and
purposes the logistic support facility was not
to be a part of the package. In fact, it was
specifically agreed that there would be no
items which could in any way support a
carrier task force.
In all of the communications and oral con-
versations that the subcommittee had with
the Navy, it was Indicated that the Navy
would not use Diego Garcia as an operational
base. Members of the subcommit+tee were re-
assured, when the FY 1971 construction
budget for Diego Garcia was approved, that
the Navy did not Intend to operate fleet sur-
face units from Diego Garcia.
To bring you up to date concerning the
FY 1975 Military Construction Authorization
Bill, H.R. 16136, which is still in conference,
I will explain Section 612 in the Bill. This
section precluded the obligation of any
funds until the President of the United
States has advised the Congress in writing
that he had evaluated all military and for-
eign policy implications regarding the need
for these facilities and has certified that this
construction essential to the national in-
terest. Such certification must be submitted
to the Congress and approved by both Houses
of Congress. This will assure the opportunity
for full debate on the policy question of
Diego Garcia.
I might say, parenthetically, that I con-
sider this most prudent and realistic action
for the Congress to take. I wish to further
point out that Section 612 of the Authoriza-
tion Bill was adopted by a record vote of
83-0 in the Senate.
The position of the House Armed Services
Committee is that the Administration should
be given the authority to build" the facili.
ties in Diego Garcia but that prior to the
exercise of that authority the President shall
notify Congress of his intention and that
Congress shall' have 60 days to reject the
blanket authority it had previously given to
him. This procedure has heretofore been used
too often by the Executive and acquiesced
in by the .Congress. The negative power of
the Congress-the power to deny a change
In the status quo-is turned on the Congress
itself. The burden of persuasion shifts away
from those who desire action to prove the
rightness of their cause. The Congress must
insist that the justification for policy must
be made prior to the grant of authority. It
is exactly that Insistence that was included
in the Military Construction Authorization.
It Is my contention, as stated earlier, that
the Senate position in the Authorization Bill
is realistic and prudent and Diego Garcia, as
a policy question, should first of all be
thoroughly investigated by the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, then the question should
be taken to the floor and the two Houses of
the Congress should be allowed to work
their will.
On November 17, at a meeting in New
Delhi of the 30 nations surrounding the In-
dian Ocean, a policy statement was issued
unanimously that America and the Soviet
Union should not escalate the arms race in
the Indian Ocean and the area should be left
in peace; particularly, all 30 nations opposed
the United States' building a facility on
Diego Garcia. The cost of this naval base for
both construction and equipment will
amount to approximately $175 million; thus,
as you can see, this $14 million plus $3.3 mil-
luion is only a down-payment.
Within the Department of Defense we do
have a difference of opinion as to how im-
portant the building of this base is to our
national interest. The Navy says that it is
imperative for the defense of the United
States, particulary In keeping the oil routes
open in the Indian Ocean. The CIA has
stated that the buildup of the Russians,
particularly in Somaliland, is certainly not
as extensive as outlined by Admirals testi-
fying for this project.
Mr. President, is this Southeast Asia and
Vietnam all over again? It appears to me
that our Government must have learned
something about trying to be policemen for
the World during our experience in Vietnam:
45,000 dead and 300,000 wounded men must
certainly mean something to us. I respect-
fully submit that the United States cannot
go on attempting to be a policeman for the
World. And most certainly in my humble
opinion, the construction of this operating
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE May 19. 1 a,
base n the Indian Ocean is only a further
effort by the Department of Defense to play
the role of policeman in the Indian Ocean
and io actively involve our military forces in
the lolitics of anarea that now wants to be
left i t peace. Yet In the face of all the na-
tions in the littoral area requesting that we
not 1 wild up Diego Garcia as a naval base,
there are those individuals in high places
that ontend we should go ahead in our own
national interest with the building of this
naval base. I ask the question-what really
arc oar vital interests in the Indian Ocean
1?esid s gunboat diplomacy and "showing the
bag"" Our presence in the Indian Ocean had
no ef act on the oil situation during the Yom
Kipp it War in October 1973, in fact, our
naval vessels were completely cut off from
Arab oil and the United States could do
nothing about the Arab action.
In ::losing, there are a few points that I
wouli like to make that I think have a
direr: bearing in my opinion upon whether
or nc !, Diego Garcia funding should be ap-
provEd to build a naval base on Diego Garcia.
in al owing this naval base to be built, I
think Senators should be aware that they are
rictus fly voting for a 3-ocean Navy. It is my
contention that this base on Diego Garcia
could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
We a: ready have an admission from the Navy
of a cost of $173 million. Oh yes, the Navy
will contend that the base will only cost $35
rnfllicen but they are not telling the Amer-
ican eople of the cost for salaries of the Sea-
bees ;hat are building the base, nor are they
advis ng the Congress of the complete costs
for he communications equipment and
ether machinery that will go into the making
of th :a base.
I abmit that all of the information I
have in hand shows thatthe aircraft carrier
is nov obsolete with the technical advance-
ment of the new cruise missiles and I might
say, t y way of explanation, that In the Medi-
terranean Sea, the Soviets always know ex-
actly where our carriers are.
i s bte that for just this one time cannot
the 17 'bed States Government wait and really
find out what the intentions of the Soviet
Unioi are in regard to the Indian Ocean. All
the reports I have Indicate that the Soviet
Vnior'a naval activity Is of a low order.
Tn ummary. I would like to say that it
appiu is to me that our Department of De-
fense is advocating a 3-ocean Navy to station
sailor z 10,500 miles from home and putting
obsolete carriers in theIndian Ocean, which
are i ulnerable and practically defenseless
again =t new weaponry.
Arc we building a naval base, a new Wake
l:.lan+i, that is completely, in time of crisis,
under endable?
Mr. President, in closing I am reminded of
a ver r important incident that occurred on
the I.oor of the Senate. Some years back
when the Defense Appropriation Bill was
on ti- a floor and the Senate was considering
appro printing money for the Navy for naval
lands g craft (PDL's) the late great chair-
man -~f the Senate Appropriations Commit-
tee, Senator Richard Brevard Russell, said
and quote: "If we make it easy for the
Navy to go places and to do things, we will
find ourselves always going places and doing
thing;." I remind the Senate in approving
the building of a naval base on Diego Garcia
that ve will be making it easy for the United
.fate to go to the Indian Ocean and more
than likely that we will do things.
Mi STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me for aparliamentary
inqu ry or does he yield the floor?
ilia - MANSFIELD. Yes, indeed. I will
yield the floor.
Mi . STENNIS. Mr. President, parlia-
ment ary inquiry.
Tk a PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it,
Mr. STENNIS. As I understand. the
resolution will be referred to the Armed
Services Committee; Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator is correct.
Mr. STENNIS. I want to assure the
Senate we will consider this resolution
and do It well within the time that was
agreed on last fall when this matter was,
in effect, taken over, and we will near
testimony on it and get back with a re-
port in time for us to consider that a.- :-ee-
ment.
I do not care to gc into a discussion
of the merits of the matter now, but it is
a matter where the :Honey was ir. the
bill last year and was approved at a cer-
tain level, $14 million, I believe it spas,
but carried over unde.^ special consder-
ation here for this resolution.
I just observed that $13 million now
requested in the 1976 budget is the Name
$13 million that was deducted last year
by agreement more or less and made two
installments out of It. So, after all, It is
just that part of the 1975 budget that
was before us until this year.
I thank the President.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I appreciate -hat
the Senator said, I expected nothing less.
The Senator has beer. most cooperative
and considerate in this matter in and
out of committee.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senatc
CHANGE OF VOTE ON S. 84(
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on S.
846 which we just voted on, I voted in
the affirmative. I ask unanimous corsent
that I be recorded in the negative. I un-
derstand it will not change the result.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(The rolIcall vote on S. 846 reflect:> the
foregoing unanimous ,onsent requeA.)
ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that there now
be a period for the transaction of routine
morning business with statements lim-
ited therein to 5 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so order4ld.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL
TUESDAY AT 11 A.M.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that wher the
Senate completes its business today It
stand in adjournment until the hour of
11 a.m. tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Wit.-'out
objection, It Is so ordered.
ORDER FOR THE RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR GOLDWATER AND FOR
THE TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE
MORNING BUSINESS ON TL"ES-
DAY
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that after the
two leaders or their designees have been
recognized under the standing order to-
morrow, Mr. GOLDWATER be recogrized
for not toexceed 15 minutes, after which
there be a period for the transaction ot
routine morning business of not to ex-
ceed 15 minutes with statement: limiter:
therein to 5 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoi.
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR THE CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 5899 ON TUESD,IY
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. P: esiden
I ask unanimous consent that at ,he con-
elusion of routine morning business to-
morrow the Senate proceed to the con-
sideration of H.R. 5899, the supplemental
appropriation bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR THE CONSIDEh'.ATIO'
OF S. 182 ON TUESDAY
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. Pt esidenl
I ask unanimous consent that upon the
disposition of the supplemental appro-
priations bill tomorrow the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of S. 1F2, a bill
to authorize the appointment (f Alex-
ander P. Butterfield to the ret red list
of the Regular Air Force.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. )ithol:,
objection, It is so ordered.
QUORUM CALL
Mr. ROBERT C.:BYRD. Mr. Presidenr
I suggest the absence of a quorum
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Tie clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislati 'e clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that the order,
for the quorum call be rescinded,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER DIRECTING THE CHAIR
NOT TO ENTERTAIN A 'JNANI -
MOUS-CONSENT REQUES r TO
CHANGE A VOTE ON S. 816
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President
I ask unanimous consent that it not be
in order for the Chair to entertain a
unanimous-consent request frcm ant
Senator to change his vote on rollcal'
190,8.846.
Under rule XII, any Senator wvho ha,
voted previously may subsequent y, after
the vote is announced, ask unlmimous
consent to change his vote, and if such
request is not objected to, he is per-
mitted accordingly to change his vote
There has been one such request granted
this afternoon. No objection was made ir,
that Instance because the outcome of the
vote would not have been affected. If I
were to be on the floor and othar such
requests were to subsequently be made.
I would be forced to object because the
outcome of the final vote might then be
changed. I make this request now so that
in the event I might not be on the floor
It will not be In order for the Chair to
entertain such a request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. is there
objection?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
94rjx CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
U.
RdES
.
as
IN THE SI?;NAT E OF THE UNITED STATES
MAY 19,1975
Mr. MAN 1'1~,;zll sul>uitte(I the following resolution; which was referred to the
Connnittec on Armed Services
RESOLUTION
Di?gpprovizig construction projects on the island of Diego Garcia.
Resolved, That the Senate does not approve the proposed
construction 1~rojcct 'on the island of Diego Garcia, the need
,for which was: certified to by the President and the certilica-
tion with respect to which was receiyyed by the Senate oil
May 12, 1975.
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190022-9
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190022-9
R N
aa !-: x
C!Q O
?, o
d~
m i.
V a
C
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190022-9