(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120012-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 16, 2003
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: January 1, 1960
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120012-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 11387
tric, vehicles, metals of all kinds, proc-
esses, sizes and shapes, and so forth,
used in every part of our economy as well
as in space. You should have that in
mind because space is just a certain point
of altitude above the earth where the air
or atmosphere ends. The question then
is, Shall we have two sets of patent laws,
one for the lower atmosphere and one
for the upper? Of course, that is
ridiculous. It might be said likewise that
it is foolish further to have two sets of
patent laws on Government contracts
made by NASA and the Department of
Defense, when the same companies in
the same field are contracting in many
cases with the Department of Defense
and NASA.
James Forrestal, the outstanding U.S.
Secretary of Defense in 1947, said on this
same principle when change of policy for
the Department of Defense on patents
and inventions was sought:
This would create dangerous rigidity. It
would certainly impede and altogether im-
peril the prosecution of a vigorous and ef-
fective research and development program.
Actually, in my considered view, as I have
already stated, we are dealing not with a
bare possibility, but with an extreme prob-
ability that serious harm would follow.
On this particular phase of the space
program in these critical times we must
not risk delaying the program or hold
it back in any respect.
The issue was set on the McDowell
amendment very clearly by the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. THOMPSON],
when he said in that debate:
It is high time that the free wheeling big
business big shots who have established the
present patent policy of the Department of
Defense were reigned in.
I do not believe this is a correct char-
acterization of the Department of De-
fense position.
On the other hand, there were oppos-
ing the McDowell amendment at that
time, and urging that the McDowell
amendment should be defeated, many
outstanding Congressmen of both par-
ties, and, of course, it is the position of
the gentleman from California [Mr.
HOLIFIELD], because he spoke then.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FULTON. in just a minute, I will
yield to the gentleman when I list the
names of the participants in the debate,
if I have time.
When the gentleman from Delaware
[Mr,. McDOWELL], put the amendment
in on May 5, 1960, the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. THoMpsoN], spoke for
it. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
WOLF], spoke for it. The gentleman
from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD], spoke
for it. Also the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. SISK] and the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON].
Against it. were the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. MAHON] ; the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. CURTIS] ; the gentleman
from New Hampshire [Mr. BASS] ; the
gentleman from Utah [Mr. KING] ; the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. DAD-
DARIO] ; the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. LAIBD]; and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. BYRNES], gave his time
to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
FORD], who was also' against the Mc-
Dowell amendment.
This has already been decided by a
vote of 3 to 2, by this House that
the change in invention and patent
policy on Government research and de-
velopment contracts will not apply to
the Department' of Defense. The Mc-
Dowell amendment was defeated by this
House on May 5, 1960 by a vote of 37
ayes to 104 nays. Why should the pol-
icy then be applied by the House to the
space agency?
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, this is the last time that will
be consumed on this particular amend-
ment, I therefore ask the patience and
attention of the House while I briefly
sum up the situation.
The bill before the House has only one
controversial provision. All of the others
seem to be accepted, because they have
not been debated after being first de-
scribed. This is the only one. This
amendment would strike out the pro-
visions recommended by the committee
to improve the patent setup, make it
more in the interest of private enter-
prise, more in the interest of the Gov-
ernment and the taxpayers than it is at
the present time, and perhaps take out
some of the wrinkles in the present
situation.
I would start what I have to say by
alluding to the fact that perhaps the
best informed man in the whole country
on this patent situation and on how it
will affect the American public is the
man we put at the gate-road to watch
and police the patent laws that we pass
in the Congress of the United States. He
is the U.S. Commissioner of Patents.
That man appeared not only before the
House subcommittee but the Senate
subcommittee, and he strongly backs the
position that we need a change in the
space patent law similar to that pre-
sented to you here today. I submit that
his position is well worth considering.
Not only that, something was said
about submitting the matter for new dis-
cussion and consideration by another
committee of the Congress. I want to
tell this 'House today that the seven-
man subcommittee that considered this
provision was composed entirely of
lawyers. In fact, three former judges
were on that subcommittee. They
worked not 1 month, not 6 months, but
nearly a year on this matter. They went
back to the records and saw the de-
cisions made by the Armed Services
Committee in handling such matters.
They studied the Atomic Energy 'Com-
mission and its organic act and all the
laws relating to this subject.
The Commerce Department has a
great deal to do in the handling of pat-
ents for this Nation, especially Govern-
ment-,owned patents abroad. The Com-
merce Department surely should know.
The Commerce Department concurs sub-
stantially in the provisions that we'offer
you today. These are authorities repre-
senting the public. They are the au-
thorities on whom we should properly
rely.
More than that, I want to say that
small business and big business both ap-
peared before the subcommittee and be-
fore the full committee and recom-
mended this sort of change. If you be-
lieve in fostering private enterprise un-
der our type of government, you will sup-
port the change as written in the bill.
Finally, I want to say that a' survey
was made by the Patent Foundation of
the George Washington University, un-
der Government contract. We author-
ized the survey to be made partly to find
out the relative merits of Government-
owned patents and privately-owned pat-
ents. Would the former be put in moth.
balls and seldom consider by private in-
dustry? What are the results of that
survey made at Government expense?
They are not completed, but preliminary
reports, purely disinterested., purely non-
political, show that when patents are
privately owned by private companies, 57
percent of them are placed in use. In
addition to that, 7 percent are licensed
to other users. On the other hand, the
Atomic Energy Commission's own ad-
missions indicate that less than 10 or 12
percent of the Government-owned
atomic energy patents are in use today.
The CHAIRMAN. The. time of the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. BROOKS]
has expired.
All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. QUIGLEY].
The question was taken, and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. FULTON) there
were-ayes 97, noes 118.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask
for tellers.
Tellers were ordered and the Chair
appointed as tellers Mr. QUIGLEY and
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana.
The Committee again divided and the
tellers reported that there were-ayes
91, noes 154.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want the
RECORD to show, as all those who were
either in the gallery or on the floor
could see, that on the teller vote not a
single Republican supported the Quigley
amendment.
Republicans have earned the title of
being the champions of big business, big
money, and special interests. The Re-
publican vote against this amendment is
just one more proof of where their
loyalties lie.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. WILLIS, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 12049) to amend the National
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, and
for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 542, he reported the bill back
to the House.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read
the third time,
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a mo-
tion to recommit.
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120012-1
11388 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
Dorn, S.O.
Keith
Pofr
posed to the bill?
Dowdy
D
i
Keogh
Preston
Mr. SISK. I am In Its present form,
own
ng
Dwyer
Kilday
Kilgore
Pucinski
Quie
Mr. Speaker.
Elliott, Pa.
King, Utah
Rains
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
Everett
Kirwan
Ray
the motion to recommit.
Evins
Fallon
Kitchin
Kluczynski
Rees, Kans.
Reuss
The Clerk read as follows:
Pasceli
Knox
Rhodes, Ariz.
Fenton
Kyl
Riehiman
Mr. Sssn moves to recommit the bill H.R.
Fine,
Lafore
Rivers, S. C.
12019 to the Committee on Science and
Fisher
Laird
Roberts
Astronautics with instructions to report the
Flood
Lane
Robison
same back to the House forthwith with the
Flynt
Langen
Rodino
following changes: Strike out line 10 and all
Fogarty
Lankford
Rogers, Fla.
that follows down through line 8 on page 10
Foley
Ford
Latta
Lennon
Rogers, Mass.
Rooney
and renumber the succeeding paragraphs
Forrester
Libonati
Roush
accordingly.
Frazier
Lindsay
Rutherford
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
Frelinghuysen
Fulton
Lipscomb
Loser
St. George
Saylor
the previous question is ordered.
Gary
McCormack
Schenck
There was no objection.
Gathings
Gavin
McCulloch
McDonough
Scherer
Schneebell
The SPEAKER. The question is on
Glaimo
McIntire
Schwengel
the motion to recommit.
Glenn
Goodell
McMillan
McSween
Selden
Shep
ard
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, on that I de-
Grant
Macdonald
p
Short
mand the yeas and nays.
Griffin
Mahon
Sikes
Gross
Mason
Slier
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Gubser
Matthews
Simpson
The question was taken; and there
Haley
Halle
k
May
-ilerrow
Slack
Smith
Calif
were-yeas 120, nays 269, not voting 42,
c
Halpern
Michel
,
.
Smith, Kans.
as follows:
Hardy
Miller, N.Y.
Smith, Va.
[Roll No. 128i
Harris
Milliken
Spence
Harrison
Mills
Springer
YEAS-120
Healey
Minshall
Stratton
Anderson,
George Nix
Hubert
Mitchell
Stubblefield
Mont.
Granahan O'Hara, Mich,
Heckler
Moeller
Taber
Ashley
Gray Oliver
Henderson
12onagan
Taylor
Aspinall
Green, Oreg. Pfost
Herlong
Moore
Teague, Calif.
Bailey
Green, Pa. Phllbin
Hess
Moorhead
Teague, Tex.
Baring
Griffiths Poage
Hiestand
Morgan
Thomas
Barr
Hagen Porter
Hoeven
Morris, N. Mex.
Thompson, Tex.
Barrett
Hargis Price
Ill
Hoffman
Mumma
Thomson
Wyo
Beckworth
Harmon Quigley
.
,
,
,
Hoffman, Mich. Murphy Thornberry
Bennett, Fla.
Hays Rabaut
Holland
Murray
Tollefson
Boggs
Hemphill Randall
Holt
hatcher
Trimble
Bolling
Hogan Riley
Horan
1 elsen
'
Utt
Bradernas
Holifleld Rivers, Alaska
Hosmer
orblad
M
Van Pelt
Brock
Holtzman Rogers, Colo.
Huddleston
Morrell
'
Van Zandt
Brooks, Tex.
Inouye Rogers, Tex.
Hull
C
Brien, 111.
Vinson
Burleson
Johnson, Calif. Roosevelt
Ikard
C'Brien. N.Y.
Wainwright
Byrne, Pa.
Johnson, Wis. Rostenkowski
Irwin
C'Hara, Ill.
Wallhauser
Cannon
Karsten Santangelo
Jackson
O'Konskt
Walter
Celler
Karth Saund
Jarman
O'Neill
Watts
Clark
Kastenmeler Shelley
Jennings
Osmers
Weaver
Coad
Kee Shipley
Jensen
0 itertag
Weis
Cohelan
Kelly Sisk
Johansen
Pressman
Westland
Colmer
King, Calif. Smith, Iowa
Johnson, Md.
Postman
Wharton
Daniels
Kowalski Smith, Miss.
Jonas
Polly
Wilson
Dawson
Lesinski Sullivan
Jones, Ala.
Pl+rkins
Wright
Delaney
Levering Teller
Judd
Pillion
Young
Denton
McDowell Thompson, N.J.
Kearns
Pirnie
Younger
Dingell
Donohue
McFall Toll
McGinley Udall
NO'^ VOTING-42
Doyle
McGovern Ullman
Adair
Gilbert Powell
Dulski
Machrowicz Vanik
Alford
Johnson, Colo. Prokop
Edmondson
Mack Wampler -
Baker
Jones, Mo. Reece, Tenn.
Elliott, Ala.
Madden Whitener
Bentley
Ktsem Rhodes, Pa.
Farbstein
Magnuson Whitten
Blatnik
Kilburn Scott
Feighan
Marshall Wier
Butch
Landrum - Staggers
Flynn
Meyer Willis
Brown, Mo.
Mailliard Steed
Forand
Miller, Clem Wolf
Brown, Ohio
Martin Thompson, La.
Fountain
Montoya Yates
Buckley
Meader Widnall
Friedel
Moss Zablocki
Burdick
Metcalf Williams
Gallagher
Moulder
Canfield
Mi ler, Winstead
Garmata
Multer
Carnahan
George, P. Withrow
Chelf
Morris
Okla. Zelenko
NAYS-269
Diggs
,
Morrison
Abbitt
Bennett, Mich. Chenoweth
Durham
Pileher
Ai'ernethy
Addonizio
Berry Chiperfield
Betts Church
So the motion to recommit was re-
Albert
Boland Coffin
jected.
Alexander
Bolton Collier
Alger
Bonner Conte
The Clerk ax inounced the following
Allen
Andersen
Bosch Cook
Bow Co
le
pairs:
,
Minn.
y
o
Bowles Corbett
Mr. Morrison wii?h Mr. Martin.
Andrews
Boykin Cramer
Mrs. Blitch with Mr. Kilburn.
Anfuso
Bray Cunningham
Mr. Landrum w.th Mr. Widnall.
Arends
Breeding Curtin
Mr filcher with Mr Canfield
Ashmore
Brewster Curtis, Mass.
Mr. Williams with Mr
Brown of Ohio
Auchincloss
Brooks, La. Curtis, Mo.
.
.
Avery
Broomfield Daddario
Ayres
Brown, Ga. Dague
Mr. Staggers with Mr. Bentley.
Baldwin
Broyhill Davis, Ga.
Mr. Carnahan with Mr. Baker.
B.erdeu
Budge Davis, Tenn.
Mr. George P. Miler with Mr. Mailliard.
Barry
Burke, Ky. Dent
Mr. Prokop with Mr. Meader.
Bass, N.H.
Burke, Mass. Derounian
Mr. Diggs with Mr. Withrow
Bass, Tenn,
Bates
Byrnes, Wis. Derwinski
Cahill. Devine
.
Mr. Burdick with Mr. Adair.
Baumhart
Casey Dixon
Becker
Cederberg Dooley
Mrs. SULLIVAN changed her vote
Belcher
Chamberlain Dorn, N.Y.
from "nay" to "yea."
Mr. REUSS changed
"yea" to "nay"
Mrs. PFOST changed
"nay" to "yea."
June 9
his vote from
her vote from
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.
-Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
The question was taken, and on a di-'
vision (demanded by Mr. FULTON) there
were-ayes 235, nays 31.
So the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT PRO-
VIDING FOR REPRESENTATION IN
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TO
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. SMITH from the Committee on
Rules submitted the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 554, Rept. No. 1779)
which was referred to the House Calen-
dar and ordered to be printed:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the resolution (1[.J.
Res. 757) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States granting
representation in the electoral college to the
District of Columbia. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the resolution, and
continue not to exceed two hours, to be
equallly divided and controlled by the chair-
man and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the resolution
shall be considered as having been read for
amendment. No amendment shall be in or-
der to said resolution except amendments
offered by direction of the Committee on t:he
Judiciary. Amendments offered by direction
of the Committee on the Judiciary may be
offered to any section of the resolution at the
conclusion of the general debate, but said
amendments shall not be subject to amend-
ment. At the conclusion of the considera-
tion of the resolution for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the resolu-
tion to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted, and the previous
question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion,
except one motion to recommit, with or with-
out instructions.
CALENDAR WEDNESDAY
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, :f
ask unanimous consent that business in
order on Calendar Wednesday of next
week may be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
THE PAY RAISE BILL
yesterday consent was= granted that con-
sideration of the pay raise bill be post-
poned until next Wednesday. I de-
sire to submit a similar request today in
clarified language:
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding any
other provisions of the rules, I ask
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120012-1
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 11389
unanimous consent that it may be in
order on Wednesday next for the
Speaker to recognize any Member who
signed discharge motion No. 6, being
numbered 1 on the calendar of motions
to discharge committees to call up said
motion for immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
There was no objection.
MILITARY CONSTRUC
TION AP-
PROPRIATION BILL, 1961
Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 12231) mak-
ing appropriations for military con-
struction for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961,
and for other purposes; and pending
that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
moust consent that general debate be
limited to 1 hour to be equally divided
and controlled by the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. JONAS] and myself.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 12231, with
Mr. BASS of Tennessee in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the consent
agreement the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. SHEPPARD] will be recog-
nized for 30 minutes and the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. JONAS] for
30 minutes.
Th"e gentleman from California is
recognized.
Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I might con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, in the committee's con-
sideration of the fiscal year 1961 military
construction program, it continued the
.several policies it had adopted in the
past to the fullest extent practicable in
determining the projects and funds to
be approved. First and most important
of these was the disapproval of projects
not clearly essential to the military pos-
ture of this Nation at the present time
or in the foreseeable future. We are
being constantly reminded of the present
world situation and the effect of break-
throughs in scientific and technological
fields, all of which can change the di-
rection of our military effort and con-
sequently the amount of spending of
military funds on short notice. Yet, the
Department of Defense continues to pro-
pose project after project which are
planned around obsolete or marginal
concepts. In the past year, for example,
the committee has seen the Air Force
abandon two bases after investing mil-
lions of dollars in new construction.
These had been justified only a few
months previous to their closure as es-
sential to the operational requirements
of the Air Force, particularly to our im-
portant Strategic Air Command. To
mention a few specific areas, your com
mittee does not feel that it can accept
as essential the construction of swim-
ming pools for officers' clubs, additional
commissaries, the costs associated with
the needless transfer of functions, or the
construction involved in taking research
and development out of,the hands of
private agencies and concentrating it
within the military services.
Second. The committee has always in-
sisted that maximum utilization be made
of existing facilities. The services still
request funds for the replacement of bar-
racks for example while at the same time
planning to continue to hold the bar-
racks to be replaced for so-called mobili-
zation Reserve or to use for other pur-
poses. If the facilities are good enough
to hold in standby status or for other
purposes, the committee can see no rea-
son why new construction is required.
Third. Projects were eliminated where
the costs were excessive or plans were
not solid. Your committee has recom-
mended against appropriation of funds
in several cases involving a complicated
structure in which the architect-engineer
to do the planning and design work has
not yet been appointed. Again, it is diffi-
cult to understand why barracks should
be priced at $1,850 per man at one in-
stallation and at another base adjacent
thereto be $1,780 per man.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the com-
mittee has insisted on a firm, realistic
program. Those projects which do not
meet these standards have been elimi-
nated.
With these policies in mind, the com-
mitte has considered budget estimates in
the amount of $1,188 million and rec-
ommends appropriations of $885.1 mil-
lion, a reduction of $302.8 million in the
estimates.
A detailed tabulation of the construc-
tion projects approved by the committee
will be found at the end of the report
and the specific reductions will be found
in the body of the report accompanying
the bill.
Many of you have asked questions
about armory and other construction
projects for the Reserve and National
Guard components of the services. I
would like to point out to you that the
committee has approved all of the funds
requested for these programs in the
three services. The detail of the com-
mittee's action in this regard will also be
found in a tabulation at the end of the
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
The committee has approved $148,-
809,000 for the regular construction pro-
gram of the Department of the Army.
These funds when added to: unexpended
balances from prior years will make
$481,603,000 available for expenditure.
A large portion of the funds approved
for the Army are in support of the sur-
face-to-air guided missile program, in-
cluding research and development facili-
ties for the Nike-Zeus program.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The amount of $157,018,000 Is ap-
proved for the Navy which when added
to carryover funds, will make available
$526,729,000 for expenditure in fiscal
year 1961. The projects approved for
the Navy relate almost entirely to the
operational effort of the Navy, including
facilities in support of the Polaris bal-
listic missile and the antisubmarine war-
fare and nuclear shipbuilding. programs.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The committee has approved $525,-
331,000 for the Department of the Air
Force. This amount when added to the
unexpended balances estimated to be
available at the close of fiscal year 1960,
will provide $1,876,930,000 for expendi-
ture by the Air Force in fiscal year 1961.
By far the largest part of the Air Force
appropriation and, for that matter, the
largest single item in the entire bill, is
in support of the ballistic missile pro-
gram. Included in this program are op-
erational facilities for the new Minute-
man solid propellant intercontinental
ballistic missile. Extremely favorable
cost bids which were not adequately re-
flected in the estimates presented to the
committee as well as modifications pro-
posed for the Minuteman program en-
abled the committee to make a reduction
of $18.6 million in this program. Your
committee has seen no reason to recom-
mend excessive or blank-check type ap-
propriations to the Congress even for
this essential military program. Funds
are also included in the Air Force pro-
gram for the continued support of the
SAC dispersal and alert capabilities, and
essential support facilities for other op-
erational missiles and requirements.
In total, the bill as approved by the
committee, when coupled with existing
unexpended balances, will make avail-
able aver $3 billion for the military con-
struction program of the several serv-
ices in fiscal year 1961.
Mr. Chairman, when a committee
recommends a reduction such as this in
defense programs the question is always
raised as to whether or not we are
crippling the defense effort.
First. Let me point out to you that the
reductions made by the committee in-
clude $66 million recommended by the
Secretary of Defense with the approval
of the President.
Second. There has been more fiscal
legerdemain concerned with these
budget estimates than I have seen in my
period of service on the Committee on
Appropriations. There has been so
much confusion in the air defense pro-
gram, for example, that those con-
cerned with the program who recom-
mended changes are still studying the'
effects of their recommendations. All
this has resulted in a military construc-
tion program represented by a dollar
estimate contained in the President's
budget and not at that time backed up
by any specific line items submitted to
the Congress. In other words, the pie
was sliced for each service early in the
game and once the slices had been
passed out the program was allowed to
develop in far too much of a haphazard
fashion. As a result, it has been up to
your committee to give the program a
very critical look. For example, we have
denied funds for family housing in over-
seas areas. We feel that the time has
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120012-1
 11390 Approved For ReleaCgl2~0CP/PR416~Clt-W?E$fl965MUM0120012-1
come to stop and take a look at the
cost, the desirability and the risk in-
volved in maintaining family communi-
ties all over the face of the globe,
especially in troubled areas, such as the
Middle East, where dependents certain-
ly have no business at this time. We
have been so bold as to eliminate funds
for commissaries in the belief that the
archaic methods of operating the com-
missary systems of the military services
are geared to providing the lowest
merchandise cost possible regardless of
inefficiency. This method depends upon
the Congress to appropriate funds for
more and more facilities so that the cus-
tomers will not be inconvenienced as it
is pointed out in the committee report.
The committee thinks it is time this sys-
tem had a complete -overhauling. We
have denied :funds for facilities in sup-
port of certain research and develop-
ment activities where the services proms
posed to take work being done at the
present time under contract with pri-
vate industry or research agencies and
do it themselves or where a service pro-
poses to start in new fields of basic re-
search without giving adequate con-
sideration to the requirements of the
other services or to the facilities avail-
able outside the military structure.
We have insisted and will continue
to insist that the Department of De-
fense make maximum use of existing
land and facilities instead of going to
the extreme, as they proposed to do in
one case, of paying approximately
$10,000 per acre for land lying under
water.
Mr. Chairman, we have done these
things and we are presenting a realistic
construction program. Those of us who
have participated in the hearings and
writing of this bill on both sides of the
aisle do not believe that the actions
taken will in any way, shape, or form
retard or damage our defense effort. On
the contrary, if properly implemented,
these actions will add to the defense
effort of this country. This bill is based
on long hours of searching, exhaustive
hearings, and careful and detailed com-
mittee markup sessions. I know that
it will not satisfy every military service.
It certainly will not satisfy every person
in this House, but this is a solid bill. I
recommend it to you and urge its pas-
sage. Our goal has been and will be a
program which, if properly implemented
by the Department of Defense and the
military services, will save money, make
better use of existing facilities, and keep
the military construction program under
continuous review bythose in authority
in the executive branch and the Con-
gress.
Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to
comment on the availability of funds
under this bill for the planning required
for a drydock at the Charleston Naval
Shipyard in connection with the Polaris
program. I am happy to state that funds
are included in this bill for this project.
This would make it possible to request
the necessary funds for the actual con-
struction of the project in the fiscal year
1962 program.
Mr. Chairman, in closing let me call
your attention to one thing. This com-
mittee realizes that we are not running
a popularity contest in handling these
bills. They are very difficult and in
many instances there are questions in-
volved as to whether or not we have not
cut too deeply. We have not cut any
deeper than we were justified in cutting,
predicated upon the testimony given to
this committee. If by further study we
find we have made cuts that are too deep,
of course, then when these matters are
presented in conference with the other
body, we will be able to give them con-
sideration.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman y field?
Mr. SHEPPARD. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to
take this opportunity to congratulate
thegentleman for bringing in a good bill.
(Mr. GRAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his remarks
at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. GRAY. Mr."Chairman,-I want to
take this opportunity to thank the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Subcommit-
tee on Appropriations for Military Con-
struction, the gentleman from California
[Mr. SHEPPARD], and the members of the
committee for allowing our request of
$182,000 for the construction of a much
needed Army Reserve training center at
Marion, Ill. The chairman was very
courteous to me when I appeared before
his committee last year, when we were
having difficulty with the Department of
the Army. This project had been au-
thorized since 1958, however the authori-
zation had expired before the funds were
requested iri a line item appropriation
request, therefore we were forced to seek
new authorization before the project
could be funded.
Marion, Ill., has had a Reserve unit
since World War I and has been serving
defense needs in southern Illinois in in-
adequate rented quarters for many
years. Today's action is -good news for
the many oeicers and men who are mem-
bers of the Marion Reserve unit. It is
also good news to the chamber of com-
merce of Marion, the city officials, and
citizens of Marion and southern Illinois
in general who have been fighting long
and hard to have this needed training
center built. We all thank you very
much and I want to again congratulate
the committee for providing for the de-
fense requirements of this country in this
bill.
Mr. JONAS. Mr, Chairman, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. JONAS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, the bill
presented for your consideration today
-by the Appropriations Committee pro-
vides for the construction of facilities, an
a worldwide basis, to support the mis-
sions of our Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Reserve co=nponents. Military services
cannot accomplish their assignments to
protect and safeguard the security of the
United States unless they are provided
with barracks, repair shops, airplane
runways, and a multitude of other sup-
porting activities too numerous to men-
tion. -
June, 9
The subcommittee in charge of this
bill began its hearings on March 21, 1960,
and they were not concluded until the
middle of May. A total of 148 witnesses
were heard in support of the budget re-
quests and the detailed hearings are pub-
lished in two volumes containing a total
of 1,390 pages. The published hearings
have been made available to all Members
of the House as well as a 48-page report
containing detailed information explain-
ing actions taken by the subcommittee
and approved by the full Appropriations
Committee.
New funds provided in the bill for mili-
tary construction in fiscal year 1961
amount to $885,168,000. This is a, re-
duction in the budget estimates of $302,-
832,000. But when the new funds are
added to unobligated balances from prior
appropriations, the services will have
available $1,595,298,624,000 for obligation
in fiscal year 1961. And when the new
funds appropriated in this bill are added
to unexpended balances remaining from
prior appropriations, the services will
have available $3,004,819,000 for expend-
iture in fiscal year 1961 for military
construction.
Naturally there is widespread interest
in this military construction bill because
it carries funds for the construction of
facilities throughout the United States as
well as overseas. In order to provide the
Members of the House with information
concerning the military construction
program within their own States. the
subcommittee report, beginning on page
26 and carrying through page 47, lists by
State and name of installation the funds
appropriated in this bill.
The subcommittee has been concerned
over the apparent inability of the Armed
Forces to make use of existing facilities
so as to obviate the necessity of request-
ing funds to construct new facilities,
The subcommittee has given.this subject
more attention and study than almost
any other subject connected with the
program. The representatives of the
services have been subjected to close ex-
amination to determine the extent to
which consideration is given to the use
of existing facilities, and to the transfer
of facilities between the services, -before
new construction funds are requested.
Invariably the answer is given that close
liaison is maintained between the serv-
ices, that transfer.of existing facilities
from one service to another are not
only encouraged but are required when
conditions justify it, and that every pos-
sible effort is being made to utilize exist-
ing facilities, instead of buying new ones,
whenever it is possible to do so in view
of the requirement. The trouble is that
many existing facilities were constructed
years ago when conventional weapons
were in vogue and the services maintain
that frequently they are not in the right
place and do not meet the requirements
of modern and sophisticated weapons
systems.
This is obviously true with respect to
the use of modern weapons and the de-
ployment of military forces, but there
are many instances in which the services
maintain and operate supporting facili-
ties of a commercial or industrial type,
and it is the feeling of the subcommittee
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120012-1